Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Ruth Hunt: it's not transphobic to oppose self-i.d ; prison, sport, refuge are 'grey areas'.

40 replies

ImaginaryFoe · 14/05/2019 01:48

Just caught the tail end of HardTalk interview with Ruth Hunt. A couple of interesting things, I thought:

Asked if disagreement with self-ID is transphobic, she answered with a simple 'no'.

In talking about the trans issue being more divisive than campaigns for lgb issues like equal marriage, she said this issue is more complex, and acknowledged that there are 'grey areas' which are not simple or straightforward, specifically naming prisons, sport, and women's refuges as examples. Seems a long way from "no debate" and "transwomen are women, get over it."

Mere months ago I don't think there would have been any such acknowledgement of "grey areas" or complexities. Certainly not from Stonewall. Those of you forcing this conversation into the sunlight are the reason why Ruth Hunt and her ilk now have to acknowledge that responding to legitimate concerns with "TWAW - get over it" is not a viable or defensible position outside the Twittersphere.

Flowers

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct5tgc

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
SonicVersusGynaephobia · 14/05/2019 22:23

No I don't think Stonewall have had a change of heart Purported, I think Ruth may just have realised that "TWAW in every conceivable way, no debate" doesn't translate well outside of the Stonewall bubble, and that if she's to get a new job (or move into politics - a grim thought) she's going to have to pretend to play both sides.

Transparent as fuck though.

ThePurportedDoctoress · 14/05/2019 19:09

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when RH finally realised there were “grey areas”.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when RH had that chat with Julie Bindel.

twitter.com/bindelj/status/1047899829773504513

"Sometime I will tell the story of how Ruth Hunt asked me to go for a drink with her, when she was applying for Stonewall CEO job, and what she said about how she intended to deal with the “trans issue”. She must have thought I was born yesterday. It’s coming back to bite her now"

Ruth Hunt has said that she would like to go into politics. I think this is just her trying to distance herself from her fuck-ups at Stonewall. I'm not sure she's acting on anyone's orders - she'll be out of there soon and she's just trying to climb back on the fence now to protect her future career prospects. I haven't seen any signs that the Stonewall management team have had a change of heart. None. Happy to be proved wrong though!

DpWm · 14/05/2019 18:48

Good God I thought I was joking Sad

nettie434 · 14/05/2019 18:47

Snap Sonic! I mentioned my suspicions about this earlier.

R0wantrees · 14/05/2019 16:13

Ruth Hunt is Vice Chair of Shelter

england.shelter.org.uk/what_we_do/our_people/board_of_trustees/ruth_hunt

DpWm · 14/05/2019 15:57

I hadn't thought of that Sonic Sad
Ruth Hunt, coming soon to women-only shelters near you...

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 14/05/2019 15:47

Have not RTFT yet (I will) but my initial thought after reading about what she has said in this is that she is trying to be more moderate so that she is more employable in a wider range of charities, because I reckon she'll pop up next in a women's organisation, and turn it into an "inclusive" organisation which no longer helps women.

I have that sinking feeling we are witnessing Institutional capture real-time.

TimeLady · 14/05/2019 11:05

Maybe they've found prospective candidates for Hunt's job aren't happy with the current 'No debate' mantra?

nettie434 · 14/05/2019 10:40

ImaginaryFoe

I think some are missing the point of my post, which isn't to give RH 'plaudits' or agree with her about 'grey areas' but to note a shift in the discourse, however incremental.

It is definitely interesting to note a change in Ruth Hunt's discourse. As she is about to be an ex CEO, the real indicator of change will come when the new CEO is in place.

Chattylion
I have noticed that only a few interviewers (especially at the BBC) actually seem to brief themselves fully before an interview. The response to the Stonewall petition is exactly the sort of thing that needed picking up.

I'll be listening to the interview later so thanks imaginaryfoe for the link

R0wantrees · 14/05/2019 09:27

Book sounds like an interesting read.

I havent read it.
I'm sure some of the content would be interesting/illuminating
I find Burns' writing style hard work.

ChattyLion · 14/05/2019 09:22

Thanks R0wan. Book sounds like an interesting read.

