Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Unflip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Unflip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Have we petitioned Stonewall directly?

117 replies

heresyandwitchcraft · 22/08/2018 14:35

Stupid question. I was thinking with the momentum of Stickerwoman that perhaps we could start a direct petition to Stonewall UK just to engage in dialogue with women's groups/set up a public neutrally structured debate?
Does anyone know if we have recently tried directly petitioning the LGBT groups to even just TALK to us? I know there have been ones to the government, but I really think it's more than a little crazy that we can't even speak with the so-called "other side."
Maybe if we get enough signatures to them they can stop pretending this is just a minority concern?
What do you think?

OP posts:

12thGuelph · 25/08/2018 18:43

"Cis" implies that the noun for adult human females (woman) needs to be re-defined to accommodate the feelings of a handful of males who believe they "feel like women."

And FTM / trans men. I'm an androgynous lesbian, IncrediblySturdyPyjamas. You're the one thinking in stereotypes.

12thGuelph · 25/08/2018 18:28

I said "cis", not femme, because you'd have carried on thinking I was a man otherwise.

I asked a question and I got some aggressive replies implying I was after doxxing you. You (plural) are making this thread all about me. Isn't the 1st rule of misogyny that women are made responsible for what misogynists do?

Original poster

heresyandwitchcraft · 25/08/2018 18:03

By using "cis" you are telling me that you believe in a sexist ideology that reduces womanhood to a "feeling" or "inner essence" and questions the very existence of females as a class of people defined by simple biology. That you believe gender and gender roles are somehow something innate (and I believe they are stereotypes). "Cis" implies that the noun for adult human females (woman) needs to be re-defined to accommodate the feelings of a handful of males who believe they "feel like women."
The ideology you're supporting by using "cis" is far more sexist than me telling you that you're not even acting in a manner that would fit with the "feminine gender" expected of a self-proclaimed "cis" woman.

And it's not an insult - females not acting feminine on this board is usually something to be applauded. As long as they remain respectful.
But you're deliberately derailing and behaving in a manner that is more typical of the masculine gender - somewhat aggressively and making this thread all about you.
I've answered your question.

OP posts:

IncrediblySturdyPyjamas · 25/08/2018 17:25

I was just surprised that OP implied that the whole board was a GC constituency.

Gosh, don't leave the house any time soon, who knows what could surprise you out in the big wide world.

I'm a cis woman.

Ooh, do you really all dress up like Barbie every day? That must be quite a chore don't you think?

12thGuelph · 25/08/2018 17:24

Not exactly a feminine-typical pattern of behaviour...

That's just sexist.

I don't care about your schemes, I care that you act like you own this board and thread. But go back to your robust back and forth, do.

Original poster

heresyandwitchcraft · 25/08/2018 17:06

It's very odd that a person who claims not to care at all decides to namechange/create a brand new profile just to derail this specific thread.
Not exactly a feminine-typical pattern of behaviour...
As the OP, I answered your question already.
It is a vague, unspecified, "we" to mean anyone who is worried about the homophobic, misogynistic, violent rhetoric coming from some trans activists.
The thread is for anyone concerned about women getting bomb threats, explicit rape and death threats, masked hostile protestors, and a 60-year old grandmother being assaulted in the name of trans activism.
If it makes you feel any better, consider it a "royal we."
Kindly step off.

OP posts:

AsAProfessionalFekko · 25/08/2018 16:22

That'll be 'actual woman' then.

Juells · 25/08/2018 15:44

There's no such thing as a cis woman.

12thGuelph · 25/08/2018 15:42

Oy… I meant MN members, not MN staff...

Ooooh your male privilege is showing. Not to mention your sense of superiority.

I'm a cis woman. You're the one who thinks they can divine identity through three sentences on a computer screen.

Juells · 25/08/2018 15:08

12thGuelph
Mumsnet members, Juells.

I don't understand what that means. When MN staff post they identify themselves. Was that not clear from my previous post?

Rest assured I've no interest in the details of your little resistance

Ooooh your male privilege is showing. Not to mention your sense of superiority.

FloralBunting · 25/08/2018 15:04

12th, don't worry yersel hen, no one is being compelled to sign up to GC beliefs if they post here. We tend to encourage robust back and forth so that all and any view point can stand up to challenge. Well aware that plenty come here with opposing views. But they wouldn't be interested in asking Stonewall to address their misogynistic lesbophobia, would they, so I think it's fairly obvious they wouldn't assume they were part of the 'we' of the title.

12thGuelph · 25/08/2018 14:28

*Mumsnet members, Juells.

Rest assured I've no interest in the details of your little resistance, I was just surprised that OP implied that the whole board was a GC constituency.

Juells · 25/08/2018 13:39

No, MN clearly label their posts as being by a staff member.

