Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Stonewall hides from answering questions about a child sex abuser's influence on their trans policy, while releasing propaganda to sway GRA consultation

34 replies

JoanSummers · 03/09/2018 07:40

David Challenor is a child rapist who has been sentenced to 22 years for his sexual abuse of a ten year old girl. Aimee Challenor is his eldest child and employed David as Aimee's election agent, working closely with him to formulate Aimee's political goals while serving as a representative of the Green Party. Aimee also holds a role as an advisor to Stonewall. **

Aimee Challoner is an influential member of Stonewall's trans advisory panel, yet Stonewall remains silent about the scandal raging around Aimee, despite that the Green Party have suspended Aimee themselves and organised an external investigation.

Meanwhile Stonewall is running a propaganda campaign urging anyone "who cares about trans rights" and "wants to be a trans ally" to fill out the GRA consultation following their guidance, which was influenced by Aimee Challoner while they were being advised by a man being prosecuted for raping a child while dressed as a little girl and insisting he be called Lucy.

Stonewall should be, like the Greens, suspending Aimee and launching an external investigation. Instead they are pushing forward for policy that will dismantle safeguarding rules around single sex spaces by making it legal for anyone to "self identify" as the opposite sex and a hate crime for anyone to question ("misgender") any man who enters women-only spaces (e.g. changing rooms, refuges, prisons, women's sports teams, the Girl Guides..)

Stonewall are showing right now that they are an unaccountable organisation who are prepared to ignore safeguarding issues and women and girls voices, while elevating the voices of people like Aimee, a trans woman who has been advised and influenced by a child rapist who 'identifies' part time as a little girl. The scandal has also revealed that Aimee too has a part time identity as an "adult baby", which Aimee wears during sex play with other trans women, evidence of which has been found sprawled across the internet.

Should the entire consultation be halted at this time if it is being influenced by propaganda with these roots??

Stonewall hides from answering questions about a child sex abuser's influence on their trans policy, while releasing propaganda to sway GRA consultation
Stonewall hides from answering questions about a child sex abuser's influence on their trans policy, while releasing propaganda to sway GRA consultation
OP posts:
BettyDuMonde · 03/09/2018 07:44

Seems like a good time to post this Fair Play for Women graphic...

Stonewall hides from answering questions about a child sex abuser's influence on their trans policy, while releasing propaganda to sway GRA consultation
carceralfeminist · 03/09/2018 07:49

This thread will probably get pulled sharpish.

Background information:

‘Someone recommended I should join a political party, so I joined the Green Party. I got involved with the LGBTIQA+ association in the party, and then the Chair role came up. I was encouraged and supported to go for it. I’d been on the Stonewall Youth Volunteering Programme, so I had the knowledge of how to campaign and get involved. And I was elected. Following that, I was appointed as the spokesperson for the party’s LGBTIQ issues. Apparently I’m the first openly trans spokesperson of any UK political party.’

– AIMEE CHALLENOR

carceralfeminist · 03/09/2018 07:51

Apparently, Aimee Challenor was appointed to the Trans Advisory Group of Stonewall at the age of 18 in 2016
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160408152139/www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20160408152139/www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

The Group's "Vision for Change" is basically a roadmap for what they want between 2017-2022. It was apparently authored by the 18 individuals in the group (although obviously not in a vacuum heavily influenced by other people, the background, etc).
www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stw-vision-for-change-2017.pdf
If you want to know what the TRAs are campaigning for, this is an excellent document to look at, because the recommendations are pretty much exactly what is happening (and it is quite clear that they not only consider the GRA important legally, but also have eyes on changing the protected category in the EA to be gender identity).

Do not get me started on my questions about their "Sex by Deception" policy:
Recent ‘sex by deception’ cases involving trans people and gender identity issues have revealed an alarming lack of clarity around trans people’s rights and obligations to disclose or not disclose their trans history to their sexual partners. These cases demonstrate that it is possible for non-disclosure of a person’s trans status to impair the validity of consent. This leaves a great many trans individuals at risk of prosecution for a criminal offence.
...........
Judicial clarity of ‘sex by deception’ cases to define the legal position on what constitutes sex by deception based on gender, and to ensure trans people’s privacy is protected.

AIBU to think both partner's biological sex/genitals/orientation should be discussed before intercourse?

JoanSummers · 03/09/2018 07:59

Why should it get pulled?

