Thank you stonewall - now I know who to avoid

[Kit19]

136 businesses come together to support corporateWall sorry stonewall on trans ‘rights’

Like everyone on fwr I fully agree trans rights are human rights but what they are not is women’s rights. They are reserved for biological women

Also they must be rattled if they’ve got the city bods on their board to do a ring/email round to do a show of support

I find jj’s take on sexism and the attempt to shape this as ‘gender’ really puzzling.

For a start, talking about pilots for instance. You know there were female pilots in history? And during the 2nd world war?

You might also remember that after WWII there was a need to ‘employ the returning soldiers’ and so many women lost their roles they held in the war effort. In some countries, they were discouraged from working outside the home so men could have jobs as countries were rebuilding.

Many military pilots turned commercial pilots as air travel took off. Then came new fighter jets with ejection seats and supposedly needing a new physicality to fly them. But really it was to address the fact people wanted to keep women out of the military due to sexism. Because ‘sex’ not because ‘gender’.

There has always been a large proportion of ex-military pilots hired in commercial airlines due to training etc. so it has followed that the sexism that prevented women entering the military continued into that field.

This is NOT ‘gendered‘ at all. Call it what it is. Sexism.

I'm curious about only one thing here, really; why women are supposed to give a shit about certain people's opinions about their rights.

Sure, everyone is entitled to their views, and to express them. But no woman should feel obligated to explain at length why her sex deserve rights and protections and that they need to be preserved, not curtailed by the demands of a completely different group or dismissed and patronised by said group.

I find jj’s take on sexism and the attempt to shape this as ‘gender’ really puzzling.

I don't. It's why I asked jj if he was male earlier (because it was blindingly obvious jj was male). Men rarely notice sexism because it doesn't affect them.

@FloralBunting

I'm curious about only one thing here, really; why women are supposed to give a shit about certain people's opinions about their rights.

Sure, everyone is entitled to their views, and to express them. But no woman should feel obligated to explain at length why her sex deserve rights and protections and that they need to be preserved, not curtailed by the demands of a completely different group or dismissed and patronised by said group.

Absolutely, one person seems to have successfully derailed the conversation about companies supporting a Stonewall campaign by making statements they are well aware most here disagree with vehemently. If they'd genuinely wanted to discuss something quite different to the topic under discussion in this thread they should have started their own thread.

I'm not calling it a conspiracy. It's a concerted effort to remove women's sex based rights. With very many groups having a vested interest in the outcome. For various reasons.

YY

Quite right old crone. It is all about reframing to suit the male blindness to see how women are treated due to their sex and the history of this treatment. Not because of how people present.

And let’s also not forget that in areas where STEM subjects are necessary, such as being a pilot, it is sexism again.

And that generations of sexism and adherence to ridiculous stereotypes because of sexism, means that STEM programs for girls are needed to encourage them into the fields.

I'm actually kind of laughing that a thread about a number of powerful corporate entities supporting the erosion of women's rights and boundaries via a certain sexist ideology has been used to discuss why proponents of said ideology are so obviously vair oppressed.

Sort of like there's nothing that a certain sex class can't use to say "Yes, but enough of that, what about me?"

Sort of like there's nothing that a certain sex class can't use to say "Yes, but enough of that, what about me?"

Who needs conspiracy theories when most of the people in charge of government and industry can say "Oh this is terribly toxic and obviously it isn't my place to comment, but why can't people just be kind?"

Indeed Floral - it’s a master class in merailing

@Kit19

Indeed Floral - it’s a master class in merailing

Yep. Serious merailing.

It's very useful to have these type of discussions easily visible though, thank you for having the patience

@MoltenLasagne & @EyesOpening

Thanks for your advice - I spoke to one of our D&I team today, and they were very receptive. I kept the conversation quite neutral and flagged my concerns about reputational and financial risk. I also shared the Baker Mackenzie twitter feed so that they could see what kind of backlash we might get.

They admitted that they hadn't read the open letter, and hadn't heard of the GRA and the potential issues, but they were going to find out more, reflect and share with the team - and reconsider signing up to the campaign.

I felt very nervous sticking my head above the parapet and raising this issue, but I felt braver after reading some of the threads on here - so thank you all for sharing your wisdom and giving me the confidence to speak out.

They admitted that they hadn't read the open letter, and hadn't heard of the GRA and the potential issues, but they were going to find out more, reflect and share with the team - and reconsider signing up to the campaign.

It's worrying, isn't it? But at least it shows that once people do learn of the implications, they think rather differently.

Well done.

@Datun

They admitted that they hadn't read the open letter, and hadn't heard of the GRA and the potential issues, but they were going to find out more, reflect and share with the team - and reconsider signing up to the campaign.

It's worrying, isn't it? But at least it shows that once people do learn of the implications, they think rather differently.

Well done.

I want to say it beggars belief that fuckwits sign up to stuff with zero understanding of what it is, but having met lots of D&I people I am not surprised.

De Montfort University is based in in a city that is almost 20% Muslim.

I suspect they haven't thought through how this pledge might conflict with their ability to support their other colleagues, employees and customers.

[quote findyourbacon]**@MoltenLasagne* & @EyesOpening*

Thanks for your advice - I spoke to one of our D&I team today, and they were very receptive. I kept the conversation quite neutral and flagged my concerns about reputational and financial risk. I also shared the Baker Mackenzie twitter feed so that they could see what kind of backlash we might get.

They admitted that they hadn't read the open letter, and hadn't heard of the GRA and the potential issues, but they were going to find out more, reflect and share with the team - and reconsider signing up to the campaign.

