Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Ruth Hunt & Stonewall, "do not and will not acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’

188 replies

R0wantrees · 04/10/2018 11:18

Response to petition,
www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach

Since the planned reform of the Gender Recognition Act was announced a year ago, there have been daily articles and social media threads that question trans people’s right to exist, trying to undermine their ability to go about their daily lives free from fear and abuse. This week, a petition has been launched directly asking Stonewall to reconsider our work on trans equality.
The petition asks us to acknowledge that there are a range of viewpoints around sex and gender. Of course we know that these differing views exist, and have existed for many years. The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’. We do not and will not acknowledge this. Doing so would imply that we do not believe that trans people deserve the same rights as others. However, we are unequivocal in our support of trans people’s – and everyone’s – right to equality and will remain so. Our motto is ‘acceptance without exception’. (continues)

www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall-stories-category/come-out-lgbt/our-work-trans-equality-heart-our-mission-acceptance

current threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3384045-Petition-to-Stonewall

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384407-Times-letter-petition-STONEWALL-CRITICISED-undermining-women-s-sex-based-rights-and-protections-Jonny-Best-et-al

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384307-James-Kirkup-Spectator-lead-article-Trans-rights-have-gone-wrong-The-new-gender-orthodoxy-allows-no-room-for-dissent

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Knicknackpaddyflak · 04/10/2018 11:31

It is blatantly misogynistic. It's also blatantly hypocritical - they are perfectly happy to erase and eradicate women, their identity, their language, their right to be a recognised class. The entitlement, the massively different standards and the utter contempt for women is truly shocking.

And it's being openly expressed, pretty much unchallenged. The rage is that women dare to resist.

GulagsMyArse · 04/10/2018 11:30

I feel sick reading that.
I think she is destroying Stonewall.

pennydrew · 04/10/2018 11:28

Right to exist? Ffs why do they keep saying that? Nobody wants to eradicate them. This is so enraging. It’s blatantly misogynistic.

LangCleg · 04/10/2018 11:28

I've said it before, and I will probably say it again, but this is religious fervour.

It is. The whole area of human rights is based on proportionality and the balancing of competing needs.

But then: if Amnesty, the world's most prominent human rights org, has forgotten this, why should Stonewall bother to remember?

Knicknackpaddyflak · 04/10/2018 11:27

Hence also the argument of erasure. If you insist you are a biological woman with features that no one but another biological woman can share to be part of the group of biological women, then you are saying TW cannot be women. Which they feel 'erases' them.

The answer to that one is, this is something you are going to have to learn to deal with or seek support to overcome, because your feelings and sense of self is not more important than the rights of half the population.

FloralBunting · 04/10/2018 11:26

It doesn't make any sense. To say that you 'will not' acknowledge a conflict of rights because to do so would 'imply that transpeople don't deserve the same rights as everyone else' is pure ideology. There's no actual examination of unintended consequences, it's just a stubborn "We've already reached the conclusion, we don't care about anything you have to say".

I've said it before, and I will probably say it again, but this is religious fervour.

LangCleg · 04/10/2018 11:25

FUCK OFF RUTH

Just that, really.

Knicknackpaddyflak · 04/10/2018 11:25

The argument is TWAW so 'sex based rights' go poof because TW rights are W rights.

If you agree that there is a separate thing called sex based rights, you would have to acknowledge that there is a group of biological women with one characteristic in common and biological men are separate from there. Therefore you would also have to acknowledge that the difference of those biological women is a just reason to consider separate rights that non biological women could not infringe on. And the whole house of cards falls down.

Lily Madigan said straight out, years ago, women having rights is transphobic. Because if you mean biological women and rights specific to them then you have said that TW are not women.

The answer to Ruth Hunt and Stonewall is you're welcome to your delusions, you can believe anything you want including fairies at the bottom of the garden. But TW are not women, biology exists and women are entitled to rights not being stripped away by men. No matter how those men feel about it.

SymphonyofShadows · 04/10/2018 11:25

What about the rights of little girls not to have to see a big pair of hairy bollocks up close while getting changed for swimming?

Anlaf · 04/10/2018 11:23

Whoah

Charliethefeminist · 04/10/2018 11:22

Money and power I think, Repeal

DayMay · 04/10/2018 11:22

The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’. We do not and will not acknowledge this.

RepealtheGRA · 04/10/2018 11:21

What is her deal? Is it just stupidity? Internalised misogyny? What?