Stonewall defends its direction to BBC

[WarriorN]

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

@AniseDanehill

Text of my complaint to the BBC today:

I am writing to complain about the disgraceful comments made by the head of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, which appeared - unchallenged - on the BBC News website on 29 May 2021.

In the article, Ms Kelley likens people who adhere to the fact of biological sex to anti-semites. This is deeply crass and offensive - both to the Jewish community whose history has been made light of, and to women (who also have a protected characteristic - that of sex). Ms Kelley is not fit to lead a national, influential organisation if this is her viewpoint, and the BBC is not fit to see itself as an impartial, trustworthy news broadcaster.

Not sure if this will have already have been said as I haven't rtft but I'd also pull the BBC up on not correcting Nancy Kelley's incorrect interpretation of the law ie. the use of the words gender identity instead of gender reassignment as related to protected characteristics.

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

I noticed that too, is this the 1st time stonewall has admitted that they don't represent everyone (so much for the broad church she claims later on)

But that concession highlights just how needed alternative LGB organisations are.

@thepuredrop

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.

True - it's a bit messy though, isn't it?

An obvious defence would be 'I didn't perceive her to have a gender identity because she said she didn't have one.'

@PronounssheRa

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

I noticed that too, is this the 1st time stonewall has admitted that they don't represent everyone (so much for the broad church she claims later on)

But that concession highlights just how needed alternative LGB organisations are.

Would that be the boring LGB who dare to believe that they understand their sexual orientation and what it means for their selection of intimate partners?

@OldCrone

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".

But she also reassures everyone that they will continue to work hard for all LGB people, even the gender critical lesbians will benefit.

I am sure that reassures all those who have been on the receiving end of abuse for their stance on sexual partners.

And that all those she alludes will still benefit, noticed that she has come out and directly stated that they should not be abused by anyone at all, not even those under the Stonewall remit. She did do that right? No? I thought I had missed it.

It is all very placating PR waffle on that video.

even the gender critical lesbians will benefit

I'm fairly sure no lesbian will benefit from stonewalls attempts to decriminalise sex by deception or removal of single sex exemptions from the EA

I think she's going to come to regret that interview.

@DeRigueurMortis

I think she's going to come to regret that interview.

Very much so.

Interesting:

twitter.com/cix_stormrage/status/1398615361294110723

I'm going to write to my (Tory) MP about this. Not to ask her to do anything but to get the word out there about the nature of Stonewall in the present day. Imagine a load of MPs having a quiet word among themselves about how they hadn't realised that Stonewall had turned into, well, into something very different from rainbow-themed loveliness.

Their new priority of hate speech laws... who exactly do they want as the target? If they view GC views as comparable to anti-semitism then it looks rather suspicious that they probably want to criminalize GC views.

@Zinco

Their new priority of hate speech laws... who exactly do they want as the target? If they view GC views as comparable to anti-semitism then it looks rather suspicious that they probably want to criminalize GC views.

This is going to turn into the Scopes Trial at some point.

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!!!

Yep, good point. There isn't a "right" to not have your beliefs torn to shreds on social media.

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?

Crikey, that hadn't occurred to me. As far as I understand it, the catechism posits that everyone has a gender identity and we poor deluded gcs are just too ignorant to recognise it. Much as some religions believe we are all sinners/saved whether or not we've seen the light.

So we would be protected despite ourselves. But then if we're just some difficult women then probably not considered quite human, so I'm sure they'd find a way to cover our exclusion. Scottish govt had to do a bit of gymnastics to make sure they excluded women from the Hate Crime Bill (someone else is looking at that, it's too important to actually do right now), but they managed it somehow.*

Because Stonewall are certainly feminist-exclusive, they've made that very clear. Anyone holding gc views is considered hateful.

*yes, I do keep banging on about the HCB. It's quite scary living in Scotland if you aren't fully on board with the SNP's brave new world.

Nice that she changes the protected characteristic of sexual orientation to 'sexuality' which has a completely different meaning, so it conveniently glosses over the fact that telling lesbians that they must accept penis is homophobic and in breach of the Equality Act.

The silver lining is that if (when) Maya wins her appeal, GC views will be confirmed as protected as a religious/philosophical belief under the Equality Act. Kelley's comments will then be, at law, equivalent to saying that, for example, Islamic beliefs are inherently hateful (ie, her comments will be utterly unacceptable).

And for anyone who wants to challenge their employer's Diversity Champion status, that will be the time to strike.

@nauticant

Interesting:

twitter.com/cix_stormrage/status/1398615361294110723

I'm going to write to my (Tory) MP about this. Not to ask her to do anything but to get the word out there about the nature of Stonewall in the present day. Imagine a load of MPs having a quiet word among themselves about how they hadn't realised that Stonewall had turned into, well, into something very different from rainbow-themed loveliness.

That's an interesting thread. I think it's true that certain movements, and gender ideology is one of them, keep trying to hitch themselves to identity projects with a stronger foundation. LGB was the first, last year it was BLM, and lately I've been seeing all kinds of things comparing it to anti-Semitism, as well as other movements to anti-Semitism.

It's become a significant tactic in identity politics to work this way.

I've begin to think that complaints that this stuff is offensive are the wrong approach, that in a way it tends to support the underlying formulations.

The real problem isn't that they are offensive, it's that they are stupid.

I also think that maybe we need to widen out and ask whether the protected characteristic approach is in fact the right one. It's being incredibly effective in some ways, but perhaps we are beginning to see ways in which it is going to become increasingly problematic, simply another lever for power, creating new hierarchies legally mandated along the very same lines that previously we've tried o dissolve.

