Ruth Hunt: it's not transphobic to oppose self-i.d ; prison, sport, refuge are 'grey areas'.

[ImaginaryFoe]

Just caught the tail end of HardTalk interview with Ruth Hunt. A couple of interesting things, I thought:

Asked if disagreement with self-ID is transphobic, she answered with a simple 'no'.

In talking about the trans issue being more divisive than campaigns for lgb issues like equal marriage, she said this issue is more complex, and acknowledged that there are 'grey areas' which are not simple or straightforward, specifically naming prisons, sport, and women's refuges as examples. Seems a long way from "no debate" and "transwomen are women, get over it."

Mere months ago I don't think there would have been any such acknowledgement of "grey areas" or complexities. Certainly not from Stonewall. Those of you forcing this conversation into the sunlight are the reason why Ruth Hunt and her ilk now have to acknowledge that responding to legitimate concerns with "TWAW - get over it" is not a viable or defensible position outside the Twittersphere.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct5tgc

Agree that public opposition and voicing concerns is helping. Thanks to everyone who has made efforts, we need to keep it up for younger women coming through.

I don't see women's sport, prisons, refuges as 'grey areas'. They are for women. Men stay out. Ruth Hunt gets no plaudits from me for calling them grey areas.

I’m sure Ruth Hunt is a bit fed up with lesbians reminding her how she chucked them under the bus when she was in charge of Stonewall (the charity that lesbians once helped to build..) but really given how what Ruth Hunt was advocating for only months ago... I am not sure how much leeway she can credibly be given for trying to distance herself from that and wring her hands a teensy bit and say that maybe women may have had a small point... but only in certain ‘grey areas’

I wonder if the HardTalk journalists were aware of the ‘Dear Stonewall, please reconsider your approach’ petition to Ruth’s-era Stonewall? Less than a year ago in summer 2018. Still open for signatures BTW and at about over 8,000 now.

(HT ecosomething for the following summary) this petition asks Stonewall to:

• Acknowledge that there are a range of valid viewpoints around sex, gender and transgender politics

• Acknowledge specifically the conflict that exists between transgenderism and sex-based women’s rights

• Commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate, rather than demonising as transphobic those who wish to discuss or dissent from Stonewall’s current policies.

Link to Dear Stonewall petition here: www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach

HardTalk Journalists could also see: Link to MN thread discussing the ‘Dear Stonewall’ petition, with lots of useful links to other threads with concerns in relation to the political stance of Stonewall in this area- and there are many concerns, unfortunately:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3384045-Petition-to-Stonewall?pg=1&order=

This includes many comments on the appalling ‘response’ from Ruth Hunt at Stonewall to this very petition after it raised such concerns in a respectful way, and only asking Stonewall for dialogue.

Stonewall’s response, authored by Ruth Hunt: basically tells us that *there is no clash with women’s rights so anyone who has those concerns isn’t going to get any response from Stonewall.

Eg in the Stonewall statement:
The [Dear Stonewall] 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’.

Also in the same statement, the Stonewall CEO, Ruth Hunt, has a dig at Get the L Out, which is a group of six, (maybe eight?) peaceful, lesbian protestors at London Pride in 2018 who lay down in the road for a short while at the start of the Pride march, then peacefully marched along with everyone else- which they did to publicly raise concerns at the homophobia and misogyny behind transactivism.
A welcome act of truth-telling.

Of that, in the same statement the Stonewall CEO, Ruth Hunt said:

‘We know that there is huge support for trans rights from lesbian, gay and bi communities. The #LWithTheT movement sprang directly, and organically, in opposition to horrible transphobic demonstrations at events this summer, which aimed to make trans people at the events feel intimidated but in the end motivated a whole wave of lesbians and allies to loudly say that those angry voices don’t speak for them. That’s just one example.

Now is the time to make that support even more visible and vocal. Together we are stronger and can raise each other up. That’s as true for trans people today as it has been – and continues to be - for lesbian, gay and bi people through our history.

At Stonewall, we are absolutely committed to continue our work to ensure all trans people, as well as all lesbian, gay and bi people, are accepted for who they are in Britain and around the world.‘

Where were these grey areas then I wonder?

This is the link to the Ruth Hunt/Stonewall response to the petition in full:
www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall-stories-category/come-out-lgbt/our-work-trans-equality-heart-our-mission-acceptance.

What a massive hypocrite Ruth Hunt is!

To the trained ear she revealed it wasnt a grey area at all.

She admitted that the assessment process is flawed and that the consequences were disastrous.

Therefore theres a simple answer which would solve everything.