I felt very nervous sticking my head above the parapet and raising this issue, but I felt braver after reading some of the threads on here - so thank you all for sharing your wisdom and giving me the confidence to speak out.[/quote]
well done!
That's good news, that they're reconsidering but also bad that they hadn't even read the open letter or even done any (in-depth) research! It does give a bit of hope that if we keep challenging and pointing things out, we might be able to make somewhat of a difference

Well done for challenging this

[quote findyourbacon]**@MoltenLasagne* & @EyesOpening*

Thanks for your advice - I spoke to one of our D&I team today, and they were very receptive. I kept the conversation quite neutral and flagged my concerns about reputational and financial risk. I also shared the Baker Mackenzie twitter feed so that they could see what kind of backlash we might get.

They admitted that they hadn't read the open letter, and hadn't heard of the GRA and the potential issues, but they were going to find out more, reflect and share with the team - and reconsider signing up to the campaign.

I felt very nervous sticking my head above the parapet and raising this issue, but I felt braver after reading some of the threads on here - so thank you all for sharing your wisdom and giving me the confidence to speak out.[/quote]
You are awesome!

So I have name changed.

I am extremely bemused by one company.

I can not say much as I am completely paranoid about being outed in the real world but the female director (and I believe founder) in the course of business with my team (this is HR) made a point of telling me one of my team members tops was too low cut and unprofessional and separately made an extremely anti-Muslim comment. I just stopped using the business.

And this person and their company is supporting this. They also went on about BLM ... yes after being racist to me.

So now she is all singing and dancing about trans issues. Also it is a small business so Stonewall must be pretty desperate.

I want to message this person but it is clear that they have a posse of trans professionals (as they have been tagged so she can receive congratulations x 100) who may jump on any conversation.

@MichelleofzeResistance

The message those companies have in fact given is "we support the removal of sex based rights from females for the better happiness of males, and we're unmoved by the severe impact this will have on many females, their access to public life and services, and their quality of life".

'And being gay is transphobic and wrong'

Meanwhile, the companies think they are supporting

'Everyone should have the right to live their lives.'

I do wonder how many companies 'sign up' thinking stonewall is still as they were years back. Surely these companies don't just assume, and they do research before becoming 'champions'?!

Also 'trans rights are human rights' is a useless soundbyte, surely noone disagrees with that..certainly not feminists!

@Thelnebriati

There is no other civil rights movement that has been able to erase the rights and language of another group this way. It should be a wake up call for trans rights supporters to see how easily a group with a protected characteristic can be ignored and their rights removed, even when it is illegal.

If you tolerate this, you pave the way for your own eradication in the future, and we wont be around to stand up for you.

There is no other civil rights movement that has been able to erase the rights and language of another group this way.

Has there been one that even tried?

I cannot think of any civil rights movement that actively attempted to remove rights from another group, and especially not take away the language to even name the other group?!

@Thingybob

Can I just point out that the list of companies have not signed up to support Stonewall, they signed up to support an 'event' and statement put out by a different organisation, Trans in the City

www.transrightsarehumanrights.co.uk/

Trans in the City collaborated with another organisation, Intermedia UK and some of these companies, but not all, signed an open letter to the Prime Minister yesterday.

www.intermediauk.org/post/trans-rights-open-letter-update

The letter is urging the government to act on the GRA consultation and contains this (false?)statement

Trans people have always been able to use single-sex facilities that match their gender, and the Equality Act 2010 codified this

With a bit of luck, that one will be straight on the 'nonsense' pile, because this

Trans people have always been able to use single-sex facilities that match their gender, and the Equality Act 2010 codified this

Is, as usual, misrepresenting the equality act. Why this is continually falsified in this way is beyond me, especially whilst lobbying for changes. IF this was already defined in law, why the need for changes to the law in order to do this?! They argue two opposite points at the same time quite often I find..

The equality act actually states that even when a GRC is granted, it is legal to keep the opposite sex from same sex areas.

@Winesalot

But really it was to address the fact people wanted to keep women out of the military due to sexism. Because ‘sex’ not because ‘gender’.

But as I think someone on here said, gender is the tool, so the reason women were kept out of the military was because of gendered expectations, meaning gender as a system of imposed beliefs and behaviours rather than gender as an individual identity. I agree that sexism is at the root of this, but I don't think you can remove gender from the equation. If gender plays no role in the oppression of women then how can gender also be a repressive system used to oppress women and maintain Patriarchy?

@AlsoNotAGirl

Absolutely, one person seems to have successfully derailed the conversation about companies supporting a Stonewall campaign by making statements they are well aware most here disagree with vehemently. If they'd genuinely wanted to discuss something quite different to the topic under discussion in this thread they should have started their own thread.

I'll happily leave the thread now except to say I did initially post on here to suggest I thought these companies might support trans inclusion for the business and economic reasons I mentioned rather than because they have been seduced by woke ideology or targetted by secretive lobbying groups. I wouldn't have thought that is such a contentious point even here. I'm sorry the thread got derailed though, I did try to avoid it, but somehow managed to get sucked into the diversion anyway.

If gender plays no role in the oppression of women then how can gender also be a repressive system used to oppress women and maintain Patriarchy?

Once more for the cheap seats - Sex is the determining factor in who is oppressed, Gender is the tool to do the oppressing.

Once more for the cheap seats - Sex is the determining factor in who is oppressed, Gender is the tool to do the oppressing.

We need this on t-shirts.