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

Couldn’t be arsed to read yet more meeeeeeee framed as an article by Freddy

I do find it fascinating by which I mean also deeply annoying at how much ppl like Freddy demand that their lived experience is the reference point fjr everything

Whilst they simultaneously dismiss the lived experience of people who lived through Section 28 (Freddy wasn’t even born) and the ppl who were actually at the Stonewall riots who point out repeatedly that it was not led by TW

Strange how some lived experience matters more than others

@NiceGerbil

I noticed that near the beginning transwomen were mentioned and I thought, that's odd given that FC is transman. I'd have thought they would focus on transmen or all trans people.

Then later on stand up for trans sisters.

If the issue is with trans people full stop then why the focus on transwomen? That doesn't make sense does it.

I noticed that too. What's the trans equivalent of a handmaiden?

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.

@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.

You're right. Apart from anything else, many of the gc women posting here are lesbians. TRAs try to make out that men being in women's spaces is the same as lesbians being there. Presumably because they know nothing about women, lesbians or female spaces.

But it certainly doesn't come from the women here.

I wonder if there is a methodology to compare the framing of arguments between GC media pieces and TRA.

In my (probably biased) estimation. GC pieces tend to talk about women as a class, be factual, dispassionate, cite sources and legislation accurately.

TRA pieces tend to be based on the experiences of individuals, emotion led, inaccurate in citing key legislation.

Is there some way to actually analyse this?

Freddy is being disingenuous in the extreme when Freddie says that SW replacing the term gender reassignment with gender identity was mere semantics. SW knew exactly what they were doing and why.

I only got as far as

"the government’s assault on the freedoms and safety of its transgender citizens."

The what? Eh? This is an invention of his mind.

If that's his level of hyperbole in the first para, I don't want to waste my time reading the rest of his drivel.

@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.

I've seen it argued, but not from the GC side at all. It's been from the "be kind", whataboutary side - what about black women, what about lesbians. I've always thought that many of the most vociferous trans rights advocates (and BLM supporters for that matter) are probably trying to suppress deep seated prejudices against the very groups they are advocating for, and the effective way of doing it is to shout as loudly as possible the mantras they have been taught. When the mask slips, these crass comparisons come out, proving that they themselves don't view anything other than white heteronormativity as "normal".

There was always concern that gay men were sexual predators,

This is definitely true. It wasn't helped at all by PIE getting airtime. It definitely took a lot of people coming out for them to be generally accepted in the population.

but this applied to lesbians too, and lesbians routinely lost custody of their children in the 80s and early 90s.

I don't remember this being a concern. Are you aware of any books/articles about this? Just googling was only bringing up more current info for me.

I don't think we should minimise the experience of gay and lesbian people in the 80s as things were very difficult then. And we still have the situation where football clubs insist they have no gay players in the men's teams.

How about the "cynical attack" on the legal definition of mother, Freddie?

TRA pieces tend to be based on the experiences of individuals, emotion led, inaccurate in citing key legislation.

I don't think I have read a single TRA piece that didn't cite suicide. Emotional blackmail is the strongest tool they have, because the hard facts - science, law, history, logic - don't back up their claims.

There’s an actor, can’t remember his name who was born in the early 90s whose parents are lesbians. He has talked about how when he was a child they didn’t tell anyone his parents were lesbians for fear that his mums partner would have her children taken away from her.

It was definitely an issue

Freddy is being disingenuous in the extreme when Freddie says that SW replacing the term gender reassignment with gender identity was mere semantics.

It's definitely not mere semantics because it presupposes acceptance of philosophical positions that are not currently part of UK legislation:

1. Innate identity can and should be categorised by gender.
2. People experience inequality because others make a judgment about their innate identity, not because of structural exclusion or prejudice based on assumptions.
3. There is a right to have perceptions of self recognised and validated, regardless of how this interacts with other rights.

Of course the usual removal and rolling back of trans rights BS is spouted without giving any examples.

A few years ago there was a man on I'm a Celebrity, something to do with the Kardashian crowd I think. The others thought he looked gorgeous, but he looked ridiculous.

Caitlin Jenner. A 70 odd year old biologically male person who has had some intense plastic surgery to look more feminine, and even before transitioning so while any age could be considered "gorgeous" depending on the person, it strikes me as ott virtue signalling.

He has talked about how when he was a child they didn’t tell anyone his parents were lesbians for fear that his mums partner would have her children taken away from her. It was definitely an issue

I'd agree it was an issue, but at the level of individuals. There was discrimination against gays of either sex.

But it wasn't part of the core "moral panics" about gay rights. The bulk of focus was on males - I don't recall any press ranting about a "lesbian threat".

Lesbians were generally not talked about, in much the same way transmen weren't.

(Part of that may have been due to the fact there was less anti-lesbian legislation, so less to fight about...)

Part of that may have been due to the fact there was less anti-lesbian legislation, so less to fight about...

I've always assumed that the reason for this was that until the second half of the twentieth century all women could be controlled by restricting their financial independence.

It’s amazing how the Guardian still has, underneath the Opinion banner, the quote by former editor CP Scott “Comment is free… but facts are sacred” and then they publish that fact-free opinion from McConnell.

This actually made me do a Benjamin Button style gasp at its audacity
In order to provide clear advice on trans inclusion, Stonewall uses commonly understood language in place of statutory language. For example, instead of using the word “transsexual”, the guidance says “trans person” and instead of “gender reassignment”, it uses “gender identity”.

clearly some still do from the posts you see on here about lesbians in changing rooms

FWIW Tabby, the only people I see mention this are those attempting to use it as a gotcha for allowing males to access female single sex spaces.

@TinselAngel

This actually made me do a Benjamin Button style gasp at its audacity In order to provide clear advice on trans inclusion, Stonewall uses commonly understood language in place of statutory language. For example, instead of using the word “transsexual”, the guidance says “trans person” and instead of “gender reassignment”, it uses “gender identity”.

And gender identity means.....???

How about the "cynical attack" on the legal definition of mother, Freddie?

Mmmm! Now now eresh, I am sure Freddy feels they did a good job there. In fact, that and their documentary raised the issue to many of my leftie friends and perhaps did the opposite that Freddy anticipated.

unsurprising that the guardian have not done a basic fact check and have allowed yet another openly biased and hopelessly inaccurate article on this issue get published. However fact that this is the position they choose to align with, even as the evidence and weight of opinion mounts again SW and it’s war against women, is astounding .

In order to provide clear advice on trans inclusion, Stonewall uses commonly understood language in place of statutory language. For example, instead of using the word “transsexual”, the guidance says “trans person” and instead of “gender reassignment”, it uses “gender identity”.

But the proof of the problem with Stonewall is all here to see in this paragraph. Stonewall want to provide advice on trans inclusion. They are not interested in providing accurate advice on law, rights, or the importance of the statutory language in clarity of the Equality Act. All they care about is getting trans people included, to hell with the rest. And people now see through it.

McConnell’s words and actions often don’t help McConnell’s arguments and campaigns.