Stonewall encouraging primary aged children to fill in the GRA consultation

[OrchidInTheSun]

And these people advise the government? You can ask a teacher to help you apparently. This is grooming

twitter.com/ollypike/status/1047218961107046400?s=21

If you look at the YouTube comments you can see that because YouTube is a global platform, there are now people from other countries filing in the form -- comments from USA and Italy and more say they are filling it in.

Amnesty on GRA
'If you are the parent of a trans child or a young trans or non-binary person check out Mermaids’ guidance to respond to the consultation.'
(extract)
" 2. Children and young people should have access to legal gender recognition

Trans and non-binary children and young people are currently completely excluded from applying for legal gender recognition and the government has vowed to maintain this exclusion. While trans and non-binary children and young people can change their gender on other documents, such as passports, they must wait until they turn 18 to be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate. This puts them at risk of their privacy being violated and of discrimination. Young trans and non-binary people suffer greatly from discrimination and bullying: 8 in 10 trans people bullied at school or college are self-harming.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires states to respect the right of children to be heard and to duly take into account their views. Legal gender recognition should be accessible to minors, taking into account the child’s freely expressed views regarding their own best interests, and in light of their evolving capacities. A blanket age restriction would not be appropriate to achieve this - absolute denial of legal gender recognition to individuals under a given age is not consistent with existing standards regarding the rights of children.

AIUK recommends that the self-determination process is open to those aged 16 and above. For those aged 16 and below there should be an administrative process based on parental support. A back-up mechanism should be available by which a child without parental support should be able to apply for gender recognition – ideally an administrative rather than court-based process." (continues)

www.amnesty.org.uk/have-your-say-gender-recognition-act

This is seriously unethical, no matter of your views on the subject matter.

I would be so interested in what is going on behind closed doors at Stonewall. As many who work in the voluntary sector knows, many charities who look like they are sailing along are in fact paddling like crazy underneath and the staff are usually the ones feeling it. It would not surprise me if this was a top down decision, it’s such an out of touch risky tactic.

In that case people filling it in from abroad should be discarded as UK law doesn't effect them. A mass complaint is in order here.

Legal gender recognition should be accessible to minors, taking into account the child’s freely expressed views regarding their own best interests, and in light of their evolving capacities. A blanket age restriction would not be appropriate to achieve this

Creepy creepy creepy creepy creepy creepy...

It's almost like their slowly assembling something...

globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/05/26/843663/10163027/en/Amnesty-International-s-New-Policy-Defends-Pimps-and-Sex-Traffickers.html

Guardian 2015
'Why is a pimp helping to shape Amnesty’s sex trade policy?'
Kat Banyard
(extract)
"Amnesty International will finalise its new policy on prostitution this month. It follows a vote in August by the organisation’s leadership – in the face of global protests – to push countries to fully decriminalise the sex trade, sex-buying and brothel-keeping included. Not only is Amnesty’s plan, in my view, dangerously misguided, it also relies on evidence from the very people it should be holding to account.

Amnesty’s draft policy cites support from “human rights organisations” for the call to decriminalise brothels. “Most significantly,” it states, “a large number of sex worker organisations and networks, including the Global Network of Sex Work Projects [NSWP], support the decriminalisation of sex work.” Yet in March this year Alejandra Gil, the NSWP’s former vice-president, was jailed for 15 years for sex trafficking.

This isn’t just one unfortunate reference to the group, a singular blip in an otherwise scrupulously sourced document. Amnesty’s draft policy also cites as evidence a report written by the NSWP; a report annexe written by the UNAids “advisory group on HIV and sex work” – which is co-chaired by the NSWP; and a World Health Organisation (WHO) report in which Gil is personally acknowledged as one of the “experts” who helped develop its recommendations. The organisation’s logo is on the report’s front cover, alongside those of the WHO, UNAaids and the United Nations Population Fund.

What this exposes is how staggeringly successful Gil’s group has been in pushing its agenda to legitimise commercial sexual exploitation through some of the world’s top human rights institutions. Known as the “Madam of Sullivan”, Gil is reported to have been at the centre of a pimping operation in Mexico City, sexually exploiting around 200 women. What is crucial to recognise, however, is that Gil didn’t have to hide her vested interests as a pimp in her NSWP role. The group campaigns for pimping and brothel-keeping to be recognised as ordinary work. According to NSWP policy, as a pimp Gil was a “sex worker” whose precise role was a “manager”. So why did UNAids award this group a formal advisory role?" (continues)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/22/pimp-amnesty-prostitution-policy-sex-trade-decriminalise-brothel-keepers

Hmm, do mumsnetters not have access to far more children than Stonewall, if that game were to be played? Almost a shame we are too ethical to do it.

