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

And I don't believe that 70 companies, some of the biggest in the UK, have written to the government supporting Self ID because they've been brainwashed or are naive.

Can somebody clarify this - have they written to the government specifically supporting self ID (which many trans people do not support), or generally supporting trans rights?

@OldCrone Depends on which charities you're comparing them with. An income of £8m p.a. isn't insignificant.

Not insignificant no, but pretty small fry in the charitable sector. In comparison British Heart Foundation has an annual turnover of 1.3 billion, Shelter is £70 million, so as revenue goes Stonewall is not a big player, and they run a helpline and other services out of that £7m, its not all spent on campaigning.

Can you explain what you mean by 'gender nonconforming people' here? Are you using this as a synonym for trans people or something else?

Well I'd include trans people in that but gender non-confomity generally. I know there were androgynous subcultures in the past, but they were very limited and in many cases despised. You couldn't go walking through the city I was brought up in safely looking like Boy and you wouldn't get a job. Even girls wearing trousers or boys having long hair were massive points of contention at my school in the 80s. I think things have progressed a long way on that front.

Do you really think this movement is driven by young people?

Very much so. Every single person I've spoken to under 30 is absolutely baffled at the hostility towards trans people and fully in favour of inclusion, I find it hard to believe they will all change their minds en masse in middle age.

Really? You don't think it's a just bit of mindless virtue signalling? Appears to cost nothing, they don't have to do anything or make any changes to their business, and they get praise for being so 'progressive' and 'inclusive'.

But my point is it has cost something. Business was prepared to take a significant hit on the North Carolina boycott. Every signatory of that letter is currently getting flamed. The GC movement has thrown everything it has at the likes of M&S and Topshop and they haven't moved an inch. This is about more than woke ideology, it's about money. They obviously believe that trans inclusion is the most profitable way to go and it's worth riding out the various boycotts and twitter storms.

I know someone who works for google. Everyone there is non binary or trans or demisexual or something. It would be a nightmare for them if suddenly they stopped being trans inclusive, they'd have a mutiny. And they are not the only sector. It would effectively make the UK an international no-go area for trans and gender nonconforming people. With a new generation full of young people who are those things it would be suicidal for their employers to adopt polcies that would antagonise the workforce, especially as in sectors like tech the workforce actually has some power and will just go somewhere that is trans inclusive, even if that means leaving the UK, if they don't like it.

Why would leaving trans people with all the rights they have already, which are the same rights as everyone else has (but not giving them any extra ones) be perceived as an attack on trans rights?

Well this is a bit of a contested point. In terms of trans access to spaces inline with their gender I think most people think they have that right under the EA, and the concern was that Truss is hinting at changing that. I think that's what's woken up the big companies. And they probably support Self ID because they just want to whole row put to bed and to be done with it.

They won’t have written an individually composed letter, they’ll either have all signed a single letter or used a template composed by stonewall. That’s how it’s done in the voluntary sector. Happens all the time.

Board members won’t have sat round, debated the issue & written anything off their own bat

@merrymouse

And I don't believe that 70 companies, some of the biggest in the UK, have written to the government supporting Self ID because they've been brainwashed or are naive.

Can somebody clarify this - have they written to the government specifically supporting self ID (which many trans people do not support), or generally supporting trans rights?

According to Forbes they have, although it is a little vague:

"Significantly, a further 70 of them have written directly to the Prime Minister to call on the Government to honour its commitment to protect trans people's rights. They've also asked him to reform the Gender Recognition Act, in a week those reforms are expected to be announced."

Oh - Ok - I see the letter.

Interestingly, they haven't specifically signed up to self ID. They have just signed up to 'remove barriers'.

Also, the results of the consultation haven't been published and the 70% figure is dodgy. If the government thought the 70% figure was reliable, they wouldn't be hesitating.

They've also asked him to reform the Gender Recognition Act

Reforming the GRC and allowing Self ID are two different things.

Sorry, reforming the GRA.

@merrymouse

Oh - Ok - I see the letter.

Interestingly, they haven't specifically signed up to self ID. They have just signed up to 'remove barriers'.

Also, the results of the consultation haven't been published and the 70% figure is dodgy. If the government thought the 70% figure was reliable, they wouldn't be hesitating.

They would if the remaining 30% are largely made up of Tory voters. My suspicion is Truss jumped the gun and tried to force the Prime Minister's hand whilst he was distracted with other things. This put the Tories in a difficult position because either decision now looks like a u-turn. It was a bold move by Truss, but I'm not sure it played out the way she wanted. I also don't think they are in a massive rush. This conflict has caused massive damage on the left, why would the tories be in a rush to resolve anything.