I guess one of the up sides of the breakdown in public trust in institutions and the advent of social media is that these things may be harder to sneak through in future but I don’t feel very confident about that. Sad

R0wantrees · 14/05/2019 09:15

Chatty I think this may mean the infrastructure that enabled them to lobby and secure changes in policy etc smoothly without there being disuption or challenge.

This was how Press For Change were so effective as explained by Christine Burns in Guardian inerview 2013:

(extract)
"Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues."
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Apparently one of Burns' books describes exactly how TRAs in 1990-2000's were so effective.

ChattyLion · 14/05/2019 09:09

Apparently the TRAs lack the infrastructure they had in the 1990s and early 2000s so they need to think carefully and coordinate

SERIOUSLY?
They have completely taken over the mega charity Stonewall and the other LGB charities and most women’s charities and kids charities and the NHS and the public sector.... and they want more?!

(See the regulatory capture thread for more examples)

R0wantrees · 14/05/2019 09:07

This is a shift for Hunt and Stonewall. Which they don't want to admit to of course. History will be rewritten to reflect that Stonewall always welcomed debate, that it is not transphobic to be against self-ID, and that Stonewall has always acknowledged grey areas. Year zero.

July 2018 James Kirkup thread being aware of the inclination by some to attempt to rewrite historical fact:

(extract)
Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces” (continues)

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”. (continues)

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination. (continues)

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

links to documents & relevent extracts in page above

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 14/05/2019 09:00

Well I suppose she knows what she will have unleashed on herself.

LizzieSiddal · 14/05/2019 08:58

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when RH finally realised there were “grey areas”.

Popchyk · 14/05/2019 08:56

"The context has changed, and the powers that be at Stonewall know that they can no longer win support by going on news programmes and simply dismissing women with concerns as transphobes. It's significant."

Yes, and I wonder how much of this is the Stonewall leaders instructing Ruth Hunt to go out to the media and distance Stonewall from their previous positions. If there is any flak to be had about it, then Hunt is leaving anyway. Then the new CEO of Stonewall can pick up the "grey areas" mantra and start off his tenure on surer footing than the no debate quicksand.

This is a shift for Hunt and Stonewall. Which they don't want to admit to of course. History will be rewritten to reflect that Stonewall always welcomed debate, that it is not transphobic to be against self-ID, and that Stonewall has always acknowledged grey areas. Year zero.

Floisme · 14/05/2019 08:55

Thanks for clarifying op. Whatever we may feel about Ruth Hunt and her motives, I still think it’s a very big deal if the Stonewall CEO has said that opposing self ID is not transphobic. Yes that’s an optimistic take on it but hey the sun is out and that’s the mood I’m in.

R0wantrees · 14/05/2019 08:54

Wasn't it part of that TRA secret meeting where they all agreed they need to come across as reasonable as possible, and even pay lip service to women's rights sometimes so they can carry on with it all and no one would be able to argue? It's just part of that. It's "good" PR.

It wasn't a secret meeting, it was a Trans rights' conference called, 'We're Still Here' organised by Jane Fae.
Dawn Butler MP (shadow minister for Women & Equalities) gave the key note speech.
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

OP TheHarpySings reported:
(extract)
6) GETTING THE GRA WE WANT

This was a workshop with 3 experts sitting with groups and talking through activism. They were:

Helen Belcher (Lib Dems, Trans Media Watch)
James Morton (Scottish Transgender Alliance)
Alex Moore (GenderJam). Moore is from N Ireland.

James Morton gave some insight into tactics the TRAs will probably start using in England and Wales as they were successful in Scotland.

He said the TRAs need to build allies in mainstream women and children’s organisations so it looks like they care about them.

He also said what worked in Scotland's was a “constructive, friendly, innocent” tone when debating or in dialogue with the GC side. To be mindful about who is watching- essentially like what we do with the lurkers on the FWR board. To make the TRAs look like the reasonable side.

James also said that in dialect with elected officials, to clarify that the trans side aren’t silencing anyone but want to clarify the misconceptions being bandied around by GC feminists.

The Scottish GRA changes will probably be put forward in the 2019-2020 parliamentary year.

Belcher has been meeting with MPs and members of the House of Lords. Most of them don’t really understand the GRA and don’t have much time to think about it thanks to the Brexit FUBAR. “Education” of law makers is needed and that’s what Belcher is doing.