We could urge kids to both fill in the petition and send an email to the group managing it saying "I filled this in because Stonewall told me to".

Or have mum send the email for them, to protect the identity of the child. "Dear commission running this consultation, as you will see in the linked video Stonewall has suggested that children contribute to the consultation, so I have urged my children aged 8 and 10 to do so. I assume you were aware that Stonewall were suggesting that children contribute."

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

That video

Could Stonewall stoop any lower?

this is so massively creepy. Guy in the video encouraging them to fill it out: ‘Be a hero’!
The charity commission must have rules about charity campaigns involving children mustn’t it? Surely this manipulative campaining is not OK. ‘The gender you were given when you were a baby’ etc. It’s not true. Sex is real and you can’t ever change it.

Why are these groups so keen to throw off legal protections around kids?

They’re saying your sex should be more easily changed in law than your own name. Someone else foists a sex on you and if you don’t like it you change it legally whenever you want.

Except you can’t even legally change your name with parental support until you are 16.

What on earth are Stonewall advocating for? Why? Why pretend kids have a maturity, agency and a certainty that they patently don’t have around these issues?

Why would anyone want to push an agenda that pretends that kids can consent to things that in truth, they can’t understand the full meaning of?

What on earth are Stonewall advocating for? Why? Why pretend kids have a maturity, agency and a certainty that they patently don’t have around these issues?

Spectator lead article today: 'Trans rights have gone wrong
The new gender orthodoxy allows no room for dissent'
James Kirkup
(extract)
"In less than a decade, [Michael Biggs] suggests, the movement has embedded itself in public and corporate life and often succeeded in changing policy and practice without significant scrutiny or question.

How? Stonewall is the biggest exponent of the argument that trans rights are the new gay rights, and that conflation of gay and trans is key to the trans lobbyists’ power, especially in the public and voluntary sectors, where allegations of intolerance can end careers. The CEO of a major charity, a woman who has worked at board level in FTSE 100 companies, recently told me she was simply ‘too scared to speak publicly’ about her fear that the systematic misapplication of equality laws is eroding women’s rights and safeguarding rules. Being called a bigot might cost her her job, she says.

In fact, a good many gay people are uncomfortable with the addition of T (Transexual) to LGB (Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual). Some of the most vocal critics of transgenderism are lesbians, their concerns based in part on the fact that one logical outcome of ‘trans women are women’ is that lesbians should regard male-bodied trans women as female and thus as potential sexual partners. Yes, this most progressive of social movements tells women who really don’t like penises that they must consider having sex with people who have penises.

Among the gay men voicing doubts about all this is Simon Fanshawe, one of the founders of Stonewall, who now laments that there is ‘no room for dissent’ from the official trans orthodoxy — even though many trans people themselves are uncomfortable about the militancy practised in their name. They fear that the policies promoted by the ‘trans women are women’ camp risk a backlash against trans people as the wider population notices the increasingly awkward consequences of the doctrine. That day is fast approaching" (continues)

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/

Times letter:
STONEWALL CRITICISED
Sir, Stonewall has played a leading role in advancing the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals; it has also campaigned on transgender issues since 2015. We believe that it has made mistakes in its approach that are undermining women’s sex-based rights and protections.

The government’s public consultation on proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act closes on October 19, so it is vital for there to be a debate about transgender politics and the rights of women and girls. Stonewall disagrees, and calls debate on this matter “transphobic”.

We urge Stonewall to acknowledge that there are a range of valid viewpoints around sex, gender and transgender politics, and to acknowledge specifically that a conflict exists between transgenderism and sex-based women’s rights. We call on Stonewall to commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate rather than demonising as transphobic those who wish to discuss, or dissent from, Stonewall’s transgender policies.

