Guardian article: "The cynical attack on Stonewall ..." by Freddy McConnell

[yetanotherusernameAgain]

Article in The Guardian by Freddy McConnell - "The cynical attack on Stonewall is a reminder of the need to stand up for trans rights"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/17/stonewall-trans-rights-britain

[NiceGerbil]

Thank you very much for the spare rib link.

This widespread practice of taking women's children because of patriarchal ideas about whether they are suitable is appalling. So many different groups. And from so many different countries.

That's what male supremacy looks like. Disgusting.

[MrsBunHat]

Thanks RoyalCorgi that's interesting – and makes sense to me now in the context of custody battles. (And takes me back! I used to read my next-door neighbour's Spare Rib as a teen...)

[RoyalCorgi]

@MrsBunHat

lesbians routinely lost custody of their children in the 80s and early 90s

I am amazed by this and can't find anything about it at all. As a child in the 80s I knew lesbian parents who had kids my age and I never heard of anything like this at all. That doesn't mean it didn't happen of course but I do think it needs evidence. No luck googling.

Spare Rib carried articles about it at the time:

www.bl.uk/collection-items/spare-rib-magazine-issue-129

[MrsBunHat]

Oh no I've got my threads mixed up sorry.
need a coffee.

[MrsBunHat]

MM says:
a feminism that tells women they are helpless victims of culture and society, and that they can’t empower themselves until we “smash the patriarchy,” whatever that means.

See I do think this is absolutely a thing, but I don't think it's a radical feminist thing. I see it as part of liberal feminism or feminism-lite, to moan that for example, women can't become pop stars unless they dance about in their underwear, or Carrie Johnson can't swim in the sea because the papers will talk about her body (which I took issue with on another thread), or that it's hard for women to work because of the cost of childcare.

These things assume an inability in women to challenge the status quo, and essentially reinforce a patriarchy-defined role for women.

Whereas I see radical feminism (and my own feminism) to be about finding ways to do those things and change the imbalance - such as asserting in my own relationship that childcare was our cost, not my cost, or pointing out that women can and do break out of stereotypes and expectations, and acting as if they are outliers not worth a mention just reinforces the stereotypes.

[AlfonsoTheMango]

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I'm not a lesbian so fully accept maybe I don't notice things as much, but I don't ever recall seeing a post expressing disquiet about being in a women's changing room with a lesbian. Not without many immediate expressions of distaste and annoyance from others, anyway.

How do you know the woman in a changing room is a lesbian?

Serious question.

[MrsBunHat]

I do agree, I just think FWR is part of that. It's where a lot of women come when they want to understand more / want to discuss their GC thoughts.

Yes we do need to actively challenge spreading misinformation too. But if the Guardian is really putting out misinformation and nonsensical "arguments" to bait FWR, that will ultimately backfire on them as well. Firstly it shows they have no faith in Freddy's position. And secondly it is likely to peak all sorts of people when they realise it makes no sense.

[stumbledin]

Sorry - that means they are still pulling the strings.

FWR cannot compensate for the deluge of pro trans anti sex based rights in the media. We need to hold the media to account for biased reporting.

Otherwise we are just their puppets who they stir up when they want with a bit a click bait.

We need to stem the tide of misinformation.

[MrsBunHat]

Oh I understand more if it was via handing custody to fathers, rather than state removal of DC from lesbian couples.

Re provoking FWR into discussing misleading articles, I don't mind that. The more we discuss and point out why something is inaccurate, the more we'll help anyone who reads these boards to make sense of the situation. I also hope people like Freddy McC and Kath Viner do come to laugh and point - there's a chance some of rational debate might sink in.

[MrsBunHat]

(actually it was the 70s come to think of it or late 70s/1980-ish)

[stumbledin]

Just want to make a couple or three points.

