Stonewall loss of jobs and funding after US aid cuts

"Stonewall ‘wasted donor money’ on challenging equality regulator"
https://www.thetimes.com/article/918ddd21-f42b-4ffd-aa06-34c0c299f21b?shareToken=6ebf0c2322993823f6ffe60408735125

There's always the risk of extrapolating from small samples, but the gay men I know who are most hostile to the concept of women's single sex spaces aren't apolitical - they're veteran activists. They're the ones I hear moaning about middle aged lesbians aligning with the far right, as they see it.

For the younger, apolitical gay men who just want to go clubbing, they may be oblivious to the issue, and they may have been indoctrinated in a view of the alphabet community that tells them there's no real issue here, but I find with them it's ignorance, not ideological hostility.

I agree that it's not great to generalise, this is by no means true of all, but there is a subset of gay men that I have become aware of in the last few years who are extremely indifferent to women.

In that, women tend not to play significant roles in their lives, and they have zero interest in them and the challenges they face.

Which most of the time wouldn't be a problem, but when asked to consider women's needs compared to 'transwomen', this group just can't compute and have no interest in finding out more.

We obviously, and fortunately for me, mix in very different circles!
Gay men are a mixed bunch, dudebros, nice guys, and in between, same as any group of humans, but one thing you can be sure of is that as a woman you are much safer in the company of a gay man than a straight man. You are less likely to be sexually harassed, attacked, or raped. If you are walking home late at night and you encounter a group of gay men, you'll probably get home safely. Some gay men may be rude or dismissive towards women - just like straight men - but that falls under the heading of 'sticks and stones..' - at least it's not going to escalate into sexual violence.

The fact that gay men have, as you say, a social life where women barely appear is great. Single sex spaces? yay! I'd love if us lesbians could have the same back again, and don't begrudge gay men their social spaces.

You say that because gay men socialise together, that 'women's concerns simply aren't on their radar' - socialising is socialising, not discussing social issues. 'Fuck politics, let's dance' as we used to say in my clubbing days😄
But gay men have sisters, mothers, grannies, colleagues, who are very much on their radar, so they do not live a life isolated from the other half of humanity just because they socialise together with other men.

Lots of gay men are as apolitical as the rest of the population, but the gay men I know who take an active interest in politics and society are aware of, and supportive of women's issues.

Thats what they did in the UK

The local police had to tick a box if someone said they were trans.
To an argument over bins or parking moved from usual NDN crimes to hate crimes.
Same idea around not-a-crime-hate-crime that the UK police were recording.

And police were writing documents about school girls saying no and not wanting to be friends with boys, who were engaged in "criminal" activity.

This idea was also why misogyny was rejected when people said it should be classed as a hate crime.

From:

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/global/global-projects/tackling-hate-crime

The project has three main strands:

1. Better, safer and more secure hate crime reporting and referral capabilities for LGBTI communities by creating online reporting platforms.
2. Using the data collected through reporting platforms to support evidence-based advocacy for progressive reforms in hate crime policy, procedure and practice.
3. Development and delivery of bespoke training to local law enforcement and other agencies which interact with victims of hate crime.

"Progressive reforms in hate crime policy", I'm guessing, could easily include pushing trans ideology.

LGB alliance has piped the model train to the top google spot!

And the State department is giving LGB travel advice

Even the autocarrot has been Stonewalled! 🌈🥕

Bloody autocorrect that!

@RedToothBrush
'They neglected grassroots activism - which clearly pissed off the founders as that's where they came from and why the LGBTQ Alliance came from.'

LGB Alliance surely?!

Edited to say but otherwise I agree 💯

Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria

£100k+ is not a lot of money to work with 3 languages need translation services and 3 legal systems too.

But there is a history of cooperation and support from the international police so I suppose they are pitching the changes they lobbied for with the UK forces

https://www.sepcaregion.eu/

No I tend to agree
Lots of factors, they never had to modify their behaviour to attract female life partners or pass the women friend 'test', their adult friend groups may have men with 2.5 children but seeing is not doing and the gay friends who do have children may be excluded from the mum circle. Family and old friends dont expect change.
And politics of womens rights is not the average conversation in work or when out socialising as a group

The Times says

"The GEF funds Stonewall’s Alliance Against Hate Crime project in Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria, which the charity said worked to “improve support for victims of hate crime, and to advance dialogue with police and law enforcement stakeholders on adapting their systems and victim support to be more sensitive to the needs of the LGBTQ+ community”. "

And we know that the entire amount is listed in their accounts as restricted, which means it can only be used for a specific project.

I think a PP said that this is work that they will have pitched for and the GEF could just as easily have chosen somebody else to do it.

The most sexist men I know are gay men. They don't believe they are, often they say they're feminist allies, but they are. They've got a social life where women barely appear, so women's concerns simply aren't on their radar.

Don't get me wrong, some gay men have a wonderful affinity for women, but the sexist dudebro element definitely exists and it isn't small.

Thanks. Is there a source that the cash was definitely limited to their Eastern European work and specifically for that?

Also, it seems with the Eastern European work they were logging hate crimes and wanting to lobby governments for changes to the law.

Now obviously, some of that would involve crimes and harassment genuinely motivated by hate; but I'm wondering if it might also include logging incidents like refusing to let someone use the changing room of their choice...

