Stonewall defends its direction to BBC

[WarriorN]

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

Just wondered why Ben Hunte wasn't doing the interview - apparently
'The BBC has confirmed to Attitude that BBC News political reporter Jessica Parker will cover the role of LGBT Correspondent for Ben Hunte during his "short-term" posting as West Africa Correspondent.'
Agree this is better than the usual BBC article, just letting her hang herself is no bad thing.

@AnotherLass

I think that this is an unusually good article by the BBC. It doesn't lie about what the gender critical position is. It reports the mad, offensive things that Kelly says, it doesn't endorse them. It's sunlight. I think people would be mad to complain to the BBC. Complain to the Charity Commission.

I agree with this too although I suspect the full report was toned down by the sub editors (or whoever), e.g. it states that Kelly was Challenged as to whether it might be considered offensive to compare anti-Semitic beliefs to gender-critical views. That makes me think the reporter didn't just let it go but that the full exchange was edited out.

But sometimes a statement is so batshit and tells you so much about the person making it that just reporting what they said is enough. I think this might be such an occasion.

I also wonder why Ben Hunte didn't cover it? Is he still the LGBT correpondant?

Ha ha Imnobody4 beat me to it!

Godwin's law

Just wondered why Ben Hunte wasn't doing the interview - apparently
'The BBC has confirmed to Attitude that BBC News political reporter Jessica Parker will cover the role of LGBT Correspondent for Ben Hunte during his "short-term" posting as West Africa Correspondent.'

Interesting. I was wondering why Hunte wasn't covering it. Parker seems to have a bit more of the journalist about her than Hunte.

Hunte being posted to Africa inevitably puts me in mind of Boot...

@Chrysanthemum5

One of the issues is that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment might as well be gender identity - this wasn't foreseen when the act was drafted so there's no need to be actually on the gender reassignment path just to say you're thinking about it.

The whole concept of gender reassignment needs to be looked at again

If the PC was renamed 'gender identity' this would massively change how it works.

Some of the protected characteristics apply to all of us:

Age
Race
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Religion or belief (because lack of belief is also protected)

Some PCs only apply to some of us:

Disability
Gender Reassignment
Marriage or Civil Partnership
Pregnancy and Maternity

The people who want gender reassignment to be changed to gender identity are generally of the belief that we all have a gender identity. So who would be protected - people with a 'trans' identity and also those with a 'cis' identity? Would that be their intention, to give equal protection to 'cis' people?

And where would that leave those of us who don't have a 'gender identity'? Would we be the only group who were not protected under this shiny new protected characteristic?

Or would they do a swift 180 and start claiming that only trans people have a 'gender identity' after all? That would be an interesting move.

It's almost worth it just to see them have to come up with a legally coherent definition of 'gender identity'.

I'm Jewish and I am disgusted by what she's said. Stonewall is a disgrace - an absolute embarrassment to the brave and dynamic movement it spearheaded in its early days. It's now a bloated, dangerous cesspool of postmodernism.

I'm FURIOUS.

Now that is interesting. I wonder if this leads us to those with a gender identity, any gender identity, being protected as a religion. It is belief based after all. Where does that get us? It think that would put religious rights square up against sex based rights.

There's a lot of misunderstanding there about the protected characteristics, which would be immediately pulled up in my workplace. It looks like Nancy needs to be sent on some diversity and inclusion training

It's unbelievable that she doesn't understand that everyone has protected characteristics: everyone has a sex, race, sexual orientation etc. I don't think it can be a wilful misunderstanding because, if it were, she would structure her argument better - in order to defend Stonewall's policy, she needs to argue that some protected characteristics are more deserving/vulnerable than others.

By basing her argument purely on the existence or otherwise of protected characteristics, she undermines herself, as the obvious question that arises is why Stonewall is supporting the rights of people with the PC of transition over the rights of people with the PC of sex or or being gay (lesbians)?

Can she really be this stupid?

Hunte being posted to Africa inevitably puts me in mind of Boot...

'Bubonic plague raging in the south' (with a bit of luck)

It's an interesting approach by Stonewall to tell people, particularly the gays and bisexuals, that if they don't go along with homosexuality now being same gender attraction they're as bad as anti-Semites.

Nancy needs to be sent on some diversity and inclusion training.

😅

This is all sunlight. A good person who doesn't listen to dissent, who won't debate and calls people who disagree hateful and 'anti-semitic', becomes a tyrant. Nancy, LGB people are not homogenderals and it's not antisemitic to say so.

One of my old bosses was 'encouraged' to apply for the position of CEO at Stonewall. He said he wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, it was a poisoned chalice .. how right he was. One of his better decisions.

It is a glass cliff job, that is why a person of Nancys calibre got the job and why it took them so long to fill the post after Ruth hunt left.

How on earth can Garden Chambers not just throw up their hands when they realise just what they were relying upon when they aligned themselves to Stonewall? Given the dragging of feet with the disclosure of documents, is there a strong suspicion they'll stop proceedings now rather than embarrass themselves in June 2022, or that they'll run up Alison B's costs?

