Stonewall: Lower the Temperature

Genuinely no idea, but its not the chair, and it's not the CEO. Nancy left last week ahead of her scheduled leaving date.

They appear to be a rudderless ship lacking any leadership, I guess that would allow special interest groups like the trans advisory group to have more power and influence than they should or pressure could be becoming from the outside.

It's gaslighting on acid.

Men forcing themselves into women only spaces, makes it risky for the men.

In the middle of that long screed, which includes the implication that transw are banned from sport, was this:

Although we dearly wish that no single-sex spaces wished to exclude trans women, trans men or non-binary people, we also recognise that, for the minority of spaces that want to, "it is probably not a particularly safe service for those trans people to access.*

So, he's lying to pretend that transw are in mortal danger from women. Many people will hear, or read that and believe it as fact.

"Can't go in? Don't want to, it'ssss dangerousssss! Narstee little wimminses!"

FFS!

No, but interesting to look at their profiles and see what they are up to, nontheless.

Who do you think is calling the shots?

I'm not sure 'who we are' is the same as who is calling the shots in stonewall

The Martin Pontin case is interesting, because under the ‘right to be forgotten’ rules it’s almost impossible to find anything about his offending that links to his new trans identity as Jessica. How very convenient for all those sex offenders when safeguarding procedures are being shot to pieces by all the special trans arrangements. Including those for criminal records disclosure and barring. 🙄

Writing that list I just thought how pronounced the difference is

Woman state you can’t change sex, and say no to not having single sex spaces

We get mangled language and violence back

Plain English and biological facts v 1984 style language and violence

I do think that trans ideology is the end point of a certain branch of feminism - where sexed differences are entirely socially constructed - and whose version of female liberation is to behave, and do, exactly as men do.

Unfortunately there are very many women promoting this ideological stance too - which is how they manage to suggest that anyone who disagrees and pushes back is just a fringe lunatic and exrtemist - out of touch with what most women think.

All of this stuff is just to stop women speaking

Whether it’s lower the temperature, no one is talking about it, moral panic, culture war, bigot, dinosaur, decapitate them, or a punch in the face

It’s just dialling the approach up and down but it’s the same thing. Men trying to silence women.

Plus some women go for it too, but mostly men in power welding that

So basically when Labour get in, they will railroad everyone claiming it's consensus and ignore all concerns from women and other minorities.

At least we know where we stand: men decide what a woman is.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are

That is what Kier Starmer's " We need to build a consensus" amounts to as well.

This is the part that Sunak is going to have to find the guts to face.

There is no point whatsoever in making law, if you as law makers are permitting a tinpot group of extremists to run the country via direct pressure, incentives, misinformation and marketing, and to ignore and subvert your laws. If that's what you're going to permit happen then really what's the point of the HoC and paying all those MPs?

Maya Forstater is asking the questions as to where the power in Stonewall really lies as the statement that they released moved them firmly back to the 'no debate' position

And it's an excellent question. Who is pulling the strings, it's not the chair, the chief exec has gone, so who is making decisions and setting direction?

Also why do companies and gvt departments still take advice from stonewall, they are a mullion miles away from the organisation they once were.

These are good points. Are they advertising the CEO position? Couldn't see it on their web page. That's a key role, surely it can't be left empty.

It's obvious that Iain Anderson's speech was not received well within Stonewall. Maya Forstater is asking the questions as to where the power in Stonewall really lies as the statement that they released moved them firmly back to the 'no debate' position:

Where does @iainwanderson go from here?
Who is it that is making decisions at Stonewall, if the chair of Trustees can be yanked back into line?
The Board has a duty to act in the charity's best interests.
There appears to be a strong difference between what the chair thinks that is -- offering an olive branch of dialogue to other organisations and what the actual decision makers think it is (Stonewalling them).
Who are the actual decision makers at Stonewall?
Who is calling the shots to publicly humiliate its Chair of trustees?

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1682656878960975872?s=20

I would tweak that slightly…

I took it to mean, we used to advocate for the removal of single sex exceptions from the equality act and then deny that we’d ever done that but now that a journalist has done some research and pointed out the truth on camera in a live interview we’ve had to ditch those denials and retro-fit a post-hoc justification for our previous campaign and the new position which we are publicly claiming to hold , we’ll no doubt go back to the original campaign goal when we consider it expedient to do so but in the meantime we can live without a change to the law because we've successfully convinced all organisations and government departments to misapply the exceptions they're basically meaningless now anyway so they might as well stay in the act for the time being.

Their position is that male inclusion is the default for women’s single-sex services. The GC position has to be that male exclusion is the default (how can they be ‘women’s spaces’ otherwise??). This is the struggle.

It is really important to say that we do not advocate for the removal of the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. When the Equality Act wasfirst introduced, Stonewall did. - what does this even mean - there is a pre Stonewall Stonewall that isn't anything to do with today's Stonewall?

I took it to mean, we used to advocate for the removal of single sex exceptions from the equality act but now that we've successfully convinced all organisations and government departments to misapply the exceptions they're basically meaningless now anyway so they might as well stay in the act.

So it's ok to do insidious quiet education to destroy 'wrongthink' because that can't be looked at via a FOI request at a school.

But if you stand and make a fuss about wanting to know what's going on and having full transparency over this training and education because you have concerns about its contents and impact on other groups, that megaphone diplomacy?

Have I got that right?

Sounds a lot like 'no debate' revamped with better PR to me.

Good god just read that Stonewall statement and it’s just awful and gaslightingly disingenuous - every paragraph. Also the DARVO- some places which would wish to exclude transwomen are ‘not particularly safe’ for trans people. What are they on about?!

Single-sex exemptions

The Equality Act 2010 already supports the operation of single-sex services, where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It also permits the exclusion of trans people from those single-sex services where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This means that trans inclusion is the universal practice in day–to–day single-sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, but trans inclusion is not a universal practice in single-sex specialist services.

As Beth Rigby pointed out, in 2015, we recommended for the removal of these clauses in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry based on consultation with trans people at the time.

It is really important to say that we do not advocate for the removal of the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. When the Equality Act was first introduced, Stonewall did. That was because we were worried that they would be applied in a blanket way and would be used to wholesale exclude trans women from many single-sex spaces. We know that that has not been the case.

The bar set in the Equality Act, which is that trans women and trans men—although it is mostly used around trans women—access to women’s spaces should only be restricted as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, is very high. There has to be a very specific set of reasons to exclude trans women from single-sex spaces. Although we dearly wish that no single-sex spaces wished to exclude trans women, trans men or non-binary people, we also recognise that, for the minority of spaces that want to, it is probably not a particularly safe service for those trans people to access.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-affirms-trans-equality-policy-positions

(Just posting the actual link to the statement as it is easier for later reference to have that than text lost somewhere in a thread)

It is really important to say that we do not advocate for the removal of the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. When the Equality Act was first introduced, Stonewall did. - what does this even mean - there is a pre Stonewall Stonewall that isn't anything to do with today's Stonewall?

Stonewall believes trans people’s rights should be fully respected and it is past time that conversations around the trans people’s lives should be used as a political tool. Instead, we’re calling for political leaders to develop a meaningful strategy for trans equality that ensures trans people are properly supported, included and able to participate fully in society.

They already can, you lying sacks of shit.