Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Stonewall – evil or stupid?

94 replies

MsGrumpytrousers · 07/01/2022 23:13

Just looking at the completely idiotic tweets Stonewall have made about the 'gay cake' case, where they've managed to completely misunderstand the implications.

"Today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights is a backwards step for equality. Human rights belong to people, not businesses.
No business should discriminate against their customers, and no discriminatory behaviour should be held up by equality law. Today’s decision leaves the door open for legal uncertainty across the UK and causes continued unease for our communities.
Our thoughts are with Gareth Lee [they know he hasn't DIED, right? He just had to walk to a different bakery to get his cake iced?], who deserved more support from the European Courts after seven years of working towards equality.
At Stonewall, we will continue to work with our partners, the TRPNI, to address the implications of this judgement for all lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer communities.

They've got about two hundred replies pointing out that the ruling isn't about refusing to serve a gay man, it's about refusing to ice a cake with a slogan that goes against your beliefs, and it's exactly the same as if Gareth was a baker and someone had asked him to ice a cake to say "Gay men are perverts".

So is it that Stonewall are stupid? They've done so much harm that I assumed they must be evil. Or are they just so misguided they can't think straight?

OP posts:
LondonWolf · 08/01/2022 13:44

@NecessaryScene

This is just the banality of evil though, isn't it? It's not that someone is sitting on a throne, cackling and stroking a cat evilly. It's just that a whole bunch of incentives pile up so that people go down the wrong path.

There's a famous phrase summing this dynamic up: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

(Apparently the original precise quote from Eric Hoffer was "Up to now, America has not been a good milieu for the rise of a mass movement. What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation.", which I think is even more on point.)

Colin Wright was expounding on the same theme on Twitter yesterday.

You must watch out for industries that begin for good reasons but have financial incentives to persist long past their expiration dates.

We are seeing this with many LGBT rights and antiracism orgs. They need homophobia, transphobia, and racism to exist, otherwise they wouldn't.

It's good to have organizations that stand up for human rights, but when financial incentives prevent an organization from acknowledging their own victories and success, we have a problem.

This doesn't just stall progress, but eventually actively reverses it.

There's a similar thing happening with COVID. COVID was & is a serious problem worth addressing, but COVID panic will outlast its expiration date because of the incentives for doing so.

I don't know the solution other than pointing out the phenomenon & staying vigilant about it.

Human rights organizations and institutions are structured in ways that assumes continuous growth, like any company. But this model is incompatible with human rights organizations because their mission is to destroy the justification for their continued existence.

And so the most successful and effective human rights organizations necessarily turn harmful when they're eventually forced to manufacture outrage for their continued existence.

Douglas Murray said similar in his book “The Madness Of Crowds”. I’d highly recommend that book. It brings a great deal of clarity to the current lunacy around these issues.
LondonWolf · 08/01/2022 13:34

Both and it’s all about shoring up their income stream.

GoodieMoomin · 08/01/2022 13:32

Spot on @Artichokeleaves. It's not really about sexuality or gender identity theory, it's about having the "right" set of political views. I'm reminded of an interview with Douglas Murray where he talks about people claiming that he isn't really gay because he disagrees with the so-called progressive orthodoxy. Apparently it's not enough that he's same sex attracted!

NotTerfNorCis · 08/01/2022 13:14

This was Belfast. Imagine if someone had requested a sectarian slogan on a cake. Would that have been okay?

Tanith · 08/01/2022 13:08

I'd say "infiltrated" and "destroyed from within".

LGB Alliance broke away just in time.

CompleteGinasaur · 08/01/2022 13:04

Someone (who is not a complete tech moron...!) ought to screenshot this thread and send it to the Foreign Office so they can see what they are really getting for their money..

