Full page advert in Metro

[Bespin]

Check out @stonewalluk’s Tweet: twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1052446619491336192?s=09

I agree with the 'too late' sentiments. The genie is out of the bottle for all of those who were hoping to sneak self id through under the radar. They are currently banging away with that same strategy - trying to galvanise support from unwitting supporters, but that still won't work. They need to re-strategise and try and come up with more convincing arguments, but I don't think this is possible.

When the consultation responses are analysed, whilst volume of responses will be analysed, so will the nature of the arguments raised (both for and against). If some serious and legitimate concerns/problems are raised, regardless of the number of times they are raised, they will have to be considered.

When undertaking something like a serious case review, if the person responsible for someone else's safety was warned by a single person of a danger they need to safeguard against, negligence is deemed to have happened if the person did not attend to that warning and harm was done. If 20 people warned of the danger, whilst that influences how the 'ignorer' is viewed, the same principle applies whether it is 1 or 101 people providing the warning.

The ante will be upped with regard to 'kindness', 'suicide', 'hate' and 'bigoty', all of which suggesting to trans people that hate and hostility exists where it doesn't. Way to go Stonewall et al!

When undertaking something like a serious case review, if the person responsible for someone else's safety was warned by a single person of a danger they need to safeguard against, negligence is deemed to have happened if the person did not attend to that warning and harm was done.

That's interesting MsBeaujangles. Is that an official thing, or a sort of conceptual one?

Because hundreds of people have warned about the safeguarding problems. Most recently the girl guides.

I think they want to try to portray it as a show of strength. But the bigger organisations would never agree to put their names to a Yes to Self-ID advert.

So they have to go down the trans people deserve respect line instead.

Which looks an awful lot like weakness.

This is a small administrative change that affects trans people only according to Stonewall, so why doesn't the ad just say exactly that and these companies put their names to it?

Simply because Stonewall cannot convince their own partners that this is the case.

I am going to strongly suggest people email these organisations explaining why it looks bad to certain groups after the other advert as important background context.

It might be completely innocent and people agree with the sentiment but the context (or lack of) is a serious ommision.

The company have worked in the past in good faith with Stonewall. That trust might be being stretched a little.

Corporate level virtue signalling. Most of the companies that have put their name to this won't know the details of what it is about, just that to be seen as good companies they have to sign up in support of trans, so they do.

That’s a hell of a lot of high level support for the most discrimated against and marginalized group in our society.....

isn't it just?

This is the wiki definition of homophobia

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

Stonewall's policy which erases the visibility of sex is at odds with this. Its questionably homophobic at times due to the lack of nuance and dominance of trans ideology.

People might also want to consider mentioning this.

I think they want to try to portray it as a show of strength. But the bigger organisations would never agree to put their names to a Yes to Self-ID advert.

So Stonewall have convinced well-known companies to support something which they haven't really explained to them?

When those companies find out that the end result is approval of Karen White, I imagine they will be absolutely fucking furious.

I wonder if Stonewall have got documentation to show what they asked of these companies these company's consent?

As I say. There are organisations on there who have conflicts of interest in being seen to support self ID without question before the review is complete. The context of this advert matters. Point it out.

James Kirkup on Twitter:

twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1052532590169772033

"GCHQ is a public body. It is using public resources to support an organisation that is lobbying ministers to change the law. How does that fit with Cabinet Office rules stating public bodies must not lobby?"

No professional body would give Stonewall (or any other organisation) a free license to put their logo on anything except what they have expressly agreed to.

Unless it was done without permission, the organisations would have signed off on the actual advert and this should have involved checking the hashtag to check for anything that could conflict with their projected brand values

Great tweet from James Kirkup

Datun the purpose of a serious case review is to learn lessons. Many of the safeguarding procedures professionals follow now have arisen from findings from SCRs.

A key question asked is - could this have been prevented? If warnings were given/dangers were highlighted, then the answer to this is yes and the investigation will explore what factors underpinned the neglect to attend to the warning (amongst other things).

If people feel their safeguarding concerns are being ignored/ played down I always advise them to put their concerns in writing and state that they are doing so so that in the tragic event of a SCR having to take place, there will be irrefutable evidence that they were warned about the dangers. Incidents relating to any proposed change in the law re self id would not trigger a SCR but in reviewing the law a government could be held to account for ignoring warnings. The consultation responses will definitely raise lots of concerns and I would be amazed if the government felt able to dismiss them lightly.

Interestingly, warnings seem to be coming from both sides of the debate. Women are warning about the dangers of allowing males who have not been assessed by professionals (through the GRC process) in to women's spaces (there is already evidence of what can go wrong) and TRAs are expressing fears about self harming and increase suicide ideation (there is probably evidence that can produced to evidence this too). However, the solution to self harm and suicide is not reformation of the GRA, but mental health intervention. It is vital that people are helped so they do not to base their desire to live on a piece of legislation!

It's not the only one.

James on it as usual. He definately read these threads. Thanks James!

Tweet from GCHQ thread.

This needs to be stopped in it's tracks and investigated.
The great thing is that everytime stonewall do something they reveal more about how skewed and corrupt they are and how it's coming from high up.
Things keep backfiring for them, what was supposed to be an under the radar push to change law has started unravelling.

MsBeaujangles

Thank you. Very comprehensive.

So the case of someone like Karen White, I'm guessing their 'investigation' would actually be a serious case review?

This has disturbed me so much. I don't know why but if feels like the final straw. I feel sick. How fucking dare they imply that gender critical people want to see trans people harassed and don't support their well-being and safety. How fucking dare they. How can we be painted as the bad guys when they give literally zero fucks about the right of women not to be harassed and to be safe?! Well, I know how - we don't have the power. But it makes me sick.

Simply because Stonewall cannot convince their own partners that this is the case.
*
This.
*
If they were honest, they'd set their arguments out clearly. Instead they choose to avoid the debate.

The IPO too. WTF is going on

twitter.com/zeno001/status/1052505902086021120

Read this thread, response from IPO. This is a serious scandal

I agree with Captain.

The more Stonewall is desperately floundering around trying anything but debate the actual issues, the more people are waking up to it.

I am gonna ask MNHQ if they will ask Ruth Hunt (Stonewall Chief Exec) here for a webchat.

GCHQ tweet

twitter.com/GCHQ/status/1052504626484850688

I fucking work for one of the companies on that list - it's really depressing as they have completely swallowed it and I think are probably on the side of Stonewall regardless of the implications