Stonewall's missed campaigns

The important point is surely that there were lots of things Stonewall could have chosen to campaign for, but it didn't

Quite.

This turkey baster discussion really demonstrates how absent Stonewall has been.

Under current law, lesbians are entitled to IVF on the same terms as straight women if we have medical infertility, but this right is in practice difficult if not impossible to access. In place of a period of unsuccessful "trying" before male-female couples qualify for IVF, different regions have different policies on what self-funded efforts lesbians should make before qualifying. Six rounds of IUI is sometimes suggested as equivalent to two years of trying, but not all areas accept this (or any other equivalency scale). And if you didn't go the IUI route, I believe that most areas won't accept unsuccessful home IVI (turkey baster) as evidence of infertility - and I seem to recall that unsuccessful self-funded IVF can actually disqualify women from receiving NHS-funded IVF.

When we got nowhere with IUI, we had to self-fund through IVF - which we were lucky enough to be able to afford.

This is all quite separate from the issue of whether the NHS should fund IVF for couples without a medical fertility issue. My ex lives in a jurisdiction which does this, and she had a great experience, but personally I would want to improve IVF access for all infertile women (lesbian and straight) before opening up to medically fertile couples. And a first step is to get lesbians the support to which we are already entitled.

A thousand years ago these issues used to come up a lot on Pink News, but they lost interest. The LGBA should absolutely put support for lesbians with medical infertility at the top of its to-do list.

Also agree with PP about LGBT asylum applications - another issue Stonewall never seemed to get to grips with properly, perhaps because there wasn't any money in it.

I think some people are being a bit harsh on the OP. Yes there are discussions to be had about the rights and wrongs of IVF, religion in schools, all sorts of things, and people will hold different views.

The important point is surely that there were lots of things Stonewall could have chosen to campaign for, but it didn't, because the "T" eclipsed the L,G and B. People would be well within their rights to agree or disagree with whatever they chose to focus on, but at least they would be doing something for the L, G and B.

Personally, I'd like to see a focus on international issues as the homophobia in some countries is off the charts and very much state sanctioned. Although having said that I was saddened to hear from my 10 year old about the homophobia of one of his classmates so there is clearly a long way to go in this country.

Homophobes in those 71 countries can point to places like Canada and the US and say "if you let the gays have their way, next they'll be drugging your kids and letting men into women's sports".

Stonewall's current campaigning in this country is harming LGB people worldwide.

Good points @NecessaryScene I often think this too. It's set things back years.

Whenever I check LGB-A tweets, they're highlighting homophobia, executions etc around the world and the focus is clearly on LGB human rights.

It's a false equivalence. And actually many fertile het couples are told to use donor sperm.

There is a difference between a woman who is infertile and one who is fertile but wanting a child and there’s no man in the picture. I wasn’t thinking about infertile men - but yes they are in the same boat as the mum.

My friend went through so much to get/keep a pregnancy. Another friend lost babies late in the pregnancy before finally giving birth to her twins.

Not the same as my sisters friend who wanted a baby, could conceive and carry a child - is gay and didn’t want to have sex with her male friend who agreed to be the dad.

Whether the NHS should provide services... I’m not sure... in Scotland I believe males have accesses surrogate services via NHS. The NHS has finite funds.

There are alternatives... as my sisters (gay) friend said ‘Turkey baster... and a male was involved...’. She wouldn’t have dreamed of expecting the NHS to get involved.

Also, this isn't fundamentalism. It's being taught to kids in regular mainstream churches across the country. Often in youth groups where the parents aren't in attendance and have no idea about what is being said.

Then we persuade them that they're wrong. That's exactly the sort of thing I was saying Stonewall should be trying to do under point 4 in my original post.

Of course, that probably means teaming up with liberal and moderate churches who we don't necessarily agree 100% with in order to champion a gay-is-ok theology that's palatable to other Christians (not something that's really in my skillset as a militant atheist).

But we can't go ripping up the Lets-all-avoid-this-Third-Reich-thing-again rulebook, even if we really, really, really don't like what some people think and say.

Human rights are universal. Removing them for some is the same as removing them for all.

And like I said, if you can pass a law to ban anti-gay, homophobic beliefs (or their expression, or teaching them to children), you can ban anti-homophobic, pro-gay beliefs too. Just like Thatcher's government did in 1989.

No not all of them, just amend the one that is damaging to young gay children and teenagers.

"not all of them". That is a yes.

Do you think it's fine that young gay people are taught they are going to hell and they should stay single and celibate their entire lives? You would be happy for your kids to be taught this?

I think teaching anyone that hell exists, and that anyone goes there for any reason, is super shitty. Including telling young gay people that they'll go to hell for being gay.

I would remove my child from a situation where they would be taught this, under my Protocol 1, Article 2 rights. The very same rights that you want to take away.

How would IVF equality work for two gay men?

No to renting women’s organs for 9 months.

Let's be absolutely clear here. If the government can pass a law banning churches from expressing a certain belief to children, they can pass the opposite law, also.

The fundamentalists' rights to believe being gay is sinful and say so is also my right to believe those fundamentalists are full of shit, and my right to tell my DS that they're talking a load of rubbish.

If you can take away that right from fundamentalists, you can take that right away from me.

I would 💯 support Stonewall if they campaigned to have a clause within this particular law that it should be illegal to teach children that homosexuality is sinful and gay people are going to hell. This is being taught as fact in some churches (and possibly even some schools).

So that is a "Yes, I do want to remove religious fundamentalists human rights" then?

Are you saying you want to violate religious fundamentalists human rights? Specifically Article 9, Article 10 and Protocol 1, Article 2?