The BBC announces it is leaving Stonewall

Well lots of LGB people don't think so. That's why the LGB alliance was set up. Not a statement compatible with the response to the brave women who shared their stories of being pressurised or forced into sexual contact with a transwoman.

I keep repeating this, because it is phenomenally important to notice and repeat, a lot.

Stonewall are working hard to shift the phrase 'LGBT+' from meaning lesbian, gay, bi, trans etc people united by having that characteristic whatever it is in this group in common while being a large, diverse group of people with all different beliefs, politics, faiths, races, cultures, countries, worldwide, etc etc -

• into meaning 'ONLY those who believe in this particular political agenda and ideology', and this is the ONLY thing they have in common.

They are actively excluding LGBT+ people who do not share this one partisan political view while at the same time claiming to speak for all of them.

This in fact lets them imply that they are speaking for all of this group and to make use of people's good will to this group in its original form and its legal protections, while in fact excluding actual LGBT+ people and using this as a trojan horse to further their political agenda. They are shifting LGBT+ to mean in the public eye and government eye people who all without exception believe in and want this, and we want to do the right thing by LGBT+ people don't we? While sliding under the table that LGBT+ who are not compliant to the politics have been excluded.

Judging by the history and pattern of behaviour, (and some posters on recent threads) it will not be long before they try the idea that anyone not compliant with this particular political position is not LGBT+. In the same way that meanings of other words have been adjusted to be more convenient to the political agenda.

This is why the LGBA are such a threat. And lesbian women saying that they want to be allowed to be homosexual females and say so without harassment, discrimination and oppression is also so wholly unacceptable.

So very happy to hear this

Honestly, the Stonewall statement, which has been thoroughly unpacked on this thread, just makes them look ridiculous. They have absolutely fuck all, don't they!

The 80s and 90s? They were all about fundraising for AIDS. Not thinking gay men were predators and lesbians were gonna get you in the changing rooms.

Quite apart from anything else, way before then, I was raised on books where any self-respecting girl would have a 'pash' on a jolly sixth former.

They're talking out of their blue haired, queer theoried, Johnny Come Lately arses.

liverpoolresisters.wordpress.com/2018/08/16/the-bbc-and-transgender-children/

Some details of money donated in 2017 to trans charities including Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence by Children in Need

I breathed a sigh of relief when I read this. As a mother of a 12 year old girl questioning her 'gender identity' and being totally consumed by it all, this is a big 'top down' deal, that I hope will filter down to people actually being able to discuss the issues - thank you Kathleen Stock - and hopefully to younger people considering that they aren't in the wrong body after all its just that they are at a time in their young lives when their bodies are changing and all sorts of sexual attractions may or may not be happening, but that it is a natural part of growing up and that when they ADULTS they can make informed choices about their sexuality. And that stupid companies like LUSH will stop trying to peddle chest binders to kids to score brownie points with the so called LGBTQ+ supporters (same goes for you CIN). Leave my bloody child alone. Sorry, rant over. This is a massive step for impartial media reporting, freedom of speech, sex based rights, and young gay and lesbian people. Which reminds me, instead of my annual donation to CIN Im going to give the money to the LGB Alliance.

Allying yourself with a organisation that's totally at odds with a protected belief must put companies in a very precarious position when they are forcing staff to obey polices that are not compliant with the law.

Having the BBC admit there is an issue of impartiality means other organisations cannot pretend they were not aware of this conflict of interest.

Definitely. The opportunity for plausible deniability just got smaller.

Yay awesome 💪💪💪💪🔥🔥🔥🔥

Honestly the fact they don't see the fucking irony in this is raising my blood pressure.

I'd love to see the BBC tackling some "difficult" subjects now, like the effects on women of self-id around the world or a programme about detransitioners, just for some balance to the "sweet little girlie boys who just want to pee" agenda that they seem to have had for a long time.....

This is really big isn't it? Can't believe it to be honest!

I remember seeing this on the Stonewall website a couple of years ago and just not being able to believe what I was reading, and that the organisation that it came from seemed to have its tentacles absolutely everywhere!

Now, finally, the grown ups seem to be taking charge.

D of e need to first. Then pressure will be on for schools to withdraw.

Government guidance for RSE explicitly states that schools must not use any resources which rely on stereotypes and yet time and time again we see schools teaching "gender identity" based on stereotypes because there's no other way to explain gender identity . Now that Ofsted are no longer stonewalled and are properly scrutinising RSE we can hope to see some improvements.