Of course the Guardian didn't fact check. They seem to think that this issue is all about emotions and this writer is one they constantly employ when wanting to create sympathy after there has been some small or signigicant step forward for women's sex based rights. They always too it. The writier is a useful tool. If the Guardian was concerned about "facts" they would upublish an alternative view. But they never do. The content of the article is immaterial. The Guardian is determined to show it isn't about anything as significant as an attack on women's rights, its just about being kind.

re lesbians mothers and custody I wrote about this on another thread were someone who (presumably "learnt" feminism at a university) was wittering on about 70s feminism being marxist and about equal rights on economic terms. I was pointing out the 70s feminism, ie Women's Liberation was very much about sharing through consciousness raising groups common experiences of oppression and discrimination. Which very quickly let to a widely held believe that it was men as individual and men as a class. Apart from political campaigns and actual practicla feminism (which is what radical feminism is) eg setting up refuges and rape crisis centres, the really big impact was on women's own lives. That they recognised the pressure of conforming to accepted standards means that had got married and had children without every thinking what about my own life. (Think the Women's Room one of the most influential books rather than an theoretical one.) Women left marriages and tried to keep their children. Women left marriages and started lesbian relationships and tried to keep their children. This last would always be used in court as justification for the man to have custody. (Not forgetting that in France for instance, women who so contravened the accepted standards of femininity could find themselves sectioned.) I dont think some realise how much things have changed, at least on the level of a more, though not universal, acceptance of same sex partnerships and parenting.

My third point is that going back to Queen Victoria apparently not believing women could be lesbian, there were never laws against lesbian relationships or directed at lesbians as there were against gay men.

And just remembered that when I was growing up there was always the suspicion that if a woman volunteered to be a guide leader (or whatever they were called) there would always be a bit of a snigger that the girls should watch out. But I think what was perhaps even more alarming is that then the view that anyone wanting to be near children did it for some predatory reason was somehow more about they wouldn't be able to control themselves, but no one ever talked about keeping children safe. I think that too has changed.

But to go back to my original point I really dont think it is worth the time looking at these type of articles in depth. In a way that helps them tie as down into the same arguements.

But just keep a count of the articles that give the voice to one side.

eg the one I mentioned yesterday and of course the infamous I may be a trustee of a famous women's organisation but the most important thing it to be kind to trans women, not to stand up for women's rights.

In terms of the overall battle we shouldn't get sucked into these silly side shows(). But we do need to hold the media to account for not providing balanced coverage. eg as of yesterday only the DM had covered the Sonia Applyby court case.

() Sometimes it feels like they print these because they know FWR will bite the hook and then we all pile in and restate over and over again how bad / unfair / biased the article is and they just sit there laughing in the offices at how easy it is to get us all frothing and the mouth and caught up is dissecting something they never put any effort into, and is just about virtue signalling.

[MrsBunHat]

lesbians routinely lost custody of their children in the 80s and early 90s

I am amazed by this and can't find anything about it at all. As a child in the 80s I knew lesbian parents who had kids my age and I never heard of anything like this at all. That doesn't mean it didn't happen of course but I do think it needs evidence. No luck googling.

[NiceGerbil]

I didn't know that about child removal in the UK. That's a scandal. Do you have anywhere I can find out more? I googled and didn't have much luck. The recent news about babies being removed from single young mothers in England has caused outrage. If this sort of thing has happened to other groups then I think it's important for people to know.

[merrymouse]

The cynical attack on Stonewall is a reminder of the need to stand up for trans rights
Freddy McConnell
Freddy McConnell
The backlash against the charity is part of a depressing trend for trans people in Britain, whose rights and safety are under threat
A trans rights march in Manchester, June 2020
Thu 17 Jun 2021 17.10 BST
While we endure life under this chaotic and cynical government, we can at least rely on liberal and progressive journalists to scrutinise and challenge it. But one line of attack in the Tories’ culture war not only gets a free pass, it is actively aided and abetted by a vocal minority on the left. I refer to the government’s assault on the freedoms and safety of its transgender citizens.


Some loud lefties, under the guise of “gender-critical feminism”, are in lockstep with a government that they would otherwise denounce. The successors to what was known as “trans-exclusionary radical feminism” now agree with Tory ministers that trans people should not have equal rights and, in fact, have too many already.

No amount of generic #PrideMonth tweets or platitudes about respecting trans people (while in the next breath denying trans women’s identities) can hide this from the unbiased observer.

