Transsexuals leaving the Stonewall umbrella

[kooshbin]

transsexualwomen1.blogspot.com/

They really get what the issue is. Who Stonewall are really centring. And it's not them, no more is it people who are LGB.

It's incredibly brave of them to make that statement.

Good for them. Every organisation I have ever worked for clambers to get recognised by stonewall and I'm now just livid every time they promote themselves in the workplace.

A strong message, I hope it gets reported properly. Those of us here that were trans allies in the past always had transsexuals such as these in mind and some of those names I recognise. These are not the people policing women, taking places in sports and awards and telling us they can do womening better.

That's a great letter and I completely support them.
Stonewall are a joke.

Excellent letter
That is brave

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

Excellent letter and I hope other TS will come out in support.

Good luck to them.

That is one excellent letter. It says everything I have often tried to articulate but have never quite managed to put together.

• I have posted so many times about my lovely, lifelong tranny mate.
• The wonder of living as a young adult throught the gender bending 70/80s.
• My PeakTRA moment, when I stopped seeing transwomen as an aceptable face in a womans space
• My dismay at the hardening of my thoughts, my now near complete rejection of anything trans (which is hard given said tranny mate nd the recent wedding of my best female friend to a transman who is also a very good friend)
• My fear of Mermaids and its ilk. The lies, the sheer audacity of the lies

There are so many starnds to what I want to say... that letter has covered everything!

I hope the signatory list grows, I know they will get support from us here, no matter the severity/stupidity of the backlash!

It's worth reading more of Seven Hex's blog where she's also posted this letter.

www.facebook.com/100027985605819/posts/238762873733231?sfns=mo

I'm afraid I am now jaded enough to hold fire on TS initiatives. I'll wait and see if this one actually turns out to properly respect women's rights to spaces and services away from males or not, or descends into infighting or not. We'll see.

I imagine what they're saying is 'Allow us, the properly vetted males, into women-only places -- but keep the others out.'

Actually, I'm fairly happy with that, but I know plenty of women aren't.

Fairly. Not entirely happy with it. I still don't think anyone male is entitled to represent womanhood.

Dodo yes. About 2 years ago I would have thought that a very nasty attitude. But now I agree - hence my dismay as I cannot reconcile that with certain close friendships!

But I am willing to take on board the difference betwwen trans sexual and trans gender ... for the moment. Mainly because I am trying to reconcile my anger with TRA actions and the reality of my friendship group.

Well-written, well-argued letter.

It will completely be ignored by The Powers That Be for just those reasons.

I'm afraid I am now jaded enough to hold fire on TS initiatives. I'll wait and see if this one actually turns out to properly respect women's rights to spaces and services away from males or not, or descends into infighting or not. We'll see.

Yeah, when the letter in the Times was published last year, within hours one or two of the signatories (not sure if they've signed this one) were here explaining where they actually stand, and in the end I didn't see any difference between their attitude and that of the TRAs.

That said, it's an excellent letter, and I think TS who don't celebrate transgenderism are better off distancing themselves from Stonewall.
I admire Leanne Mills and would certainly describe her as brave for doing what she has done in recent months. She is an important voice IMO.

It's about time that they began to organise themselves.

In the absence/suppression of transexual voices, Maria Miller's Committee were led by the nose by Stephen Whittle, Stonewall and the likes of Jess Bradley.

Nevertheless it all seemed to be going so well until

• the Prime MInister announced that transgenderism didn't require much healthcare provision
• women started ring-fencing their personal spaces and services to exclude men, and sought to strengthen the Equality Act.

These two developments - the proposed removal of adequate health care provision and the clamour to exclude men from women's services and spaces - have been a direct threat to transexuals.

So now they are emerging into the light, to press for the status quo in the law and to retain their rights to health services and access to women's spaces.

Yes, it's uncomfortable for them - but then they have a lot to lose. There are conflicts with women's rights that still need to be resolved.

One bit that I noticed was this:

We also accept exemptions where in things such as refuges, shortlists and sports one on one assessment is made and we can be excluded.