Artichokeleaves · 08/01/2022 12:52

[quote Rainbowshit]@Artichokeleaves good point. I should have shortened it to TQ+. [/quote]
Not meaning to jump on you! It's an important point though, they do not represent LGB or TQ+ people, they represent a very specific political position. That is the unifying factor: the politics. They're not bothered if you're LGBTQ+ or straight so long as you are part of that political position.

LGB and TQ+ people who have any other views or do not conform, or challenge and say their experience of LGB and TQ+ is different? Are emphatically excluded. From LGBT+.

The honest and old position of LGB was that it represented a group of people of all ethnicities, faiths, politics, every other characteristic, and the sole unifying factor was sexuality.

They are still trading on that belief for political gain. They will tell you that they support all LGBT+ people. But they now exclusively represent the political position; not anyone of LGBT+ with any other view, and they have made LGBT+ mean a political view, not a group unified by anything else.

It is a serious deception, it misleads (intentionally) on the diversity of what LGBT+ people want and need in order to make political gains, and it excludes LGBT+ people from representation or having a voice or even being allowed to be bloody homosexual unless they obey the political ideology.

That they represent no one and nothing but Stonewall's political ambitions cannot be said enough.

CompleteGinasaur · 08/01/2022 12:12

@Artichokeleaves

The blindness of zealotry and zeal. Think scribes and pharisees. Shouting their purity and superiority of belief while actually.....

Bunch of Mr Murdstones.

I think this is mostly it, Artichoke, or what they cloak themselves in, any way. But one thing we don't always take into consideration, perhaps, is the role commercial ideology played in.. well, is corruption too strong a word for what has been done to Stonewall? One of the mantras from the greed is good nineties is just as pervasive now - "Management is a transferable skill". Stonewall was not ever supposed to be a commodifiable entity, but always having an eye, not just to keeping a campaigning organisation afloat, but to maximising its "Brand Identity" and monetising its ethical positions for the sake of the bottom line has turned it into a malevolent joke.
ScreamingMeMe · 08/01/2022 11:47

@CheeseMmmm

I'd go with neither.

It's about money.
They are avaricious.
They only care about keeping the cash rolling in.

Yep. Need to keep themselves relevant.
Rainbowshit · 08/01/2022 11:34

@Artichokeleaves good point. I should have shortened it to TQ+.

TheABC · 08/01/2022 11:32

I am going with corrupt.

They need to keep the headlines flowing and the money going. It's no longer about their user base, their founding principles or even morality. It's about justifying their jobs.

If/when Stonewall crumbles, most of these idiots will hop to other charities in the sector and start the whole merry-go-round again.

Helleofabore · 08/01/2022 11:26

I have asked a few times now and have got crickets everytime I ask.

To all those posters who tell us their lovely trans mates, or to trans posters themselves, wanting to find reasonable solutions that work for both women and trans people, just how many of these trans people tell Stonewall that they are not supporting their views. Only supporting and amplifying extreme view?

And how many have told Stonewall they have decided to find other charities to support instead who do listen and represent them?

I am curious to know. Because Stonewall assure us they fully represent the majority, yet we are constantly told the majority disagree with the interpretation of the policies they uphold.

Which is it? And who is telling Stonewall they are no longer representative…?

Or is this as some suspect, just a silencing tactic in itself.

Artichokeleaves · 08/01/2022 11:21

@Rainbowshit

Stonewall's approach seem to have become that they will back any LGBTQ+ person no matter what the issue or what the person has done. Rather than stopping to think about whether it is justified or not or whether there would be a negative effect on other categories of people. There's no nuance or critical thinking.

Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend. I posted in our WhatsApp chat that a certain misogynist was being misogynist on Twitter again. She responded with "is he not that gay leftie guy who got beaten up for being gay?"

And that was her whole argument. I posted several misogynistic articles he had written as proof. But no, she implied it was homophobic to think he is a misogynistic wanker because he's gay and because he was "on the left" so then he couldn't possibly just be a misogynist little wanker.

Everything seems to come down to tribes these days. Doesn't matter what someone does, support or not depends on what tribe they are in.

