Artistic Director of Queer Up North speaks out on trans activism, Stonewall and women's rights

SarahAr Actually, both Stonewall and the WEC have recommended scrapping the EA exemptions, so the reforms are not merely to the GRA.
Additionally, the concept of self-ID means that the sole criterion for determining whether someone is male or female is whether they say so. How can we have that as a basis for allowing persons access to female spaces?
To be honest, I think that having a GRC should make no difference when it comes to intimate spaces- the sole criterion must be biology. A GRC does not make someone safe and is totally meaningless. If you want to keep getting certificates, fine, but it cannot then entitle you to e.g. being moved to a female prison.
I saw the youtube clip of Ibi-Pippi Hedergaard on youtube. He is a Danish man who has got a GRC but has made zero modification to his body- he looks and sounds like a man. He claims to be a lesbian trapped in a male body. He attempts to use female facilities. But it made me realise that body modification means very little. Putting on makeup or taking hormones does not make a male person a female person and it should be as obvious that someone like Jane Fae doesn't belong in women's spaces as it is that Ibi-Pippi does not. I would still like to thank Ibi-Pippi because he inadvertently helps people realise how utterly ridiculous this is and what it entails.

It speaks volumes that you only got a handful of unpleasant replies.

This it not the case. The proposed reforms are to remove some of the evidential requirements for change of legal gender - e.g. medical evidence and evidence of "living in role". The most radical would be self-id. Here all requirements are removed, except the need to complete a statutory declaration that the applicant intends to live in their acquired gender for the rest of their lives.

I’ve read that three times now and I still can’t understand the point you’re trying to make.

SarahAr - could you clarify for me, if one removes medical evidence and evidence of 'living in a role', what is the difference between removing that and the 'radical' idea of Self ID? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand? what other requirements would there be in between the two [apart from the statutory declaration]

This trans ideology and witch-hunting ( from which I am having to defend myself, though male..) is besmirching, for me, the rainbow flag.
Am Manchester-based and near Piccadilly Station there is the TfGM office with a giant rainbow flag dropping the length of the building, about 8 floors.

For decades me and friends have been immensely proud of our city as a LGBT friendly place - Pride every year, and was on our org.'s first float in the parade, donkeys years ago. Before it became v v commercial.

This morning I walked past the massive flag, and carried a question mark in my head, for the first time ever.
Is the icon besmirched, or am I being overly influenced by the TRA onslaught?

"This question has taken on a fresh urgency with the planned reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. This proposes writing into law the concept of ‘gender identity’ — one of the newer ideas in transgender ideology, and one which is strongly resisted by those holding gender critical views."

This it not the case. The proposed reforms are to remove some of the evidential requirements for change of legal gender - e.g. medical evidence and evidence of "living in role". The most radical would be self-id. Here all requirements are removed, except the need to complete a statutory declaration that the applicant intends to live in their acquired gender for the rest of their lives.

@JonnnyBest - I have pointed out a factual inaccuracy in your article. If you believe in respectful, honest debate, then I challenge you to amend your article.

It’s also the NUS- pre Jess Bradley but JB a good example of what’s gone on

There are a number of influential NUS Trans / Women's /LGBT+ officers who hold the same ideological position as Jess Bradley, are very close friends with Bradley and similarly involved in Action for Trans Health etc

Stonewall are at the point in their history where their position now is that same-sex attraction is wrong.

And not only wrong, but wrong because of transphobia which, as we all know, is the absolute worst kind of wrong. And therefore hateful, bullying, disgusting, bigoted, wrong side of history.

Stonewall has itself done a section 28 on the LGB. Shameful.

Btw I am definitely of the view that transwomen have been using women's toilets, etc, for ever, with an unspoken consent and mutual respect. But this has changed due to the now very odd idea that anyone, even a bloke with a beard, can now 'identify' as a woman, with no hormones or surgery, and the new gaslighting technique of telling women who are understandably uncomfortable with having penises in their safe spaces, that they are 'obsessed with genitals' in a creepy way. That is appalling, and it is genuine transpeople that suffer, as well as natal women, all regardless of the proposed GRA reforms.

