Stonewall splits after being accused of promoting a 'trans agenda' at the expense of gay and lesbian rights

[stumbledin]

This is a Telegraph headline to an article that seems to be a slightly different explanation to the tweets about a new alliance being formed.

Does anyone have more info. ie a new Lesbian and Gay Alliance would be great.

But even better to know that Stonewall has split.

Quotes from article:

^However, following a meeting on Tuesday night - and amid an ongoing row about trans inclusion - the charity has divided and forged a splinter group.

The members of the new Alliance agreed, as part of a 20-point position statement, that
:homosexuality is same-sex (not same-gender) attraction;
lesbians are biological women who are attracted to other biological women;
sex is not "assigned" at birth but observed and it is not transphobic for lesbians to have their own spaces and institutions which exclude male-bodied people.

t also said that it has asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to investigate whether Stonewall, as a recipient of public funds, is “upholding its public duty to represent the voices of LGB people and facilitate discussion between different groups protected under the Equality Act".

An EHRC spokesperson said: “We have yet to receive a copy of this request.”

A spokesman for Stonewall declined to comment.^

Article at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/stonewall-splits-accused-promoting-trans-agenda-expense-gay/

(I didn't know that the Telegraph has its very own trans activist reporting on their "journey" www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/gender-neutral-bathrooms-womens-prisons-time-trans-people-carried/ )

I know there is a thread about the proposal for a new Alliance but I wanted to focus on whether it is true Stonewall is splitting as this would be significant not only for the new alliance but in sending a message to funders etc., that they should be very careful about how they decide is THE organisation to represent any specific group)

Oh happy day. (If it turns out to be true.)

Gosh they're furious aren't they. And nobody can pompous-twat about twitter like Harrop can

As the co-founder of Stonewall (Simon Fanshawe) has (along with others) set up this new alliance - because of huge ideological differences in the direction Stonewall has taken - I think it can accurately be described as a "split".

There is no equality for lesbian, gay and bi people without equality for trans people.

How... what does this even mean?

So, have people who were formerly part of stonewall left to join the new organisation or not?

Of COURSE Stonewall is going to be effing furious about this. It needs all that money it gets from the government and organisations it badges as Stonewall supporters for a hefty price. It's all about the money.

I've thought about this a fair bit. The T aren't as attractive a proposition without the LGB, but the fit just doesn't work.

I looked on Twitter and some people are saying it is excluding Trans who are gay. I’m so confused

So a trans woman attracted to men would actually be gay but would “identify” as straight and a TW attracted to women (are there more of these? Do many straight men go out with TW?) would actually be straight but “identify” as lesbian ie maximum oppression points.

I think the LGB and the T together is a mismatch because the Ts that are “gay” are identifying as gay whereas it’s an orientation not an identity.

Trans political ideology forces on all that someone is literally the sex they choose to be, and that homosexual people have a duty - a freaking duty - to accept and include those people as the sex they would like to be seen as, putting aside their sexual orientation to do so. In the words of their leaders: lesbians must 'learn to cope' with penis, as if this is something sane, appropriate and not horrifically abusive to say.

It's madness. It's conversion therapy. It's actively homophobic.

Wittering about 'excluding' just avoids confronting the basic point. Stonewall, claiming to represent LGB people, doesn't. LGB, including Stonewall founders, have split in order to set up and represent the LGB group. As they're wholly entitled to do.

No one expects the RSPB to fund cancer research as part of their brief, the NSPCC doesn't represent the best interests of whales, and the Labour Party tends to focus on Labour Party stuff instead of rehoming cats. Not everything has to be about everyone all the time.

I don't see how the LGB alliance would be excluding a trans person who is gay. It's representing people based on their sexuality, rather than their 'identity' or 'gender identity'. So the new alliance can happily include anyone who is T, so long as they are also LGB. But it has no obligation to campaign on T, nor centre T issues.

Makes perfect sense.

No one expects the RSPB to fund cancer research as part of their brief, the NSPCC doesn't represent the best interests of whales, and the Labour Party tends to focus on Labour Party stuff instead of rehoming cats. Not everything has to be about everyone all the time.

My favourite sentence that I have read on mumsnet all day.

Presumably the TRAs don't mind that intersex people have their own organisations - despite their frequent attempts to conflate T and I? Quite right too, and a demonstration that the 'alphabet soup' approach isn't valid or necessary.

A glance at oiiuk.org shows the clear separation of intersex concerns from sexuality and gender identity. An intersex person can presumably also belong to the LGB and/or T organisations if that's appropriate for them.

that they should be very careful about how they decide is THE organisation to represent any specific group)

Honestly, I think this is so important and needs to inform lobbying and advocacy in general.

I am getting so tired of people saying they represent people, sometimes that they represent me, when really they are representing their own views.

And it's politically toxic.

I looked on Twitter and some people are saying it is excluding Trans who are gay. I’m so confused

I think historically this makes some sense. At one time, transexuals were pretty much all gay, mostly gay men, who transitioned to live as women, often including surgery. You could say they were gay men living socially and often legally as women.

It would make sense for a group like Stonewall to represent them in some way.(Not that one organisation even so really represents the views of all homosexual people.) But a lot less sense under the gender ideology perspective. Ignoring whether or not that even makes sense, if it were true, it really would be a different thing.

the Labour Party tends to focus on Labour Party stuff instead of rehoming cats

Lucky old cats.

Mimmymum & Harrop are not fond of such an alliance:

How utterly shocking.

Mimmymum..LGB alliance has womens rights in their sights to destroy..yeah right. Do they think we are stupid? Its just utter bollocks over and over. And..as if TRA types give a shit about womens rights to start with.

Oh ffs. I like my username, but I don't want to be confused with this Mimmymum person. I will change my user name. .. Maybe this time I will first google to see if anyone else using something close to that.

Mockers (otoh, if changed strategy to focus on rehoming cats rather than 'Labour Party stuff' they might stand a better chance with the electorate)

I was at the LGB Alliance meeting, as were a number of trans allies. No one is excluded from being a supporter if they agree with the aims. There were a number of past Stonewall trustees present, but it is not a Stonewall split. It is, though, an illustration of the chasm in the LGB community over gender ideology.

TheBullshitGoesOn
There is no equality for lesbian, gay or bi people

I read the sentence the same way!

To them
LGB equality does not come "without exception". It's conditional.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3715033-New-LGB-organisation-to-replace-Stonewall

The earlier thread for crossover.

"Without exception" would include me - straight as they come. They don't seem to think things through and just spout sound bites without engaging brain.

Unfortunately, until now our weak institutions have believed along with Stonewall that noise is the same as sense.

Only 2 hours left to vote here
twitter.com/pollscot/status/1187463292991655936

54% transphobic
42% right
4% not sure

From the comments the poll has been vigorously brigaded.

A group of LGB people want to form a group of their own to consider their own particular issues.

Raaaaaaaah!!!!!

Obviously that's as transphobic as women wanting to meet, to have their voices heard, or to be allowed to discuss current law.

Great to see the telegraph reporting on this issue. Do we know what the Mail and Express are saying?