(wild speculation over)

Even girls wearing trousers or boys having long hair were massive points of contention at my school in the 80s.

That sounds very restrictive, and not very representative of popular culture in the 80s. At my school most girls wore DMs and had short hair. Men in the bands we followed wore make up, had long hair (It was the area of the bouffant mullet) and sometimes wore dresses.

It would effectively make the UK an international no-go area for trans and gender nonconforming people. With a new generation full of young people who are those things it would be suicidal for their employers to adopt polcies that would antagonise the workforce

You are talking about people who have rigid views of gender and believe that they have to define themselves according to their gender. They are not gender nonconforming.

They would if the remaining 30% are largely made up of Tory voters.

Tory voters generally don't care much about rights.

The people who care about this issue tend to be left wing women.

It may be more accurate to say repurposing the GRA.

Having been written to sort out pension and marriage equality in a way that enabled the HoC to avoid legalising gay marriage at the time, it is now obsolete in its original purpose.

@merrymouse

That sounds very restrictive, and not very representative of popular culture in the 80s. At my school most girls wore DMs and had short hair. Men in the bands we followed wore make up, had long hair (It was the area of the bouffant mullet) and sometimes wore dresses.

What was happening in popular culture, or some clubs in Soho, was very different to what was happening on the ground in Northern working class cities, where queerbashing was a Saturday night sport. Many employers would not employ men with long hair even into the late 80s. Yes gender nonconformity happened, but it came with significant social cost.

You are talking about people who have rigid views of gender and believe that they have to define themselves according to their gender. They are not gender nonconforming.

I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree here. I get what you mean but I think traditionally gender has been very much linked to physical sex, so someone born physically male using female pronouns, or wearing female clothes, would be seen as gender non-conforming to most people no matter how they saw themselves.

@merrymouse

They would if the remaining 30% are largely made up of Tory voters.

Tory voters generally don't care much about rights.

The people who care about this issue tend to be left wing women.

I agree, a lot of left wing women do care about this, in both directions. But it's been the bastions of the right, The Spectator, The Times, The Sun etc who have done the heavy lifting in the UK. Boris' main concern if he went for Self ID will be whether he can get his own MPs to vote for it.

I find it hard to believe they will all change their minds en masse in middle age.

From experience, many women do spend their twenties thinking that feminism is obsolete. That tends to change after a child or two and realisation that rights and resources we take for granted can be taken away.

But it's been the bastions of the right, The Spectator, The Times, The Sun etc who have done the heavy lifting in the UK.

Only because the Guardian have gone MIA (too concerned about their Amercian staff and readers who neither know nor care about UK legislation) and refuse to confront the issue.

Of course the govt don't want to have to act; its a poison chalice. Rather like Brexit: a whopping great stupid government foot stuffed in mouth without forethought accident that should never have been allowed to happen and which a child with a bit of common sense could have spotted the problems with.

There is no way out. Either they publicly throw women's rights back more than a century and declare that a) there's no such thing as biological sex any more and it's punishable by law to say there is BUT one sex has absolute priority and superior status to the other at all times and in all considerations, and b) we don't care about other protected characteristics including faith, culture, disability, female people with any kinds of needs can just be excluded from public life....

and oh look, here come the court cases, the judicial reviews, the compromised Nolan principles and policies and massive popular vote anger as the issues start to bite because no mandate, no public support, all achieved in a highly dodgy way and anti women when half the voters are female.

Or:

They hand the Labour party a huge gift of being able to paint the Conservatives as heartless, uncaring, anti LGBT+ right wing nasties, allows a lot of public figures to denounce the Conservatives while looking very good themselves for doing it, and dealing with the onslaught from a political lobby that is very well funded and has something of a reputation when displeased.

They're painted into the corner and there is no way out without a huge giant mess. Their one way out would be to explain, properly and thoroughly and with a lot of public information the clash with women's rights and the needs of females, and get the general public properly informed and prepared to understand how LGBT+ needs are going to be properly met, and how those needs will not affect or damage the specific needs equally important for women.

But it looks like they just want the whole thing to go away, and in the middle of a pandemic, a very messy Brexit and all the rest of the mess they're standing in, I don't really blame them.

I do blame the twits who were paid to see this coming and should never have allowed this situation to arise in the first place.

