Stonewall: Lower the Temperature

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/people/iain-anderson

A new approach, but nothing new to see. Rather than using a "megaphone" as they have before, Stonewall have now decided that is not working for them, and now they need to appear 'reasonable'.

Anderson says what he is interested in is "trans rights" and " my community". He's keen to emphasise changing the language and the specific words that are used - but the intent is just the same. Evasive and dishonest.

He's rather yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, isn't he:

This was doing the rounds straight after the interview last night 😁

He's rather yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, isn't he:

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, whilst he is admitting that such exemptions are necessary, he's actually arguing against them, by saying that the current "GRC? Access All Areas" situation is just fine, when we all know it's pretty bloomin' far from fine.

The worst type of abuse and most people are enabling it.

I think it's important that we remember that Iain's position here (incoherent as it is) is very likely him putting forwards Labour's position going into the next GE, which they currently are likely to win.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12304879/With-Keir-Starmer-unable-define-woman-no-wonder-Stonewall-targeting-Labour.html

Last month, former journalist Iain Anderson and Stonewall chief executive Nancy Kelley met with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and a group of LGBTQ+ business leaders.
Nine days prior, Anderson had been photographed alongside other senior Labour figures: a beaming Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader; and an equally cheerful Anneliese Dodds, the party's Shadow Equalities Secretary.
'Great to host @UKLabour deputy leader @AngelaRayner + Shadow Equalities Secretary @AnnelieseDodds today for a @stonewalluk breakfast with business leaders who want the UK to be world leading on #LGBTQ at work,' ran Anderson's effusive caption on Twitter.

There's a reason Iain went ahead with this prime Sky News interview and I believe it was to kick start the 'new' Stonewall and Labour partnership to convince us all to 'calm down' and 'nothing to see here'. Which is how Labour want to play it going forward.

I know a few here think all this will stop Labour getting into power but I don't think it will. 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.

Beth Rigby made a really good start on holding their feet to the fire and hopefully journalists with integrity will continue to do so if they turn out to be the incoming government.

It's a bit of a terrifying prospect having a party very wedded to all this in power but at the same time no longer being opposition makes them much more accountable and we all watched what a mess the SNP made of it.

I think (hope?) that if Labour form the next government more journalists will remember what their job is and take the Rigby approach to scrutiny.

No more deflecting to Tories bad. If Starmer becomes PM this does all become his problem.

Given how central "no debate", cancelling people for wrong think, the threats, intimidation, and violence, the results it's had on society e.g. banks deciding to close people's accounts for political reasons. All the very dirtiest tactics, the ends justifying any means, no line they wouldn't cross. After all that they can go fuck themselves. They chose scorched earth, and not as a last resort, as a first resort.
Now they are clearly losing they want to sit down and lower the temperature? Nope, get fucked, scorched earth it is. Not until Stonewall and Mermaids no longer exist as anything other than an embarassing historical monument to the hubris of quasi-religious ignorance, a warning from history to future generations of useful idiots.
We are at the bunker memes stage, there's the metaphorical pistol in front of you, have the guts to do the decent thing.

''megaphone politics''

''A narcissist will always seek to control and manipulate you so that they can meet their own needs by using various weird and insidious manipulation techniques. They will cause chaos to keep you focused on them as they know they cannot sustain your interest for long because their mask will eventually fall off. They will try to distort your reality so that you cannot see them for who they are as you keep supplying their selfish needs. One of the techniques a narcissist will use is called baiting.''

https://toxicrelationships.medium.com/narcissistic-baiting-8-types-of-narcissistic-baiting-and-how-to-deal-with-it-e763038a7038?source=topics_v2---------5-84--------------------63481bea_fbb5_4ce6_971b_00f66c7219fe-------17#:~:text=A%20narcissist%20will%20also%20bait%20you%20by%20exploiting%20your%20insecurities,that%20they%20can%20manipulate%20you.

‘Lowering the temperature’ is not quite the same as ‘building trust’, is it?

When you try to build trust with someone, you usually give them something, a token of your good faith. What will it be?

Misogynistic weasel.

I attended Stonewall allyship workshop at my university (northern redbrick) a couple of weeks ago, to see what was being said, and it all seemed very toned down compared to the polemics of the past. They're clearly covering their arses.

'Lower the temperature' just means women be quiet and stop making it awkward for us whilst we fuck you over.

Quite. And I don't think he realises how deluded he is. I imagine he thought that Nancy Kelly was fucking this up, and now he, behold, a man, can adroitly sort it all out.

Mr Anderson, women have absolutely no intention of lowering the temperature. In fact we'll continue turning it up to white hot until men fuck off out of our spaces.

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!'

What an arse! There's no point in saying 'let's talk' and then refusing to answer this simple question.

