Stoneewall accused of dictating LGBT event

For goodness' sake stop posting the same comment on every thread, MrsHandMum!

I'm putting together a letter to my MP now. We must try to get this conference cancelled - there is still time. A load of backbench MPs asking WHY the gvmt is paying Stonewall for this daft conference should do it.

Why can't they have a Women's Safety Conference instead? They could call it 'Safe to be Women'.

Why are they holding this conference at all? Especially in the wake of the Cass report.

I could do with some suggestions for content of my letter, so any help would be much appreciated. Perhaps we can put together a template for general use??

I HATE that I'm worried about Labour winning. Hate it.

I know. I'm the same and it really upsets me.

It's not on for the government to palm this off to SW and the Kaleidoscope mob. There has to be accountability and someone needs to be responsible for it.

Kaleidoscope have taken an interest in CEDAW:

mobile.twitter.com/Kaleidoscope_T/status/1506013724745818115

And they retweeted this:

mobile.twitter.com/LadyLawzarus/status/1506597176541020161?cxt=HHwWgoCs9cqJwegpAAAA

"Looking forward to this tomorrow!

Come join me and some fantastic colleagues and friends from
@Kaleidoscope_T
to figure out how we can use #CEDAW to advance SOGIESC rights, and create rights-affirming change within the human rights ecosystem for queer communities."

SOGIESC = sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics, IIRC.

This feels like forced teaming. Use of CEDAW for the Q smacks of a Trojan horse. The more there is to see, the more it raises 🚩

re Stonewall and TRAs working with GC's... it was momentus when the TRA's were sat next to GC feminists at the Middle Temple LGBTQ+ Forum Inaugural Annual Dinner in November.
twitter.com/MForstater/status/1460675198278062082

It took a neutral body to stand up to the TRA's. Could the government do this?

I HATE that I'm worried about Labour winning. Hate it.

Agree it should not be cancelled but if it could be made inclusive.. what Stonewall don't realise is that if they asked LGBA to join them and help make it more inclusive then their own survival would be more assured.

Like the GOSH event, it perhaps shouldn't be cancelled. But it should be inclusive and it should reflect UK legislation, and not the repressive dogma of extremist agendas.

Da Costa now has a column in Conservative Home (not sure if weekly or monthly). It may be that she could address all these issues there.

If MP’s get letters from LGB constituents asking for the conference to be cancelled, they’d be able to raise it wouldn’t they?

The original Whistleblower was Nikki da Costa, who stood down as Johnson’s director of legislative affairs in August.

Related:

Boris Johnson’s senior advisers are ‘letting Stonewall dictate trans policies’
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4400323-Boris-Johnson-s-senior-advisers-are-letting-Stonewall-dictate-trans-policies?msgid=112455715#112455715

Boris Johnson warned of 'ludicrous contradiction' - Stonewall
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4401172-Boris-Johnson-warned-of-ludicrous-contradiction-Stonewall-TRA-advisors-Rushed-conversion-therapy-bill?msgid=112477166#112477166

Gary Powell: Why Conservative backbench MPs should demand that Boris Johnson cancel the “Safe To Be Me” international LGBT conference
lesbianandgaynews.com/2022/02/gary-powell-why-conservative-backbench-mps-should-demand-that-boris-johnson-cancel-the-safe-to-be-me-international-lgbt-conference/

That LGBA link is informative and concerning. It'll be interesting to see if LGBA and/or any other groups make more formal representations about how this conference is being convened and governed.

Resister yes red flags indeed. The 'experts' organising the Safe To Be Me conference including the Equal Rights Coalition, aim to get Argentinian style gender identity into the national laws and policies of 42 countries.

lgballiance.org.uk/2021/11/14/un-expert-endangers-lgb-rights/

Thanks for making the link with the older thread, DERF. It's certainly worrying. From the other thread's OP, there's this in particular:

"To make these a reality, “States must uphold rights related to gender and sexuality as universal and inalienable, and ensure recognition of the right to bodily and mental integrity, autonomy and self-determination of everyone,” said Madrigal-Borloz.

