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.

It's the Guardian ffs. Does it ever do balance on this (not so i've noticed)?

Gone,
I think that 99% of what’s in the article wouldn’t have been written a year ago. So it is less unbalanced.

I see what you're saying Crone , but someone who was the head of Stonewall and writes down in a public paper that they don't really know what L and G have in common …. really isn't boxing clever. It's like someone who's the minister for women just not answering the question 'what is a woman'. It isn't deflection, its just pointing directly to a hole that a child could drive a tank through in terms of their argument.

It's about the point where advisors and PR people put their head in their hands, moan that they're not paid enough and reach for the Valium.

“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 ”

It is hatred of people who don't conform and don't fit into an accepted box.

The problem is that Stonewall has gone down the route of accepting, endorsing and promoting the boxes.

Hunt finds the “intellectual stupidity” of the gender debate alarming. “There is a group of people who believe trans women are men and there is nothing that will change that. There is a group of people who believe trans women are trans women and it’s all a bit puzzling, can we have a chat about it? And there’s a group that think trans women are women and that’s the camp Stonewall supporters are in.”

Intellectual stupidity? Go on Ruth, tell us that Alex Drummond, one of your trans advisors, is indeed a woman and a lesbian. Go on, say it with a straight face.

Sadly she's exactly the kind of person that I would imagine climbing to the top of these kinds of organisations: a mediocre mind, but well connected and good at empire building.

I should imagine her "leadership business" will involve getting her chums in the third sector world to pay her £££ for seminars on pointless "leadership" fluff. All the income of being a third sector "leader" with none of the accountability.

AlwaysComingHome I think that's an extraordinary thing to say, unless I missed that you were being ironic? I don't believe in anything, but was brought up as a Catholic and can't imagine anyone I knew from that time buying into the bullshit. I don't a copy the transubstantiation thing either, I never knew anyone who took that literally, no matter what Brendan O'Neill says.

I went to an all-girls convent school, and never had the conditioning that men were more important than women, if anything it was the opposite. Catholicism can look very different from the outside. The attitude to women's control of their bodies was all wrong, but apart from that nothing about it bothered or scarred me. I feel lucky to have had the childhood I had compared to some of the experiences I've read of on MN.

Oops, I see that I did misunderstand you, apologies. Also I meant 'accept', not 'copy'.

The approach of ‘some people think trans women are men..........some people think trans women are women and that’s the side Stonewall are on!’ Is of a piece with ‘no debate’. She knows that trans ideology won’t bear much debate or intellectual scrutiny. There’s no evidence from neuroscience for lady brains nor from psychology for gender identity. Simple logic says that a subjective feeling cannot ever be proven. So the strategy is to use the Stonewall image to stake out the moral high ground, refuse to debate with those who are characterised as saying ‘trans women don’t exist’ (only stonewall says this) as a way of reinforcing the pariah status of those who disagree whilst helpfully bolstering the trans victim narrative (all of those nasty GC women who make us feel unsafe). Be quick before the general public and MPs start to question and while they still think that transgender=transsexual. It’s a deliberate strategy.

When an interviewee states that she's not prepared to discuss a totally relevant issue, then the journalist should end the interview on the spot, not agree to stick with soft questions.

The problem is that Stonewall has gone down the route of accepting, endorsing and promoting the boxes.

Yes. Which is why they’re then so threatened by the likes of Julia Long & Anne Ruzylo.

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

Misogyny is extremely popular, isn't it. And well supported by organised groups with money and power.

Her argument about Stonewall's income growing by £3m is incredibly telling, isn't it? She doesn't make an argument about changing the law, or changing people's minds, or having an impact on behaviour. It is, purely and simply: "We have more money now, therefore we are doing the right thing." It's absolutely chilling in its cynicism.

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.

I think the path of least resistance is appealing to lots of people, and depending on the cultural group you find yourself in, it can take different forms. Yes, religious Catholics will find a certain amount of comfort from living with mystery and accepting that there are some things you can't know for sure - what happens when we die and such.

But for Ruth and her assorted ragbag of cronies, the culture they are steeped in is very much shot through with a collective feeling of righteousness - that's precisely where this whole political purity, right-side-of-history snootiness comes from - and you've only got to look at what a juggernaut Pride is and the ubiquitous rainbow flag gobbling up new letters every week to realize that standing against it is potentially very costly, both in financial terms and in psychological and emotional ways too.

If Hunt can soothe herself into believing that no questions are valid and all opposition is bigotry, her faith-based position carries the day. I mean, look at those three groups she talks about - one group is clearly GC people who refuse to call men, women. The next group she references are the people who are asking questions. And she doesn't put Stonewall there, she puts them in a separate group that simply nods meekly and blindly accepts an unprovable mantra. She can't even bring herself to the point of asking real questions.

