New chair of Stonewall Iain Anderson says he wants “less shouting” in the debate around LGBT rights

I have always thought this.
In a debate people start with their best arguments first, and weaker arguments follow. If someone starts with nothing, they have nothing. No debate = no reasoning behind our beliefs.

We know they don't represent anyone other than straight people, but what a detailed explanation! Well done.

They don't

"stonewall lost the debate it was too scared to have"

Wow

So antelope, can you help me out here please? I am a member of Stonewall via their corporate membership schemes they sell. 90 percent of us are straight. We have the data. So how the fuck is Stonewall representing anyone other than straight people when the majority of their membership are straight?

Do explain.

Jo Bartosch in The Critic:

thecritic.co.uk/against-a-stone-wall/

Jo Cherry has tweeted following his tweet:

twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1587348878432636971?s=46&t=98yg3EanSj23y2H5WbHcLg

@AlisonDonut thank you, that was very clear even to a brain fogged person like myself

So, when did you become the judge & jury who declares the sexuality of every member?

How do you know that all the people you are calling straight are not B people who are currently in opposite sex relationships or even those who have not yet come out of the closet?

Even if there are 'straight' people supporting LGB people, why is that a problem?
Who says they are the ones who are the voices of the LGBA?
Who says the rest of the membership doesn't agree with whoever speaks for them?

Why don't you insist on digging down into places like Stonewall, who come out with appalling rubbish regularly but are never questioned when they say they speak for T people, & who also insist they speak for LGB people even when LGB people object & say Stonewall doesn't speak for them?

I know plenty of LGB people, none of them believe Stonewall speaks for them, so why does Stonewall get to announce they are the voice of people who actively reject them?

Most T people appear to be straight.
They are attracted to the opposite sex.
What are they doing in a group who say they speak for those who are same sex attracted?

What he means here, is he wants the funding that suport pretty much everyone, from L, G, B people, to T people, to I people, to 'non-binary' people, and anyone who is not gender conforming. ie pretty much anyone. He wants to be funded to do what he wants for a random indefinable numebr of people and as such, for the governments to just hand over money for nothing. And he will line his pockets pretending to be a 'big tent' organisation.

With the money Stonewall have already had, they could have opened numerous refuges or shelters or paid for extra changing rooms, partnered with loads of organisations to improve actual facilities. What they did do is just take them all from women.

As there is no actual membership that would be quite difficult.

79% of their supporters are L, G or indeed B.

As a straight person, I am allowed to support L, G and B people, aren't I?

Without your permission?

Anyway yes I’m sure the new Chair of stonewall would like to go back to quiet off the record chats in the bars of the Houses of Parliament or Whitehall or portcullis house where annoying people with opposing views are kept out. Isn’t going to happen though!

Sigh

This sort of thinking could kinda fuck up the dogs trust and well...any charity, really

excellent point

"I want to stop debating people's lives."

Hmm. Isn't that what politics is about? Debating people's lives. Its not just something that happens to be on this topic. This is about how people live together in a society. In a democratic society we have political discourse to constantly talk about our lives and how we interract.

I thought we had passed 'no debate' as a concept some years ago, because it was draconian authoritarian bullshit in a democratic society.

Trying to reframe that idea and resurrect it as a serious position for Stonewall at a moment where Mermaids and Stonewall are under scrutiny for behaviour which puts vulnerable people at risk and discriminates against them, is one hell of a ballsy move.

Its also unsustainable claptrap of the highest order.

More sunlight please. Can we expose the dictatoral gambit that Stonewall made to erase women from society put them at risk and expose LGB people, particularly children, to convertion medicialisation please?

If the men's role was to amplify the voices of women and not to set the agenda in any way shape or form, then yes.

If they were simply members who supported the aims of the charity then why is it a problem?

If the men were engaged in devising influencing policies against the aims of the charity then thats an issue.

@ResisterRex You are not the thread police.
I have already thanked another poster for clarifying the situation.

@antelopevalley if you want a thread about whether the LGBA is a membership organisation or is for straight people or whatever your agenda is, please make another thread.

This thread is about the new Chair of Stonewall saying he wants conversations off Twitter.

All charities. Would you think a woman's charity was valid if most of its members were men?

Does that apply equally to all charities or just LGB ones?

Thanks for that. Okay much better than they said in the court case.