STONEWALL REVERSE FERRET INCOMING

It's chilling that a year or two ago Stonewall stated that their focus was the next generation and here we have the head of a dangerous, underhand, lobby group married to the Education Secretary. Surely this is a conflict of interest?

It's T shirt and username worthy, imo.

Call me naive, but up until now I hadn't realised to what extent Labour and Stonewall thread through each other.

Michael Cashman, Angela Mason, Ben Summerskill, Kezia Dugdale. Respectively founder, director, CEO, Chair of stonewall, and Labour MEP, Labour councillor, Labour Press officer/advisor and leader of Scottish Labour.

How can they have the brass nerve to say it doesn’t provide clarity. Perhaps they can explain which of the following they are unable or grasp:

265.We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning.

(i) The question for the court is a question of statutory interpretation; we are concerned with the meaning of the provisions of the EA 2010 in the light of section 9 of the GRA (para 2).

(ii) Parliament in using the words "man" and "woman" in the SDA 1975 referred to biological sex (paras 36-51).

(iii) The 1999 Regulations, enacted in response to P v S, created a new protected characteristic of a person intending to undergo, or undergoing or having undergone gender reassignment. The 1999 Regulations did not amend the meaning of "man" or "woman" in the SDA 1975 (paras 54-62).

(iv) The GRA 2004 did not amend the meaning of "man" and "woman" in the SDA 1975 (para 80).

(v) Section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 disapplies the rule in section 9(1) of that Act where the words of legislation, enacted before or after the commencement of the GRA 2004, are on careful consideration interpreted in their context and having regard to their purpose to be inconsistent with that rule. It is not necessary that there are express words disapplying the rule in section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 or that such disapplication arises by necessary implication as the legality principle does not apply (paras 99-104).

(vi) The context in which the EA 2010 was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 definitions of "man" and "woman" referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(vii) The EA 2010 is an amending and consolidating statute. It enacts group-based protections against discrimination on the grounds of sex and gender reassignment and imposes duties of positive action (paras 113, 142-149).

(viii) It is important that the EA 2010 is interpreted in a clear and consistent way so that groups which share a protected characteristic can be identified by those on whom the Act imposes obligations so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way (paras 151-154).

(ix) There is no indication in relevant secondary materials that the EA 2010 modified in any material way the meaning of "man" and "woman" or "sex" from the meanings in the SDA 1975 (para 164).

(x) Interpreting "sex" as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of "man" and "woman" and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings. As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity (sections 13(6), 17 and 18), and to protection from risks specifically affecting women (Schedule 22, paragraph 2), can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex (paras 172, 177-188).

(xi) We reject the suggestion of the Inner House that the words can bear a variable meaning so that in the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity the EA 2010 is referring to biological sex only, while elsewhere it refers to certificated sex as well (paras 189-197).

(xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC greater rights than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons whether they had obtained a GRC (paras 198-203).

(xiii) That interpretation would also seriously weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation for example by interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations (paras 204-209).

(xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of "sex". These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others (paras 210-228).

(xv) Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women's fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces (paras 229-246).

(xvi) It is striking that the EHRC has advised the UK Government of the problems created by its interpretation of the EA 2010, which include many of the matters which we have discussed above, and has called for legislation to amend the Act. The absence of coherence and the practical problems to which that interpretation gives rise are clear pointers that the interpretation is not correct (para 247).

(xvii) The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, they would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination. A certificated sex reading is not required to give them those protections (paras 248-263).

(xviii) We therefore conclude that the provisions of the EA 2010 which we have discussed are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms "sex", "man" and "woman" in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate (para 264).

The motivation will be entirely financial

I can imagine the white boarding for ideas on suitable causes to support that might improve their brand. They mention it's unpaid?

I wonder how long it will take before Stonewall are banned from all Pride events this year. 😂

There was Press for Change, led by Christine Burns, who pushed for the umbrella term ‘trans’ for everyone from crossdressers & people with gender dysphoria who had surgery. They wanted to blur the distinctions so that women’s spaces would be open to all of them.

I think they were also heavily involved in getting the Hayley the transsexual storyline into Coronation St.

Trans Reddit have noticed & they’re pissed off. https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1spmuec/the_new_chair_of_stonewall_is_cozying_up_to_jk/

For me, the only redemption for Stonewall would come from them admitting that they had abandoned lesbian and gay people to go with a fashionable, and presumably lucrative, fad.

Just imagine a world in which trans people had to set up their own campaigning groups from scratch, with no funding - thought they would never had faced the homophobia that the early Stonewall had to contend with.

What would such a trans campaigning group have looked like? what would its demands have been? its tactics? what would its reach have been? would it ever have convinced the public or the political establishment that trans people actually are denied basic human rights?

