Is the problem with Stonewall?

[Ohallright]

As above, if the definition of trans was the transsexual people, or those actively seeking to change their body, would we have the same problem?

Who decided that Stonewall’s definition is the one to be used in law?

When media and commentators say there is no problem in other countries (thinking of Ireland re Women’s Hour) are we all using the same, huge, golf umbrella?

Its really worth being aware who is part of Stonewall's Trans Advisory Group and what influence they also have, there are many recent threads discussing some of the prominant members' views and actions:
eg Helen Belcher (Trans Media Watch / Lib Dems)
Sarah Brown (LibDems)
Aimee Challenor (Greens, LibDems Coventry Pride etc)
Alex Drummond

other members have influence in armed services, NUS, NHS, civil service, arts. sports, education, religious groups etc

www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

Miranda Yardley's 2017 article about Stonewall:
mirandayardley.com/en/ma-vie-en-rose-ruth-hunts-rose-tinted-transgoggles-and-the-anti-woman-politics-of-stonewall/

On a recent thread, Stephen Whittle (Press for Change) and legal adviser to the Women's & Equalities Committee wrote:

"I suggest you ask Ruth Hunt - her answer would be "nobody pulls my strings". I have no interaction with Stonewall, though I do know some of the people on their Trans Advisory group, but they carry their own voices, and do not seek my comments. Stonewall does what it does all by itself. (just in case you are not certain, I am the Stephen Whittle you were referring to)"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?pg=3

R0wantrees, you are magnificent. A kind of living archive. Please accept this bottle of as there is no champagne emoji.

Prawn Thank you, I have tonic & timing's perfect!

Interesting historical perspective:

Julie Bindel's Twitter comment: "This was the 200-strong demo outside the Stonewall awards, 2008, in protest of me being up for journalist of the year" link to video below
twitter.com/bindelj/status/1055810006426312704

Youtube channel: Sarah Brown (now Stonewall advisory group & influential LibDem)
Published on 7 Nov 2008
titled:
'Demonstration against Stonewall's nomination of transphobic journalist, Julie Bindel for "Journalist of the Year"'
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOHcV5yu0Ys

Blimey R0wantrees you are an encyclopedia!
This is fascinating stuff -a lot to take in.

I'm curious as to what exactly happened to Stonewall between 2008 (Bindel's award) and 2015 (trans advisory board formed). Was it from within or an outside influence? This is such a complex web!

I agree when OP says that the width of that sodding umbrella is the major problem.
Personally I would still disagree with self ID anyway, but it's not the 'old school' transsexuals that are the cause of this turmoil -they are suffering because of it.

Just wondering how it came to be accepted as so broad by those with influence.

TimeLady posted on a previous thread with link to key document which states:

In 2014 we started to talk to trans people about whether we might be able to play a role in campaigning for trans equality. At the outset of that conversation we apologised for not taking this opportunity sooner, and for making mistakes in the past which have harmed trans communities. What followed was an extensive consultation where we heard from over 700 trans people about their thoughts on the role we could play."

"How the T began....

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/trans_people_and_stonewall.pdf

Foreward

Ruth Hunt, Chief Executive, Stonewall

When I came out as a lesbian at the age of 15 in 1995 I didn’t know any other lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people. I retreated to Cardiff library and read anything and everything that might help me find my way. In 1996 my family moved to Birmingham. With a number three haircut, a new leather jacket and scant regard for my A-levels, I discovered the Birmingham scene and a new community of lesbians, bisexual people, gay men, drag queens, trans men, trans women and, for me, a strong sense of belonging. We all understood the differences between us but we understood what united us because when we left the ‘village’ we all experienced the same sort of harassment and intimidation. Although I was able to go home to my family, others were less fortunate. For some, the Birmingham village was our family.
As I was embracing a new community, Stonewall and Press for Change activists and campaigners (as well as many others) were working tirelessly on our behalf to eradicate inequalities. The people they were influencing didn’t appreciate the wonderful diversity of our LGBT family. They knew a little about gay men but the rights of trans people were quite a different and complex issue. Our campaigners approached sexual orientation and gender identity as separate issues. This distinction meant greater social progress was achieved for all of us.
Today, society has moved on and Stonewall no longer needs to maintain a strict distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity. Historically, we thought it was the right thing to do. Over the last four months I’ve spoken to hundreds of trans people who say we were wrong to maintain that distinction and we made it worse by making mistakes. We recognise the impact of mistakes we have made in the past. We are aware that we have missed opportunities to open up this conversation far sooner. We apologise to trans people for the harm that we have caused.
After hundreds of conversations with trans people and also with our supporters and partners, we have decided to extend our remit to become a charity which campaigns for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans equality. Whether it’s challenging bullying in our schools, tackling hate crime on our streets or working to make our public services truly equal for all who use them, we have a responsibility to use our voice and our 25 years of experience to help create real change for trans people.
We also believe that taking this step will enhance all of the work that we already do. When we talk to teachers and doctors and managers we tell them how they can start to create an environment that lets people be themselves. Trans people, who all too often have to fight to express themselves and their gender in a way that’s authentic, really know what that means. Learning from them and hearing their voices will only make us stronger as a movement and as an LGBT community.
I want to thank everyone who has made the effort to reach out to Stonewall and tell us what you think. We can achieve so much by standing together so that each and every one of us can be ourselves in all areas of our lives."

The apology and admission of being wrong, causing harm etc is very interesting. Not the sort of basis for a complete change of organisational strategy we would usually see in a business or charity. Unless there were some very significant ‘supporters’ or stakeholders who required a complete and total organisational shift.