  • all this information is factual and public
  • this is a current and ongoing national scandal involving child sex abuse
  • this website is full of women, mostly mums, who are deeply concerned about changes to policy and practice in this area
  • most importantly (from the MN pov) - I was careful not to misgender anyone.
OP posts:
JoanSummers · 03/09/2018 08:00

No carceral yanbu

OP posts:
JoanSummers · 03/09/2018 08:03

TBH if Mumsnet refused to allow us space for discussion of this topic we would surely have to view them as complicit in the fallout.

And if Stonewall is able to influence this consultation without scrutiny, there will be fallout. Who wants that on their conscience?

OP posts:
TimeLady · 03/09/2018 08:06

I agree Stonewall is flying under the radar atm and that needs to be looked at, as they are the big player in all of this.

Standbyyourmammaryglands · 03/09/2018 08:12

Stonewall stopped being anything but MRA along time ago. Angry

Im not surprised they are refusing to comment - females don’t matter to them (unless they have a penis)

carceralfeminist · 03/09/2018 08:14

A little summary of some things that sprung out at me from the "Vision for Change" document (a bit mixed-matched from various segments but all taken from the document).

I personally do not think knock on effects, or other groups' concerns were seriously taken into account. I am unable to see a significant section reflecting on how these policies might affect women or the "old school transsexuals." Absent, in my opinion, is also real discussion on how to protect vulnerable people from making potentially the wrong decision to transition, especially very young people.

Where is the safeguarding analysis?

They write:

LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT.
The whole section acknowledges that the language is fast-changing and confusing, so how is a lay person expected to follow? If language is fundamental, should it not be clear?

Prisons:
An end to the mistreatment and abuse of trans people in the Criminal Justice System (CJS). Trans people must be housed in the correct prison and supported to live according to their self-identified gender. There should be robust training for the prison services and National Offender Management Service (NOMS).
....
NOMS need to ensure that prisoners are consistently and correctly placed in prisons according to their self-identified gender, with any exceptions fully justified according to the new policy and guidance.
Is there any impact of moving male-born violent offenders into the female estate? Where is the trans advisory group policy for assessing why someone like Ian Huntley might claim to be trans and how to stop manipulative people like him from self-identifying?

Sports:
The right of trans athletes, particularly trans women, to actively participate in fair competition at every level of sport, often finds itself under scrutiny from fellow athletes and governing bodies.

Governing bodies must ensure there is full legal compliance and equality of provision to trans people, and that processes and procedures are regularly and frequently reviewed. National sporting bodies should be in regular communication with each other to ensure gender policies are up to date, coherent and consistent and follow the Equality Act and International Olympic Committee guidelines.
I wonder why trans women are scrutinized when playing against females?

The LGB community:
There is also sometimes explicit hostility towards trans people from cisgender lesbian, gay or bi people (those whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth). There is also a lack of universal acceptance that trans identities are valid.
Cotton ceiling?

Finally, some members of other groups seeking gender equality refuse to recognise the legitimacy of either self-defined gender or legally defined gender through the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This can lead to hostility and abuse.
Are gender-critical feminists specifically being called out here?

Kids:
All trans young people to have the right to medical confidentiality and individual consent in line with Gillick competencies.
Gillick competence relates to the medical law where children under 16 do not need to have parental permission for treatment?
...
Services that help children and young people coming to terms with their gender identity are invaluable. It is important that age-appropriate care and support is available to everyone who requires this. Mermaids is an organisation dedicated to supporting children and young people dealing with gender issues.
.......
These services work with young people, and their parents / carers, to decide on the right course of action for an individual, which could include the use of hormone blockers to delay puberty. This type of help is not appropriate for all young people exploring their gender identity, but it is an option that can help to prevent a child from being exposed to serious harm and support them to embrace who they are.
Support for the Mermaids approach, puberty blockers, and theoretical background for lowering the age of legal gender transition to 16?

Removing the medical diagnosis component of trans:
The current provision of trans healthcare is still rooted in the medicalisation of gender diversity. New models of care, which don’t require psychiatric diagnosis as their foundation, should be explored.
"You don't need gender dysphoria to be trans"?

The right of the marital partner to have a say in deciding whether to continue in marriage if the partner legally changes gender:
In England and Wales, those who are married and want to have their gender legally recognised, need the written permission of their spouse in order to do so if they want their marriage to continue. If their spouse does not give this permission, the trans partner cannot have their gender legally recognised and remain married.
I agree spouses shouldn't be able to block a transition, but they do not have a right to weigh in on their marital status! How will this affect trans widows?