The anti-semitic comment from NK is designed to be offensive in much the same way as all the 'GC are aligned with and funded by the Christian far right' ones are. Equal nonsense.

Trying to understand her 'logic' and I think it comes down to this:

LGBAlliance have been established as a charity for people who are same-sex attracted.

Stonewall, on the other hand, have manoeuvred themselves into a position where they are now a charity primarily for people who are same-gender attracted.

Sex, as we are frequently told, is not the same as gender.

GC people, including many lesbians and gay men, are gender unbelievers. Detransitioners too. The latter are seen as apostates and are particularly reviled. GC beliefs are an enormous threat to a gender-based organisation, particularly one originally founded to lobby for sex-based protection and now sitting uncomfortably on its prickly laurels.

Gender critical beliefs "that sex cannot be changed" come down on the side of sex, sex-based protections, single sex spaces, sexual orientation. Equality Act 2010 stuff.

NK and Stonewall currently come down on the side of gender, gender identity, non-binary, TWAW, get rid of sex by deception, sexuality as is evident from her choice of words.

Stonewall's position is closer to this which I think I saw on Twitter

"People who transition are either Gay before they transition or Gay after they transition, as sexuality does not change with transition, so it's right for Trans issues to be closely linked with LGB issues."

In GC world, a Lesbian is a Female person only sexually attracted to other female person

In Stonewall world a Female person only sexually attracted to other female person = lesbian
AND
Male person with a female identity attracted to female person = also lesbian
AND
Male person with a female gender identity attracted to a male person with a female gender identity = also lesbian

It makes me wonder, can there be a charity which is able to actively and effectively support all the LGBTQQIAA+ considering that the thinking behind the LGB and the rest is so different or will they all have to split?

I also think that maybe we need to widen out and ask whether the protected characteristic approach is in fact the right one.

What would you replace it with?

@LangClegsInSpace

I also think that maybe we need to widen out and ask whether the protected characteristic approach is in fact the right one.

What would you replace it with?

I'm not sure.

I know at the time when that sort of legislation was first being proposed, there was some fairly robust discussion of how it might work and what kinds of problems could arise from it, and from what I've seen some of what was said has in fact come to pass.

I wasn't old enough at the time to really take it all in - I was, I am embarrassed to say, somewhat reflexively of the "of course this is a good idea" persuasion.

And I know in philosophical political theory there are some pretty significant arguments about the rights approach in general.

It's something I think I need to look into more and I suspect maybe needs to be revisited more generally in public discourse. It's not always a good thing when one side wins an argument so decisively that the alternate viewpoint just falls right off the map. It becomes impossible then to see potential pitfalls or guard against them. But it's another victim of the "if you don't agree with this approach you must be a bigot" way of doing things.

I'm not quite sure where to start with it though from a personal perspective.

the anti-semitic comment from NK is designed to be offensive in much the same way as all the 'GC are aligned with and funded by the Christian far right' ones are

I don't think either the anti-semitism or the Christian far right line of attack is designed to be offensive, TBH. Both are intended to make GC views untouchable to groups who might otherwise be inclined to speak up for women's rights.

A year ago, Stonewall were silencing GC voices, just by shouting 'transphobe'. But they made a big tactical error in trying to silence concerns about PBs/hormones for under-18s. The Tavi scandal has undermined their stance that anyone expressing concerns was doing so because we hate trans teens and are indifferent if they die by suicide. The LGB Alliance and pushback from Matthew Parris etc will have rattled them too - if gay men wake up to the homophobia inherent in trans activism, Stonewall is in trouble. So they are doubling down, in a desperate attempt to silence the conversation entirely by making it socially unacceptable.

But they made a big tactical error in trying to silence concerns about PBs/hormones for under-18s.

I've posted this on another thread but it bears a note here.

Today's Feminist Question Time will be worth watching when the recording is posted. There's a quick heartbreaking presentation in which a speaker is discussing a conversation with a Swedish doctor who has been seeing young women (in their twenties) who are consulting him for infertility.

When the young women have screening tests, the results indicate atrophy of the ovaries. It's only then upon further questioning that the women mention a medical history of puberty blockers - and they're now traumatised to discover that these puberty blockers can have persistent consequences.

*Stonewall's been criticised for using the term "gender identity" when referring to the Equality Act's protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

But Ms Kelley described that as "the difference between natural language and statutory language".*

This really struck me.

When it comes to legislation, language is used very deliberately to ensure a lack of any ambiguity.

When crafting a companies policy a failure to understand this concept or perhaps worse, believe it not to be important is shocking.

Stonewall are the recipients of huge sums of money from organisations that believe them to be experts.

It's hugely disrespectful to "brush off" such a significant issue and actually reinforces why no organisation should seek advice from them.

NK's response here should have been "we are sorry. We got it wrong. We've contacted all organisations we work with and advised them to correct the wording in their policies. I've also launched an investigation into this issue to determine why this happened and to make recommendations into how our governance can be strengthened to ensure that all advice we give is legally accurate".

NK's response here should have been "we are sorry. We got it wrong. We've contacted all organisations we work with and advised them to correct the wording in their policies. I've also launched an investigation into this issue to determine why this happened and to make recommendations into how our governance can be strengthened to ensure that all advice we give is legally accurate".

This x 100.

Most of today's anti-Semitism is coming from the hard left, so NK's stance is to try and shift this accusation away because she thinks the radical left is her best friend. It's like watching someone in charge of a machine gun without knowing it's dangerous.

Off to a paella lunch/supper/ something else

@Mummyoflittledragon

“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.

Lots of Jewish people have today agreed with the comparison, including one of the heads of the Vagina Museum. Trans people were also holocaust victims.