Ruth Hunt in the Guardian

Oh and as someone has mentioned Brunei, how come the media is so focused on the threat to gay men, my understanding is that the threat is also to 'adulterers'. Do they not matter? Who decides that a woman has committed adultery?

And yes. TW are male, Ruth. Nothing is ever going to change that. Very happy to welcome a man selecting the identity of TW, but TW are not and never will be women. There is nothing whatsoever you can do to erase that reality from my mind. Or to get me to pretend that this is not causing whacking great horrendous problems for women, girls and children in general, and throwing women's rights back into the dark ages, and I'm not bloody furious about that and willing to fight as hard as it takes for as long as it takes to find a solution that works for everybody and not just trans people.

Mental health = ability to cope with reality. Equality = everybody. Not just the currently fashionable patronised group.

Isn't group 1 and 2 pretty much the same? In my mind it's a descriptor of a subset of the former not the latter. I don't know anyone who thinks differently, it's just that some people care about the issue and possible ramifications more than others.

In other Stonewall news, from what I can gather Bex Stinson appears to be no longer head of inclusion...

She agreed that there are differences between T and LGB, but said that she wasn't sure there was much in common for L and G either.

Apart from L and G both being, you know, homosexual, the only thing they have in common, and B being there because of same sex choices as well as heterosexual choices.

T - their being homosexual/heterosexual/bi is as relevant to the T as whether or not they're vegetarian or Remainers.

It shouldn't be at this point, after repeated demonstrations, but it's a shock to realise that someone who has got into such a highly paid, influential and responsible position truly is this stupid. Almost our entire leadership in the UK now appears to consist of head up bum chocolate teapots with no grasp on reality, no capacity for critical thinking, and no sense of accountability to the general public.

She's talking about intellectual stupidity? 😐😐😐 Stupidity and delusion are what this is all about. Not to mention hypocrisy, with politicians and careerists sacrificing women's safeguarding in order to look progressive and inclusive.

Sorry bold fail.

Funny how she wants to talk only now that she is looking for a new job.

This. She's a liar and trying to rewrite history. I really can't stand people who won't admit to their mistakes.

The bit in the R4 interview that really got me was she said TW don't need a GRC to enter a women's toilet. No, but once they enter we have a right to question what they are in there for, she belittled the GC view "but oh yes let's talk about toilets".

The truth is that since Stonewall added the T they haven't campaigned as strongly as before for LGB as their focus shifted and she won't admit to the impact of that. Stonewall is responsible for all this, it could have been so different for everyone involved.

We get criticised for that. For instance, why haven’t we called what’s happening in Birmingham schools homophobic? Why haven’t we come out and said it’s because all Muslims hate gay people?

Here is the thing: Stonewall's MO on gay rights is not radical, it's softly softly. How can you think the Birmingham protests are democratic expression, refuse to boycott Brunei, but think GC feminists are all bigoted transphobes #nodebate?

1. Women (as a group) are not going to react the way Muslims would when some of their number are attacked.

1. There is much more money in trans 'rights' theses days. Gay rights is less profitable in the UK.

Stonewall [did] not join the boycott against the hotel chain: a move she now admits was “a fuck-up ... and a comms fail”.

No right, no wrong. Just good Comms and bad Comms. Hunt doesn't mind going now, she knows it's needed to sell the shift in PR strategy.

I get tired of saying this but where is the analysis? RH uses the question 'why' but only as a rhetorical device, no answer given or apparently expected. Why were trans people obviously connected to lgb? There must be an answer so what is it? That would be journalism. Why is there a group that doesn't agree that transwomen are women? she makes it sound like the weather except a meteorologist would be able to explain the weather.

No grasp of science or logic

And that is who the current Guardian staff are aiming for.

Isn’t the Guardian aimed at people with a level of education and intelligence?

I'd be interested to know what the split is in terms of what subjects the guardian readership is educated in. Roughly, those which allow for pomo ways of thinking versus those disciplines for which it's incompatible.

Funny how she wants to talk only now that she is looking for a new job.

She's desperate to rewrite history, isn't she?

"Gosh, we were ready to 'have a chat about it' but people just got so CROSS!"

We won't forget your bullshit, Ruth.

She is a traitor.

And there’s a group that think trans women are women and that’s the camp Stonewall supporters are in."

Translation And there’s a group that think a fully anatomical male who identifies as a women is a woman and that’s the camp Stonewall supporters are in."*

I find the non-intellectual stupidity of believing that alarming. No grasp of science or logic.

A microwaved lettuce leaf has more rigour than that article.

Isn’t the Guardian aimed at people with a level of education and intelligence? It’s insulting.

It is so weird to me that she really can’t see the problem

Oh, she can see it, she just doesn't care.

And then to say “men will always rape women”...

So why the fuck do you want to men in with women?

I find it utterly infuriating that people say and write “will lead to rape [or sexual assault] of women” as if the likes of Katie Dolatowski and Karen White haven’t already happened. Maybe Hunt can join Sarah Pascoe on the couch of the 10 year old that Dolatowski assaulted and explain away her experience by saying “that’s not the real question” .

for proof, she points out that in her five years in the job, Stonewall has more than doubled in size, expanding from 75 to 160 staff, while its income has grown from £5.4m to £8.7m. “We’ve lost a few donors but we’ve gained a huge number

There's the rub. She thinks money is morality. Her tenure has reduced women's rights, massively increased transphobia, caused splits in and resentment towards the gay community- where previously there was only support; but Stonewall is richer, so it's OK.

She's completely incapable of articulating her position on any of the points feminists make on self-ID, isn't she. She just says "that's not the question we should be asking" and then ignores the point and trundles on. Exactly what politics doesn't need more re of.

Sorry, the combination of The Guardian and Stonewall, I just... My blood pressure won't be able to take such a thing right now.
May as well throw in a bit from Mermaids, a picture of a sparkly rainbow, a bloke with a beard, and get it over with.

I just heard her being interviewed on R4. She agreed that there are differences between T and LGB, but said that she wasn't sure there was much in common for L and G either.

Her argument was that it's best to build communities despite differences similar to different Christian groups coming together.

Most interesting for me was her saying she's a catholic. A lot of women here have said transgenderism is a belief system rather than based on reason, so it's interesting she does also have a religious belief. She is used to not testing arguments using logic.

"Intellectual stupidity"? Ha ha ha. Yeh that would be trying to convince yourself that a penis is a female sex organ and that lesbians should be having sex with men.