They emphatically will not back any LGBT+ people who wish to be homosexual, to know what sex is, and to have respect for female humans and their equality and rights.
Rainbowshit · 08/01/2022 11:16

Stonewall's approach seem to have become that they will back any LGBTQ+ person no matter what the issue or what the person has done. Rather than stopping to think about whether it is justified or not or whether there would be a negative effect on other categories of people. There's no nuance or critical thinking.

Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend. I posted in our WhatsApp chat that a certain misogynist was being misogynist on Twitter again. She responded with "is he not that gay leftie guy who got beaten up for being gay?"

And that was her whole argument. I posted several misogynistic articles he had written as proof. But no, she implied it was homophobic to think he is a misogynistic wanker because he's gay and because he was "on the left" so then he couldn't possibly just be a misogynist little wanker.

Everything seems to come down to tribes these days. Doesn't matter what someone does, support or not depends on what tribe they are in.

Goatsaregreat · 08/01/2022 11:05

All of the above.

Artichokeleaves · 08/01/2022 10:58

They are very intentionally trying to give the government and all the organisations with any power the impression that they speak on behalf of ALL LGBT+ people. As opposed to speaking only for one political extremist position of TQ+ politics and excluding all LGBT+ people who do not share those views. By giving this impression they are able to steer policy in the way of their political agenda. Which is flat out homophobic and gynephobic as well as misogynist.

This is why they are so frantically trying to get rid of the LGBA. Another political voice representing LGBT+ with a different message and sharing that Stonewall emphatically do not speak for all LGBT+ people is disastrous for Stonewall.

Pernicious. That word keeps coming to mind.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 08/01/2022 10:50

The really awful thing in all of this is that there are actually positive things they could do with their money for the trans community. They could fund support services for trans ppl, they could fund refuges, they could put money into third spaces but they don’t. There is good that they could go but they eschew that in favour of steam rolling over womens rights

rabbitwoman · 08/01/2022 10:26

Stonewall think they are the noble little hobbits, struggling against corruption to reach Mordor.

But really, they are Boromir.

Barbarantia · 08/01/2022 09:44

Stonewall had gone stupid.

Stonewall thinks a moral compass is an evil heterosexual tool.
So anything the moral compass points to must be evil.
They can't perceive nuance anymore because of hard stances.

Just plain stupid.

candycane222 · 08/01/2022 09:38

I think this may have allowed SW to become untethered?

candycane222 · 08/01/2022 09:37

Here's Maya Forstater on Stonewall's lack of grassrootedness. Randomly thinking of the contrast with say a nature organisation like RSPB that probably answers mainly to a contributing membership base of interested enthusiasts who like thinking about in this case birds and if yhey disagree, will say so or swap to a different organisation. But most of SWs contributors as it now operates, pay because they don't want to have to be bothered thinking about the issues SW deals with.

Stonewall – evil or stupid?
Artichokeleaves · 08/01/2022 09:33

The blindness of zealotry and zeal. Think scribes and pharisees. Shouting their purity and superiority of belief while actually.....

Bunch of Mr Murdstones.

Scraggythang · 08/01/2022 09:11

Colin Wright has hit the nail on the head, there.

delurkasaurus · 08/01/2022 09:04

IANAL. Something I have in common with whoever drafted SW's tweets on that case.

Findwen · 08/01/2022 08:57

I think you folks are being very unfair. Try to be a little more empathetic, Gareth Lee walked into a cake shop with the intention of causing trouble - but the evil cake shop were nothing but cruel in offering a range of alternatives for him, just not the one thing he knew they had a religious objection to.

The cake shop owners falling over themselves to find a mutually agreeable solution was clearly totally not in the spirit of what Gareth Lee wanted. I don't blame him for being so distressed he ran to the courts.

Stonewall is right here - people thought of as bigots MUST behave exactly as the comic book villains Stonewall & supporters sees them as.

Swipe left for the next trending thread