Stonewall's missed campaigns

[SapphosRock]

We all know Stonewall has dropped the ball When it comes to LGB people. It used to have some excellent resources for lesbians, for example this document published in 2009 was really handy when me and DW were planning our family:

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/pregnantpauseewithcoverr2.pdf

This started me thinking about what Stonewall could have done instead of trampling over women’s rights.

1.	Started a campaign for IVF equality. Infertile heterosexual couples get between 1 and 3 rounds of IVF funded by the NHS depending on where they live. Funding for same-sex couples is practically non-existent.

2.	Campaign to make it illegal to teach under 18s that homosexuality is a sin / gays are going to hell. This is still being drummed into kids in churches and other religious organisations across the country which can be very damaging for the mental health of young, gay children and teenagers. 

3.	Championed lesbian visibility and support groups for lesbians and bisexual women as their voices are often drowned out in mixed LGBTQ+ groups 

Any others?

I am hoping the LGB Alliance will pick this stuff up.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, OP, although perhaps not the specifics.

1. Same sex couples ought to be able to access NHS fertility treatment on the same basis as opposite sex couples - but that's as a treatment for infertility for couples struggling to conceive after making an attempt to do so.

1. This is literally Section 28 in reverse. I don't have any time for fundamentalists, but you should be ashamed at yourself for even suggesting this.

1. This in an unalloyed good.

1. I read this earlier - sex-matters.org/posts/a-view-from/beyond-the-rainbow-a-view-from-inside-the-civil-service/

Stonewalls Diversity Champions scheme should have been about encouraging organisations to clamp down on this kind of homophobia, and sought to sway over hearts and minds so people weren't even thinking about it.

1. Go international. Many countries are even worse for gay people today than the UK was a hundred years ago.

@dolorsit

Stonewall should have been campaigning for asylum seekers who are claiming asylum due to their sexual orientation. The way some have been treated by the civil service is appalling.

This is another really good suggestion.

This is literally Section 28 in reverse. I don't have any time for fundamentalists, but you should be ashamed at yourself for even suggesting this

I'm definitely not ashamed of myself for suggesting that young gay and lesbian teenagers should not be told their sexuality is a sin. That if they act on it they are going to hell. That they must remain single and celibate their entire lives.

This is really damaging stuff that can seriously affect the mental health of young, impressionable gay people. I'm
Speaking from experience.

I'm definitely not ashamed of myself for suggesting that young gay and lesbian teenagers should not be told their sexuality is a sin. That if they act on it they are going to hell. That they must remain single and celibate their entire lives

This is exactly what one of my religious friends has said to me about ds1

Its obviously what children within their religion are being taught

Apart from tackling the new homophobia coming from gender ID activists, I think that the main huge area for UK gay rights organisations is building links with other countries and trying to help out there. 71 countries still criminalise some aspect of homosexuality. LGBA is doing it to an extent.

Merely by existing they're helping.

At the minute, many will believe - with some justification - LGB rights inevitably leads to current Stonewall.

Homophobes in those 71 countries can point to places like Canada and the US and say "if you let the gays have their way, next they'll be drugging your kids and letting men into women's sports".

Stonewall's current campaigning in this country is harming LGB people worldwide.

LGB Alliance is a necessary counterweight to that - demonstrating that not all gay people believe in this stuff, and that they will call it out. (Just as gay people have had to call out groups in their midst with dubious views in the past).

@SapphosRock

This is literally Section 28 in reverse. I don't have any time for fundamentalists, but you should be ashamed at yourself for even suggesting this

I'm definitely not ashamed of myself for suggesting that young gay and lesbian teenagers should not be told their sexuality is a sin. That if they act on it they are going to hell. That they must remain single and celibate their entire lives.

This is really damaging stuff that can seriously affect the mental health of young, impressionable gay people. I'm
Speaking from experience.

Just so I fully understand your position:

Are you saying you want to violate religious fundamentalists human rights? Specifically Article 9, Article 10 and Protocol 1, Article 2?

@SmallPug

How would IVF equality work for two gay men?

Or necessarily needed for a lesbian couple?

InspiralCoalescenceRingdown I'm not interested in adults and what they are taught.

The attached is the only 'human rights' of fundamentalists that directly affects children.

I would 💯 support Stonewall if they campaigned to have a clause within this particular law that it should be illegal to teach children that homosexuality is sinful and gay people are going to hell. This is being taught as fact in some churches (and possibly even some schools).

