Liz Truss urges official withdrawal from Stonewall diversity scheme

[BattyOrange]

Sorry, I don't have a share token but www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-urges-official-withdrawal-from-stonewall-diversity-scheme-9df7pvsrn

Basically, Liz Truss "is pushing for all government departments to withdraw from Stonewall’s employment scheme following a row over transgender rights." because "she shared the concerns raised by the EHRC over the scheme’s value for money, particularly as the civil service has its own in-house workplace diversity programme."

Whether or not the reasons stated are true (I have my doubts) this is a good thing!

In the end and no matter the contradictory accusations lobbed at those who say hold on a minute.

This whole thing has been based on lobbying behind the scenes.

I just saw a thing on Twitter about 'astroturfing'. I mean fucking come off it.

99.9998% of the world know what male and female are. They understand the words man and woman, boy and girl to mean what they always did.

They know that girls and women have different biology and needs to men and boys. They know that blokes have different patterns of behaviour related to women and girls. Whether they only care about their immediate friends and family or otherwise.

Male people in female prisons, sports, changing rooms in shops popular with teen girls. Mixed changing for swimming/ gym clubs etc. The whole bogs thing. Hosp wards and carers. Everything.

The reason it was changed on the quiet is because it needed to be kept out of view of the general public.

And then the leveraging of children, the scare tactics about risks.

Everyone I know in real life bar one thinks it's utter bollocks. Total and utter bollocks.
And not because they hate anyone. But because they know what men and women are and what men can be like.

I think the UK is the only country where there's been a push even after the changes in the background that is making inroads?

And in the end. Why was it done?

If it had been a push for more acceptance of non conforming people. Great! If it had been a push to get more facilities, more specialist charities etc. Great!

Instead. It was. Women and girls are no more or less than a feeling. Sex based issues are irrelevant. Homosexuality is bigoted. Long term left wing activists who worked to improve things for vulnerable groups... Terrible people sack them. The constant typically male threats. Violence, sexual violence.

The utter disconnect with real life...

Just so weird. Worrying that people who see themselves as kind and good can applause the obvious and constant attacks on women who have devoted years to LGB activism...

Etc etc.

How the fuck anyone can say male prisoners convicted of sex offences should be locked in with women in prison... What the fuck are they thinking???

I just saw a thing on Twitter about 'astroturfing'. I mean fucking come off it.

99.9998% of the world know what male and female are. They understand the words man and woman, boy and girl to mean what they always did.

The word woman has been documented in use since Old English. People who pretend its meaning is unstable are just showing their ignorance.

Every mammal on the planet must have an idea of female/ male. And loads of other animals.

Ducks know. Chimps know. Mice know. Etc etc

I would be surprised if there are any languages that don't include the concepts of man woman boy girl mother baby.

And that those concepts would have been early in language along with things like eat, danger, shelter etc

The idea that we don't need words for adult/ child female is ridiculous. I note that the words man/ boy are not up for discussion in anywhere near the same way is telling.

The idea that in human language they have always meant social role and not sex is ridiculous.

How anyone can say with a straight face. That the words woman girl meaning adult/ juvenile female human is a biologically essentialist position. That reduces women and girls to nothing more than reproductive role and genitals. And so is regressive and it's better to call us menstruators, people with vaginas, ovulators etc. I mean. Seriously?

The fact that so many media groups, government depts, charities etc. Have got on board with referring to us as essentially cunts. Is really depressingly illuminating around how we are still not generally considered whole actual people.

@Sophoclesthefox

Channel 4, crikey! 😳

Channel 4 operates under a public service remit sanctioned by the government.

Liz Truss saying that all government bodies should withdraw from the scheme should be seen in that context.

Either there's a big public scandal in the offing or there is talk that if channel 4 doesn't seriously rethink and keep in line with public opinion (or what the government seems to think it is and can say that the public have voted for in electing them) then they can pull the public remit.

The whole idea of the liberal media is that it is supposed to reflect the public voice and what the public want to see and when it doesn't it is actively punished for not doing so in various ways. It can not lecture/dictate to the public in a top down way or it ceases to fufil its duty to the public as its 'voice' and becomes authoritarian/dictatorial.

Its a free speech issue. And actually there is a very valid point here that you can't have an unbiased agenda if you are signed up to something like the diversity champions scheme - and thats particular true if you are a journalist or documentary maker. Especially if it is courting controversy.

Its good to see, but it does make me wonder about what is about to happen and the extent of the unravelling thats about to happen with Stonewall.

