Stonewall hides from answering questions about a child sex abuser's influence on their trans policy, while releasing propaganda to sway GRA consultation

We should keep an eye on the Stonewall website as, like TELI, they might just decide to discreetly edit it one day.

For the record, Aimee's name is there today (4/9/18)

www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

Aimee is a trans equality campaigner from Coventry. She came out in 2014 aged 16 as she left school. She speaks openly about her experiences as a young transgender woman. She’s previously had articles in the Guardian and the Huffington Post, as well as other websites from around the world. She’s also a Trustee of Coventry Pride and in her spare time enjoys photography, gaming and reading. Visit her website. Photo credit: The Oxford Union.

Also for the record, Aimee no longer appears to be a current trustee of Coventry Pride

beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1164035&subid=0

although she was listed in July 2017

apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends35/0001164035_AC_20170731_E_C.PDF

Update:

Aimee Challenor has quit the Greens and someone has now put their only elected MP, Caroline Lucas, on a "TERF" blocklist......

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1036692086475636737

Is this the behaviour Stonewall expects of its trans advisory panel?

This is a great example of top-down policy-making by self-appointed, self-interested "experts" that never gets scrutinized by ordinary people who might be affected by it.

It is. Disastrously so.

This is a great example of top-down policy-making by self-appointed, self-interested "experts" that never gets scrutinized by ordinary people who might be affected by it.

When ordinary people REALLY start asking questions about this issue they tend to go - "Huh?? Have they thought this through?"

In my opinion there was:
-No thought about the plurality of opinions within the trans community or how transsexuals might feel about being told their identity was going to be re-defined, and the legislation developed specifically for their small population/unique needs was now going to be opened up to any joker.
-No thought given to lesbians/gays who now seem to have their sexual orientations re-defined to refer more to "gender identity" instead of biological sex.
-No thought given to vulnerable people, such as those with mental illnesses or on the autistic spectrum, and whether they may be prone to develop identity issues that need to be carefully explored with experts rather than adopt an "always affirm" "Self-ID" model.
-No thought given to disproportionate impact on women or children.
-No thought as to actual practicalities of implementing their policies.
-No thought as to why we have single-sex provisions in the first place.
-No thought given to these new systems being massively vulnerable to abuse by disgusting actors exploiting the self-ID loophole for nefarious purposes.
-No thought given to the potential backlash against the whole trans community if there is significant damage from an unsafe system these activists and their colleagues created.

All the people involved just expect it all to go through, didn't care about basic liberties of any other group, felt that nothing bad would ever happen as a consequence of dismantling safeguards (or perhaps didn't really even care whether it did, because "it would happen anyway"?), and wanted all of us to accept it quietly.

In fact, I perceive an actual pre-emptive "calling out" of dissenting lesbians and gender-critical feminists as "anti-trans" in the document. I wonder whether that was communicated to decision-makers so that people would not listen to dissenting women.

As someone else pointed out, the public was broadly in favour of gay marriage [https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/20/voters-back-same-sex-marriage/]
But only 18% of the public supports self-ID [https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/07/03/exclusive-just-13-of-tory-voters-agree-with-governments-proposed-transgender-policy/]

People are broadly FOR trans rights: as are most of the posters on the FWR board. But I am personally much more invested in protecting the rights of transsexuals, not the cross-dressers currently under the Stonewall "trans" umbrella... I have no problem with fashion choices, but it's just not the same thing as having dysphoria about your sexed body that is so strong you can only alleviate it by permanent transition.

If politicians want to keep ordinary voters on-side, my advice would be to start thinking about the self-ID issue very carefully.

Oh, and obviously

That silence from Stonewall - as all of this emerges - demonstrates, actually demonstrates in real time, right now - an organisation with little to know understanding of Safeguarding issues.

How on earth did an organisation which demonstrates poor grasp of Safeguarding get the war of government and serious organisations on matters which impact on statutory Safeguarding?