Shame the interview however was so fractured that despite being given alot if what listeners needed to know to see how ridiculous it all is, it was done in such a way as to not be accessible to a regular person not really analysing it.

The avoidance was obvious though.

Ruth Hunt said that? The Ruth Hunt, CEO of Stonewall? (I think she's still in post at the moment isn't she?)

That's huge.

It’s a very long way from where she was.
I wonder if her actual views are starting to show now she’s leaving Stonewall?

Even if she's leaving, if she's said that while still Stonewall CEO then I think it's very significant. I can't wait to see how Stonewall deal with it - whether they'll try and pretend it never happened or if we'll get an announcement that she's leaving earlier than expected.

There is strangely nothing about it on her Twitter feed though

If anyone else had said a tenth if what she did they'd be buried under a pile of rainbows and blocked from Twitter by now...

I'm.confused

Oh I was wrong, sorry, I thought she’d left already but she is still listed as a Chief Exec on their website. So must still be in post.
www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are-1

Floisme
Ruth Hunt said that?
Not really, no. It's quite an optimistic way of looking at it.
She still dismissed lesbians with concerns as just "people who are upset because we're focusing on trans rights, and they never wanted the T to be in the LGB in the first place. Most people disagree with them"
In response to Kristina Harrison's very clearly articulated argument against self ID, how it could bring problems etc, RH- "KH is confused. The definitions of man and woman were already decided back in 2004. The problem isn't trans rights, it's male violence. Changing laws intended to help trans people won't do anything to change male violence, bad things only happen when there's a failure of procedure"

She does not see anything to be concerned by. There are no grey areas for RH or Stonewall. She made it clear she's moving on but Stonewall will plough ahead without her.

I’m just pondering the whole self ID thing.

We had a stalker at one place I worked - I’m sure the guy was convinced that he was fine and that we really were all in a conspiracy against him. That women were indeed ‘the enemy’ and he had every right to get in our faces and yell at us. He also believed that his meds were optional. Self ID, eh?

Wasn't it part of that TRA secret meeting where they all agreed they need to come across as reasonable as possible, and even pay lip service to women's rights sometimes so they can carry on with it all and no one would be able to argue? It's just part of that. It's "good" PR.

^ Rowantrees will know what I mean if she comes along

I know the meeting you mean DpWm but don’t have Rowantrees’ retrieval skills! My hunch is that this is more Ruth Hunt realising the consequences of the policies she set in place. If Stonewall had ever made a statement about not condoning personal abuse, threats etc we might be in a better place today. I also wonder if she is trying to tone down her approach to look more employable to other big charities. I might feel a bit sympathetic if I didn’t know about the petition from some of the UK Stonewall founders, big name supporters, and other prominent LGBT people.

Ruth Hunt and Stonewall's response to Johnny Best's petition calling for respectful debate around self-ID.

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

"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".

And now Ruth is trying to distance herself from her work at Stonewall.

Now that she is in the job market.

What a heroine she is - to sell women down the river and then row back on it only once she needs a new job.

The definitions of man and woman were already decided back in 2004.

Have I missed something? Did the law state TWAW are is that her interpretation?

I think some are missing the point of my post, which isn't to give RH 'plaudits' or agree with her about 'grey areas' but to note a shift in the discourse, however incremental.

Floisme, DpWm Yes, she did say those things. The Stonewall party line has been that "TWAW and must be treated as such, always, for all purposes, no matter what, no debate, get over it." She equivocated on that.

I think that's because it's becoming increasingly clear that that "TWAW - Get Over It" isn't a viable position. It's only become unviable because the discussion is now happening in the mainstream and women's concerns are breaking through the unquestioning "trans as ultimate oppressed minority" rhetoric. Women's concerns are breaking through because of those who have written and worked and organised and protested to make that happen. The context has changed, and the powers that be at Stonewall know that they can no longer win support by going on news programmes and simply dismissing women with concerns as transphobes. It's significant.

😂😂😂 she's try to back peddle her way out of the mess she played a strong hand in creating. Good that she is now stating that there is a conflict of interests and that it is ok to not believe the TWAW mantra but she will always be a woman that tried to throw the rest of use women esp lesbians under a bus - zero respect.

OP very very significant. TWANW

I wonder whether Penny Mordaunt - Minister for Equalities - will ever clarify that there's grey area or will continue to parrot the TWAW line?

Wasn't it part of that TRA secret meeting where they all agreed they need to come across as reasonable as possible, and even pay lip service to women's rights sometimes so they can carry on with it all and no one would be able to argue? It's just part of that. It's "good" PR.

