Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Stonewall dropping the G?

38 replies

Whatisthisfuckery · 10/09/2020 07:53

Well looky here, Stonewall appear to be launching an international project but where’s the G?

All around the world lesbians, bi women and trans people (LBT+ communities) continue to be excluded by international movements and systems that should serve them. Out of the Margins is a new two-year international project which builds evidence and global action on LBT+ rights. Grounded in participatory and intersectional approaches, Stonewall is delivering it in partnership with a network of 24 organisations across Europe and Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

The project focuses on five main issues where LBT+ communities continue to face severe marginalisation:

Economic well-being
Education
Health
Personal security and violence
Civic and political participation

www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/out-margins-global-lbt-rights-project

So, no more gay men then, not even gay transmen?

How much more obvious can they make it that they want to completely submerge women with the male bodied T.

OP posts:
EmpressJKRowlingSpartacus · 10/09/2020 07:54

That’s very interesting. I suppose they have to keep the LB for transpeople who want to identify into those categories, don’t they?

Cocothefirst · 10/09/2020 08:03

It's so blatant.

SerenityNowwwww · 10/09/2020 08:04

No G? Flipping heck. They barely acknowledge the L and B anyway... so what’s a gay man supposed to call themselves?

ArabellaScott · 10/09/2020 08:05

I don't quite understand. Is this how you describe women without using the word?

rose69 · 10/09/2020 08:05

It's a specific campaign not a change in focus.

SerenityNowwwww · 10/09/2020 08:06

How can they not have G though? Surely that’s the starting point of the whole organisation?

Cabinfever10 · 10/09/2020 08:09

But being homosexual is transphobic its same gender attraction not sex silly Confused

EmpressJKRowlingSpartacus · 10/09/2020 08:11

I’m very surprised they’ve left the rest of the alphabet soup off, actually. What about QQIA++?

NonnyMouse1337 · 10/09/2020 08:14

I guess the thinking is that gay and bisexual men are still men, and therefore will benefit from many of the privileges of being a man in a patriarchy, compared to a lesbian for example. Hence a project that excludes gay and bisexual men, although it's not clear if trans men are also excluded.

The viewpoint that gay and bisexual men also benefit from the patriarchy and therefore aren't as marginalised as other groups is shared by many posters on this board as well, if I'm not mistaken.

And yes, by allowing people to 'identify' into groups, it encourages men to identify as lesbians and claim oppression points.

NonnyMouse1337 · 10/09/2020 08:16

@rose69

It's a specific campaign not a change in focus.
Yup, that's how I understood it from reading the link.
Datun · 10/09/2020 08:19

Maybe MSM calling them a trans organisation is coming from stonewall themselves.

Transwomen who are mostly 'lesbian' or bi. I mean most people realise that is who they represent.

Abhannmor · 10/09/2020 08:26

Or is it a clumsy attempt to respond to Get the L Out by pretending to prioritise lesbian and bi women - while lumping them in with trans ?

SerenityNowwwww · 10/09/2020 08:29

Or just another mid-called initiative by a floundering organisation desperate to keep the funds flowing.

SerenityNowwwww · 10/09/2020 08:29

Miss-call...

doublehalo · 10/09/2020 08:36

It's becoming less like alphabet soup and more like a sandwich.

ErrolTheDragon · 10/09/2020 08:41

It seems to be mostly intended as a specific campaign for women who are not heterosexual. They've included the T (with no specification as to whether it refers to TM, TW or both).Given that globally women are subject to the marginalisation they mention, and that homophobia is still rife in many countries, this actually seems to me like it might be quite a good redirection - properly intersectional and not all about western males.

Of course their track record of late inclines women to be sceptical of their motives but I'd rather see them putting a lot of effort on this front.

MichelleofzeResistance · 10/09/2020 08:42

Just as a quick heads up to posters, the 'soup' reference is now a deletable and strike worthy offence due to this being perceived as a slur, even if you are LGBT+ yourself. I could wish this had been mentioned before strikes started being awarded, but HQ's decision.

highame · 10/09/2020 08:42

Here's a thought. Stonewall will be doing the Europe stuff and now has an added dimension by joining organisations in other continents. This is an unbelievably smart move. Even if the other groups have difficulties because of culture and politics, Stonewall will be able to plough ahead with its European endeavours. I might have a guess that Trans becomes the focus?

highame · 10/09/2020 08:43

posted too early. and we know how good they are at collecting evidence

doublehalo · 10/09/2020 08:43

Just as a quick heads up to posters, the 'soup' reference is now a deletable

Say what now??

endofthelinefinally · 10/09/2020 08:44

I would think the L and B refer to the ones with XY chromosomes.

doublehalo · 10/09/2020 08:45

And for the record, I'm an L.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 10/09/2020 08:46

Nah! It's one campaign. And it very firmly lumps anyone whose gender choice does not match their sex in with women!

Woman = human catch all category!

raddledoldmisanthropist · 10/09/2020 08:50

Yup, that's how I understood it from reading the link.

You read the link? That's not really in the spirit of the site.

Yeah it's a campaign targeting women (and 'women') written in the usual stonewall gobbledegook.

NearlyGranny · 10/09/2020 08:51

Is there a suggestion that gays are just to boringly mainstream and comfy now, or is it something bandwagonish that will secure ongoing funding?

And does mention of alphabetti spaghetti attract censure?