Mary Harrington in DM: When a group set up to fight homophobia is at war with a lesbian champion of gay rights, it's no longer fit for purpose

[yourhairiswinterfire]

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9608277/MARY-HARRINGTON-group-fighting-homophobia-clashes-gay-rights-champion-theres-issue.html

Article on Allison Bailey v Stonewall. Maya even gets a mention, too!

In today's Sunday Times there's a brilliant article by Matthew Syed (such a good journalist) about the BBC, NHS & Oxfam and how their cultures of purity enable scandals to thrive. Share token as it's a such a great piece:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9fab77c8-bb1c-11eb-88a0-2b24633e3d76?shareToken=c790f8e27748e623d416ecce1826e580hat take place because of their

The Harrington article is a really clear explanation of the problems with Stonewall for people who are new to the debate. It’s a shame she had to introduce the health and safety analogy into it but otherwise excellent.

Good.

There needs to be a Public Inquiry into the dealings and funding of Stonewall, including their relationships with all the rest of the players, Gendered Intelligece, LGBT Youth Scotland, The Eqality Network etc.

That article has clearly been written to bring this issue to the door of a specific, ahem, demographic (and you can see from the comments that it has worked!) but it is sunlight and exposed the absolute farce that Stonewall has now become. Plus, Allison Bailey is just awesome!

@KimThomas

The Harrington article is a really clear explanation of the problems with Stonewall for people who are new to the debate. It’s a shame she had to introduce the health and safety analogy into it but otherwise excellent.

I didn't think the Harrington was particularly clear to anybody who doesn't already understand these issues. But that's more that this stuff is so absurd that it doesn't seem real. I had sympathy for the commenter who said: it's so bizarre you need to read it 5 times to get half an idea what's going on

The health and safety part was lazy and undercut the rest of the piece - I'd like to see which official health and safety org. was behind those anecdotes as it's usually an over-zealous person using H&S as a cover for their apprehension about insurance and what it covers. Sometimes it's not the article's writer who includes that stuff, it can be inserted by editors etc.

The health and safety part was lazy* and undercut the rest of the piece

It came across as "and now, a word from our sponsor" and served to break the convincing flow of the actual argument. Otherwise, it's a terrific piece.

I don't know, I suspect the Health and Safety part was put in there to give an illustration that the demographic the article was aimed at would relate to.