Good thread from Prof Alice Sullivan about her own run-ins with Stonewall:

twitter.com/ProfAliceS/status/1398536818786766856?s=20

I wonder if we might see one later from Prof Rosa Freedman?

As often happens when I come to Mumsnet, I read the first post, want to respond, but reading through the thread I see what I wanted to say has been said better than I was thinking of saying it. But yeah, what she said, and what she said!

Looking at Alice Sullivan's RTs and QTs - some interesting conversations where people almost but don't quite get it:

really wish people would stop trying to defend my rights by this kind of lunacy. People leaving me alone doesn't require calling people Nazis or trying to shut down debate. It requires more liberalism not less.
…
Trans people have worse rights now than we want. There's no path from here to our desired goal which doesn't involve public debate of those rights.

Shutting down debate before you win is idiocy.

Someone responds: Agree with the overall sentiment and think it's too far to treat GC views like anti-semitism. However, hard to take GC people seriously when they rely so heavily on the "sex is real" motte-and-bailey. Does anyone deny that sex is real outside a handful of nobodies on Twitter?

GE: I mean, it's hard to take transphobes seriously because their ideas are wicked and stupid. That's got nothing to do with if one should debate those views.

Creationism is wicked and stupid we still debate that.

twitter.com/geekethics/status/1398573098165755906

Janice Turner is on the case:

twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1398594714484543488

It'll be interesting to see what kinds of replies she gets since I hope they will include people who are not currently engaged in this debate.

it's also interesting that one of the journo's who co-wrote that article used to work for BBC reality check. I think things are changing in BBC News for the better.

This makes me feel hugely conflicted.

As a Jew who lost almost every single family member of my grandparents' generation in the Holocaust, it makes me almost incoherent with rage that she blithely makes this horrific statement which is so fucking offensive.

On the other hand. As a GC woman it makes me feel almost happy to know that this statement will be so offensive to so many people, that the house of cards is finally about to fall as they are exposed for what they are.

It's almost a feeling of vindication and relief that they will finally be undone by their own actions. Yet it has been the sheer persistence and bravery of GC women who have finally forced Stonewall's agenda into the sunlight and shown their best line of defence is to call people anti semites in an attempt to stifle debate.

(I'm also trying not to feel awful smugness and fuck you feelings at the sheer irony of the "statutory v natural language" - what a fucking own goal!)

That’s a really interesting take, langclegsinspace. I’m going to chew over that one for a while, as I think there’s quite a lot in there.

And where would that leave those of us who don't have a 'gender identity'? Would we be the only group who were not protected under this shiny new protected characteristic?

We would be protected, even though we do not have that characteristic, because discrimination occurs on being a member of that group, or the perception that you are a member of that group.
So, we could say we don’t have a gender identity, but have been discriminated on the basis that we are perceived to have a gender identity.

However, hard to take GC people seriously when they rely so heavily on the "sex is real" motte-and-bailey. Does anyone deny that sex is real outside a handful of nobodies on Twitter?

Erm, I wouldn't call ActionAid UK a 'handful of nobodies'. ''Action Aid understands there is no such thing as a biologically female/male body''.

Did Amnesty Ireland not moan about people ''defending biology''? I wouldn't call them nobodies either.

Did Maya Forstater not lose her job and just have a court case where she had to defend her right to believe in the biological differences between men and women?

The pitchforks are still out for Rosie Duffield, for saying women have a cervix. Well, for liking a tweet that said 'do you mean women?'.

But sure...nobody is denying that biological sex is real.

this page is the form to submit a 'serious complaint' to the charity commission.

Criteria for a serious complaint include:
-a charity not following the law, with damaging consequences to its reputation and public trust in charities generally
-serious harm to the people the charity helps or other people who come into contact with the charity through its work

Would you agree that Stonewall fit those criteria?

It also says: Only use this form if there is a serious risk of harm to the charity or people it was set up to help.

And it also says: complain directly to the charity first, or be able to explain why you could not do this

Do you think we'd be justified in using this form to complain directly? They'd have to take notice, if nothing else.

But sure...nobody is denying that biological sex is real.

And these are 2 youngish tech people who consider themselves so well-informed about these debates that they don't begin to fathom the ways in which they're mislead. But they definitely know whose ideas are wicked and stupid - I think they're sadly deceived as to who is in an echo-chamber if they're ignorant of these live issues.

It also shows how difficult it is to understand the absurdity of the current situation when people can read the BBC piece and still fail to understanding what is happening.

It's worth watching the video which says a lot more than what is reported in the article.

It starts with the interviewer asking "Do you accept in the choices that you have made that you have alienated some people within the LGBT+ community? For example, how do you represent lesbians who hold gender critical views? They might say you don't represent them."

Nancy Kelly: "We don't claim to represent everyone in the LGBTQ community".