Stonewall defends its direction to BBC

[WarriorN]

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

The vagina museum don’t know what women are either

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.

Bloody hell.

Is there anything they won’t appropriate to try and shore up this nonsense?

Intersectional feminism

Intersex/DSDs

Now anti-semitism

I’m sure there’s more. All Trojan horses.

I recently started a new job at a UK university which is still in the Stonewall scheme and I'm feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the staff set up.

Guidance on the staff website "strongly encouraging " everyone to state their pronouns on email headers and to introduce yourself in meetings by stating your preferred pronouns. Luckily my department doesn't seem to be putting this into practice.

In the new staff induction day we were given details of the staff network groups for BAME Staff, parents of young children, disabled and LGBTQ+. Isn't there a group for female staff I asked. The HR staff looked confused and said no. They clearly had no idea why such a group might be needed. Was strongly tempted to suggest they set up a group for transwidows but I'm sure that would have got me sacked!

So depressing

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.

Jews are as intelligent/unintelligent, as logical/illogical, as gender-socialised, as misogynistic, as blinkered/woke/gender-critical as anybody else. Just as women can internalise misogyny and gay people can internalise homophobia, Jews can internalise anti-Semitism. We grow up with it all around us.

Sad that Jews cannot see that the parallels are not between gender criticalism and anti-Semitism.

@PikesPeaked

Sad that Jews cannot see that the parallels are not between gender criticalism and anti-Semitism.

Do you mind not lumping us all into one homogeneous category please? Ta.

Telegraph article www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/29/major-public-sector-bodies-quit-stonewall-diversity-training/

Major public sector bodies quit Stonewall diversity training as trans rights row intensifies

Archive version
https://archive.is/XRN0t

I've been reflecting on this article all day and the anger hasn't subsided. I will email a complaint to the BBC but somehow it doesn't feel enough. How can a CEO can make such an astoundingly offensive remark and not be challenged? If it were any other company there would be instant backpeddling, no doubt a press release statement of remorse, etc... Surely there must be consequences for saying such awful things.

@Whatstheweatherlike feel free to complain directly to Stonewall too, they encourage it!

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stonewallcomplaintsspolicy.pdf

You won't be the only one. If dissatisfied with their response my understanding is you can escalate it with the charities commission.

@DropDTuning

I'm not sure what you are referring to. But I am happy to rephrase:

Sad that there are Jews who cannot see that the parallels are not between gender criticalism and anti-Semitism.

(Jewish child and grandchild of Holocaust survivors, and great niece of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. I feel the same way about having to present my credentials in this issue, as I did about JKR having to reveal her abuse in order to justify her perspective on it. Conflicted and angry.)

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.

There’s nothing wrong with the EA2010 or most of the protected characteristics. Gender reassignment is causing problems because of intersection with the GRA. It would work better if the anachronistic GRA was repealed, people with gender dysphoria were protected under the disability protected characteristic (as other mental health conditions are) and gender identity was covered under the belief (i.e. the idea that your innate sense of your sex can be subjectively different to your sexed body). Manifestation of the belief (dressing in attire more typically associated with the opposite sex, for example) would be protected and, conversely, those who do not believe in gender would also be protected. You couldn’t be discriminated on for presenting differently or having a different gender identity to your birth sex, but you also wouldn’t be able to compel others to share or manifest your belief. Seems fair to me. It would also create a clear boundary between gender and sex so that sex-based rights are not adversely impacted.

Finally, I’m deeply suspicious of anyone suggesting we do away with the protected characteristics. I can only assume you do not need the protections they afford @SmokedDuck.

YY @BettyFilous!

Meanwhile the Crown Prosecution Service, which faced a legal challenge over its trans guidance, said: “We are reviewing our Stonewall membership and will shortly make a decision on whether to continue this.*

Interesting to see how long it takes them to make the announcement of cost cutting!!!

Ruth Hunt really got out at the perfect time and has gotten a well paid job for life as a peer despite her being at the head of Stonewall when most of this happened. Other peoples heads will probably roll for a lot of decisions she made

Yes #whereisRuthHunt in all this?

Probably not at the meeting with The Baroness on Thurs is my guess.

@BettyFilous

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.

There’s nothing wrong with the EA2010 or most of the protected characteristics. Gender reassignment is causing problems because of intersection with the GRA. It would work better if the anachronistic GRA was repealed, people with gender dysphoria were protected under the disability protected characteristic (as other mental health conditions are) and gender identity was covered under the belief (i.e. the idea that your innate sense of your sex can be subjectively different to your sexed body). Manifestation of the belief (dressing in attire more typically associated with the opposite sex, for example) would be protected and, conversely, those who do not believe in gender would also be protected. You couldn’t be discriminated on for presenting differently or having a different gender identity to your birth sex, but you also wouldn’t be able to compel others to share or manifest your belief. Seems fair to me. It would also create a clear boundary between gender and sex so that sex-based rights are not adversely impacted.

