Ruth Hunt in the Guardian

[merrymouse]

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/19/ruth-hunt-stonewall-moral-responsibility-fight-trans-people

The impression given is that she really didn’t think this through. No concept that there are consequences for women’s and gay people’s rights if you can’t define sex.

No questioning of whether the assumption that gender non-conforming = born in the wrong body is harmful.

She agreed that there are differences between T and LGB, but said that she wasn't sure there was much in common for L and G either.

Apart from L and G both being, you know, homosexual, the only thing they have in common, and B being there because of same sex choices as well as heterosexual choices.

T - their being homosexual/heterosexual/bi is as relevant to the T as whether or not they're vegetarian or Remainers.

It shouldn't be at this point, after repeated demonstrations, but it's a shock to realise that someone who has got into such a highly paid, influential and responsible position truly is this stupid. Almost our entire leadership in the UK now appears to consist of head up bum chocolate teapots with no grasp on reality, no capacity for critical thinking, and no sense of accountability to the general public.

Isn't group 1 and 2 pretty much the same? In my mind it's a descriptor of a subset of the former not the latter. I don't know anyone who thinks differently, it's just that some people care about the issue and possible ramifications more than others.

In other Stonewall news, from what I can gather Bex Stinson appears to be no longer head of inclusion...

And yes. TW are male, Ruth. Nothing is ever going to change that. Very happy to welcome a man selecting the identity of TW, but TW are not and never will be women. There is nothing whatsoever you can do to erase that reality from my mind. Or to get me to pretend that this is not causing whacking great horrendous problems for women, girls and children in general, and throwing women's rights back into the dark ages, and I'm not bloody furious about that and willing to fight as hard as it takes for as long as it takes to find a solution that works for everybody and not just trans people.

Mental health = ability to cope with reality. Equality = everybody. Not just the currently fashionable patronised group.

Oh and as someone has mentioned Brunei, how come the media is so focused on the threat to gay men, my understanding is that the threat is also to 'adulterers'. Do they not matter? Who decides that a woman has committed adultery?

The truth is that since Stonewall added the T they haven't campaigned as strongly as before for LGB

The truth is that Stonewall now call the police on the L if they protest about the new definition of lesbian. lilymaynard.com/protesting-stonewall-lesbians-up-against-the-wall/

“The truth is, the support for our position significantly outweighs the opposition,” she says. And for proof, she points out that in her five years in the job, Stonewall has more than doubled in size, expanding from 75 to 160 staff, while its income has grown from £5.4m to £8.7m. “We’ve lost a few donors but we’ve gained a huge number, and maintained relationships with people who wouldn’t be working with us now if we weren’t trans-inclusive.”

Supporting male transpeople generates money for stonewall, therefore stonewall will promote the wants of male transpeople at the expense of everyone else.

Ruth's been a disaster for Stonewall. The new recruit needs to have a strong track record in crisis management or pay for pr consultants to sort the mess out.

I'm wondering if the Hard Talk is a slight back track in the denial of no debate. Perhaps the future Stonewall incarnations is going to 'debate' & anyone who won't is looking for pastures new. See my previous Stinson post. Obviously complete conjecture and wishful thinking from me.

Ugh. What a cynical, self-interested misrepresentation of this debate. And why in this 30 year of Stonewall’s founding, is this article all about Ruth Hunt, the outgoing Cheif Exec. She should be the least interesting part of the Stonewall story.

Why aren’t Stonewall introducing the new Chief Exec and their agenda for the next 30 years? I didn’t know that the Guardian will do personal profile articles just because someone needs a new job?

If anyone is concerned about these issues (that Hunt is so adamant are not a problem for LGB people, women or anyone else.. ) then the Stonewall petition is still open for signatures: www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach

Currently at 8.5K signatures.

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

Everyone should read Ruth Hunt’s and Stonewall’s dismissive response to the petition:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384455-Ruth-Hunt-Stonewall-do-not-and-will-not-acknowledge-that-there-is-a-conflict-between-trans-rights-and-sex-based-women-s-rights

Absolutely shameful. I thought I couldn’t be shocked, but I am utterly shocked that this type of shrugging off of responsibility can pass for leadership of a major national charity.

Important to remember that Hunt is just the paid mouthpiece of the Trustees of Stonewall though- if Trustees disagree with a Chief Exec then they will sack them (assuming the CE won’t change their tune).

Stonewall Trustees haven’t sacked Ruth Hunt, they’ve backed her all the way, as this guardian interview reminds us. So this means that we can expect more of the same from Stonewall with their next CEO whoever that is. Stonewall are doing nicely thank you financially from all this, as this article notes.

Interesting that Hunt hasn’t (yet) been snapped up to work at some other megacharity or government or public body though.

Not just the currently fashionable patronised group.

Which - in an entirely coincidental way, not - mostly comprises those who command the most social, cultural and institutional capital: class privileged, heterosexual, male, white.

