Why does Stonewall's definition of Transgender trump all others - and does it really?

How were stonewall going to continue to fund itself, after achieving (brilliantly) equal marriage rights.

They needed to create a new market.

All of a sudden there was this pressing demand, this stuff mushroomed online and then they had the fix, for a fee. If you didn't buy their training/services people were "literally going to kill themselves".

All this. I read an article by some TRA in about 2013/14 whinging about how Stonewall didn't do anything for trans issues. So it seems to be a relatively recent change.

Seahorses

Me too.

Simon Fanshawe is the co founder and is quite gender critical, he tweeted Kristina Harrison the other day and seems to understand that there are competing rights. How much does he still have to do with the organisation though?

Peter Tatchell tweets about lady brains so not much hope there, sad as he is someone I admire.

I agree with that too Imnobody re: halo organisation

Kids' Company anyone?

Materialist

Thanks for that info.

I agree that it was the biggest shock to me when I discovered that this is the definition that's being accepted. Everyone else I have told has also been gobsmacked. Such arrant fucking nonsense to be informing Govt. policy

It would have taken a very brave CEO to say "We were so successful at our job that we no longer need to exist"

What I remember best from transgender advocates during the struggle for marriage rights was them constantly bitching that too much time and attention was being spent on marriage rights for Gays and Lesbians when transgender rights were so much more important. It got very very tiresome being told to shut up about marriage rights.

Stonewall seems to be getting a lot of credit here for being at the forefront of the fight for same sex marriage - when in fact they spent a long time dragging their feet and refusing to support it:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/stonewall-is-split-by-row-about-same-sex-marriages-2095468.html

Oh, it was washed. Otherwise it missed the point. Men wanted to look sexy and long hair was considered very sexy, whether flowing or in ringlets.

ah prawn that sounds good!

the long hair does need to be washed, i'd add

Changes, I had the good fortune to live in a time when my lovers did wear eyeliner, perfume and had long flowing hair. Ah, the time of Marc Bolan and Ziggy Stardust...

I've still got a weakness for men with long hair.

• and HUGE appropriation of gay rights, obviously

this is a really good question.

i have so much sympathy for anybody with body dysphoria. empathy actually, as i have been through female puberty, although i am certain body dysphoria is much, much worse. leaving children out of the picture, there is obviously a meaningful discussion to be had about how much access to women's spaces / shortlists / programs trans women with body dysphoria should have. when we are told we have been sharing with them for years with no issues, these are the trans women being talked about.

but then we are informed of the much larger group of non dysphoric penis-keeping trans women. on what basis are they seeking to be allowed into the class of female? if they have no dysphoria to relieve, then the argument just seems to descend into a post modern hotch-potch of men's rights and an appropriation of racism and body dysphoria. the class of woman has been defined for a reason.

NB i think every individual has the right to call themselves whatever and dress however (i'd love a world where more men wore dresses and makeup).

I think Stonewall has become a 'halo' organisation - the struggles of the past make it beyond criticism or challenge

^
^
This with bells on. So many people are conflating this with gay rights, and seem to think being Trans means full surgery. I saw a whole online conversation somehow slip away from women's safety concerns, onto how badly Oscar Wilde was treated - and how it mustn't happen again....

I also agree with diddlemethis. Stonewall has (quite rightly) secured equal marriage, adoption rights, etc. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic. They have literally lobbied & legislated themselves out of a job.
What comes next?

Call me naive but I still think that at some point Peter Tatchell is going to go 'Hang on a sec...' he's clever, he's brave, he's not tribal - I think he's got the goods to be GC.

How were stonewall going to continue to fund itself, after achieving (brilliantly) equal marriage rights.

They needed to create a new market.

All of a sudden there was this pressing demand, this stuff mushroomed online and then they had the fix, for a fee. If you didn't buy their training/services people were "literally going to kill themselves".

Kids Company is an interesting example of 'follow the money'

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11799675/Reports-hailing-Kids-Companys-unique-work-funded-by-charity.html

Kids company paid £40,000 towards glowing academic study while think-tank researcher was on payroll. Definitely worth a look at the sources of university research grants and other charity funding.

Has this all come about under Ruth Hunt? I think Stonewall are really looking to the next frontier and have massively misidentified it. But I would guess that they are too far gone with TiMs in positions of power for that to be reversed.

That's ok though. Kids Company were massive, unassailable. But they got it wrong and they paid the price. It can happen again. I just hope there is another charity to fill the gap for LGB people.

Would be interested to hear any reply, Timelady. I did say I was going to write to Tracey Crouch. Must do that.

That's my concern too, Procrastinator1

I have emailed this organisation: Women in Sport

www.womeninsport.org/our-mission/

to ask for their definition of 'woman'.

At first reading it all looks very laudable: "empowering and girls through sport and the sport sector", but it talks throughout about gender not sex.

I'll update if I get a response.

Stonewall's definition of trans. It used to also include transvestite, but still includes crossdresser.
www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms#t

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, denderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

I have only become aware of the issue of self id in the last few months mainly because of this board. I am not a conspiracy theorist but it seems that this goes beyond Stonewall.
This thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3274586-Big-research-project-to-decide-if-we-still-need-sex-as-a-legal-category
discusses an apparently well funded academic research project to be carried out at King's in London about the need for sex as a legal category and there is another thread, I think about the girl sprinters/transgirls in Connecticut where the funding of five PHDs at Loughborough is discussed.
These may be isolated projects/studies, but it seems to be as if the narrative has already been decided and we will be moving to a society where sex is not recognised, just gender, which won't of course benefit women and we didn't know it was happening.

What is their definition?