Stonewall in crisis: 'Why can’t we have civil debates any more?' | Simon Fanshawe

[FindTheTruth]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/12/stonewall-crisis-cant-have-civil-debates/

The charity’s refusal to engage in meaningful conversation on gender betrays the lessons of its previous successes, writes its co-founder

Another excellent article! It’s also a sobering reminder of just how bad it was for lesbian and gay people, something else the wokescolds of twitter seem to have forgotten or more likely were too young to experience first hand

“If you want to achieve change, you have to talk to people who don’t agree with you and see how you can find common ground”

It is quite telling when one of the founders who was integral to its success lays it out. Of course they got changes through by talking. That’s why LGB Alliance will succeed because they are all the campaigners of old and so many were with Stonewall working to enact those changes.

It is quite telling when one of the founders who was integral to its success lays it out. Of course they got changes through by talking. That’s why LGB Alliance will succeed because they are all the campaigners of old and so many were with Stonewall working to enact those changes.

Mmm. What has Stonewall actually achieved for LGB or T people in recent years, since adopting the "No Debate" approach? How's that been working for them?

Mainly they've achieved more income for themselves, as far as I can see.

Presumably there must be highlights in their annual reports, but I can't bring myself to read them.

I think their no debate strategy has been working extremely well for them up until the last few weeks. I completely disagree with it, but in terms of achieving Stonewall's aims, it's been massively successful. They've created a climate of fear so that people can't challenge their view around trans issues and through this, they have changed policy in thousands and thousands of organisations.

That’s a very good point NeoLara. I til recently it had worked brilliantly for them. It was a high risk strategy & for a good few years it worked but I assume the risk assessment (which I’ve doubt they did right) said something along the lines of “but if ppl wise up before the master plan of redefining women to include men is enshrined everywhere and backed up by a new law enabling self ID then we might be slightly fucked…”

@Theeyeballsinthesky

That’s a very good point NeoLara. I til recently it had worked brilliantly for them. It was a high risk strategy & for a good few years it worked but I assume the risk assessment (which I’ve doubt they did right) said something along the lines of “but if ppl wise up before the master plan of redefining women to include men is enshrined everywhere and backed up by a new law enabling self ID then we might be slightly fucked…”

Lol, yes!

#nodebate did work brilliantly for a while, but thank god for the amazing people who have worked so hard over the last few years to bring sunlight to what has actually been going on. The time for silencing and threatening dissenters and wrong thinkers is over, and certain people had better start getting their arguments and points together because they are going to need them.

#letsdebate!

@Neolara

I think their no debate strategy has been working extremely well for them up until the last few weeks. I completely disagree with it, but in terms of achieving Stonewall's aims, it's been massively successful. They've created a climate of fear so that people can't challenge their view around trans issues and through this, they have changed policy in thousands and thousands of organisations.

And made thousands and thousands of pounds from organisations who don't want to be on the receiving end of their "you're either with us, or against us" strategy. It's a protection racket.

Had self ID been brought in, it would have been a total success..
We really must campaign hard if that ever looks like it's on the cards again.
Labour have lost my vote now with KS saying they would bring it in. I voted for our very decent (albeit losing) candidate locally but I won't even do that next time.

I like
#letsdebate

I agree on protection racket. There is something sinister about the way organisations appear to be pressured to be Stonewall champions etc.
I think the whole thing has been one massive income generator, that has been its sole reason for existence.
Completely unlike the original point of Stonewall.

I wonder if the Global corporations have something more to do with this than appears. The US influence is incredible. They all bring in their California HR policies which are above and beyond the law and impact on women, without a second thought and are probably very surprised at the arsiness of GC women in the UK.

I wonder, even if lots of companies withdraw from Stonewall, whether these large corporations will continue their support because the obliteration of women's rights and also the focus on the individual will work for their policies. Just a thought

Love Simon though, he is great. The voice of reason in a sea of hate

They all bring in their California HR policies which are above and beyond the law and impact on women, without a second thought and are probably very surprised at the arsiness of GC women in the UK.

CGD versus Forstater being a case in point.

Maya is asked about that aspect here:

Love Simon though, he is great. The voice of reason in a sea of hate

The fact that one of the founding members of Stonewall is now speaking out against them with articulate arguments in this way is... Problematic for certain people to say the least! (Sorry I'm just reliving the radio 4 interview the other day where Simon Fanshawe spoke so calmly about safeguarding etc and then Benjamin Cohen came on ranting about all sorts - might have to go and listen to it again )

I am not sure we can put their success in the past tense yet. We need to keep up the pressure. The curtain have been drawn back slightly for a slither of sunlight but we need them flung wide