Apologies if this has been posted before, but here's a talk by Stephen Whittle at LSE last year. He mentions deciding in 1985 that "things would only changeif trans people become lawyers"
About 3 minutes before the end he talks about how trans people should sue businesses etc.

www.democraticaudit.com/2017/02/02/stephen-whittle-on-25-years-seeking-trans-equality/

Materialist yes, exactly.

bluetitsaretits wrote: here's a talk by Stephen Whittle at LSE last year

Thanks for posting that - looking around Democratic Audit introduced me to some interesting discussions and overviews of the HoC's committee system and a book that is open access and (will be) a free download - The UK’s Changing Democracy: The 2018 Democratic Audit :

www.democraticaudit.com/the-uks-changing-democracy-the-2018-democratic-audit/

It's this " trans" word; it is so wide, and so meaningless in practice. Once Stonewall became inclusive of the T, logically they had to work for all their " constituency. Transsexual men and women suffer here; they are the ones who make the commitment, over a number of years, and who have medical assessment, hormones, surgery,etc etc, Along come trans people who are numerous and disparate , and they demand the right to " change "their legal gender on the spot. And be eligible for " women only shortlists" and so on. I am a TS woman, and have been for 20 years. I and people like me would never put ourselves forward for women only shortlists; it is beyond being " a cheek"; it is an insensitive , selfish thing to do. We voted against the self ID thing, and quite rightly. But " trans"; what DOES that mean, exactly, really?

It's not just stobewall though. The issue is international. In the anglophone world at least. I would be interested to see a time line on that.

Press for change (Stephen Whittle's organisation) have advised governments in quite a few countries.

Manderleyagain Sheila Jeffries gave a useful chronologcal perspective at the last 'We Need To Talk' meeting in London.

THe Yogikarta principles are significant and you will find some threads about them FWR.

The thread about the 'we need to talk' meeting gave me the chills

article about formation of Press for Change:

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

In 2007 salon.con published a famous article asking how the T got into LGBT: www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/

The piece suggests it happened about ten years previously and that it was in the late 90s that groups started adding the T.
Of course the trend may well have been slower here.
When I was at uni 1996-9 there was an LGB society, actually called LesBiGay. I never heard anything about the T. Transsexualism and dysmorphia were occasionally discussed in television documentaries, but the modern notions of trans and transgender and the idea that any of it had anything to do with gay rights were all unknown, at least to me.

'Object' article by HANNAH HARRISON
JULY 27, 2018

"Yogyakarta Principles: International Threat to Women's Rights'
(extract)
"This article mainly summarises the key points made in a speech by Sheila Jeffreys (entitled “Enforcing Men's Sexual Rights in International Human Rights Law”) at Venice Allan's We Need To Talk event, 'Inconvenient Women', held in London on June 13th 2018. Read a full transcript here.
drradfem.org/enforcing-mens-sexual-rights-in-international-human-rights-law/

What are the Yogyakarta Principles?

The Yogyakarta Principles were first created at a meeting in Indonesia in 2007; in 2017, extra principles were added, known as the “Plus 10.” Signatories include prominent human rights campaigners, lawyers and functionaries.

This document provides a vitally needed charter of rights for gay men and lesbians.

“The Yogyakarta Principles as far as they concern lesbian and gay rights are much needed and it is very unfortunate that they are compromised and undermined by the creation of rights for mainly heterosexual men who crossdress and impersonate women.” (Jeffreys, 2018)

However, the positive components of the Yogyakarta Principles are hugely undermined by a section on 'gender identity'. The potential consequences of this 'gender identity' section have perhaps been overlooked by people who assume this section simply promotes the protection of so-called 'transgender' people from violence and discrimination. This is not the case, however. The 'gender identity' section poses a threat to the rights of all women.

The concept of 'gender identity' “endangers the very notion of women's rights as human rights.” (Jeffreys, 2018)

This 'gender identity' section conspires to enshrine the idea of innate 'gender' (ie. sex roles / stereotypes) in law, to remove sex-based protections for women, and to label feminist criticism of 'gender' a form of discrimination." (continues)

www.objectnow.org/news/2018/7/27/yogyakarta-principles-international-threat-to-womens-rights

Ruth Hunt can fuck off and take her allies with her.

Over the last four months I’ve spoken to hundreds of trans people who say we were wrong to maintain that distinction and we made it worse by making mistakes. We recognise the impact of mistakes we have made in the past. We are aware that we have missed opportunities to open up this conversation far sooner. We apologise to trans people for the harm that we have caused.

It's disturbingly akin to the Cultural Revolution complete with public denunciations and demands for self-criticism and self-abasement.

I'd give a lot to know how many other "supporters and partners" were consulted in these chats and how many would have foreseen that Stonewall would have ended up adopting an intellectual position that gay and lesbian preferences in sexual partners are transphobic and to be deprecated.

Rowantrees. Thanks interesting. Excellent writing by Jeffreys.

The lost lesbian blog has a really interesting take on Stonewall's role in the UK, since the campaign against section 28. Worht a read (quite quick)
lesbianlost.home.blog/2018/10/25/truth-to-power/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

One thing which gives me hope is that the new gender ideology is really very very recent, and therefore has no depth or root in the population (as shown by the recent survey research).

Over the last four months I’ve spoken to hundreds of women who say we were wrong not to maintain that distinction and we made it worse by making mistakes. We recognise the impact of mistakes we have made in the past. We are aware that we have missed opportunities to open up this conversation far sooner. We apologise to women for the harm that we have caused.

If The Advocate had said something like this, instead of “we’ve yelled, raged, attacked, we’ve done everything we can to get your attention to help us”, they might have got a bit of sympathy from the women who were the objects of their yells, rage & attacks. But they don't seem capable of that kind of self-awareness.