I'm sure the 'we' in the thread title would be delighted to send all their private details to you, including where they work. Just ask 😉

Original poster

heresyandwitchcraft · 25/08/2018 13:39

As the OP, I can reassure you that the "we" does not refer to any group. It's a general hypothetical.

OP posts:

12thGuelph · 25/08/2018 13:20

@Juells Well given it's Mumsnet's FWR board I'd have assumed "we" was Mumsnet or FWR members…

Original poster

heresyandwitchcraft · 25/08/2018 12:57

Very strange question indeed. I wonder if the individual is as curious about any other thread with "we" in the title? This seems to be their only post.
Time for a Public Service Announcement, I think.
If you'd like to continue just speculating out loud about this subject (although these ideas are likely futile, risky, and too little, too late), perhaps PM for now?

OP posts:

Juells · 25/08/2018 08:14

12thGuelph

Hi… Who's the "we" of the title please?

That's an odd question. Who do you think the "we" in the title refers to.

ChattyLion · 25/08/2018 08:07

Not at all stupid heresy. These are great campaign ideas.

-finding a high profile ‘neutral’ elected person/organisation to invite Stonewall for dialogue (so they can’t just pettishly say they don’t debate with ‘TERFs’ etc) would be great. Maybe Brian Paddick would do that in the Lords- he said he wanted to hear from ‘both sides’.

-a postcard/letter writing/Twitter campaign to ask Stonewall to condemn the intolerant silencing of women (-well, anyone at all ) who wants to talk to about this would be brilliant. Is there a snappy # we could use?
I wondered if the address might be to the Trustees of stonewall collectively rather than any one individual (even the CEO). Afaik the Trustees are legally responsible for the charity afaik - Trustees then employ the CEO of a charity as their executive to do the work that fits the legal charitable objects that the charity was set up to carry out.
The charity staff are just meant to follow the lead set by the Trustees. The Trustees are shown here:

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are-1

12thGuelph · 25/08/2018 04:07

Hi… Who's the "we" of the title please?

Original poster

heresyandwitchcraft · 24/08/2018 22:50

Another stupid question:
What about a postcard/letter campaign or something directly to Ruth Hunt?
Perhaps we could do it as a way of directly reporting the hateful rhetoric meted out at gender-critical people to Stonewall - given they claim to stand for this:
We will work alongside the government to ensure they are not complacent about the rights of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, and to ensure everyone, everywhere is free to be themselves.

Every message could include an example of the abuse that especially lesbians and women, but also transsexuals/any other party have gotten for just acknowledging that biological sex matters (but obviously not write anything that is meant to attack Ruth Hunt herself or the trans community).

Sign it with "Acceptance without exception?"

AAIK postcards shouldn't be directly traceable to people (and if you are literally quoting someone else's homophobia, how could this be counted as anything to investigate?), so anyone could hopefully safely get involved.

Maybe we could attempt to collate messages somewhere online for everyone to read...
I don't know, just thinking out loud. Feeling very powerless, and frustrated by the state of this all.

OP posts:

IncrediblySturdyPyjamas · 24/08/2018 20:39

Exactly.

The women being mean vibe - means the money keeps pouring in to address the completely non-existent issue.

If they really wanted to sort out the issue of a third space...there would be debate.

Kyanite · 24/08/2018 20:08

If they gave up this cause, they would have no other reason for existing and they would have no money.

Original poster

heresyandwitchcraft · 24/08/2018 20:03

Thanks again for the feedback. I will keep thinking, but your warnings and the apparent futility of the exercise have definitely given me pause.
The practicalities involved are obviously also an issue.
I would like something where other people could easily join in, because one voice is not going to get through. But everyone must be safe. If hell froze over and there actually was the possibility for dialogue, I would obviously want to nominate some of our media-savvy feminist heroes to speak.

OP posts:

ChattyLion · 24/08/2018 17:35

*these are the types of thing that

ChattyLion · 24/08/2018 17:33

I agree with you Sturdy- it is like a cult. Just trying to think of ideas for way for gender critical women who want to extend a meaningful offer of dialogue to any one on the anti-woman side to be able to find a third party to help facilitate this.

Idea being that in theory a convening third party could be less likely to release names and etc etc to permit TRA harassment and going via a third party could allow women to give views with anonymity but you’re right that ultimately information can be leaked whoever is organising.

Personally I don’t believe the TRAs want dialogue because they know how poorly their position stands up to examination, but it could be helpful to have that offer and any refusal on the record that they refuse that during a time of consultation..

Also could use as a tool (depending on Stonewall response) to say- Fine of course Stonewall if you don’t want to meet.

But surely Stonewall you'll publicly and strongly condemn all the threats and harassment of women and anyone else who DOES want to discuss this that there have been ... during a time of democratic government consultation on legal change- there type of thing people tend to want to discuss when it affects them and there are multiple interested parties and groups potentially affected?

Unflip

1 2 3 4 5