Stonewall defends its direction to BBC

[WarriorN]

Stonewall boss defends new strategy amid criticism www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57281448

Read this with interest.

Comparing the belief in basic human biology to antisemitism is extremely offensive.

Most would agree that freedom of speech is “not without limit”. But Stonewall appear to be defining a limit which gives no room for an oppressed and disadvantaged section of society, protected by the Equality act (women, based on sex) to question their own rights and protections.

How DARE she say that gender critical thought is analogous to anti-Semitism? Has she got any connection to the world at all outside her teeny tiny bubble? Has she actually heard of the Holocaust?

Until now I was waiting for Stonewall to get it together. I thought they were a good organisation that had lost their way, maybe tried to do too much but didn’t have enough money to do it all well. But this is beyond the pale and if she represents their thinking then they are a lost cause. I no longer believe that the exclusion of women’s rights from their thinking is accidental, I think they are an organisation without an ethical standard.

The more I think about it, comparing a debate which at its core is a debate about who gets to define a set of words, with the ancient hatred that led to 6 million murders in the Holocaust - that comparison is maybe anti-Semitic. Keen to hear what Jewish MNers think about it. And yes, LGBT and Roma people were murdered in the Holocaust too but the vast majority murdered in the genocide were Jewish.

I find the comparison to anti semitism v offensive too.

Also given recent events there.

I'm struggling to say anything that wouldn't get a deletion.

Not even an acknowledgment that the ideology leads to young people making the wrong decisions? The harm?

The dressing trans as fact and that you can't change sex as belief is starting to grate somewhat.

@Forgotthebins

How DARE she say that gender critical thought is analogous to anti-Semitism? Has she got any connection to the world at all outside her teeny tiny bubble? Has she actually heard of the Holocaust?

Until now I was waiting for Stonewall to get it together. I thought they were a good organisation that had lost their way, maybe tried to do too much but didn’t have enough money to do it all well. But this is beyond the pale and if she represents their thinking then they are a lost cause. I no longer believe that the exclusion of women’s rights from their thinking is accidental, I think they are an organisation without an ethical standard.

The more I think about it, comparing a debate which at its core is a debate about who gets to define a set of words, with the ancient hatred that led to 6 million murders in the Holocaust - that comparison is maybe anti-Semitic. Keen to hear what Jewish MNers think about it. And yes, LGBT and Roma people were murdered in the Holocaust too but the vast majority murdered in the genocide were Jewish.

I'm glad she's said that so publicly- it might start making more people aware of what Stonewall are these days and just how dangerous their agenda is.

It's an absolutely disgusting, ludicrous comment to have made. She's ridiculous.

You simply can't make those analogies. It's beyond stupid to do so.

(The stonewall woman.)

And saying that talking about trans is distracting from LG abd B; they're the ones re framing the debate (no debate.)

Wasn't it from stonewall that some document used the word transparent of times more than any other, and hardly any, if not no, lesbians?

And choosing new colours that aren't too removed from the trans flag. (And I note are more child oriented colours too. )

I've just seen this on twitter. I'm lost for words that she thinks that's an acceptable comparison!
It would be interesting to see the opinion of the rest of Mumsnet in an AIBU.
I'm actually shocked.

If it wasn't clear to the general public yet exactly why Stonewall needs to go, I think they might now. As offensive as she was in that article, part of me thinks let her speak and speed up their demise.

Just when you think Stonewall can’t sink any lower...it’s gobsmacking in its offensiveness.

It is a horrific and utterly unacceptable comparison, but it does absolutely reflect the way the TWAW brigade treat GC feminists. Like you I hope people will see through this, but my real optimism comes from withdrawals from the Stonewall Champions scheme

I think it's abhorrent.

But in a way, a good thing.

A very weak, actually offensive, grasping-at-straws argument.

Hopefully a very public beginning-of-the-end.

I was wondering yesterday if Stonewall could be saved. Thanks to very helpful posters on here I concluded it couldn't. Now it's in the public domain. Not long now, hopefully.

I'm only part Jewish but sickened and furious. Tempted to send her a copy of David Baddiel's Jews Don't Count.

“Challenged to whether it might be considered offensive to compare anti-Semitic to gender-critical views, she insisted it was appropriate.”

“We are talking about protected groups. We’re talking about people that are protected on the basis of their sexuality, people that are protected on the basis of gender identity, people who are protected on the basis of race and that’s why we think the analogy is apt.”

She is doubling down on the bullshit. RACE is the only protected characteristic correctly cited under the 2010 Equality Act. She’s being purposely disingenuous and using race as a Trojan horse.

The other protected characteristics ignored by Stonewall or purposely twisted are SEX (eg the very gender critical women she likens to anti-Semitics), GENDER REASSIGNMENT (not in any way the same as gender identity) and SEXUAL ORIENTATION (not the same as the sexual orientation she’s alluding to. Sexual orientation is based on sex ie heterosexual, homosexual etc).

