‘Anti-women’ trans policy may split Stonewall - letter to the Times - more wishful thinking than fact?

[stumbledin]

The times has an article based on a letter thay have published which claims

"Pioneers of the gay rights movement in Britain have discussed forming a breakaway organisation from the Stonewall pressure group because they fear women and children are at risk from its transgender policy."

Full article at www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-women-trans-policy-may-split-stonewall-wfv2rp5cx

The letter is signed by:
• Jonathan Best, former director, Queer Up North;
• Julie Bindel, journalist and feminist campaigner;
• Gill Butler, former trustee, Stonewall;
• Beatrix Campbell, writer;
• Maureen Chadwick, TV & film writer and producer;
• Stephanie Davies-Arai, director, Transgender Trend;
• Simon Edge, former editor of Capital Gay and writer for Attitude;
• Simon Fanshawe, founder, Stonewall;
• Eileen Gallagher OBE, TV producer;
• Kath Gotts, composer;
• Claire Graham, intersex advocate;
• Jane Harris, author;
• Kate Harris, former supporter of Stonewall;
• Bev Jackson, founder, Gay Liberation Front;
• Darren Johnson, London Assembly member 2000-16;
• Jane Clare Jones, writer and philosopher;
• Ann McManus, TV and film scriptwriter;
• Ann Sinnott, former Labour councillor;
• Caroline Spry, TV and film producer;
• Kathleen Stock, philosopher;
• Helen Watts, former leader, Girlguiding UK;
• Miranda Yardley, transexual rights activist

Last of letters published at www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-tax-plan-corrodes-rule-of-law-sbh2f09n2

Very interesting antibles I think we have to teach our kids critical thinking

I think it’s needed very much now with so much stuff on sm which is pushed by advertising and bots that they are able to use critical thinking

Agree Simon Fanshaw is a decent man.
That is an impressive list of people. All highly intelligent, thoughtful and interesting. So much harder to say that any dissent on this issue is right wing and homophobic when looking at the names on there, men and women who have been at the forefront of fighting for equality for homosexual people and for women in general.

Sorry if this has been covered before, but what exactly are Stonewall proposing to teach primary school age children about transgenderism?

Quite simple really.
They teach sex role stereotypes and that failure to comply means the child's body is wrong and needs to be transitioned both socially and medically with drugs and surgery. They praise and celebrate "trans children" as just that important bit more equal than all others.

Are the people protesting teaching about homosexuality in schools protesting because they fear their kids may be talked into being gay, by describing what it means? Or just that they're being told that gay relationships are valid? Is the information taught about what being gay is, objective and largely agreed on?

I think there are crucial differences that aren't just about values.

Goosefoot, with the original Birmingham school - the ‘no outsiders’ one, the school taught controversial topics around sexual orientation and transgenderism as part of the prevent strategy, so got around the requirement that parents must be consulted on SRE. That requirement should have protected conservative families, and has been deliberately avoided by couching the teaching as not SRE.

I am not sure as to what has been taught at the second school, the one where the exclusion zone has been enforced, but something has clearly gone wrong.

Many of these problems have been caused by schools being used to cover a range of topics that should be taught by the family.

I am also unclear as to what the new rules being brought in on SRE are, and understand them to be deliberately unclear.

Antibles

Yes, that kind of teaching about how arguments are made can be very good if done well. Also, the idea that you can argue to almost any imaginable conclusion, depending on the premises that you begin with. It's really important for young people to understand this, not only to understand why others might disagree with them, but to be able to really examine their own beliefs.

Unfortunately in many cases people seem to think that teaching critical thinking means teaching kids to agree with the "right" ideas. I daresay many people who approve of the different programs teaching about gender think they are teaching real critical thinking.

Many of these problems have been caused by schools being used to cover a range of topics that should be taught by the family.

I agree with this. I think people find it very difficult not to use schools for "do-gooder" purposes, it seems so potentially effective and it's in a good cause, right? But if the schools are meant to be for everyone (not religious schools obviously which have a slightly different mandate) then I think a secular school would have to be very hesitant to go very far into remotely controversial territory. I suppose the difficulty might be that some might think that makes them ineffective educators, and that could be seen as an argument for faith or philosophy based schools rather than secular ones. But if "secular" really just means liberal progressive values - well that's not very secular, is it?

Many people want to undermine family life. They disapprove of children developing their values and beliefs primarily from their families.

That attempt to undermine has become much stronger as increasing numbers of people have no children of their own and few children within their extended families but still want to make demands about how the next generation turn out. They can only influence kids through school and media.

Er, no, I'm fine with sex education, and leaving things to "the family" leaves too many children without crucial information.

What I'm not fine with is teaching children nonsense. What nonsense is, is of course, culturally-determined, not just scientifically determined.

