Stonewall: Lower the Temperature

The thing is, that might have worked a decade ago by shutting up, keeping very quiet and keeping it to the original group that held GRCs. It was not right or good for women, but it kind of bumbled along.

At this point, with rapists in the paper having abused women while identifying into women's spaces, women raped in prisons and on hospital wards, men trying to use the police to force entry to a women's rape group being held privately in a woman's home, ejecting lesbians from pride, storming into women's facilities and behaving inappropriately and standing screaming through megaphones at crowds about hit the women who dare to say this isn't ok?

Yeah, way too late. That ship has sailed. This is the distress of the original transsexual people who enjoyed the quiet privilege over women and its benefits; it isn't quiet any more, the good will is gone, it won't be coming back. Men broke this, not women. The GRA WAS a compromise made for women without consulting or considering women: the middle ground at this point is third spaces. There's no putting the active demand to destroy women's sex based rights and resources and equality back under the carpet.

Ooh, just spotted this up thread.

Meanwhile, Stonewall appears to have softened its stance on the divisive issue of single-sex spaces, with Mr Anderson telling Beth Rigby that he supports exemptions in law that can be used to exclude transgender people from women's prisons and toilets.
^^
Mr Anderson said: "There are protections that are in place. Those protections were put in place for a very, very good reason.
^^
"I do support these protections, absolutely. The question is, do we need to look at the legislation that's currently in place? Does it work? I think it does work."

So Stonewall are starting to worry that their allegiance with the child sex-change lobby organisation, Mermaids, together with Press for Change’s success at getting rapists housed in the female prison estate, might have drawn too much attention to the massive flaws in the existing legislative framework and the way it has been mis-represented and mis-implemented across society at the behest of Stonewall, and now Stonewall are focusing on not losing the progress they have made to date in forcing through their male sexual entitlement activism? Well, that’s interesting.

When people resort to the " It's complex/complicated" trope - we need to respond by asking "in what way is it complicated".

Yes, it’s a tactic.

Same as “shrill arguments”, “toxic on both sides”, and “complex issue”.

Yeah, because which sex does the impregnating and which sex does the being impregnated is just so complex.

Friction is an everyday force that is created by two surfaces interacting. When these surfaces slide against each other, this interaction increases the thermal energy of the two surfaces (the temperature goes up).

Friction ( read conflict) is what creates heat.

If there is a conflict the temperature is going to rise, inevitably. That doesn't precude being reasonable and using logic, though.

I used to teach communication skills at one point and I used to use the nice/nasty triangle. In all relationships, try a lot of nice first, if that doesn't work , and you believe you are in the right, you can be more direct, even using legal routes. However, some people choose nasty first, and a lot of it. If you do this you won't be able to resort to nice, because:

People don't believe you are acting in good faith
You've raised the temperature too much
There is no trust
Your habitual communication is not cooperative
And if you have to resort to legal routes, you will seem unreasonable, which is a thing in the law.

It's a teacher, prison guard or partner screaming in your face and then saying, "let's be kind". You're just waiting for the abuse to start again.

I'd love to see a 'low temperature' web chat on here.

Or this from June 2019?

fovas.wordpress.com/response-to-stonewall-2/

He comes off as saying, "we all know they aren't really but it's a legal fiction".

This was the social consensus before about 2015. ‘We’ll pretend that a small number of people are the opposite sex to help them be productive members of society and flourish, except for some circumstances in which the pretence endangers social peace.’ What exactly those circumstances were was by and large clear, it wasn’t entirely fair to women but perhaps just about acceptable. To go back to that consensus without an acknowledgment of the harm, hurt and degradation inflicted on individuals and women as a group since then is just not going to be possible, I think.

IA does not seem to be a friend of women, so it would be advisable to do exactly the opposite of what he suggests.

’How could you let women down like this, David Lammy/Keir Starmer/Anneliese Dodds/Lisa Nandy/Dawn Butler/Lloyd Russell-Moyle/Zahra Sultana/Nadia Whittome/Ed Davey/Layla Moran …?’

We can lower the temperature when men get out of all women's spaces. Until then, asking to lower the temperature just means 'women! Accept your subjugation!'

This. What are you offering, Iain? What is the trans lobby going to concede? Then we can talk.

Agree with every word.