[This includes a demand for recognition of sexual rights for everyone. The report does not distinguish between children and adults and the special protections children are placed under by UN law, especially in regard to sexual exploitation and abuse.]"

"Everyone" includes "children"

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

Well it is, yes. The UN is very much for gender ideology. Bearing in mind that we left the EU, so risked being politically isolated in Europe, then (I'd argue) the Johnson govt misread the room in terms of any potential alliance with a Biden administration that is much more left-wing and in favour of GI than anyone thought it was going to be, I don't think the Tories are doing too badly in countering some of the harmful stuff.

They need to do much more, but doing it in line with other countries as people become more aware of the implications and the whole thing unravels has to be the better bet.

"a Government Equalities Office official replied by pointing out that Stonewall was the civil society co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition, a global partnership currently held between the UK and Argentina, which is organising the conference."

very telling. it's worse than just organising a conference.... see here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4282385-UN-Report-erases-female-people-as-a-distinct-group

Former no10 SPAD(?) has commented:

"Govt pays £m and assigns 19 staff to conference where someone else decide who attends. Even though this organisation wants to nullify Equalities watchdog & thinks lesbians should be re-educated to like a penis on their women. Nuts.
🚩Plain and simple - if a lobbying organisation wants to nullify the @EHRC and stop it having a voice on the UN because the equalities watchdog dared to balance rights, then that organisation is not a good part of civil society. There is nothing it will not destroy to “win” 🚩"

mobile.twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1507844459412832265

But (frankly) I can't see them back in the fold of respect and democratic values. They are clearly extremists.

I think they'll behave themselves much better than they have been doing. They recognise they're losing the war now.

This is an important discussion. I'm hoping that tabbycatstripy is right. Despite Stonewall's calamitous behaviour, they used to have a brilliant reputation. To abandon them would involve the UK in a tedious international slanging match.
How on earth this conference will play out heaven only knows. But with their excessive anti women/lesbian ideology and catastrophic approach to child safeguarding, it's likely that some of their regressive beliefs will be exposed. OR they'll behave like grown ups.
My money is on the former but I'd like to be proved wrong. Those of us who used to support Stonewall, attend their events and use some of their once great resources with children in schools would like to see them back in the democratic fold of mutual respect and democratic values.

Thinking about it again, coverage of the conference may be difficult for the government.

It seems unlikely that it will be so carefully managed that what's discussed, is so clear that its free of confusion. "LGBT conversion therapy" is one such area. The LGB element is clear enough, with the proviso that it's rooted in some form of same-sex or bisexual "cure". "Sex" being the operative word.

But discussions on "gender identity" - including about "gender identity conversion therapy" are likely to be unclear. They're also likely to lack evidence.

Given the lobby groups' near-exclusive focus on "young people" (ie children), it seems a safe bet that political and biased "recommendations" about what should be taught in school will be another lobbying area in this event.

Basically the areas which are currently a cash cow, may well be the ones on the agenda. They seem not likely to be uncontroversial because as is well-rehearsed by now, such areas might well be loaded with emotional statements along with a dearth of evidence.

It's hard to imagine that this will pass without event for the government.

"i think most people in this room know the people who are self-appointed experts are not experts at all they are activists with a very specific agenda and if you leave it to these people to make decisions you do not end up with evidence based policy making and you go down a path which in some cases is extremely dangerous that is what we're here to discuss today now""
Bev Jackson co-founder LGB Alliance

'I acknowledge why you and others have adopted the rhetoric that supporting women's legal rights is anti those of other people through forced teaming. That has been one of the most striking successes for Denton's strategy.'

I don't know what you mean by this. I don't think supporting women's legal rights is anti those of other people at all.

there was a thread sometime ago related to this. A whistleblower from No.10 shed sunlight on the 'lgbt' advisors ideological agenda and this conference. also related to the so called 'conversion therapy' bill which they wanted to announce at the conference under the 'safe to be me' tagline

They should. But if the conference lets a certain group of people keep their slogans while the work gets done elsewhere, I can live with it.