It smells 'messy' to me at this point.

It smells 'messy' to me at this point.

It does. I know there are moves afoot with regard to investigating lobby groups and their access to and influence over Government and public bodies funded by the taxpayer, but I wonder if the case against the MoJ is causing all the shivers down spines in Government they fought hard not to disclose the evidence of why they made the decision they did, why?

There is definitely something in the air.

I've been trying to work out what's tipped things over to this point. The MOJ case I think has a lot of potential to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The woman involved was assaulted as a result of the frankly abhorrent decision to allow a self identified trans/male sex offender into the female prison estate. That was entirely foreseeable & makes (IMO) the MOJ liable for harms caused as a result.

Then there's the ONS case. That was eye wateringly expensive. With what looks like a lot of pressure from stonewall in the lead up to a key meeting where FPFW's input (the only voice arguing against the self ID of sex Q) was limited at SW's request, and then the fact that it seemed the ONS tried to pull a fast one (published the census online earlier than intended, just at the point FPFW started their legal challenge). It would be interesting to see the paper trail on that decision.

Or is it Allison Bailey's case, which is no where near being heard, but where the details of what SW have 'allegedly' tried to interfere with at her chambers.

It's also possible the Essex Uni report on the 2 GC academics experiences, where SW were heavily criticised for their misleading advice & misrepresentation of the law, to the point their skewed advice was seen to have encouraged belief about what could be seen as harassment & that it was reasonable to deplatform 2 GC academics.

There's a lot to choose from. But equally it might just be a combination of all of these cases and a lot more besides. Truss has been subjected to sustained attack from LGBT orgs for disagreement on policy (that she decides on, not the LGBT orgs). I think she's seen a lot more than we know, and seems to realise the pernicious nature of SW's influence & capture of government institutions.

SW's position was never sustainable long term. They just hoped they'd get enough demands over the line before people started to notice what they were up to.

Dunno it's all happening very fast though.

The pushing out of the new strategy and the new boss making some really desperate/ offensive statements comparing to anti semitism...

Maybe. All of this was started years ago behind the scenes. Maybe the dropping it is due to behind the scenes conversations as well.

'SW's position was never sustainable long term. They just hoped they'd get enough demands over the line before people started to notice what they were up to.'

Why did they do it though?

They could have taken a middle ground and kept the LGB support, agitated for more things rather than taking women's etc. Still could have got the ££ from companies etc.

Why the extreme position?

Why the extreme position?

It's not just SW though is it? TRAs often seem incapable of accepting compromise or partial victory. Any distinction whatsoever in law and language between women and transwomen leads to meltdowns. Every concession leads inexorably to further demands. All boundaries must be broken down, all spaces must be invaded, there can be no exceptions.

It appears to be a property of the trans movement - perhaps not just the trans movement, but other manifestations of "wokeness" too - and not particular to any organisation. So once Stonewall started to go down that road of being a trans organisation staffed with trans activists, them going to crazy extremes was inevitable. I bet a lot of reasonable staff members quietly headed for the exits around 2016 and were replaced with... well, the kind of person they have there now.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210601181300/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/01/stonewall-threatened-silence-gender-critical-barrister-having/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210601181300/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/01/stonewall-threatened-silence-gender-critical-barrister-having/

Telegraph article about how Stonewall allegedly tried to 'threaten' to silence Allison Bailey by having her sacked

Also, note on channel 4

Times article today about Allison Bailey:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ee61c832-c2ff-11eb-a26e-4c086490cfe1?shareToken=0d8a37ee8c34469124275ce13948db64

Another brilliant article from The Times and that final paragraph comment from the Barrister 😬😬 so so true

The robust responses to the Mermaids tweet and Dawn Butler's poll make it clear that the view inside the TRA bubble is at complete odds with that of the general public, despite them insisting otherwise.

Do they not hear what the public are saying or do they just ignore it? Not a good idea for a politician.

There was an enlightening back and forth on one of the feeds, whereby a trans person was doing the usual my human rights shtick when questioned further the lack of rights was that they couldn't get their papers, couldn't get married, and were against separate gender neutral toilets or changing rooms, it was an absolute must that they have access to female only spaces and services. Now, if they can't get their papers which I'm guessing is a GRC then they are unable or unwilling to convince a medical panel that they have gender dysphoria so they quite correctly don't qualify, same sex marriage is written into law so nothing stopping them marrying, as for accessing female only single sex services that is the sinister end goal, remove all rights from women but leave men's alone, this is why they want self-id.