The majority of transwomen are predominantly white and have a high level of influence being from the more wealthy classes having benefited from male socialisation and puberty.

To use race as a stick to beat the population, particularly any GC ethnic minority woman is extremely offensive to all POC.

To compare GC’s to anti-semites is extremely offensive. All over a Twitter GC’s are called Nazis and worse. This comparison denies the suffering people went through under the nazi regime. Classic DARVO. We are not the ones silencing and brainwashing the population as did the Nazis before unleashing terror. Not that I’m comparing Stonewall to Nazis. Rather the tactics employed bear similarities to those employed in 1930’s Germany.

I also find it offensive and extremely offensive to Germans constantly bring up what happened in Germany. Making the comparison is one of the reasons as to why the Gender movement has been so successful. No one wants to be compared to such an awful period in history.

"We are talking about protected groups."

The most protected group by far is children.

Zero consideration here.

From many POV. That a child might have a parent who transitions thus confusing their relationship, if the parent is narcissistic they'll insist on being treated differently thus coercing the child. That a child might confuse a range of feelings or mental health issues with trans. And an awful lot worse that we arent allowed to discuss.

Absolutely Mummyof

Especially

*The majority of transwomen are predominantly white and have a high level of influence being from the more wealthy classes having benefited from male socialisation and puberty.

To use race as a stick to beat the population, particularly any GC ethnic minority woman is extremely offensive to all POC.*

Quote from the BBC article:

We're talking about protected groups. We're talking about people that are protected on the basis of their sexuality, people that are protected on the basis of gender identity, people who are protected on the basis of race and that's why we think the analogy is apt.

Still trying to plant the idea that “gender identity” is a protected characteristic again?

Which was the basis of Stonewall’s advice to Essex Uni being unlawful?

Agree that comparing a belief in the reality of biology to anti-Semitism is offensive and hyperbolic nonsense.

She also disingenuously sandwiches in "gender-critical beliefs" between racism and discrimination towards disabled people, as three comparable examples of controversial views. Gender-critical views are not controversial, that's what most people think! (as I'm sure she is fully aware).

Interesting she couldn't provide an example of what Stonewall has done for lesbians. As far as I can tell it's sweet FA since gay marriage was legalised in 2014.

Getting support from people outside the LGBTQ+ community is going to be tricky when they realise what Stonewall are actually campaigning for.

Supporting two gay men or two lesbians having the right marry is one thing. Supporting the abolition of women's services so if your mum, sister or wife gets raped she has no rights to female only support is quite another.

People only need to realise this is what 'trans inclusive' actually means before it's all going to implode for Stonewall.

Wanting to retain female only support services for traumatised women is as bad as anti semitism? Really? They've totally lost their way.

You couldn’t make this stuff up could you

Challenged as to whether it might be considered offensive to compare anti-Semitic beliefs to gender-critical views, she insisted it was appropriate.
"We're talking about protected groups. We're talking about people that are protected on the basis of their sexuality, people that are protected on the basis of gender identity, people who are protected on the basis of race and that's why we think the analogy is apt."

Apart from the protected characteristics are
Sexual orientation - not sexuality
Gender reassignment - not gender identity

And having a protected characteristic doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with what you believe either. “Religion or belief” is a protected characteristic itself, but that just means your employer or a public service can’t treat you differently because of your religion, not that the entire world has to agree that your religion is the one gospel truth....that just wouldn’t work!!!

Yet she’s “really confident” in her organisation’s legal advice 🤣 when as CEO she repeatedly publicly lies about the law.

Does Stonewall have any actual lawyers on staff?

Interesting. Highly offensive, but interesting point of view. Because it's actually more false equivalence leading to forced teaming. People who want to Be Kind won't think beyond Stonewall's statement.

I would say that being gender critical is similar to being atheist - rejecting belief in the unprovable and requiring concrete evidence to guide decisions. So you could say it's an anti-religious perspective. Not much of a leap to think anti-religious=anti-Semitic. But being gender critical is highly compatible with most religions as it does not negate any belief. Rather, it is a perfect example of principles such as 'Love thy neighbour' and 'Treat others as you would wish to be treated'.

So what bout the group protected because of sex?

@midgedude

So what bout the group protected because of sex?

Technically everyone is protected on the grounds of their sex, even men, seeing as we all have a sex. It’s just that women are more often discriminated against on grounds of our sex than men are.

Wowsers. So confident in their advice. Yet here she is still misleading people that trans is a protected characteristic. IT IS NOT. Only gender reassignment is.

This is the major issue with their stance. TWAW, and anyone who says they are a woman is one, for all purposes and in all circumstances. This is so extremist.

I want her out in the light. Talking more. Being questioned more. I would love to see Emily Matliss interview her. Get their stance out in the open for all to see. Have her answer the staniland question, live on air on prime time TV.

More sunlight is what this needs. Start calling GC views akin to antisemitism and you aren't going to take people with you.