Stonewall: 100 per cent white, 95 per cent male

[theOtherPamAyres]

Stonewall would probably argue some of its staff identify as black and that there is an over-representation of feminine genders, so that's alright then.

Taken from the Tweet of @GNCmaninpink

I don't have cockles to warm those, so maybe that's why I find myself unmoved by the sentiment

though, not 'those'

I worked for Stonewall before they expanded to cover transgender people. I still work in the same field. This is not a picture of their staff.

I always think a picture of the Stonewall Trans umbrella is relevant here. These are transpeople, transwomen are women according to Hunt, so...

michellelianna.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/transumbrella.jpg

Yes there are fewer out trans people (& LGB people) who are from BAME backgrounds but that’s something Stonewall actively addresses

No chance

An organisation that is mainly white male or mainly white female is not interested in more BAME. They 'other' BAME all the time and don't admit or don't even see that they're doing it. As is the way with all the 'Over-Wokes'.

Stonewall would probably argue some of its staff identify as black

No doubt, they would. Faux concern for BAME and diversity ticks the funding boxes hence sends cash flowing their way so why not

Have you got a link to them saying that or a reference? because I would dearly love to send it to my gay nephew who has pretty much cut me off for not agreeing with his TWAW stance.

It was Ruth Hunt, not stonewall specifically. Though stonewalls glossary of terms for homosexual is

This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has an emotional romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.

On top of this Ruth Hunt refuses to answer questions about lesbian people being told they are trans, or the cotton ceiling. So she clearly does not support lesbians, despite being one.

It's weird. Ruth "trans women ARE women!" Hunt, seems to believe she doesn't need contraceptives because lesbian sex carries no risk of accidental pregnancy...

'Get the L Out' threads:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301033-Get-the-L-Out-Statement-by-the-lesbian-protesters-at-Pride-London

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3337090-Get-the-L-Out-Interviewed-by-Let-a-Woman-Speak

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3299646-Lesbians-protest-at-London-Pride-getthelout

Another

Yes indeed. Very interesting. "Transwomen are women" according to Hunt and most of them have a penis, which many if them like to employ for sexual purposes. And lesbians are being advised by Stonewall that transwomen who sleep with women are lesbians so...

Hunt is behaving more like a madam than a lesbian.
Lesbians don't do dick.
Shocker, I know!

It is a complete sell-out that a lesbian forces other lesbians to accept this. She should also know the value of lesbian-only spaces and socialisation, without males present. TWAM.

But it seems anyone can be bought for a near-six-figure salary.

What does 'consider themselves to be disabled" mean?
Is that like considering yourself to be a different gender?

I am disabled, it doesn't make any bloody difference what I think about it?!

I picked up on that too. Its weird wording. You'd think 'x% of staff are disabled' would be the way any other organisation would write it.
Disabled people aren't disabled because that's what they identify as. And you sure as hell can't identify out of it.

I think the ‘consider themselves disabled’ is actually very positive. It reflects more widely on the social model rather than the medical model of disability. For example, someone may live with something that affects their day to day life significantly and will last over a year but not be able to access help like a blue badge. Under the social model they are still disabled.

Similarly someone who is Deaf and speaks BSL may not consider themselves disabled just linguistically different.

The word "disabled' carries meaning - can those who 'consider themselves disabled" access benefits and services protected for those with recognised disabilities? No, of course not, so it makes no sense in the real world.

I think that's all straying into pomo territory Lovely I fully appreciate many deaf people don't want to consider themselves disabled or defective in any way, but different, but the medical model of disability is valid.

I live with a disability. The idea that society disables me is valid up to a point. Accessible lifts, help at train stations and minimal uneven pavements gives me a life with fewer restrictions. Those things can't actually do anything about the severe fatigue I have which prevent me leaving the house more than a couple of times a week.

Gender I don’t think it’s your place to tell people if they are disabled or not. It’s a label that can carry a great deal of stigma and some people want to use it and some people don’t.

Also you said i’m moving into Pomo territory, I had to google that and I disagree. The position I gave is the legal basis for disability in the Equality Act. The medical model isn’t inclusive enough and the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in the Kelsten Kaltoft vs Kommunerernes case that obesity could be included as a disability as it meets the criteria of affecting day to day life and lasts over a year. The medical model is no longer reflective of legislation and is instead a box to put people in.