It wasn't a secret meeting, it was a Trans rights' conference called, 'We're Still Here' organised by Jane Fae.
Dawn Butler MP (shadow minister for Women & Equalities) gave the key note speech.
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

OP TheHarpySings reported:
(extract)
6) GETTING THE GRA WE WANT

This was a workshop with 3 experts sitting with groups and talking through activism. They were:

Helen Belcher (Lib Dems, Trans Media Watch)
James Morton (Scottish Transgender Alliance)
Alex Moore (GenderJam). Moore is from N Ireland.

James Morton gave some insight into tactics the TRAs will probably start using in England and Wales as they were successful in Scotland.

He said the TRAs need to build allies in mainstream women and children’s organisations so it looks like they care about them.

He also said what worked in Scotland's was a “constructive, friendly, innocent” tone when debating or in dialogue with the GC side. To be mindful about who is watching- essentially like what we do with the lurkers on the FWR board. To make the TRAs look like the reasonable side.

James also said that in dialect with elected officials, to clarify that the trans side aren’t silencing anyone but want to clarify the misconceptions being bandied around by GC feminists.

The Scottish GRA changes will probably be put forward in the 2019-2020 parliamentary year.

Belcher has been meeting with MPs and members of the House of Lords. Most of them don’t really understand the GRA and don’t have much time to think about it thanks to the Brexit FUBAR. “Education” of law makers is needed and that’s what Belcher is doing.

Apparently the TRAs lack the infrastructure they had in the 1990s and early 2000s so they need to think carefully and coordinate.

Belcher said to re-iterate to MPs that the EA2010 is not being affected and no one is losing any rights (wtf).

Apparently in terms of political support, the Tories are split about 50/50, Labour, Lib Dem's and SNP are all onside. The Greens were NOT mentioned.

The big fear on the TRA side is that this Government won’t survive long enough to get this through- again because Brexit.

According to Alex Moore, Arlene Foster of the DUP went to a Pink News event and didn’t seem to know much about this. In NI no one really cares about the trans issues because everyone is focused on same sex marriage and abortion.

Alex then moaned about the Together for Yes campaign’s transmisogyny and that the campaign completely erased the experiences of trans and NB people who need abortions. Alex would like a legal change of gender to be free of charge and as easy as changing your name.

Helen Belcher was annoyed at GC feminists using “emotive arguments” regards rape.

HB said that the pile ons pro self-ID MPs get from the GC side if they say something supportive of the trans side are not helping the GC cause. Maria Miller told Belcher that MPs got loads of abuse in the run up to marriage equality and that abusive messages, tweets from GC feminists will only harden MPs against the GC side.

HB also said something snide about “mouthy” female Labour MPs who speak before thinking on Twitter- especially on a Friday or Saturday night after they’ve had a few drinks.

Apparently the TRAs have civil service support and that the Stonewall report and Gov survey are strong bits of evidence they have which is helping them win arguments.

They are saying there is no risk to reforming the GRA and are asking MPs “what is the risk?”

In the group I was in they also talked about how changing your gender multiple times should be allowed and shouldn’t be seen as “bad intentions”.

James Morton talked about how they can get rid of “gender” markers on things like IT systems and places where it isn’t relevant- apparently GDPR might be able to help them here.

JM’s campaigning tips were to gain trust in the local community- and to approach moderate feminists, “correct misconceptions and forgive any ignorance they may have displayed”. They want to gain trust and make themselves likeable.

Apparently small acts like helping to campaign about period poverty or retweeting the local branch of Women’s Aid will make a difference and result in some reciprocation. They want to make it look like they care about Women's issues so they don’t appear threatening"

Thanks for clarifying op. Whatever we may feel about Ruth Hunt and her motives, I still think it’s a very big deal if the Stonewall CEO has said that opposing self ID is not transphobic. Yes that’s an optimistic take on it but hey the sun is out and that’s the mood I’m in.

"The context has changed, and the powers that be at Stonewall know that they can no longer win support by going on news programmes and simply dismissing women with concerns as transphobes. It's significant."

Yes, and I wonder how much of this is the Stonewall leaders instructing Ruth Hunt to go out to the media and distance Stonewall from their previous positions. If there is any flak to be had about it, then Hunt is leaving anyway. Then the new CEO of Stonewall can pick up the "grey areas" mantra and start off his tenure on surer footing than the no debate quicksand.

This is a shift for Hunt and Stonewall. Which they don't want to admit to of course. History will be rewritten to reflect that Stonewall always welcomed debate, that it is not transphobic to be against self-ID, and that Stonewall has always acknowledged grey areas. Year zero.

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when RH finally realised there were “grey areas”.