Finally, I’m deeply suspicious of anyone suggesting we do away with the protected characteristics. I can only assume you do not need the protections they afford @SmokedDuck.

I don’t understand “innate sense of my sex” - what is this? I don’t have it.

@daringdoris

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.

My view is that it would be justified to complain directly to the CC. Given that the complaint is in relation to the strongly worded assertion by the CEO of the charity, I would not feel confident that said complaint would be handled fairly.

@BettyFilous

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.

There’s nothing wrong with the EA2010 or most of the protected characteristics. Gender reassignment is causing problems because of intersection with the GRA. It would work better if the anachronistic GRA was repealed, people with gender dysphoria were protected under the disability protected characteristic (as other mental health conditions are) and gender identity was covered under the belief (i.e. the idea that your innate sense of your sex can be subjectively different to your sexed body). Manifestation of the belief (dressing in attire more typically associated with the opposite sex, for example) would be protected and, conversely, those who do not believe in gender would also be protected. You couldn’t be discriminated on for presenting differently or having a different gender identity to your birth sex, but you also wouldn’t be able to compel others to share or manifest your belief. Seems fair to me. It would also create a clear boundary between gender and sex so that sex-based rights are not adversely impacted.

Finally, I’m deeply suspicious of anyone suggesting we do away with the protected characteristics. I can only assume you do not need the protections they afford @SmokedDuck.

That would be a silly thing to assume.

Maybe instead, try assuming that there might be more than one way to reach a goal, that there could be unexpected effects to many kinds of legislation approaches that were well meant and even effective to some degree, and someone talking about that might actually be interested in justice as well. That's been true of many important changes to political processes and legislation over time.

Seriously, why the heck would you assume people had nefarious purposes? When people complain that it's become increasingly difficult to have reasonable conversations in public about important topics, this is the shit they are referring to.

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?

it would be good if the government equalities office (GEO) and equality human rights commission (EHRC) could do this role and have individual charities for the different groups.

@Imnobody4

And yet on her appointment she said in the Observer “I’m really focused on the idea that we don’t have to convert everybody to our way of understanding gender,” Nancy Kelley said in her first interview since taking up the position as head of the UK’s leading gay rights charity. “For Stonewall to succeed, it doesn’t have to make people believe as it believes. What it has to do is make people support changes that make trans lives easier.”

NK has been on quite a journey hasn't she?

FROM 'we don't have to make people believe as we believe'
TO 'people who don't believe as we believe are anti-semites'

Seriously, why the heck would you assume people had nefarious purposes? When people complain that it's become increasingly difficult to have reasonable conversations in public about important topics, this is the shit they are referring to.

We have a government that’s making noises about revisiting equality legislation and that they are not to be trusted. We know they float ideas on social media to test the water. I’m saying “no, wedo not need to do away with protected characteristics in the equalities equivalent of the bonfire of the quangos. We need to clarify the areas that have got muddled by erroneous advice and a badly drafted law crashing into a more thoughtfully drafted one.” I am disagreeing with you, that is all, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume you have less need of the EA2010 if you are so quick to ditch it.

I don’t understand “innate sense of my sex” - what is this? I don’t have it.

Clumsy wording on my part possibly, but you and me both. I have a personality, individual interests and female biology, that’s it.

Sarah Vine in the Mail on Sunday

"The head of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, has told the BBC that believing in biological sex is the equivalent of antisemitism.

This is the kind of swivel-eyed thinking that cannot and must not be tolerated. Stonewall is a respected, long-standing organisation that receives a good deal of taxpayers’ money from a number of government agencies. Time to sever those ties."

@Needmoresleep

Sarah Vine in the Mail on Sunday

"The head of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, has told the BBC that believing in biological sex is the equivalent of antisemitism.

This is the kind of swivel-eyed thinking that cannot and must not be tolerated. Stonewall is a respected, long-standing organisation that receives a good deal of taxpayers’ money from a number of government agencies. Time to sever those ties."

Excellent news - given who Sarah Vine's husband is.

Interesting to note,that on a BBC news article on Jeremy Clarkson's new series on farming,the BBC reporter felt the need to clarify his quote that 'we all love a Sunday roast', to tell us all that vegan food is widely available.
But the same BBC is happy to let inaccurate and offensive quotes stand from Nancy Kelley,with no correction or explanation at all.
Are the sensitivities of vegans catered to more than the sensitivities of women? Or the actual truth? I think we know the answer to that.🙄