I get what you mean but I think traditionally gender has been very much linked to physical sex, so someone born physically male using female pronouns, or wearing female clothes, would be seen as gender non-conforming to most people no matter how they saw themselves.

Yes, and that is why trans people suffer discrimination.

However, to accept that analysis you have to accept that discrimination is based on how your are perceived, and has nothing whatsoever to do with your identity.

Given that Stonewall is campaigning for gender identity to replace both sex and gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, they still seem to be in a state of denial on this point.

I find it hard to believe they will all change their minds en masses in middle age

I don't, lots of us here came from a position of actively being trans allies and it was that experience and 'education' that has made us so concerned about our rights.

@merrymouse

I find it hard to believe they will all change their minds en masse in middle age.

From experience, many women do spend their twenties thinking that feminism is obsolete. That tends to change after a child or two and realisation that rights and resources we take for granted can be taken away.

You may well be right, although most of the women in their 20s I know don't think feminism is obsolete, they just have different priorities. Personally I just can't see them all suddenly turning on trans rights in middle age, they've got trans friends and family, they've grown up around it unlike us, and it doesn't seem to faze them a jot. Most of them seem far more worried about climate change and economic matters, I guess because they perceive they are the real threats to their lives. And it will be their world soon. Even if Truss gives some ground to the GC movement I don't think it will be sustained. When the Tories introduced Section 28 they thought they'd won and LGB people would move back into the shadows. Look what happened.

Trans people quite rightly have more rights here than they do in America. Until very recently you could be legal sacked there just for being LGBT. The Supreme Court made a ruling against that just a few months ago. There is no universal health care and Trump is attacking their basic rights to care and to serve in the military etc.

Trans people have rights here under the equality act. No one on this board is asking for these rights to be moved just for a few exemptions to apply that protect women. For example self I’d would mean that dangerous male killers could choose which prison system to be in. Not allowing this would not affect trans people’s rights but would protect vulnerable women and stop trans rights from being abused by men who are not trans. I doubt that trans rights are so bad they are affecting British business as they are much better than the rights trans people have in the USA (where many of these companies are based).

I agree that they see it as easy virtue signalling (disability inclusion and a decent maternity leave package is too costly).

@merrymouse

I get what you mean but I think traditionally gender has been very much linked to physical sex, so someone born physically male using female pronouns, or wearing female clothes, would be seen as gender non-conforming to most people no matter how they saw themselves.

Yes, and that is why trans people suffer discrimination.

However, to accept that analysis you have to accept that discrimination is based on how your are perceived, and has nothing whatsoever to do with your identity.

Given that Stonewall is campaigning for gender identity to replace both sex and gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, they still seem to be in a state of denial on this point.

However, to accept that analysis you have to accept that discrimination is based on how your are perceived, and has nothing whatsoever to do with your identity.

Discrimination laws are based on perception. Someone who is not trans, but is discriminated against because they were perceived to be undergoing gender reassignment would have protection under the EA.

I don't think Stonewall were campaigning for gender identity to replace sex. Just that they wanted it added as a protected group. I can see the reason for that, it's pretty outrageous that someone could be denied a job or housing for being nonbinary or gender nonconforming in some way.

@Siablue

Trans rights very much vary from state to state in the US, in many cases they are just as robust as the UK if not more so. Many states have defacto Self ID, New York has had specific laws protecting trans access to spaces inline with their gender identity for ten years. Not one of the attempts at a bathroom bill was successful, and there is far more trans representation in culture than the UK, although its still pretty woeful in other sectors, as it is in the UK.

What was happening in popular culture, or some clubs in Soho, was very different to what was happening on the ground in Northern working class cities

This was happening in the pages of Smash Hits. It was very main stream.

I admit my experience is of Surrey, not a northern working class city, but Surrey is hardly cutting edge, and a lot of people live in Surrey.

But Stonewall actively campaigned to remove the single-sex exemptions...

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

I don't think Stonewall were campaigning for gender identity to replace sex.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3958502-Andrew-Moffat-No-Outsiders-at-it-again#prettyPhoto

Here is Andrew Moffat deliberately omitting protected characteristic of sex.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

Here is Stonewall compaigning for Gender reassignment to be replaced with Gender Identity and removal of exemptions that allow specific rights on the basis of sex, not gender.

Someone who is not trans, but is discriminated against because they were perceived to be undergoing gender reassignment would have protection under the EA.

Yes, but not because they are just gender non conforming, which I think is a problem.