Stonewall training in school

If I was Stonewall I'd be embarrassed not to be able to muster up a few supporters who understand noblegiraffe's point. Then again, when you've already decided that words mean whatever is most convenient at the time...

If I was Stonewall and realised that 10,000 people went out of their way to sign a petition to question my policies, I would be seriously thinking my days were numbered

Snow welcome to the conversation! At least you’re posting actual arguments now rather than the pop up snipes.

It seems somethings changed - you’re sounding more passionate now, your usual tone was more disengaged.

Tis odd an odd change when you seem to be implying the argument already won in your favour.

As a maths teacher can I just point out that snowblight’s use of data there is embarrassingly flawed.

Petitions are not polls. You can’t use them as if they have statistical meaning.

Interesting how the members of the so-called feminist board on MN claim to support lesbians and yet most lesbians avoid this place like the plague... should give you a good indication of the level of support you have amongst lesbians in the real world, despite what you claim.

Again, with the words you don't understand.

It's all very desperate when, suddenly, you want to change the meaning of words to support an argument.

It's also rather telling how desperate you are to assert that groups like the LGB alliance, get the L out, resisters, etc, are ineffectual.

You're spending an awful lot of your time arguing against something that you think has no effect.

Arguing again something you think has no effect, with words you can't define.

Yup.

What's the reason you keep avoiding answering whether you believe in same sex attraction.

Forget gay or lesbian as now thanks to stonewall that can mean anything.

Do you think that people are same SEX attracted or do you believe their gender definition?

9600 were brave enough

Nothing brave about being anonymous. And seeing as it was anonymous why didn't more sign up if this is supposedly one of the biggest threats to lesbians and gays of our time? Perhaps, because no matter how many times people parrot it on here most LGBT people don't agree.

Yet you are here Snow blight even though MN is so irrelevant. You are still spending your precious hours on this tiny website.

Two males giving each other fellatio, can be described as lesbian sex. So when you say stonewall represents lesbians...

Stonewall represents LGB and T who don't see anything strange in that^, whereas the LGB Alliance is about sexual orientation (a protected characteristic) based on sex (another protected characteristic). Why do you have a problem with that snow? I don't get it.

This is also interesting their website explains that gender and sex are interchangeable then adds romantic to sexual orientation as an excuse to drop/shorten it to just orientation.

They have re written multiple definitions to avoid using biological sex in any definition.

How anyone can look at that and feel "supported" I dont know

So when you say stonewall represents lesbians...

Interesting how the members of the so-called feminist board on MN claim to support lesbians and yet most lesbians avoid this place like the plague. There was even a recent thread specifically set up for lesbians to express their concerns which fell so flat on its face that 99% of it was the usual heterosexual members talking amongst themselves. You'd think if trans people are causing so many problems for lesbians they'd be flocking here but they're not. The Leeds march which was extremely well publicised on here but attracted less than 40 people should give you a good indication of the level of support you have amongst lesbians in the real world, despite what you claim.

Aesopfable

I know, right! Only someone who is unable to understand terms could define 10,000 people objecting to a lobby organisation as something in favour of that organisation.

around 9,600 signed up

9600 people put their name to concerns about an organisation that has the police acting on their behalf creating records on people who do nothing more than disagree with Stonewall, who cause people to lose their jobs, who train up their HR departments to look out for transphobes and various bigots. Isn’t it actually amazing that 9600 were brave enough to this at a time when politicians etc are so scared of speaking out?

Less than 1% of the LGBT population

see anything LGBT-related destroyed

the percentage of LGBT people

Most LBGT people

I know this is tricky for you, snow, or rather desperately inconvenient, but again, you are blithely throwing around terms that you are unable to define.

It's meaningless.

Two males giving each other fellatio, can be described as lesbian sex. So when you say stonewall represents lesbians...

Utter jibber jabber.

So you dont think that refusing to acknowledge same sex attraction is homophobic?

If anyone can be any gender then what is same sex attraction? It cant exist. That is homophobic.

I seem to remember recently when a call went out for people to anonymously register their disapproval of Stonewall's policies regarding trans people, around 9,600 signed up. Less than 1% of the LGBT population of the UK. Of course, transphobes and various bigots who are happy to see anything LGBT-related destroyed would have signed up so in effect the percentage of LGBT people who disapprove is probably significantly under that 1% figure. Most LBGT people support Stonewall and there is no evidence to the contrary.

The overwhelming majority of LGBT people still support Stonewall

Oh dear. The L can mean two males, two females, or a male and a female. And so can the G.

So, unfortunately, no one has the smallest idea who you mean when you talk about LGB.

They dont even know what gay is any more . Let alone work/advocate for then. Just look...

Stonewall is a lobby group with a lot of knowledge about LGBT+++ issues.

Stonewall is a lobby group which no longer gives a flying fuck about LGB issues.

After achieving gay marriage, they needed a new income source which turned out to be trans rights.

teawamutu Given the lack of any criticism from SW on Mermaids' more recent stance, I'd say the latter. I don't think SW has ever been interested in what happens to detransitioners or kids who grow up to be same-sex attracted. At the time, SW may have been concerned about being able to keep T separate from the LGB for various reasons, but that's no longer necessary or politically prudent. The phrase 'acceptable collateral damage' springs to mind.

That's pretty sensible, and Stephen is using the desistance figure that Mermaids et al now rubbish. Overton Window shift, or just salami tactics to get the legislation through?

Because if these drugs are considered to be reversible and simply give the child more time to decide whether or not transition is right for them, then I think you are right that they have not started a process and the EA2010 protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which I think is the law that you intended to refer to) cannot apply to children.

If it is considered that children attending gender identity clinics and possibly also taking hormone blockers have started on a path to transition then we are actually allowing children to start this process, which we are told does not happen in the UK.

Stephen Whittle (!) flagged the problem of applying the term gender reassignment to children to the Equality Bill committee in 2009.

Q 73Mr. Boswell:
May I ask one other question, which is about juveniles? It surfaced in a different context this morning. My impression is that trans people under 18 and those who are contemplating their position are very much under the radar of this legislation. Is that a concern for you, and can we deal with them as well?

Stephen Whittle: This is another of our big problem areas. The legislation covers young people through various protections, but the problem is that “gender reassignment” is an absolutely inappropriate term to use in relation to young people. If someone rings me up about their 11-year-old with cross-gendered behaviour, and the school wants them out, what should I do? Should I say, “Let me speak to the 11-year-old,” and then explain that the child wants a sex change? Thirteen and 14-year-olds who make that statement get entwined in a huge, goal-driven medical process that does not let them get out, yet we know that 80 per cent. of young people who manifest very cross-gendered behaviour will not grow up to be trans but will grow up to be gay or lesbian.
We need to rethink that. Again, we have come up with a phrase and a definition that we think would suit. It is gender-varied and carefully defined and would fit into the framework.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090602/pm/90602s01.htm

You need to convey that you know much more than they think you do. Which you do! Hence basing the questions on statutory guidance that they know they have to adhere to.

Thanks for the various bits of info, it’s bonkers that we are looking at building regulations.

I’m not surprised that schools are starting to go to mixed sex toilets because trying to decide who should and shouldn’t be in single sex toilets seems to be more hassle than it’s worth.