This is great news! Some factual errors and vague information in Stonewall's response though

*Ultimately, it is LGBTQ+ people who suffer. Our research shows that LGBTQ+ people are often disadvantaged at work:

Almost one in five LGBTQ+ staff have been the target of negative comments or conduct from work colleagues because they're LGBTQ+.
More than a third of LGBTQ+ staff have hidden or disguised that they are LGBTQ+ at work because they were afraid of discrimination.
Almost one in five LGBTQ+ people who were looking for work said they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity while trying to get a job.*

Not in the least helpful to group LGB people in with trans people in this sort of information. Many LGB people do not feel they have the same needs or beliefs as someone who is trans and I would like to know how many LGB people have experienced this discrimination and how many trans people. This presentation of information is hiding that data.

Many of the arguments against trans people today are simply recycled homophobia from the 80s and 90s. We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces. That wasn’t true of lesbians, bi and gay people then, and it isn’t true of trans people now.

Yet a lot of people believe Stonewall is homophobic. This cherry picking of ideas also misses the multitude of other reasons why people have concerns about trans ideology.

At Stonewall, we stand for LGBTQ+ people everywhere.

Well lots of LGB people don't think so. That's why the LGB alliance was set up. Not a statement compatible with the response to the brave women who shared their stories of being pressurised or forced into sexual contact with a transwoman.

Even in a response to the BBC, Stonewall manage to show their bigotry, ignorance and willingness to spin 'facts'. They are a disgusting organisation.

I was actually wondering how much, not just the Nolan investigation was responsible for this decision but the feedback to it.

Nolan has stated his surprise at just how positive the response was to the investigation,

Given the delay between the release of the Podcasts (and remember this wasn't a high profile investigation on R4/Newsnight/Panorama or similar) and this announcement would it be far fetched to think that the BBC might have been dipping it's toe in the water to test the temperature of the general public?

Either way I think keeping the feedback going is well worth the effort for the few minutes it takes - PULLLLLL

But great news. Maybe the great oil tanker that is the Beeb is slowly changing course towards something like impartiality. A few other areas need work too, IMHO.

About time. I'm truly appalled that a supposedly impartial institution funded by licence-payers' money would ever be associated with any organisation run by activists with a specific agenda.

Excellent news.

Can I encourage everyone to provide feedback to the BBC?
I will be thanking them and also mentioning Children In Need, Mermaids and the need for programming to investigate the wholesale institutional capture of organisations by this deeply dodgy ideology.

Phew. Finally. I'm honestly delighted, but too many good women have been harmed to get us to here.

This one is for them.

This surely has to make a lot of other organisations think hard about their relationship with Stonewall?

Especially govt department like the DoE?

When you've got the BBC saying membership of Stonewalls Program/Index is a threat to peoples perception of impartiality that's a big deal.

You combine that with the fact GC views are now protected (thanks Maya) then this is very significant in the private sector also.

Allying yourself with a organisation that's totally at odds with a protected belief must put companies in a very precarious position when they are forcing staff to obey polices that are not compliant with the law.

Having the BBC admit there is an issue of impartiality means other organisations cannot pretend they were not aware of this conflict of interest.

This is such good news, we might actually see some half decent coverage of these issues now instead of the usual pandering. Just for them to acknowledge that there is a debate here feels like a ste forward

We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces.

Do we? I wonder how old that person is? I'm 64 and I don't remember lesbians ever being called a threat in single sex spaces.

Though I suppose it is possible that mean girls in school may at one time or another have used accusations of lesbianism as another stick to beat their victims with, especially in school changing rooms. It didn't happen at my school - our P.E mistress was formidable - but it might have happened elsewhere. Some of those teenage bullies were as vicious as the worst transgenderists. In fact, come to think of it, nowadays they probably are transgenderists, since it allows so much scope for their favourite pastime of hurting others, while pretending to be virtuous.

Actually, when I started seeking out single sex social spaces, the no nonsense lesbians who stood at the door and kept out the riff raff were considered a blessing, not a threat. That was the general consensus - even among straight women who wanted to be able to speak freely without being influenced by men.

But what do I know? I only came out in the early 1970s, perhaps the person who made the claim is over 80 and harking back to a time when people believed all sorts of rubbish about lesbians?

Though I still think it rather peculiar in that case, that they claim "We all remember". I can't help wondering if they are getting their history information from the same people who insist that transwomen led the Stonewall riots and were the driving force behind the gay rights movement?

BBC News - BBC pulls out of Stonewall diversity scheme
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59232736

Personally I always imagined myself as a keen-eyed adventurous type (either sex, not fussed), striding on long, lean legs over craggy mountains. Pity about the reality (wipes glasses with stubby fist).

I'm a Jane Austen heroine in a sprigged muslin gown, but nobody is obliged to throw a ball for me

I was picturing a Jane Austen heroine hurrying after a tennis ball, skirts daintily held up, for a moment there.

Boo! No Evan Davis on the PM programme. The story did make it into the headlines at the start of the programme but I don't think it will be mentioned again.

As far as I remember the only people we worried about back in the day were PIE, and they are still around, still wearing their colourful disguise.