Stonewall has more than doubled in size, expanding from 75 to 160 staff, while its income has grown from £5.4m to £8.7m.

Probably because of this kind of thing. To be fair this was produced by a gym in New York and has nothing to do with the UK, but just look at all the pretty people. Look at 'A' for Ally and 'H' for Heteroflexible. See how inclusive it is of straight people!

Most interesting for me was her saying she's a catholic.
I didn't know that either. Transubstantiation comes to mind.

It shouldn't be at this point, after repeated demonstrations, but it's a shock to realise that someone who has got into such a highly paid, influential and responsible position truly is this stupid.

Is she stupid? Or did she just see that including the T would bring in a load of money? Odd that she didn't care about the effect on lesbians, though, seeing as she is one.

Almost our entire leadership in the UK now appears to consist of head up bum chocolate teapots with no grasp on reality, no capacity for critical thinking, and no sense of accountability to the general public.

Depressing, isn't it?

Supporting male transpeople generates money for stonewall,

This a hundred times. It's a business, in the Industry of the Third Sector.

My take is that Ruth Hunt was pwned. She now has a problem.

She was a single organisation apparatchik who got the top job when the previous person left, presumably because she was willing to add the "T" and do whatever the louder voices on the board, wanted. As a seemingly well respected lesbian, she was perfect...for those who wanted a puppet.

Who knows why they went for the "no debate". Previous Stonewall success in gaining societal acceptance was achieved through debate. Instead the PressforChange, or whoever was pulling the strings, decided on #nodebate, based on the approach used when lobbying successfully for the first GRA.

Poor Ruth, I think, was truly out of her depth. As a lesbian, steeped in equality and diversity, she had to have known that there were going to be conflicts of rights, and that women, including lesbians, were potentially losers. There had to be debate. So why did she go along with it? Was she dim, "kind" or simply ambitious. And is she surprised when she is the sacrificial lamb, thrown out to the wolves.

Who will succeed her? I think it will be a woman, but the Helen Belcher type of woman. Stonewall have never had a trans CE, in part because the T was added during Ruth's time. And I can't see someone who is experienced and competent, but without a clear interest in trans-campaigning, wanting to take on this poison chalice. More interesting would be Stephen Whittle.

I could then see future conflict between Stonewall's corporate side - that big money making machine that provides training and policy advice across the public, charity and commercial sectors as the current glitter attached to trans, starts to fade. There are a lot of people who flit between Stonewall and diversity and equality jobs in the city.

(Next years Olympics and the wonderful women athletes who are speaking out, plus legal actions like Harry the Owls, plus greater questioning of the very real safeguarding and medical issues, especially around children, will have an impact. GC concerns are starting to become mainstream. The debate that Stonewall did not want, has started. )

And Ruth. No there is nothing left for her, not even pity. Perhaps she should retrain in something like landscape gardening.

She's not well suited for landscape gardening, the job requires you to be able to fix other peoples past mistakes.

Who knows why they went for the "no debate".
Presumably because they know the logic is risible, and that 'be nice' and 'bigot' are the only arguments likely to win.

I think Ruth will be fine.

I actually came here to post this link - but, unfortunately, she lost me at intellectually stupid - I just couldn't be arsed to read any further.
No comments allowed though

This a hundred times. It's a business, in the Industry of the Third Sector.

And as a business this is the perfect union. Stonewall need the money that comes with male transpeople, male transpeople need the respectable image that comes with stonewall.

Late transitioning male transpeople couldn't develope a pressure group of their own that has the influence and respect that stonewall has. They needed to piggy back on another well established organisation.

I don't believe she's left without something else lined up. Haven't we seen similar played out over and over again with high-profile people? George Osborne, for instance. She'll have used the network she formed during her time in Stonewall, in a few weeks it will transpire she's stepping into a cushy sinecure.

Re the Catholicism. I thought that was very interesting. Hunt asks “who am I to challenge it?” and that immediately brought to my mind Francis and his question about gay people: “who am I to judge?”. I was sent to Catholic school but am not Catholic. I wonder if Floral would share my suspicion that there is a certain type of doctrinal training behind this: the freedom faith gives you to be relieved from the burden of questioning.

poster ZuttZeVootEeeVro Sun 19-May-19 10:51:53 -yes

I think Ruth is confusing “moral responsibility” with “financial strategy”.

^^^ this.

“The aggression shown towards trans people is one micro-step away from aggression shown to butch dykes or camp men. It’s all part of the same hatred ”

This gets to the heart of the matter for me. I completely agree with it.

But you can accept that premise without drawing the conclusions that Hunt has drawn. Indeed, you can radically different conclusions.

Perhaps in Hunts case there was a combination of personal ambition, corporate targets and a (subset of) Catholic training in the inherent value of submitting and of laying aside judgment.

Ps NACALT.

Most interesting for me was her saying she's a catholic.

Which is grounds for dismissing GC women when they say it.