Apparently the TRAs lack the infrastructure they had in the 1990s and early 2000s so they need to think carefully and coordinate.

Belcher said to re-iterate to MPs that the EA2010 is not being affected and no one is losing any rights (wtf).

Apparently in terms of political support, the Tories are split about 50/50, Labour, Lib Dem's and SNP are all onside. The Greens were NOT mentioned.

The big fear on the TRA side is that this Government won’t survive long enough to get this through- again because Brexit.

According to Alex Moore, Arlene Foster of the DUP went to a Pink News event and didn’t seem to know much about this. In NI no one really cares about the trans issues because everyone is focused on same sex marriage and abortion.

Alex then moaned about the Together for Yes campaign’s transmisogyny and that the campaign completely erased the experiences of trans and NB people who need abortions. Alex would like a legal change of gender to be free of charge and as easy as changing your name.

Helen Belcher was annoyed at GC feminists using “emotive arguments” regards rape.

HB said that the pile ons pro self-ID MPs get from the GC side if they say something supportive of the trans side are not helping the GC cause. Maria Miller told Belcher that MPs got loads of abuse in the run up to marriage equality and that abusive messages, tweets from GC feminists will only harden MPs against the GC side.

HB also said something snide about “mouthy” female Labour MPs who speak before thinking on Twitter- especially on a Friday or Saturday night after they’ve had a few drinks.

Apparently the TRAs have civil service support and that the Stonewall report and Gov survey are strong bits of evidence they have which is helping them win arguments.

They are saying there is no risk to reforming the GRA and are asking MPs “what is the risk?”

In the group I was in they also talked about how changing your gender multiple times should be allowed and shouldn’t be seen as “bad intentions”.

James Morton talked about how they can get rid of “gender” markers on things like IT systems and places where it isn’t relevant- apparently GDPR might be able to help them here.

JM’s campaigning tips were to gain trust in the local community- and to approach moderate feminists, “correct misconceptions and forgive any ignorance they may have displayed”. They want to gain trust and make themselves likeable.

Apparently small acts like helping to campaign about period poverty or retweeting the local branch of Women’s Aid will make a difference and result in some reciprocation. They want to make it look like they care about Women's issues so they don’t appear threatening"

truthisarevolutionaryact · 14/05/2019 08:53

I wonder whether Penny Mordaunt - Minister for Equalities - will ever clarify that there's grey area or will continue to parrot the TWAW line?

Genderfreelass · 14/05/2019 08:48

OP very very significant. TWANW

Genderfreelass · 14/05/2019 08:46

😂😂😂 she's try to back peddle her way out of the mess she played a strong hand in creating. Good that she is now stating that there is a conflict of interests and that it is ok to not believe the TWAW mantra but she will always be a woman that tried to throw the rest of use women esp lesbians under a bus - zero respect.

ImaginaryFoe · 14/05/2019 08:46

I think some are missing the point of my post, which isn't to give RH 'plaudits' or agree with her about 'grey areas' but to note a shift in the discourse, however incremental.

Floisme, DpWm Yes, she did say those things. The Stonewall party line has been that "TWAW and must be treated as such, always, for all purposes, no matter what, no debate, get over it." She equivocated on that.

I think that's because it's becoming increasingly clear that that "TWAW - Get Over It" isn't a viable position. It's only become unviable because the discussion is now happening in the mainstream and women's concerns are breaking through the unquestioning "trans as ultimate oppressed minority" rhetoric. Women's concerns are breaking through because of those who have written and worked and organised and protested to make that happen. The context has changed, and the powers that be at Stonewall know that they can no longer win support by going on news programmes and simply dismissing women with concerns as transphobes. It's significant.

OP posts:
LizzieSiddal · 14/05/2019 08:40

The definitions of man and woman were already decided back in 2004.

Have I missed something? Did the law state TWAW are is that her interpretation?

Popchyk · 14/05/2019 08:26

Ruth Hunt and Stonewall's response to Johnny Best's petition calling for respectful debate around self-ID.

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

"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".

And now Ruth is trying to distance herself from her work at Stonewall.

Now that she is in the job market.

What a heroine she is - to sell women down the river and then row back on it only once she needs a new job.