The significance of the GRA:
If people live as one gender, but are legally recognised as another, they do not have access to legal protections, such as the right to always be treated as their correct gender in the legal system, and for pension calculations and insurance policies.
So it changes how one is viewed by default?

And the single-sex exemptions/protected categories in EA:
The Equality Act also allows trans people to be treated differently in particular situations. When applying for certain jobs, participating in sport, accessing single-sex services, serving in the Armed Forces, or attending school a trans person’s rights are not the same as everyone else’s.
...
A reformed Equality Act that will protect all trans people. The protected characteristic should be changed from ‘gender reassignment’ to ‘gender identity’ and the use of the terms ‘gender reassignment’ and ‘transsexual’ should be removed. Trans people must be able to understand when their rights are infringed, and to be able to take appropriate action.
Support for removing single-sex exemptions, removing the concept of transsexualism and enshrining "gender identity" as the protected characteristic in law?

carceralfeminist · 03/09/2018 08:23

Joan
I am very interested in talking about this, and happy you have started a thread. We shall see what happens?

Aimee Challenor was very young, came from a very troubling family background, and was involved with David Challenor in dealings with the Green Party. Coventry Pride knew in 2016 enough of the allegations against DC to ban him from dealings with them. AC was a trustee of Coventry Pride.

There are 18 people on the Trans Advisory Group, which means that if DC had any influence via AC (who likely would be seen as the "youth voice" given AC's age) this needs to be carefully examined.

theOtherPamAyres · 03/09/2018 08:29

@Joan

This is subject that needs discusssing but your title is misjudged. You are blurring lines between a convicted rapist and someone who has never even been accused of child sex crimes let alone convicted.

Ask for your title to be changed please. This is not how I want to discuss Stonewall.

JoanSummers · 03/09/2018 08:37

There are only 16 on the list on Stonewall's website. They say others have elected to remain anonymous. Who are the anonymous advisors and why did they need to be anonymous?

OP posts:
Procrastinator1 · 03/09/2018 08:41

Is it right that anyone responding to the consultation can do so directly through Stonewall's web-site?

JoanSummers · 03/09/2018 08:50

Blurring the lines how theOtherPamAyres??

It is a fact that David Challenor has been influencing Aimee Challenor and advising Aimee on political issues. It is a fact that David was a supporter and advisor for Aimee regarding policy and lobbying around self id and the GRA. It is a fact that David self-identified part time as a girl called Lucy, that Aimee self-identifies part time as an 'adult baby', and that both have declared political interest in enabling legal gender self-id of adults and children.

I'm not blurring lines between Aimee and David - they have done that. It is up to Aimee and David now to unblur those lines and it is the responsibility of any organisation who has worked with them to unblur that too. Hence Stonewall needs to investigate urgently what impact David's influence has had on their own policies via Aimee's role on their Advisory Board.

How would you prefer the thread titled? What do you mean this isnt how you want to discuss Stonewall?

Stonewall have made a choice to ignore their role in this scandal and Aimee's role on their panel. That isn't my doing. How is me pointing it out the problem here? Do you think maybe if you don't like Stonewall being discussed this way you should contact Stonewall and ask them to behave on a way that would stop them being discussed this way??

OP posts:
carceralfeminist · 03/09/2018 08:50

I think so.
www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/come-out-trans-equality

carceralfeminist · 03/09/2018 08:51

Sorry, that last one was to Procrastinator1

AccioWine · 03/09/2018 09:06

Pro yeah, I saw the send straight from Stonewall site bit too. Does that mean it will count as from Stonewall or still as an individual contribution, do you think? If it's from Stonewall, isn't that just lending them even more weight in the consultation?

Procrastinator1 · 03/09/2018 09:07

Thanks Carceral. It seems no other organisation was given this opportunity by the Government? If so could lead to unfairly influencing the results?

Stonewall really do have a very close relationship with Penny Mordaunt's department.

Procrastinator1 · 03/09/2018 09:12

I don't think Stonewall would allow the responses to be counted as one. Stonewall are giving guidance on how the consultation should be completed. It makes it easier for those who agree with and follow Stonewall's advice to deliver the completed consultation.

Procrastinator1 · 03/09/2018 09:14

However, don't let me detract from the central question of the OP, sorry.