I think that's a recognition that there are places and situations where they shouldn't be. Wasn't there a transwoman athlete who said they accepted that one price they paid was self-excluding themself from women's competitions?

In my mind, that's the difference. I could respect any transwoman who respected women, and women's needs for safe spaces. That's most probably how it's worked in the past. I don't know if I've ever met a transwoman in the past; possibly, but that would most likely have been a transwoman who wasn't the kind of bully that we're now seeing.

I don't blame those transwomen for not speaking up in the current situation. We are "terfs" but there's thousands of us terfy women. They, on the other hand, are "traitors" and there's not so many of them.

Wasn't there a transwoman athlete who said they accepted that one price they paid was self-excluding themself from women's competitions?
Renee Richards said something along these lines after having competed as a woman some years previously. It was a reflection after the fact.
Richards went on to coach Navratilova.

In the absence/suppression of transexual voices, Maria Miller's Committee were led by the nose by Stephen Whittle, Stonewall and the likes of Jess Bradley.

Stephen Whittle is transsexual, so too Sarah Brown (Stonewall), Christine Burns, Karen Jones and many others who influenced policies including the GRA, prisons etc

The history of influence by TRAs and a small number of mostly male doctors is important, see thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

AngryAttackKittens wrote of thread above,
I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new.

That said, it's an excellent letter, and I think TS who don't celebrate transgenderism are better off distancing themselves from Stonewall.

threads:
October 2017
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3069102-Stonewall-really-are-throwing-women-udner-the-bus-arent-they-sad

October 2018
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/3355712-Aimee-Challenor-Stonewall
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3477761-Andrew-Gilligan-Times-Green-high-flyer-Aimee-Challenor-hid-father-s-rape-charges-David-Challenor-A-paedophile-rapist-posed-a-major-safeguarding-risk-for-almost-two-years

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3488261-The-Financial-Juggernaut-that-is-Stonewall

We also accept exemptions where in things such as refuges, shortlists and sports one on one assessment is made and we can be excluded.

I think that's a recognition that there are places and situations where they shouldn't be.

Actually, no. If, by one on one, they mean the EHRC guidance of case by case to be person-by-person and not service-by-service, as I suspect they do, this is a major, major thing we are fighting against.

Case by case in this way means the destruction of women-only in the women's sector because nobody has the resources to accommodate this.

Always read the small print.

Actually, no. If, by one on one, they mean the EHRC guidance of case by case to be person-by-person and not service-by-service, as I suspect they do, this is a major, major thing we are fighting against.

Exactly.

You're simply going to be in a situation where men will enter all those places, and women are then expected to start a process to turf them out. It will become commonplace for toilets to be mixed sex, changing rooms to be mixed sex, amateur sports teams, etc.

Shortlists? What could possibly be a reason to assess on a one-to-one basis?

There will be constant lawsuits. It has to be a blanket segregation.

It has to be a blanket segregation.

This.

Women have a right to women only provisions. Case by case means some men allowed, which in turn means endless arguing by men as to how many of them, under what circumstances, to what degree -

Which confirms: a belief that women have no right to spaces away from men, no right to have their choices respected, and it's up to men to agree what favours they may be conditionally granted in this direction.

Fuck that.

It's a good letter, I am glad to see groups openly turn away from Stonewall and put it in plain sight that Stonewall no longer represents any interests but transgender ones, and that's to the detriment of all the groups who originally formed Stonewall and who did genuinely suffer inequality under the law. But no men should be using women's spaces.

Claims to effective 'case by case' risk management are fundamentally flawed if they are not able to recognise that there is substantial risk posed by male people (whether they identify as transsexual, transwoman, non-binary or men) in vulnerable / intimate female spaces.

It is well established that the majority of male-pattern violence against women and girls goes unreported and when reported is poorly prosecuted.

Risk assessements to identify which male transpeople are a risk to females can only take into account convictions. Its naive to think this is an appropriate tool.

Single sex spaces for women and girls are fo their safety, privacy and dignity.

(& yes of course NAMALT however being male is a very significant risk factor)