That's a pure faith position, it's not rational or reasonable, it is simply ideology. It's heart breaking because the gains over the past decades for homosexual people have been because people argued against an anti-gay ideology that didn't allow questions.

There's no difference at all between "Being gay is a sin, God says so, no questions." and "Transwomen are women, because they say so, no questions."

Thank you.

I guess we have no idea of the nature or depth of her faith. The money thing is more clear cut.

Well, yes, and the evidence is there that she's a self serving, financially motivated awful individual. But yes, I think perhaps speculation on how she can live with her selfish choices is probably rather too charitable given the impact on other women - maybe she does really believe in her strange Genderist faith, but ultimately, her practical decisions to put straight men at the centre, and push lesbians out of an organization for homosexual oriented people mean I don't much give a shit how she sleeps at night.

The fact that the Guardian never allows comments these days tells you all you need to know about their position. They are an advocacy not a newspaper.

AlwaysComingHome I think that's an extraordinary thing to say, unless I missed that you were being ironic

I’ve seen gender critical feminists dismissed on the grounds they were Catholic. The Guardian has been very anti-Catholic since the Troubles ended and Catholicism ceased to be sexy and anti-British.

Well, yeah, I've seen it too, to be fair. Have we not got to the place yet of realizing that the lines of demarcation are totally different to where we assumed they were?

You can't assume that every leftist secular humanist progressive is going to be on the same page any more, nor any right leaning Catholic free speech advocate. Some of us are left leaning Catholic progressive free speech advocates. I am honestly as feminist as I have been in my entire life, as openly progressive as I could be, as Catholic as St Teresa of Avila and as honest as is humanly possible on a website where I am anonymous because this much info about me puts my family and livelihood at risk, and yeah, im still coming across people assuming that being Catholic must mean being predisposed to believe that men can be women.

Not really sure what more I can do to dispel that idea.

im still coming across people assuming that being Catholic must mean being predisposed to believe that men can be women.

I think PPs point was that being Catholic predisposes one to indoctrination because of a lack of critical thinking skills.

People have a tendency to put people into groups in order to prejudge them. No different to 'black people are stupid' or 'muslims are terrorists' except that Christians are unfashionable at the moment, so this one is OK.

I’ve seen gender critical feminists dismissed on the grounds they were Catholic.

Indeed, one of the accusations which the TRAs seem to think wins all argument is that GC women have cooperated with Christians .

“We always knew it was going to be rough,” she says. “But I [knew] the organisation well enough to do this, and how to do it quickly.”

I actually find this pretty sinister. She knew she had to move quickly before people had a chance to say wtf? and start organising against it.

Re: Catholicism that's the main thing I've seen Caro attacked for: "she's against self-ID but then she would be because all Catholics are LGBT-phobic bigots.

In general though, I think religion cuts both ways on this - either you have a base position of "god made man and woman, don't undermine his creation" approach, or you have a predisposition to Dualism (body and soul, body and mind) which makes the idea of a gender as something which can exist separate to and mismatched from your body more plausible. Mind you, many of the big names in the atheist community seem to have swallowed it whole - so much for skeptisism.

many of the big names in the atheist community seem to have swallowed it whole - so much for skeptisism

My point exactly. There are thoughtful, rational religious people, and there are mindless ideological secularists. For all the Galileo incidents, there are Catholics who originate the Big bang theory.

I know this wildly off topic now, but seriously, please feel free to scan my contributions to FWR and outline how my faith has predisposed me to irrational indoctrination and away from asking questions. I've never proselytized for my beliefs here, and I have no intention of starting now. But I am feeling a little worn down by the repetitions of sentences like 'Oh, Ruth Hunt is a Catholic, no wonder she's a gullible fool.' and being expected to take it on the chin as an example of someone being an unthinking idiot just because, like me, they're Catholic.

Maybe I need to take a break, it's been a very difficult couple of weeks with one thing and another.

Exactly. This whole land grab over women’s rights comes from a men’s sexual freedom and entitlement agenda. It’s about pushing for unfettered access without challenge for men of any, and no, religious belief. Those who get on board with it and cash in on it are similarly from all walks of life.

Floral, KBO.
Sorry it’s been a tough time lately.

Maybe I need to take a break, it's been a very difficult couple of weeks with one thing and another.

Everyone needs a break sometimes floral. To restore their faith in people. Or just to take a load off.

Your contributions are invaluable, so don't be worried about taking your foot off the gas if it means you can continue the journey later.

Floral

Catholicism also means a belief on an individual conscience and a duty to do what you think is right.

You know that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise, especially when vulnerable people could be put at risk.