It's possible to have good, comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education without teaching children that they are born in the wrong bodies. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyway, back on topic: Stonewall will need to make a decision about whether they are content to carry on as they are, throwing lesbian gay and bi people under the bus, or whether they want to return to their core mission.

If they don't want to return to their core mission, then LGB people will just have to sidestep them and carry on themselves.

The new CEO of Stonewall (whoever they are) will be very important.

Stonewall absolutely has to get the right person for the job this time, otherwise it is game over for them.

And telling that Stonewall hasn't managed to get someone in place yet. Hunt resigned in February, though didn't leave until August.

Stonewall has had plenty of time to tee up a replacement and hasn't done so.

I'm guessing that stellar-calibre candidates would not touch Stonewall with a barge pole. Unsurprisingly.

They might be forced to promote from within - and that has its own issues. They'll be tainted with the actions of the Ruth Hunt era unless they immediately strike out in a new direction. And that means they'll be under attack from the trans wing.

According to the Charity Commission they've got 136 staff, so although they currently have more money than god, when support for Stonewall starts to fall away faster than it already is, and donors retreat, they will go through their reserves very quickly indeed.

I see Michael Cashman is doubling down on sneering at his former colleagues. (Michael, I realise that you've painted yourself into a corner, but if you ever sit up one day and realise that you've been peddling homophobia, and don't know where to go from there, you will be welcome to come over to the other side and start again. It is really hard to hear your hatred and dismissal of women, particularly lesbians, but I'd like to believe there's hope for you yet.)

Michael Cashman's comments are incredibly rude.

Aren't they just! And Lisa Power's equally-rude comments about "last century's hidebound activists" made me laugh - ageism is a very tedious TRA tactic, but she's even older than me, and I'm ancient, so I'm not sure it's the "gotcha" that she thinks it is.

I remember The Times publishing an article on the Tavistock, where former employees were concerned that children who probably would grow up gay or lesbian were being caught up in the trans train instead.

Did Stonewall express any concern for the future gay/lesbian kids? Did they express horror that this could be happening? Did they demand an immediate inquiry to protect the LGB people of the future?

Did they fuck!

They just shouted transphobia.

This is wonderful.

Cashman et al are just demonstrating the validity of the point really.

@Michelleoftheresistance
Exactly.
I would love to know why so many are unable to see what the issue is.
Stonewall have said nothing to defend lesbians (the real actual ones who are same sex attracted).
20 years ago society was telling lesbians there was something wrong with us for rejecting males, now Stonewall are defending people saying exactly the same.

How can anyone think this is not a problem?

What they’re trying to teach I think, is if you’re a boy you prefers to play My Little Pony to Tonka Trucks then you might really be a girl and not a boy after all. But to keep up the wokeness, will also say gender stereotypes are evil also

Stonewall have released a statement doubling down on their ‘trans before all else’ stance [[https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/blog/trans-equality-heart-stonewall’s-mission-–-and-won’t-change

here]]

I hope that common sense prevails but I am getting the odd moment of resignation that maybe this is how the future is going to be and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. All the institutions and governments are on the side of men, with plenty women helping them out, how can we fight that? I worry that the only way out is with a right wing backlash, and I don’t want to see that happen either.

I hope I’m wrong to be so pessimistic.

there’s nothing we can do to stop it

Not for many, many years.

My guestimate is that things will change long after I'm dead and hurried, I'm 30, so it's a long long time frame.

Underground resistance will always be there, having to have home education lessons teaching our kids about boundaries and privacy and that it's okay to say no.

Hmm that stonewall statement sounds like a land grab - making sure the new CEO is boxed in before they start. I wonder who is in the frame for the job.

That statement really demonstrates all of the problems with Stonewall. Ignoring all of the issues and a sole focus on trans.

"But what we will not do is debate trans people’s rights to exist".

Nobody has ever stated that trans people have no right to exist. Ever.

They make themselves look very weak by resorting to such tactics.

And yes, they've just made the new CEO 's job even harder.

I'm guessing that they will go with Twocock who is interim CEO at the moment, purely because nobody decent would take on the job. That would be a grave mistake. The very people who caused all this are not the ones who are capable of fixing it.

They desperately need new blood.

From the Stonewall statement:

But what we will not do is debate trans people’s rights to exist. This is not and will not ever be respectful.

Sigh. No one has ever said trans people don’t exist. Look, there they are! There are some who post here, there are some who are trying to get on with life and there are a good number who abuse women on Twitter. We know they exist and no one has ever said they shouldn’t. Such disingenuous bullshit.

Equality for one doesn’t come at the expense of another

I can’t believe they wrote this with a straight face. Stop telling people lesbians can have penises then! Stop telling women they need to give up their rights then!

I see they are still going for the utterly ridiculous 'we will not debate trans peoples rigt to exist' nonsense Why on earth is this such a common argument with these people? Who the fuck is saying they should not exist? Thats absolutely not what people are saying, and surely those people putting out such shoddy statements realise this..