Not if it bankrupts them and puts them out of business forever

True but a lot of gay men supported TWAW but not TMAM and were happy to throw Lesbian women out of Prides etc as well as TM out of "their" spaces.
It was the whole allie on the street but not in the sheets. Or men except for dating purposes.

Dont think it fair to say nothing has changed for men. Homosexual men are told they should have sex with trans men, although not with the same force that lesbians are told to accept men. It's also a form of homosexual conversion therapy, trying to tell some men they are women really.

That's the danger isn't it. And a wholesale look at this isn't likely to come from established parties.

The charity sector as self serving lobbyists has been quietly on the political radar for a while for anyone paying attention. We also have a number of scandals involving international charities.

Recent government could and should have looked at it. It's not something totally out there.

Unfortunately a failure of Starmer to see it coming will lead to predictable cries of 'we couldn't possibly have predicted this' as it's ripe for the picking for a third party to capitalise on. You can see it coming a mile off. It snacks of self interest unfortunately.

They are a busted flush.

They focused on the trans issue because they recognised it was the right trend at the right time which gave them a good income stream.

They neglected grassroots activism - which clearly pissed off the founders as that's where they came from and why the LGBTQ Alliance came from. This is a group of people who KNOW how to engage with the public and can read the public mood and are in touch with their membership. They walked the walk rather than being full of hot air. They know that meaningful changes come from engagement and slow efforts rather than trying to bully and silence.

They forgot lesbians. And by redefining homosexual as gender not sex based, they threw them under the bus and actively set themselves up to meet the criteria of institutionalised homophobia. That turned them into the abuser not protector.

Stonewall's early work should not be underestimated. Today the majority of Brits are overwhelming supportive of gay rights by a considerable majority. That's a major shift from just a generation and a half ago. But this has been achieved by public consent.

Stonewall's work in recent years couldn't look any more different. It wasn't persuasive. It was authoritarian and anti science. It told a lie that is obvious to all. Yet these modern activists don't understand why it's so abrasive and upset even their own - the lesbian core are the big tell. Lesbian history is extremely left wing by any standard. The fact no one in Stonewall was willing to listen or see it never mind acknowledge it even when explicitly spelt out by prominent lesbian voices says everything about what happened.

They were chasing the money because they sold out to corporate opportunities. It's extreme neo-liberalism. That's about as far removed from left wing socialist ideals as you can care to imagine.

It's absolutely the perfect example of the organisation running away from its own core ideals. And then blaming everyone else for its own mistake.

That's before considering the appalling misrepresentation of the law. Which harms lesbians particularly badly.

Stonewall totally betrayed lesbians. Plenty of women (including straight women) can see this because they women have been impacted across the board by it. Unlike men, for whom, nothing has noticeably changed particularly.

Apart from anything else, there's something to be said for an organisation having a clear mission. The mission getting muddied by lots of other items being bolted on seems to go hand in hand with increased state funding and the organisation ending up mostly existing to perpetuate itself and employ its employees.

Stonewall is one of the most egregious examples because of its bad advice and because Diversity Champions looks too much like a protection racket. But something really has to be done about the feedback loop of government funding NGOs that then tell the government what its policy should be. "We bunged a lot of money to Stonewall to tell us what to do" is not sustainable for a government.

I don't know if piecemeal reform of the charity-government feedback loop is possible, but nobody seems to want to attempt it. And the longer it isn't attempted, the more it makes the case for a UK DOGE.

Stonewall gets most of it's revenue from DEI training,
6.9m total income
2.4m membership fees providing speakers
0.5m from training

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/freedom-of-information/information-we-already-publish/house-of-commons-publication-scheme/governance/stonewall-fees-2021/

Financial year 18/19
Amount (exc VAT)

2018/19
£ 3,000. Diversity Champions programme
£ 2,691 Stonewall Workplace Conference 2018
£ 5,250 Trans Allies Programme
£10,941

So even without the bad advice going forward they woiuld have lost most if not all the public funded organisations as it was deemed a lobby group.

Strictly speaking, no.

The State department is responsible for administering the fund, but doesn't supply all of the cash.

The grants to Stonewall are restricted, and can only be used for a specific project in Eastern Europe, which for all we know is broadly in line with main stream opinion. I assume that mosts Americans don't think gay people should suffer discrimination, even if there is increasing scepticism about DEI, 'gender affirming medicine' and the claim that trans women are women.

Stonewall gets most of it's revenue from DEI training, which, it has now established. will land their clients in court. That is way they are in trouble.

Are right-wing NGOs on a similar gravy train, or is it just the left-wing that typically gets this funding?

Are there any 'right wing' tax payer funded NGOs?

So American taxpayers are paying at least a little bit to spread far-left trans ideology that half of the country will see as dangerous and harmful?

Seems like a corruption of the democratic process to me, with taxpayer money being funneled to the left-wing under the guise of charity.

Also, why isn't the BBC doing more to challenge the Stonewall narrative? Point out their agenda would be considered harmful by many people? That they don't have evidence for their claims about "rights"? That it's arguably not an appropriate use of taxpayer money? Are right-wing NGOs on a similar gravy train, or is it just the left-wing that typically gets this funding?