I think a big issue is that, an organisation which took it upon itself to

• produce guidelines for organisations working with children and vulnerable young people which impact, even contradict existing statutory Safeguarding guidelines

• work with government in the development of the GRA ^ which also impacts on Safeguarding legislation

appears to have exhibited - in its working with Aimee Challenor, who now appears to have been a young person from a very troubled background - extremely poor understanding of Safeguarding itself

How and why did that happen?
Why are they continuing to minimise the implications of this?
What does this say about Stonewall's understanding of Safeguarding?
How does that impact on how we are to understand the work they have done?
What does this tell us about Stonewall's accountability?
How did an organisation - with seemingly such a poor understanding of existing frameworks get to influence government and major organisations?
How are government comfortable with tasking the thinking (and research) on such an important and far-reaching piece of legislation to an organisation that appears to have no understanding of Safeguardin and is unaccountable?
How can major organisations be comfortable drawing on the work of an organisation that has demonstrated (it would appear) no understanding of Safeguarding and is unaccountable?

Aimee Challenor appears to have been a very vulnerable young adult. Something in Stonewall's organisational structure failed to pick that up - and even considered her suitable for a role in developing their work on Safeguarding and the GRA.

What oversight was there?
What impact did she have?

As a story emerges of a history of poor boundary recognition in Aimee (witness the decision re employing her father after charges were brought), Stonewall has continued to work with Aimee on projects with Safeguarding implications

Moreover, the question arises as to how the question of Aimee's own issues around judgment and safeguarding (again, I refer to the documented decision to employ her father) May have influenced the development of GRA work and Guidelines for schools.

There are many questions. But no answers can even be surmised because Stonewall is proving to be unaccountable to questioning and unselfish-reflective in response to a serious issue in one of its high-profile members

Is that an organisation that should have been given so much responsibility by government and is taken as s reputable source of guidance by senior organisations?

Questions as to the possible influence of a sexual predator - not Aimee Challenor but her father - may well arise but I think that has yet to be established (and, I think, it is a question Stonewall must answer).

But I also think that TheOtherPamAyres is right - and a clear distinction between the two of them has to be made in the title.

Thank you for starting a thread on this Joan. I hope you don't think this is not-picking or me having a go at you. I just think you're right that this is important - and I worry that people looking for discussion might think we are conflating AC and her father, and dismiss the thread. That would be unfortunate.

It seems the big shift came when Ruth Hunt was appointed CEO.
Before that gender identity and sexual orientation were seen as separate issues (because.... they are?)
This article from the Guardian helps provide a little background
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/16/stonewall-start-campaigning-trans-equality

A couple of familiar names in there, and our Aimee Challenor's tweet reacting to the news is quoted:

Aimee Challenor (@aimeec110)

THANK YOU @stonewalluk @ruth_hunt for announcing #transstonewall as a Stonewall Young Volunteer and a transwoman this means so much! :D
February 16, 2015

Sorry, I was helping to derail. Ignore me!

Back to the op. I don't think Stonewall feel they have to justify themselves to anyone anymore, they seem to be Teflon coated with regard to these things. But how? And why?

However, don't let me detract from the central question of the OP, sorry.

I don't think Stonewall would allow the responses to be counted as one. Stonewall are giving guidance on how the consultation should be completed. It makes it easier for those who agree with and follow Stonewall's advice to deliver the completed consultation.

Thanks Carceral. It seems no other organisation was given this opportunity by the Government? If so could lead to unfairly influencing the results?

Stonewall really do have a very close relationship with Penny Mordaunt's department.

Pro yeah, I saw the send straight from Stonewall site bit too. Does that mean it will count as from Stonewall or still as an individual contribution, do you think? If it's from Stonewall, isn't that just lending them even more weight in the consultation?

Sorry, that last one was to Procrastinator1

I think so.
www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/come-out-trans-equality

Is it right that anyone responding to the consultation can do so directly through Stonewall's web-site?

@Joan

This is subject that needs discusssing but your title is misjudged. You are blurring lines between a convicted rapist and someone who has never even been accused of child sex crimes let alone convicted.

Ask for your title to be changed please. This is not how I want to discuss Stonewall.

Joan
I am very interested in talking about this, and happy you have started a thread. We shall see what happens?

Aimee Challenor was very young, came from a very troubling family background, and was involved with David Challenor in dealings with the Green Party. Coventry Pride knew in 2016 enough of the allegations against DC to ban him from dealings with them. AC was a trustee of Coventry Pride.

There are 18 people on the Trans Advisory Group, which means that if DC had any influence via AC (who likely would be seen as the "youth voice" given AC's age) this needs to be carefully examined.