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

Well I suppose she knows what she will have unleashed on herself.

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.

July 2018 James Kirkup thread being aware of the inclination by some to attempt to rewrite historical fact:

(extract)
Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces” (continues)

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”. (continues)

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination. (continues)

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

links to documents & relevent extracts in page above

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

SERIOUSLY?
They have completely taken over the mega charity Stonewall and the other LGB charities and most women’s charities and kids charities and the NHS and the public sector.... and they want more?!

(See the regulatory capture thread for more examples)

Chatty I think this may mean the infrastructure that enabled them to lobby and secure changes in policy etc smoothly without there being disuption or challenge.

This was how Press For Change were so effective as explained by Christine Burns in Guardian inerview 2013:

(extract)
"Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues."
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Apparently one of Burns' books describes exactly how TRAs in 1990-2000's were so effective.

Thanks R0wan. Book sounds like an interesting read.

I guess one of the up sides of the breakdown in public trust in institutions and the advent of social media is that these things may be harder to sneak through in future but I don’t feel very confident about that.

Book sounds like an interesting read.

I havent read it.
I'm sure some of the content would be interesting/illuminating
I find Burns' writing style hard work.

ImaginaryFoe

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.

It is definitely interesting to note a change in Ruth Hunt's discourse. As she is about to be an ex CEO, the real indicator of change will come when the new CEO is in place.

Chattylion
I have noticed that only a few interviewers (especially at the BBC) actually seem to brief themselves fully before an interview. The response to the Stonewall petition is exactly the sort of thing that needed picking up.

I'll be listening to the interview later so thanks imaginaryfoe for the link

Maybe they've found prospective candidates for Hunt's job aren't happy with the current 'No debate' mantra?

Have not RTFT yet (I will) but my initial thought after reading about what she has said in this is that she is trying to be more moderate so that she is more employable in a wider range of charities, because I reckon she'll pop up next in a women's organisation, and turn it into an "inclusive" organisation which no longer helps women.

I have that sinking feeling we are witnessing Institutional capture real-time.

I hadn't thought of that Sonic
Ruth Hunt, coming soon to women-only shelters near you...

Ruth Hunt is Vice Chair of Shelter

england.shelter.org.uk/what_we_do/our_people/board_of_trustees/ruth_hunt

Snap Sonic! I mentioned my suspicions about this earlier.

Good God I thought I was joking

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

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when RH had that chat with Julie Bindel.

twitter.com/bindelj/status/1047899829773504513

"Sometime I will tell the story of how Ruth Hunt asked me to go for a drink with her, when she was applying for Stonewall CEO job, and what she said about how she intended to deal with the “trans issue”. She must have thought I was born yesterday. It’s coming back to bite her now"

Ruth Hunt has said that she would like to go into politics. I think this is just her trying to distance herself from her fuck-ups at Stonewall. I'm not sure she's acting on anyone's orders - she'll be out of there soon and she's just trying to climb back on the fence now to protect her future career prospects. I haven't seen any signs that the Stonewall management team have had a change of heart. None. Happy to be proved wrong though!

No I don't think Stonewall have had a change of heart Purported, I think Ruth may just have realised that "TWAW in every conceivable way, no debate" doesn't translate well outside of the Stonewall bubble, and that if she's to get a new job (or move into politics - a grim thought) she's going to have to pretend to play both sides.

Transparent as fuck though.