Jo Bartosch on why Stonewall is casting aside many of the LGB

[Wanderabout]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-limits-of-stonewalls-tolerance/

"There is a desperate need for reasoned debate in order to allow all sides to have their say. Unfortunately, the response of Stonewall has been to shout louder and smear those who do not toe the trendy identity politics line. By championing the rights of male-bodied lesbians, Stonewall are abandoning the very people they should exist to support and making a mockery of the struggles we still face. It is somewhat depressing that, in 2018, the views of lesbians, bisexual people and gay men are being cast aside by the very organisation that claims to push for ‘acceptance without exception.’"

Great article, glad someone has finally written it.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-limits-of-stonewalls-tolerance/

Gaahhnnkf clicky links rahhhbargh

Thanks

Really interesting and heartening that one of the co-founders of Stonewall quoted pointing out present day Stonewall are failing LGBTers who don't toe their party line by drowning out their voices and making reasoned, representative debate impossible. For many trans people as well as the LGB.

It is interesting to wonder why stonewall have chosen this path and what Ruth Hunt sees in it.

Good article. Lays out the issues with Stonewall very well.

It is interesting to wonder why stonewall have chosen this path and what Ruth Hunt sees in it.

Money (as always) is a big part of it. TWAW comes with some hefty donations.

It is interesting to wonder why stonewall have chosen this path and what Ruth Hunt sees in it

"So what first attracted you to extremely well-funded lobbying groups telling you how to help the organisation survive now that gay marriage is legal, Ruth?"

I don't understand how even for money an LGBT leader would ignore and actively condemn their own community members. Just for having a different view about something.

Why do that instead of listening, acknowledging and debating?

Entropic

This is very interesting

Stonewall’s funding has increased dramatically in recent years, from £4.33m in 2013, to £7.24m in 2017, according to data from Open Charities

that's a 67% increase in 4 years. impressive

Maybe Ruth Hunt fears being left behind as a lesbian and this way, by doing what the TRAs want her to do, she remains involved. Though surely at some point someone will say the head of Stonewall should be trans and she'll have to go.

What do you do when there are less battles to win hearts and minds, only skirmishes? When does a charity (any charity) wind itself up and say: "Our work is done. Goodbye and thank you"?

Not many. A lifetime's work, businesses and careers are at stake.

We know that in the past a person's sexual orientation meant imprisonment, persecution, concentration camps, exclusion and physical harm among other things. But we've come a long way since then, with structures, laws and systems to outlaw discrimination, unequal treatment and to punish homophobic crimes.

Can the charity wind down now, perhaps by just monitoring those structures, laws and systems? You would think so. Instead, it opens up another area of business under its brand-name.

Funny that.

Though surely at some point someone will say the head of Stonewall should be trans and she'll have to go.

Well that's easily resolved isn't it? All she has to do is say 'I'm trans' and everyone has to believe her (him). Because that's how it works according to the Stonewall rules.

I would agree Ova but at the same time, if they said they wanted someone trans they'd probably really mean a transwoman.

True. A transman would have too much privilege.

Maybe by then Hunt will be able to declare she’s a transtranswoman and Aunty Penny in the HoC will have provided the legislation required to let her use the ladies and everything?