AccioWine · 03/09/2018 09:18

Sorry, I was helping to derail. Ignore me!

Back to the op. I don't think Stonewall feel they have to justify themselves to anyone anymore, they seem to be Teflon coated with regard to these things. But how? And why?

carceralfeminist · 03/09/2018 09:27

It seems the big shift came when Ruth Hunt was appointed CEO.
Before that gender identity and sexual orientation were seen as separate issues (because.... they are?)
This article from the Guardian helps provide a little background
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/16/stonewall-start-campaigning-trans-equality

A couple of familiar names in there, and our Aimee Challenor's tweet reacting to the news is quoted:

Aimee Challenor (@aimeec110)

THANK YOU @stonewalluk @ruth_hunt for announcing #transstonewall as a Stonewall Young Volunteer and a transwoman this means so much! :D
February 16, 2015

thecatfromjapan · 03/09/2018 11:45

I think a big issue is that, an organisation which took it upon itself to

  • produce guidelines for organisations working with children and vulnerable young people which impact, even contradict existing statutory Safeguarding guidelines
  • work with government in the development of the GRA ^ which also impacts on Safeguarding legislation

appears to have exhibited - in its working with Aimee Challenor, who now appears to have been a young person from a very troubled background - extremely poor understanding of Safeguarding itself

How and why did that happen?
Why are they continuing to minimise the implications of this?
What does this say about Stonewall's understanding of Safeguarding?
How does that impact on how we are to understand the work they have done?
What does this tell us about Stonewall's accountability?
How did an organisation - with seemingly such a poor understanding of existing frameworks get to influence government and major organisations?
How are government comfortable with tasking the thinking (and research) on such an important and far-reaching piece of legislation to an organisation that appears to have no understanding of Safeguardin and is unaccountable?
How can major organisations be comfortable drawing on the work of an organisation that has demonstrated (it would appear) no understanding of Safeguarding and is unaccountable?

Aimee Challenor appears to have been a very vulnerable young adult. Something in Stonewall's organisational structure failed to pick that up - and even considered her suitable for a role in developing their work on Safeguarding and the GRA.

What oversight was there?
What impact did she have?

As a story emerges of a history of poor boundary recognition in Aimee (witness the decision re employing her father after charges were brought), Stonewall has continued to work with Aimee on projects with Safeguarding implications

Moreover, the question arises as to how the question of Aimee's own issues around judgment and safeguarding (again, I refer to the documented decision to employ her father) May have influenced the development of GRA work and Guidelines for schools.

There are many questions. But no answers can even be surmised because Stonewall is proving to be unaccountable to questioning and unselfish-reflective in response to a serious issue in one of its high-profile members

Is that an organisation that should have been given so much responsibility by government and is taken as s reputable source of guidance by senior organisations?

Questions as to the possible influence of a sexual predator - not Aimee Challenor but her father - may well arise but I think that has yet to be established (and, I think, it is a question Stonewall must answer).

But I also think that TheOtherPamAyres is right - and a clear distinction between the two of them has to be made in the title.

Thank you for starting a thread on this Joan. I hope you don't think this is not-picking or me having a go at you. I just think you're right that this is important - and I worry that people looking for discussion might think we are conflating AC and her father, and dismiss the thread. That would be unfortunate.

thecatfromjapan · 03/09/2018 11:51

Oh, and obviously

That silence from Stonewall - as all of this emerges - demonstrates, actually demonstrates in real time, right now - an organisation with little to know understanding of Safeguarding issues.

How on earth did an organisation which demonstrates poor grasp of Safeguarding get the war of government and serious organisations on matters which impact on statutory Safeguarding?

JoanSummers · 03/09/2018 14:13

So you are suggesting changing the title to:

Stonewall hides from answering questions about David Challenor's influence on their trans policy, while releasing propaganda to sway GRA consultation

The reason I phrased it as I did is because not everyone knows who David Challenor is. In that circumstance the title isn't clear at all to anyone scrolling through. Naming him as a child sex abuser in the title makes it clear what the problem is and is an alert to the seriousness of his crime.

My post is very clear that David and Aimee are separate people, I hope. However they have not been acting separately as far as we can see, it looks like they have been acting in collaboration at this stage, and we won't know otherwise until proper investigation has been done.

Therefore I don't think the title needs changing. However my OP could do with a sentence at the beginning which names David as Aimee's father and the child rapist in the title. I will report it now and ask that that is added.

OP posts: