Ruth Hunt - ‘men will always rape women’

[KatyaZamolodchikova]

Article in the Guardian. As much as the whole this is concerning the bit that jumps out at me is ‘men will always rape women’,

Oh? That’s ok then. Let’s not bother trying to change or prevent it then, let’s just make it a bloody free for all. Crack on men, rape away 🙄

Link:

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

??? Not content with pissing off Lesbians and GC Feminists Hunt decides to open a second front? (Maybe a third, I'm losing count).

I haven’t read the article but the statement generally is true isn’t it? Ultimately there will always be these men. Through education about consent and bringing up our men better, we can hope to do better but ultimately you can’t control everyone’s upbringings and motivations therefore you’ll never completely stop it.

So why is she fine with all males being allowed to be in female spaces on their own say-so?

I guess people are always going to commit murder too so why bother having laws against it?

"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. “

Also ... that's not proof that you're doing a good thing! There's a lot of bad and misguided money out there.

The drugs and arms trades are probably doing roaringly well, that doesn't mean they're on a moral high ground.

She is annoyed by the “intellectual stupidity” of the GC argument? Really? She’s like all the other fucking eejits proclaiming on this subject - she’s not fucking read it properly, has she. I find it utterly enraging that she, in such an influential position, has not even bothered to give GC arguments even the most cursory glance. Nope. No debate, fuck off, I don’t even want to try and understand, lalalala I’m not listening.

We see you Ruth. We know that your career has been built on the backs of the women and girls you threw under a bus without a second thought. Presumably she, as a lesbian, would be just fine with some lovely lady penis in her bed?

So why is she fine with all males being allowed to be in female spaces on their own say-so?

Yes, exactly. Who gives a fuck about safety, privacy and dignity for women, eh?

She's one of the drivers of this whole movement, and as such she should be held accountable for every single young lesbian out there who needed her support, and instead have been gaslighted into sex with a male person, and focusing on the needs of males.

I hope she faces the full understanding of this one day and that it burns her inside.

I doubt she will though, she seems to be spectacularly unpleasant and self-centred. Those types never seem to suffer the burden of thinking or consciences.

Never forget that Stonewall, under Hunt's direction, actively campaigned to obliterate the single sex exemptions from the Equality Act 2010:

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

Exactly ohfuckoffalready. She's a businesswoman. Stonewall is a business. Because it is a charity people think it free from the "nastier" aspects of business. It's just a powerful organisation that has money to dominate and push its political agenda.

.. 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.
This is her calling card. GC women might not be impressed but a lot of charities are in the mother of all fights for funding and will sit up and notice.
Most of us have to draw up a CV when we need a new job - must be nice when you can get the Guardian to write an article about you instead.

Exactly ohfuckoffalready. She's a businesswoman. Stonewall is a business

She’s a hypocrite & a traitor who sold lesbians out for her own benefit.

The question over whether gender self-identification “will lead to men raping women” is, she says, the wrong one. “Men are always going to rape women. The question should be: ‘Will the increase in gender fluidity increase the risk of men masquerading as women?’ Let’s talk about that. Don’t talk to me about self-ID – I’ve spent my life being told I’m not woman enough. It’s about treating people as they want to be treated, and when it causes no disadvantage to me whatsoever, who am I to challenge it?

That reads to me as if she doesn't believe that self id will.have any impact on her so she's happy to support it. She doesn't think she the sort of woman or girl that will be disadvantaged or at risk of "men masquerading as women". She cares more about the advantages trans ideology can do for her, than the disadvantages it gives to other women.

I guess men will always rape children as well, so we can just do away with DBS requirements. As Ruth Hunt is not arguing.

I don't know whether to feel sorry for her because of her hugely strong internalised misogyny, or to feel total contempt for her Aunt Lydia-like willingness to thrown women under the bus.

The success of an organisation isn’t how much it has grown but how much it has made itself no longer necessary.

If Stonewall announced that, having attained full rights for homosexuals in the UK, it felt it’s job was done, that would be a success.

Rape, theft, murder and violence will always be going on.

It's amazing that as a society its reigned in so much on a worldwide/ historical level

The success of an organisation isn’t how much it has grown but how much it has made itself no longer necessary.

This.

Through education about consent and bringing up our men better, we can hope to do better but ultimately you can’t control everyone’s upbringings and motivations therefore you’ll never completely stop it.

And in situations where women are particularly vulnerable - e.g. hostels, prisons, hospitals - you reduce the likelihood of rape with sex segregation.

There are ways to sensitively accommodate the needs of trans women, but what is being demanded is the right to self identify as female in all situations, which effectively makes the exclusions in the equality act that allow sex segregation meaningless.

If Stonewall announced that, having attained full rights for homosexuals in the UK, it felt it’s job was done, that would be a success.

I think that as Janice Turner said in her recent Times article on women's rights, it will be a game of 'whacamole' for a while yet. There are still plenty of countries that don't recognise gay marriage, (Not fully recognised in the UK yet), the major religions still regard gay relationships as sinful - at best they just try to ignore them - see C of E, and I think there is always a danger of prejudice against relationships that can't produce children. We don't have an under population problem now, but look abroad to see how pressure can be put on women to have babies and young people to settle into heterosexual relationships.

However, dealing with those problems means standing up for rights regardless of identity, and that really isn't what Stonewall is about any more.

Don’t talk to me about self-ID – I’ve spent my life being told I’m not woman enough.

Trust me Ruth, go to a country where women aren't allowed to vote or access education, or go out without a male escort and you will be 'woman enough'.

She's mendacious

It is such an irritating dismissal - one which I have heard as a rebuttal to the reason for sex segregated spaces. For me it always seems to have an unsaid addition 'men will always rape women' ...

'...so why not make it easier for them to do it rather than harder.' Because that is what this amounts to isn't it?

It's a bit of an erm, 'intellectually stupid' position to take imo.

Anyabike on twitter has tweeted about how she had conversations with Ruth before she became CEO of Stonewall and basically Ruth doesn’t actually believe the TWAW shit (and to be fair I don’t think anyone of reasonable intelligence does) but has jumped on this to further her career. Shows you what people will do for money.

It pisses me off that charities are held up to the public as "saintly" as if they should unquestioningly be admired and listen to. They suit their own purposes and are frequently interested in making vast amounts of money. Those that succeed are the ones that are heard the most. Many times they have been proven to be dodgy. But have a veneer of ultimate authority.