I know the British (English?) upper classes have a long history of declaring an identity and claiming various rights on the back of it, but I don’t understand why that kind of behaviour is now considered a right by people on the left.

[MrsBunHat]

Freddy sorry

[MrsBunHat]

Never mind writing an article that's not about trans issues, I think Freddie could start by trying to do one that sticks to the facts.

Claiming GC feminism is about not wanting trans people to have equal rights, having negative views of trans people, being secretly right-wing - yaaaawwwn! Keeping on churning out the same misrepresentations is not an argument. (So I would say Freddie hasn't actually entered a debate...)

As for that line about gay people in the 80s, Freddie dear, you weren't there, I was, and I marched for gay rights and against clause 28, millions of us did, and no people weren't expressing concerns about gay people, except for maybe a few actual right-wing bigots - certainly not those who are now GC because we don't like the sexist regressive direction genderism is trying to take us in.

[Datun]

The article links to a definition of transphobia which declares that saying there's a conflict between trans and women's rights is "the classic tactic of haters and fascists".

Except not believing in gender ideology is now legally protected. So any conflict of that nature is completely legitimate and disallowing it is discriminatory.

Frankly I think these sorts of nonsensical statements about fascism and hatred, for believing in sex, are quickly becoming a thing of the past. or at least people taking them seriously is becoming a thing of the past.

[peadarm]

[quote yetanotherusernameAgain]Article in The Guardian by Freddy McConnell - "The cynical attack on Stonewall is a reminder of the need to stand up for trans rights"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/17/stonewall-trans-rights-britain[/quote]
The article links to a definition of transphobia which declares that saying there's a conflict between trans and women's rights is "the classic tactic of haters and fascists".

No acknowledgment of women's rights or the apparent over-representation of women among the ranks of haters and fascists.

It's disturbing that a national newspaper publishes such incoherent nonsense and totalitarian venom.

[Datun]

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It's like the poster yesterday Datun
who said they would poll their lesbian friends to see whether they thought "lesbian" was a word that included males, to "prove" that was what lesbians thought. And as you pointed out, all of the people polled could themselves be male, by the poster's definition.

IKR? It's all so convenient. Lesbians can be male when it comes to them wanting relationships with women but then definitely female when they want to prove whether or not actual lesbians endorse it!

It's a mindfuck. See also being accused of homophobia, when a heterosexual relationship can be redefined as a homosexual one.

I will never understand how Stonewall have embraced this. It was never, ever going to wash.

[viques]

“The main charge against Stonewall is conveniently vague”

Really Freddy? I would have thought Stonewalls support for the Tavistock fiasco, for Mermaids, their well documented though denied support for the abolition of single sex spaces, their denial of science and biology , their deafening silence in the face of paedophilic rhetoric propagated by people like Tatchell , not to mention their determined efforts to silence discussion by using legal channels to stifle debate would be clear enough even to those with their eyes shut.

[NecessaryScene]

Right, but on that side they claim that the Evergreen stuff was about a bunch of right-wing agitators attacking the college.

Their new candidates for president were all asked about it on that basis - how would you handle such a situation where alt-right people targetted the college?

All 3 apparently subsequently withdrew their applications, presumably after Googling what exactly that question was about.

[GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman]

Tories’ culture war
Could someone explain? I was under the (possibly misguided?) impression that the culture war started on the Left - Evergreen, all of that.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

It's like the poster yesterday Datun
who said they would poll their lesbian friends to see whether they thought "lesbian" was a word that included males, to "prove" that was what lesbians thought. And as you pointed out, all of the people polled could themselves be male, by the poster's definition.

[Datun]

@ScreamingMeMe

Recent from Stonewall: "Women who have sex with gay men". Women. WOMEN. WTF.

Do they mean transwomen?

It's all such gobbledygook. Sometimes I can't get over it 😱

And would a transwoman who wanted to have sex with a gay man consider themselves heterosexual, and therefore so is their partner?

[ScreamingMeMe]

Recent from Stonewall: "Women who have sex with gay men". Women. WOMEN. WTF.