It was so much easier and more effective to use Stonewall, following the Dentons plan of action, especially:

• Piggybacking on other causes: Attach trans rights to broader equality, diversity, or anti-discrimination initiatives to normalise them.
• Strategic framing: Use language that resonates positively (e.g., “equality,” “human rights”) and avoid terms that may provoke opposition.
• Youth mobilisation: Position young people as the face of reform efforts, emphasising innocence and urgency to gain public sympathy.

I think JKR just laughs at descriptions like 'toxic sewer of hate'. It makes the speaker sound like an angry teenager.

The trans 'debate' has really brought home to me how insults can lose their power fast when overused. Terf? Yawn. Right wing fascist bigot? Zzzzz..... They all sound like Rik from the Young Ones.

I believe the Meloni government made surrogacy illegal. There was that story about the two male people who exploited at least one woman’s body (likely two if it wasn’t her egg) and complained they were moving from Italy because their child had no legal recognition as ‘their’ child.

Constantly working himself up into such a righteous fury can’t be good for the blood pressure.

As long as there are no foxes within reach when he cracks.

Defamation, surely? Sily
jlyom

So Stonewall have spent years literally trying to write homosexuality out of existence, both practically and legally and now they want to help them??

So rational. Much thought.

I was surprised to see this paragraph in a Guardian article:

"Critics accused it of pursuing a “militant trans agenda” and a “no debate” approach to trans women. They charged Stonewall with pursuing an absolutist position on trans inclusion, in which trans women should be allowed into all single-sex spaces – from prisons to hospital wards, professional sport and women’s refuges – regardless of concerns about safety and fairness".

But then it goes on to describe JKR as anti-trans, without joining the dots that what JKR is opposed to is wheat they have described above. She thinks trans people should have the same rights as everyone else.

Stonewall's new "moderate" position is absolutely a PR exercise designed to boost their coffers. But TRAs will hate them now, and GC people will never trust them again, so I'm not sure where their support will come from. Kezia Dugdale will be considered the worst of the worst by TRAs because she has praised JKR.

He'll be the last Japanese soldier

he transed his children and he's now built his whole identity and work on trying to ensure the world shifts to accommodate what he's done

he's a fanatic and I'd not be at all surprised to see him have a nervous breakdown at some point

Seriously Jolyon? Foot stamping and spitting his dummy out for all to see

The sooner Stonewall goes under the better but I'll enjoy watching how this goes down first.

This is from Jolyon this morning

"I'm all for good faith engagement with people whose minds have been poisoned against trans people. But this is madness: JK Rowling is a toxic sewer of hate, aligned with fascists, and it's unforgivable for Stonewall to praise her"

Thanks OP. There's no doubt this is a continued part of the "behind the scenes " manipulation that's been used to impose transgender ideology on the country. Despite the SC judgment, there's still a powerful Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) - a Cabinet Office unit at the heart of government seemingly still working against the interests of women & child safeguarding. There's no doubt that Stonewall will continue to exert influence there. Janice Turner in the Times wrote a fascinating article yesterday:

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/gender-ideologues-bridget-phillipson-xwknjm39s

Extract:
"The OEO’s deputy director is Ollie Entwistle, who spent nine years as chair of the civil service Rainbow Alliance working to get government departments higher up Stonewall’s Champions index, which gave points for erasing words such as “mother” or “maternity” from HR policy. It also rewarded letting civil service staff choose facilities based upon gender identity not sex, illegal under 1992 workplace regulations. This, incredibly, is still Cabinet Office policy because it is “waiting for the EHRC guidance”, which doesn’t even apply to employers and is being blocked by Phillipson’s own officials".

I don’t believe Stonewall have had any principles since Ruth Hunt’s team sold them for the new income stream.

The people with principles left to form the LGB Alliance - which, incidentally, had a really great conference yesterday with a very wide age range.

Typical Guardian “journalism”. Third paragraph, “roll back of rights for LGBT people” in Italy. What rollback? What rights have been rolled back under Meloni?

Dugdale doesn’t say and Pidd doesn’t clarify. Just a dubious claim left their dangling as “fact”.

That’s as far as I’ve got and found a problem, god knows what the rest of the article is like.

I don't buy a reverse ferret from them until they drop everything that comes after LGB, until they make it clear that homosexuality is about same sex attracted and 'trans' is about gender identity, and that just because a man claims to be a women he can't claim to be a lesbian too.
Them now pivoting to getting compensation for gay veterans is disgusting while they continue to ignore the current inequities faced by lesbians, which they are largely the cause of and continue to be so.

@Theeyeballsinthesky really drills down doesn’t it!
”wahhhh!! Why won’t you give us what we want you big bigoted meanies!!”