Thankyou Jonny for this incredibly nuanced and well written piece. It is disheartening to see some of the transwomen/men replies - even though they are respectfully argued in a way that they wouldn't have been if a woman had written it. Wish someone would reply to Charlie Kiss and tell him indeed male groups do seek to exclude transmen [the FB page where the organiser clarified very simply that gay men are not attracted to transmen and therefore they are not eligible to join, and the change in the law that allowed transwomen to still inherit peerages as first born sons amongst others] and also ask him about his statement that transpeople change their biology, not just their gender. A transwoman on the thread stated that natal women's brains tell them they are female, just like transwomen's brains, and no one has challenged that either [my brain does not tell me I am female, and neither do I identify with my 'assigned' gender] I really do want respectful dialogue but it seems to many trans people that any dialogue is seen as an erasure of their identity, which is so frustrating and is the reason so many are mute on the subject. I do feel rad fems need to stop telling trans people they are the opposite sex and just focus on the societal issues at hand [gender is limiting and oppressive/women can't identify out of their sex based oppression/ 'identifying' as a gender is conforming to stereotypes, etc] I am so glad that Jonny has written this piece in such a respectful and informed way. I remember Caitlin Moran writing about that Hilary Mantel furore when she wrote about Kate Middleton, saying it was the first Twitter sorting hat of 2013. Well the transgender debate is the biggest sorting hat I've ever bloody seen. So much subconscious misogyny has leaked from so many men's [and trans people's] voices so far. And so many still completely unaware of the issues and how they impact upon women especially [especially in the arts world] Thankyou Jonny for standing out.

Whoops posted too soon!

..-and there isn’t much argument left.

Sorry that was posting with butterfingers on my part.

I agree with the discussion of the apparent change in Stonewall’s charitable aims to effectively chuck all same-sex-attracted people under the bus centring trans. For straight people who don’t have much exposure to this debate they have all heard of Stonewall and their word is gospel.

Jonny, I really appreciate that you are giving support to Get The L Out’s actions. They raised completely reasonable questions AT PRIDE.

The way the hierarchy in the official organisations including Pride London behaved towards women was disgusting.

Peter Tatchell- someone who again has become a gay spokesperson for people not really aware of debates inside the gay community- is also

It’s also the NUS- pre Jess Bradley but JB a good example of what’s gone on

It’s also the Girl Guides

It’s also Mermaids

It’s not just Stonewall, basically but I can absolutely appreciate how radical a problem it is that Stonewall have decided to abandon their original aims which many of us have fought for and fundraised for.

All these things have been discussed at length often with very useful referencing on this boards. Happy to dig out links to help if you are going to be writing about this.

I know we haven’t got on to toilets yet: but this is I think a must-read but there are lots of other threads with the same theme

This is why we need women’s toilets :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3203454-What-do-you-use-the-womens-toilets-for
(POAS= pissing on a stick, ie pregnancy testing btw)

I hope you don’t start getting more shit now you are posted on MN. These threads are all watched and posted about on Twitter by TRAs. They do also post here but a lot don’t have the energy for that because we are mostly anonymous on MN so there’s less calling out and shaming possible on here and more emphasis on trying to have an actual argument. Take away the calling out and shaming women potential for not being ‘inclusive’ enough of penis and

Thank you Jonny, this was a pleasure to read

Thank you Jonny, your piece was excellent - my heart sings every time someone else comes out as being on the right side of reality.

Please keep speaking out

Apologies for inept bolding, originally caused by my writing LGBTQ* instead of +.

I found this article very interesting and welcome. In particular, I was relieved to see the open criticism of Stonewall. You are so right, Jonny, that they are taken as the authoritative source on LGBTQ+ issues and many organisations and businesses adopt their policies without question, assuming that they are simply following best practice. It then takes a very brave person to question their employer's policy, knowing that the employer will point to the fact it's Stonewall best practice. Stonewall endorsement also acts as a stifling voice on society - it is very easy to assume that if you consider yourself an LGB Ally, then to take an opposing view to Stonewall must indeed put you on the wrong side of history. A spotlight needs shining on Stonewall's role in all of this.

Jonny, I am due to discuss this with my MP soon as I will take a copy of your article. Sadly, it is a form of armour against accusations of bigotry.

I'm about to use it too. I'm very grateful.

Probs though the shit you will encounter will multiply now you've posted here.

Morning JB. Brilliant article thank you. Am currently having a load of formalised shit being thrown at me in work simply for saying the world isn't flat and doesn't have the sun revolve round it. To be able to verbally quote chunks from your piece will assist.
Thanks again.

So very well articulated. It will really help me express my own view.

He has such a calm and respectful tone.

QUN was a fantastic festival, too.

I can't help feeling it's a tad counter productive for Stonewall to actually deny their USP.

Welcome to MN Jonny and thanks for an awesome article - measured and reasonable and basically sums up my views on the whole thing.

I'm glad for you that you are not facing too much vitriol. And I massively appreciate your understanding of how different that would be if you were a woman.

Sounds like Dr Nic! Dyketagnan used to doggedly ask twitter TRA 'is exclusive same sex attraction morally wrong' and never had a reply except variations on 'why should we talk to bigots' etc etc forever

Brilliant to see you here and looking forward to more on Stonewall. It is seen as a debate-terminating slam dunk to produce a Stonewall statement or set of statistics, at the moment providing that 'appeal to authority' so often sought when a subject is new to people. (maybe Pride will start to take its place)

Was it Nic Williams (can't remember) who asked Stonewall outright if a lesbian is a female homosexual? And they refused to answer?