Stonewall - moving onto advocating for intersex people

[Kit19]

Apparently stonewall have struggled to get their messsage across. No I don’t think that’s the case at all Nancy, I think people are far too aware of your message & don’t agree. As you yelled #nodebate at everyone who asked question it’s not a surprise you are where you are

Also I do wonder how people with DSD feel about this....

www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/09/06/stonewall-boss-nancy-kelley-new-priorities-for-lgbtq-charity-gender-recognition-act-intersex-conversion-therapy-we-can-do-better/

I know of 4 people that have a DSD and none of them would want Stonewall lobbying for them.

I guess they will find organisations or individuals to work with if they include all those who self identify as being intersex.

And for the record, Stonewall:

I'm a homosexual (red card) biological female (several red card) who knows what sex is (whole handful of red cards) and is exclusively attracted to other biological females (someone get the fainting couch), and does not care what anyone on the planet who is male thinks about this because it's nothing to do with them, (get PC Gul on speed dial).

Out of touch, ancient and behind the times, a taxpayer who supported you in the years when you'd have supported me in every word of the above, and protected under law on exactly the terms written above.

Nancy is losing the plot. You need to see all the screenshots of this speech, but here's just one:

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1302512464228241408?s=20

I thought they had dropped the I from the letters? The people with DSD that I follow on twitter wouldn’t touch stonewall without a bargepole.

Michelle it would be marginally easier, I think, if 'queer' did mean homosexual. We could all have heated discussions about the merits or otherwise of reclaiming a slur, and then get on with our lives.

I first met someone who identified as queer about fifteen years ago. Female, short hair, sexually attracted to males, particularly into m/m relationships.

It's just the sexuality version of Not Like the Other Girls, really. Are you a boring vanilla fuddy-duddy like your mum? No! You are special and different and queer.

Lumping people who are actually same-sex attracted in with that doesn't do us any favours at all.

And someone needs to tell the kiddies that if your primary erotic interest is two members of the opposite sex to you shagging, this does not make you queer; if it did then all those blokes who like lesbian porn would be queer too.

Has anyone actually asked people with intersex conditions if they want to be advocated for by Stonewall?
Somehow I doubt it.
Talk about mission creep.

it would be marginally easier, I think, if 'queer' did mean homosexual. We could all have heated discussions about the merits or otherwise of reclaiming a slur, and then get on with our lives.

This is what has been confusing me, but I was too scared to ask. Growing up, I always heard queer used in a nasty, aggressive way, usually preceding an insult. It was homophobic.

Now it seems everyone and their dog are calling themselves queer, and it doesn't seem to refer to being gay anymore? It does make me wince a bit when I see it though.

It would be interesting to see what it is that Stonewall is now moving away from, i.e., what are the old priorities which are now going to be de-emphasized?

Clare who’s a long time DSD campaigner has done a really good thread here

twitter.com/clarecais/status/1302557825646891009?s=21

I was raised on Enid Blyton, so 'queer' was just a somewhat archaic synonym for 'peculiar'. If we're doing the heated discussion my view is that there's nothing peculiar about being same-sex attracted, and furthermore it's not up to those who aren't same-sex attracted to go about reclaiming that slur on others' behalf.

If Stonewall want to campaign for peculiar people's rights, that's up to them, but they could have the decency to be honest about it.

I follow several intersex people on twitter and they're all having none of it.

@Beamur

Has anyone actually asked people with intersex conditions if they want to be advocated for by Stonewall? Somehow I doubt it. Talk about mission creep.

I wondered this but as a pp pointed out they don't need to find support from intersex people. Just some who identify as intersex which is a totally different thing

I have seen job apps which list intersex as an option under gender/identity.

These are companies that should know better (because they have had the training and have it all over their websites etc).

This is about money, obviously.

First trans, now intersex and 'sex workers'. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.

A lot of charities may be charities, but they behave like businesses. After all, people need their paychecks. Like the growth model in businesses, they will always be looking for more & more ways to exapand, more disenfranchised groups to lobby for because otherwise they will cease to exist.

If they cared about people with dsds at all then they would be speaking out about the way at which they are used to try and prove sex isn't binary.

Intersex isn't an identity or the proof of a third sex

Its many medical conditions most of which are exclusively male or female conditions and have bugger all to do with anything else SW campaign for.

Is this to deflect the heat from their stance of it being OK for males to smash into women in rugby?

Serenity rather alarming to hear that.

I would suspect then that this will be rather like the adoption of the term lesbian for people who aren't actually lesbians, stretching the brief and making very good use of the established public sympathy and support, while furthering identity politics that benefit the identifiers, while erasing and harming the actual people with the actual original meaningful term. People with DSDs need to get on this, right now, before they find themselves similarly used and running to stand still in terms of maintaining their rights.

The root of all this is 'identity'.

They’re fast reaching a point with their diversity and inclusion whereby the inclusion cancels out the diversity.

Ironically if they switched to women’s rights they’d have a never ending task list of things to lobby.

Now that big old umbrella includes just about anyone and everyone as long as they’ve drunk the cool aid. Unsurprisingly this is more patronising drivel under the guise of inclusion. 🙄

I don't understand the claim that Stonewall is now starting to oppose discrimination on grounds other than sexuality. How is 'transness' a sexuality?
What a bizarrely badly written article, I had to keep re-reading sentences to make sense of it (and failing)

Its going to get round to ‘cis’ people eventually

I thought people with DSDs wanted nothing to do with the trans issue.

There is a lesson in here about charities and organisations that want to keep their own personal gravy train going. The ideal would be that they shut up shop having achieved their stated purpose, but then they lose their jobs. So they latch on to something else. First trans in which they pretty much created a new 'oppressed, vulnerable minority', now they're attempting yet again to drag in people with DSDs?