@PurpleWhiteandGreen
There are ambiguities in the act. What does "gender reassignment" mean?
The word sex has been trampled on so badly that it too needs clarification, but any clarification will similarly attacked in an attempt to muddy the waters. Replacing it with biological sex, will inevitably face arguments like :
I have breasts now, so that makes me biologically female, "clownfish", etc......

That it is easier to claim a gender swap than a sex swap does not mean that gender swap will be enough. We've already seen examples of "I'm female now", and "I'm a better woman than women". The end goal is women unconditionally accept the control of these men and validate them relentlessly. Slavery.

When he says he wants to build on it, he means he's happy with the ambiguities, they are a great way to corrupt the meaning and language. Clarification is the last thing he wants.

Another point that he kept repeating was about the Equalities Act: "let's build on that". I wished she had drilled him on how he intended to "build on that", what he meant by it exactly because I can guarantee that it would be more trampling of women's rights.

@Needmoresleep
Labour in the meantime are realising that their policy does not command public support. Their main concern in the lead up to the GE is not that people will vote Conservative, but that people will not turn out to vote Labour. And this is the sort of issue which could deter people from making the effort.

I think you are right on this. I think a lot of people looking at whats on offer don't want any of it. I'm expecting a record all time low turnout at the next election if it were to be held tomorrow. Labour are high in the polls, but as this gender bollocks become ever more exposed more people are going to WTF out of voting.
The gender stuff as nutty as it is also seems to be giving birth to ever more stupid offspring too, e.g. wanting healthy babies without birth defects = bad. There is no idea too horrific or insane under this ideology.

I wonder what the dynamic is. Anderson very publicly switches from the Tories to Labour, presumably because terfs within the Tories were starting to influence Conservative policy and Stonewall influence was fading. (Thank you Conservatives for Women.)

Labour in the meantime are realising that their policy does not command public support. Their main concern in the lead up to the GE is not that people will vote Conservative, but that people will not turn out to vote Labour. And this is the sort of issue which could deter people from making the effort. Labour need Stonewall to row back a bit, and Anderson can't afford not to comply?

Which then potentially gives Stonewall its own problem. All those activists, including those on the transgender advisory group (the group that Aimee Challoner once vice-chaired) will protest if they weaken their stance. But their lobbying targets across politics and the corporate world will stop listening if they continue their overreach and make life too uncomfortable.

TD:LR bring out the popcorn.

At best we have around 18 months to make Starmer and Labour realise this will never stop making them look stupid and spineless even if it doesn't stop them forming a government.

And if they get in, prepare to create a women's movement and a temperature on this debate that makes the current one look like mid bloody winter.

Does anyone remember the Open letter from 2018 when a number of people (including the founders of LGB alliance) wrote to Stonewall setting out their concerns about a clash with women's rights. They got an extremely pissy reply from Stonewall denying there was any clash of rights and a refusal to discuss further. It was in response to this that LBG Alliance was founded.
The Chair of Stonewall acknowledged that there was a clash of rights, I wish this letter had been brought up and he could of been asked if he disagreed with Stonewall's stance now. No debate only ever came from one side.

Boiledbeetle · Today 10:29

I hadn't seen that, but it's so obvious, isn't it?

" lower the temperature " ???

Absolutely not! Pour more petrol on it and burn it to the ground, i say!
No quarter should be given, nor one single inch of ground be ceded! NO, NO, NO!

And as for the labour party, if they ( keir and the NEC ) were serious about upholding womens rights and safeguarding children, they wouldn't have let the 25 year old, Oxbridge grad, also called Keir, stand for election in one of yesterdays 3 by - elections, who from what i gather, has now been elected and amounts to another twaw voice on the labour benches!

They all are

Anyone who would prefer women to stop talking about this is

I also think OvaHere nails it. The GRA was Labour legislation, after all. They own it. I would really like to know what Keir Starmer thinks about the Martin Ponting situation. Or is it just too gauche to talk about it?

I wonder when this was filmed. Was it before Nancy Kelly left, and if so, was it the pressure to comment on Kelly’s Nazi take that prompted her jump or push.

Gosh you're right @OvaHere. Which is worrying because the tras frothing on Twitter and or others laughing is essentially people glossing over the fact this man has a degree of influence and power. I feel pretty chilled having read your post. Starmer is betraying women, just almost softly and passively and in a way that's a bit invisible to most.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall-strategy-free-to-be