Ruth Hunt & Stonewall, "do not and will not acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’

[R0wantrees]

Response to petition,
www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach

Since the planned reform of the Gender Recognition Act was announced a year ago, there have been daily articles and social media threads that question trans people’s right to exist, trying to undermine their ability to go about their daily lives free from fear and abuse. This week, a petition has been launched directly asking Stonewall to reconsider our work on trans equality.
The petition asks us to acknowledge that there are a range of viewpoints around sex and gender. Of course we know that these differing views exist, and have existed for many years. The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’. We do not and will not acknowledge this. Doing so would imply that we do not believe that trans people deserve the same rights as others. However, we are unequivocal in our support of trans people’s – and everyone’s – right to equality and will remain so. Our motto is ‘acceptance without exception’. (continues)

www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall-stories-category/come-out-lgbt/our-work-trans-equality-heart-our-mission-acceptance

current threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3384045-Petition-to-Stonewall

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384407-Times-letter-petition-STONEWALL-CRITICISED-undermining-women-s-sex-based-rights-and-protections-Jonny-Best-et-al

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

Advocating for the removal of single sex spaces means Stonewall absolutely recognises the conflict and has acted on it.

So according to that FB post, a lesbian now has to go round confirming that she likes women, female women, female with a vagina, female women with a vagina that they were born with?
(it's like an episode of "I went to market and I bought a..."!)

Despite pretty much every single sentient human knowing a lesbian is a woman who likes women and understands that immediately

The rights that women, gay and lesbian people have, are based on us being able to identify our sex.

If we remove that, we remove a fundamental human right, it makes a nonsense of existing law. So it removes our existing rights.

If existing rights that we still need can be damaged or removed from us then we don't own them, they are on loan to us from a more powerful group.

Can I identify as a transwomen? Speak on behalf of transwomen? Accept awards? Access specific resources?

A while ago on Twitter, GC feminists were putting AFAB trans woman in their bios. It sent the TRAs into paroxysms of fury.

Was one of the horrible "transphobic" protess she referred to the 8 brave middle-ged, calm, assertive lesbians at Pride? I think sh'e got a bit confused about what constitutes

a )horrible
b) transphobic

I am quite fascinated by what makes her tick. So. Much. Cognitive Dissonance

protests

The speed of that response implies no internal consultation, no reflection, no analysis. At all. Just parrot the party line and make sure to imply that all "dissenters" are bigots. It is breathtakingly arrogant.

These were exactly my thoughts.

The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’. We do not and will not acknowledge this.

Not surprising at all.

Stonewall is actively homophobic these days. This is the direction Ruth Hunt has taken them and its a fucking disgrace.

If you cannot acknowledge sex based rights, then you cannot challenge homophobia or protect gay rights, in fact you are actively campaigning against the rights of women and lesbian women.

A comment on the petition, that is spot on.

I have just cancelled my direct debit to Shelter; Ruth Hunt is their Vice Chair. I've written to tell them why:

"There are two reasons for this. The first is that I have been a support of Shelter for over ten years, and there are other causes I wish to support.

The second is that I am very unhappy with your choice of Vice Chair. Ruth Hunt has, in my opinion, managed to turn Stonewall into an organisation that actively seeks to harm women and particularly lesbians, and I cannot trust the organisational values of a charity that has her on its board."

Can I identify as a transwomen? Speak on behalf of transwomen? Accept awards? Access specific resources?
I'm going to identify as a MtF transwoman. I identified as male so that made me male, now I'm transitioning to female. I wasn't female to begin with before that; I was Alexigender. I'm also self diagnosed as disabled, so I'm proudly transabled. I'm going to write in to Jess to ask for some bus fare money from the fund, and I've applied for a blue badge.
It's been a lot to get my head around today, I've been on a journey but I'm going to be stunning and brave about it.
I might desist tomorrow, I've got work.

Only trans women who have been previously known as men in the media are allowed to be trans women.

Stonewall's dead from the point of view of lesbian and gay rights and it's not salvageable.

Here here.
This has been the case for a while. They certainly don't represent me as a lesbian. I also will no longer use the LGBT acronym or describe myself as such as it's become a political statement with values I am horrified by, which are actively homophobic and anti women.

Turph

I would like Ruth Hunt to let us know what the collective noun for adults with vaginas is. We can't use women anymore. We've been told that saying natal women or biological women is exclusionary.
So what are this mysterious group of vagina people called?
Considering it's the 100th anniversary of suffrage for that group of people, I think it's horrifying that they can no longer have a name for themselves without being called transphobic.

We're setting up an LGB alternative to Stonewall called Stormé. Anyone know where to start? Can't be that hard, JB has set enough up one-handed.

I am struggling to understand the denying trans people’s ‘right to exist’ argument at all that Ruth Hunt makes in the OP.

Someone disagreeing about something with another person doesn’t have the power to make either person cease to exist?

And certainly no one is even arguing that anyone else should ‘not exist’ in this debate? It doesn’t make sense.

It’s just not relevant as an argument is it?

Is it the same moral blackmail motif as used in Peter Pan? Clap if you believe in fairies? If you don’t clap, Tinkerbell will die?
(She ceases to Exist, if you don’t show to others that you believe in her, because she is an entity of the imagination..? )

I just can’t figure out this concept as a rational argument.

ChattyLion, I see where you've gone wrong there. You've assumed that everyone is engaging in rational argument. Some are religious nutbars, and rational argument will not compute.

I like Storme (how did toy flsoo the derry over the e?) but these days I just think of the porn actress, so maybe not.

Chatty

The 'you deny our existence/don't want us to exist' is ridiculous but is deliberate (I think). It suggests "You want to hurt us. You want us the cease to be. You want to (even) kill us". It's very manipulative

Floral i totally agree, it is an argument over a belief system, isn’t it? Why can’t we treat it like that though?

How is it not acceptable to say ‘OK, but you can’t really turn water into wine can you?’

Somehow everyone has to agree vociferously that the water is now wine, and what’s more we must criminalise grape growing and barrel making as hateful bigotry?

So folks on Twitter are saying that stonewall has one employee listed as being paid in the £90-100k. Guessing here - she should hang her head receiving a whopper like that in the 3rd sector. Or are they still classed as 3rd sector thee days?

Can I identify as a FtMtF trans woman?

Stonewall has shown us who they are. Anti-women and lesbophobic.

..And full of ridiculous hyperbole.

Chrysanths I agree totally. It’s really not even an argument is it- just ‘I believe in X so everyone else has to as well’. I just can’t believe that a CEO of a charity would seriously use weird emotive ploys like that as part of their apparently robust rebuttal against a petition that is only asking them to consider and acknowledge other people’s views. It’s bizarre.

This from Julie Bindel is very interesting.

mobile.twitter.com/bindelj/status/1047899829773504513

If the quick reponse was designed to stop people from signing the petition, it failed.

The comments from high profile, eminent past supporters are mind blowing.