Stonewall: Lower the Temperature

Just adding the two discussions together as both are important.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4853818-beth-rigby-interviews-iain-anderson?page=1

I think the whole ‘lower the temperature’ has been shown to be just a tactic. This bloke has no intention at all in answering honestly. But that is what he means by lowering the temperature. Exactly what Starmer means by lowering the temperature. Starmer means ‘let’s have a discussion that seems reasonable but where I just keep circling around that legally these males are women and ‘safe spaces’ are well and justified, while ignoring the fact no one can trust a word he just uttered. All because he made it sound reasonable while totaling fucking up a basic premise of women’s established rights.

That is what these politicians mean. Take the ‘heat’ out while we tell you what is going to happen, don’t you get upset. Oh… and we will lie while we are at it and make women’s opposition seem to be symmetrical with threats, intimidate and violence of those extremists on the trans side of the argument so that it shames women and shuts them up.

Those noisy, demanding women…. Who we can’t define in public….

So in other words " we are more likely to get iur unreasonable demands in if we are quiet and appear reasonable "

The issue isn't whats being asked so much as how its being asked? A bit of rephrasing and a few crumbs that indicate he can see an issue and we are stupid enough to think its going to be ok?

I dont think so

He was incoherent, waffly & incapable of answering any of her very clear questions.
It was an embarrassment of an interview - but not surprising given that there's no intellectual arguments that justify how men can become women.

As if LGB Alliance haven't asked to sit down with Stonewall numerous times.

He's got a lot of work to do to make me trust his brand again

Did a man who runs a megaphone factory just say there's too many megaphones?
Let's all take a moment to imagine LWS with no tra megaphones.

He has had a pasting on Twitter by both sides for that car crash of an interview last night!

He's slippery as a slippery thing. When asked if Isal Bryson was a man or a woman he was only prepared to say he was a rapist, as if that was a third sex.

Stonewall were invited to Venice Allan’s We Need to Talk meeting back around 2017 and bullied the venue into cancelling instead. They’ve always been the ones not prepared to discuss this.

GRA should be repealed and the Equality Act relied on to protect people who are not wanting to subscribe to gender stereotypes, with EqA amendment to specify sex means biological sex nothing to do with feelings around gender identity.

The genie is out of the bottle. The GRA allowed Martin Ponting/Jessica Winfield, a convicted rapist of two girls, to acquire a new birth certificate, which is what the GRC provides, while in prison.

Every democracy has its dirty secrets but too many people know about this now. Is legislation which allows this to happen fit for purpose?

I've never read anything more slippery.

"Too much of this conversation is taking place on Twitter, so my challenge to the LGB Alliance, my challenge to those that don't agree with me is, is there an opportunity to come together."

Go on then. Let's have it. Stonewall and the LGBA in public.

The women of mumsnet don't agree with you either, Mr Anderson, come do a web chat.

Come on, we're all ready.

Can’t open the link, but aren’t male & female sex signifiers, not gender? Animals and plants have male/female sex descriptors, not genders

"Look, I think we all know what a woman is and I think as I said as well, though, since 2004, for almost 20 years now, we've got legislation that allows someone legally to change their gender. Right so somebody can transition from male to female, from female to male."

Do we all know what a woman is?
Changing gender means, sex was changed?

Just like that he picked up a megaphone and contradicted himself.

(Oh and sports, he missed sports from the list of things to protect)

“Megaphone diplomacy?”

Please tell me he’s got SJB and the Labour MPs in mind there?!

(Rhetorical question - that would require a level of awareness this guy seems to lack).

Interesting. I wonder whether this will be a new direction more generally. That will, of course, depend on who is the new CEO.

And although his position is more reasonable on the surface, suggesting that only men with a GRC should be accessing women’s spaces, that still leaves several massive loopholes, including the fact that unless it is related to criminality, you are not allowed to ask if a man has a GRC (though without it, his birth certificate would still say male so exclusion might be easier in situations where a birth certificate is required).

And of course, the obvious question is whether they’re still pushing for self-ID, in which case having a GRC will mean literally nothing in terms of who has one, and will give access to all women’s spaces to whichever man signs a meaningless declaration.

My worry is that he sounds more reasonable without really changing much, in part because of the mess Stonewall have already created around the Equality Act. But any movement towards a more reasonable dialog is probably positive overall.