Jonathan Best, former director of Queer Up North; Julie Bindel, journalist and feminist campaigner; Maureen Chadwick, TV writer; Beatrix Campbell, writer; James Dreyfus, actor; Kate Harris, former fundraiser for Stonewall; Philip Hensher, author; Kathleen Stock, philosopher; Caroline Spry, TV producer; Miranda Yardley, transsexual rights activist; Alison Moyet, singer; Paul Burston, author; Kristina Harrison, paramedic and transwoman; Darren Johnson, London Assembly Member 2000-16; Eileen Gallagher, television producer; Claire Graham, intersex advocate; Jane Harris, author'

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/second-referendum-and-the-brexit-deadlock-qzr5qllkh
Petition: www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach

Times article: Stonewall ‘backing transgender bullies’
(extract)
"The petition accused the charity of undermining “the concept of homosexuality itself” by “uncritically adopting a form of transgender politics” that tells teenagers who do not conform to gender stereotypes that they may be transgender rather than gay.

The letter said: “We urge Stonewall to acknowledge . . . specifically that a conflict exists between transgenderism and sex-based women’s rights. We call on Stonewall to commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate rather than demonising as transphobic those who wish to discuss, or dissent from, Stonewall’s transgender policies.”

Mr Best said that while in the past gay activists had fought for legislative equality, today’s transgender activists had “an extreme identity politics” and wanted to “redefine sex and gender for the whole of society”.

“Men are not women — and your bullying will not persuade us differently,” he said.

Stonewall declined to comment."
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-backing-transgender-bullies-slvn00vng

Guardian today, 'Charities need to stop slide in public trust warns regulator
Groups risking censure, says Charity Commission, citing aggressive fundraising and betrayal of charitable focus'

(extract)
"Registered charities may not survive unless they behave with greater selflessness and stop the slide in public trust, Tina Stowell, chair of the Charity Commission is warning.

Lady Stowell, a former Conservative minister, is to set out a tougher stance over the regulation of the £74bn-a-year sector after a string of scandals, including the collapse of Kids Company in 2015, and the sexual exploitation in Haiti by a senior Oxfam worker, which emerged in 2018.

The UK’s 168,000 registered charities face censure unless they show they are “a living example of charitable purpose”, she will say on Thursday.

In a speech that also attempts to draw a line under criticism of the regulator’s own effectiveness, Stowell will warn that the “concept of charity” is under threat." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/03/charities-need-stop-slide-public-trust-warns-regulator

Why would anyone want to push an agenda that pretends that kids can consent to things that in truth, they can’t understand the full meaning of?

this this this this this this this this this this this this

pulling at that particular thread would earn me a strike here

but it's a bloody good question

and thanks for the link to the speccie R0

it's good - maybe it deserves it's own thread?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384307-James-Kirkup-Spectator-lead-article-Trans-rights-have-gone-wrong-The-new-gender-orthodoxy-allows-no-room-for-dissent

Bernard it just shocks me utterly. Stonewall are providing guidance to policy making in thousands of UK schools.

Stonewall’s agenda these days centres a radically anti-child, anti-woman and anti-safeguarding gender-stereotyping-enforcing political nonsense around trans that is also actually at the expense of lesbians - this is not stuff that schools should be promoting!

How can it be legal for non British people to fill in this consultation ? Do you not have to have a valid UK address ? Only those people resident here and of voting age should be able to do this. It is just horrifying when you look at the state of things in America, to think that their politics could influence UK government policy.

Because the consultation wouldn't go the way they want if it was only open to UK citizens of voting age.
That's why.

Fuck. This whole thing is creepy as FUCK.

Plus this is just plain sight bullshit.

When we are born, our parents say that we are either male or female. This is recorded on our birth certificate.

I didnt fucking “say” anything about my kids’ sex OR gender. It was obvious to everyone because of their genitalia.

Jesus wept.

I knew what sex my children were at 20 weeks' gestation. Because the sonographer identified their genitalia correctly

I have this sort of fantasy about the genderists idea of what goes on in the 20 week scan

Sonographer: Oh, look, that blurry patch there is an enlarged sense of entitlement - congratulations, you're having a boy!

Or

That pink sparkly bit there shows that your child will enjoy being objectified and attending women only cake things - it's a girl!

Really worth reading the many nuanced comments:
www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach#comments

MN thread about Stonewall Petition moved from FWR to petition noticeboard.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3384045-Petition-to-Stonewall