'Lower the temperature' just means women be quiet and stop making it awkward for us whilst we fuck you over.

This is why the Denton's document existed, why no debate existed and so on. They wanted to do all this with under the radar, shady backroom deals so that it was all over for women and girls before we even knew it began.

They've managed to do this effectively in a number of other countries but here we caught on to their game.

So no I don't think we should lower the temperature. We need to keep up the pressure, not just for ourselves but for all the women and girls living in the countries where it was a done deal before any of them knew a deal was on the table.

Ffs, what a bloody cheek! LGBA only exists at all because Stonewall wouldn't talk to them!

The interview kind of made it sound like he was saying "well, Nancy wouldn't let me talk to them, but she's gone now, so.."

Agreed @Froodwithatowel

It's up to the women to 'lower the temperature'. I hate it when anyone comes with problems and no solutions. It's basically just moaning 'it's so hard'. Sort it out then!

It's their mess now, it's not women's job and no we won't shut up and put up with it. They have been warned time and time again, the refuse to meet with anyone of even reply to letters. This is not how a respectable charity behaves or engages with a hot topic issue which impact the public.

It is Stonewall who have caused this, all of this. They should be begging for us to listen not blaming us for the 'heat' and going on about temperatures.

You want it cooler. Go get so fucking ice.

I'm so tired of this.

Ffs, what a bloody cheek! LGBA only exists at all because Stonewall wouldn't talk to them!

Here's Bev on Julain Vigo's podcast. She is righteously angry, and I don't blame her one bit.

Minds] Bev Jackson #savageMinds podcastaddict.com/savage-minds/episode/160713443 via @PodcastAddict podcastaddict.com/savage-minds/episode/160713443

Yes, it's like the "we all know what a woman is comment" - Stonewall is back to trying to be all things to all people, like it was before it took a stance on trans inclusion. It used to issue all these woolly non-committal statements on trans rights when pushed back then too.

Anyone thinking of the legal definition of rape will see him as having clearly said Bryson is male, where anyone wanting to distance Bryson from other trans people will read the same comment as, like you say, pertaining to a third sex whereby transness is irrelevant.

I agree that it is absolutely is an abusive relationship the people saying this demand.

it is always, let’s talk. Meaning you talk, then we will tell you what is what, you can talk some more, without getting upset, and we will restate what is what. And so it goes around.

Where 'lower the temperature' still means in effect 'everybody else stop minding and complaining about our impact on you'.

Everything is always everybody else's fault and responsibility, and it is always a demand for service. Never a reciprocal relationship. It is in fact an abusive relationship.

If a straight man gave an interview like that and talked like this about women:

twitter.com/skynews/status/1682129976185741312?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

He'd be called the sexist he is.

What's more, Transgender Trend are bang on when they say:

"Not to be missed interview with the Chair of Stonewall. Unable to coherently defend or clarify his organisation's position on anything, he was lucky to escape being asked about children."

twitter.com/transgendertrd/status/1682166135414726656?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

The damage they've fuelled in schools and clubs like the Brownies is immense.

Bit late to finally catch on that they're losing their audience ratings.

Men with GRCs still exclude women from women's spaces where those women due to their needs and diversity cannot use mixed sex spaces - men's inclusion isn't more important than women's, either inclusion matters or it doesn't. If it's ok to just bump women out of anything so men get their comfortable happy choices then it's male supremacism, not inclusion. Let's be honest about this and discuss whether as a society we agree that women are a subclass with less rights than men and we're all ok with this.

Women have freedom of belief: not all women perceive men with GRCs as women, and are entitled to single sex spaces. Women who do share this belief are welcome to go and use mixed sex spaces, good for them, but they don't get to remove rights and facilities from other women on the basis of belief.

Having raped or worse is no barrier to getting a GRC, and any chancer can get one and then harass and harm women at will in women's spaces.

No one can ask to see a GRC or check, women's spaces mostly aren't gatekept, so in reality if any man can walk in under any pretext then all men can and must be assumed by the act of walking in that they are declaring themselves as having a GRC. (As some women are forced to walk out and cede all access, and the other women start hoping that the man does not decide to harass or hurt them today - it's in his gift, it's his decision, not theirs.)

Making it men with GRCs only still does not work for women. Third spaces would by providing access for all, and would need to come with heavy pressure from all parts of society that men have to respect women's equality of access needs and make it clear that only an unfashionable bastard would not do so or exclude women, and that society will shun and be disgusted by men who treat women in this way. Get cracking Stonewall. Some nice shiny posters and school campaigns and employer courses and gold stars will do it easily.

Stonewall July 2023 -"Lower the temperature"

Labour (Lisa Nandy in particular) from 2023: "We need less heat and more light"

What are they doing to work towards anything resembling a balanced conversation?

Do something then, if it's that important to you.