I would 💯 support Stonewall if they campaigned to have a clause within this particular law that it should be illegal to teach children that homosexuality is sinful and gay people are going to hell. This is being taught as fact in some churches (and possibly even some schools).

So that is a "Yes, I do want to remove religious fundamentalists human rights" then?

Let's be absolutely clear here. If the government can pass a law banning churches from expressing a certain belief to children, they can pass the opposite law, also.

The fundamentalists' rights to believe being gay is sinful and say so is also my right to believe those fundamentalists are full of shit, and my right to tell my DS that they're talking a load of rubbish.

If you can take away that right from fundamentalists, you can take that right away from me.

So that is a "Yes, I do want to remove religious fundamentalists human rights" then?

No not all of them, just amend the one that is damaging to young gay children and teenagers.

Do you think it's fine that young gay people are taught they are going to hell and they should stay single and celibate their entire lives? You would be happy for your kids to be taught this?

How would IVF equality work for two gay men?

No to renting women’s organs for 9 months.

InspiralCoalescenceRingdown that is nonsense.

Corporal punishment in schools was recognised as harmful so it was banned. You could shout your support for corporal punishment in schools from the rooftops and nobody would stop you.

No not all of them, just amend the one that is damaging to young gay children and teenagers.

"not all of them". That is a yes.

Do you think it's fine that young gay people are taught they are going to hell and they should stay single and celibate their entire lives? You would be happy for your kids to be taught this?

I think teaching anyone that hell exists, and that anyone goes there for any reason, is super shitty. Including telling young gay people that they'll go to hell for being gay.

I would remove my child from a situation where they would be taught this, under my Protocol 1, Article 2 rights. The very same rights that you want to take away.

@SapphosRock

InspiralCoalescenceRingdown that is nonsense.

Corporal punishment in schools was recognised as harmful so it was banned. You could shout your support for corporal punishment in schools from the rooftops and nobody would stop you.

There's no human right to hit children, or anyone else.

InspiralCoalescenceRingdown not every young person has parents like you and Rufus.

Also, this isn't fundamentalism. It's being taught to kids in regular mainstream churches across the country. Often in youth groups where the parents aren't in attendance and have no idea about what is being said.

Why is hitting children damaging but telling them they are going to hell and must never have a relationship their entire life not damaging?

It should not be a fundamental human right to inflict either of these things on children.

@heathspeedwell

Given how many millions of pounds of taxpayer's money Stonewall has frittered away I think it's a real shame they didn't campaign for third spaces. They could have solved the public toilets problem by now.

I wish they'd concentrated on teaching men to 'be kind' and accept and behave well towards biological males and females who don't fit cultural stereotypes. Instead, they've ended up actually enforcing those cultural stereotypes, and expect women to give way in their formerly-safe-spaces rather than confronting the issue of male violence.

Also, this isn't fundamentalism. It's being taught to kids in regular mainstream churches across the country. Often in youth groups where the parents aren't in attendance and have no idea about what is being said.

Then we persuade them that they're wrong. That's exactly the sort of thing I was saying Stonewall should be trying to do under point 4 in my original post.

Of course, that probably means teaming up with liberal and moderate churches who we don't necessarily agree 100% with in order to champion a gay-is-ok theology that's palatable to other Christians (not something that's really in my skillset as a militant atheist).

But we can't go ripping up the Lets-all-avoid-this-Third-Reich-thing-again rulebook, even if we really, really, really don't like what some people think and say.

Human rights are universal. Removing them for some is the same as removing them for all.

And like I said, if you can pass a law to ban anti-gay, homophobic beliefs (or their expression, or teaching them to children), you can ban anti-homophobic, pro-gay beliefs too. Just like Thatcher's government did in 1989.

@YellowFish12

The NHS is there to resolve health issues and homosexuality isn't a health issue

Well personally I don’t actually consider infertility in hetro couples a health issue either - but society has deemed hetro couples as worthy of infertility treatment so why not gay couples 🤷‍♀️

Fertility is a normal human process. I don't have an issue with anyone receiving fertility treatment on the NHS if they're actually infertile. Not having PIV sex is not infertility

There are alternatives... as my sisters (gay) friend said ‘Turkey baster... and a male was involved...’. She wouldn’t have dreamed of expecting the NHS to get involved.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

There are alternatives... as my sisters (gay) friend said ‘Turkey baster... and a male was involved...’. She wouldn’t have dreamed of expecting the NHS to get involved.

If the turkey baster (or more organised) approach isn't working, I'm 100% in favour of lesbian couples accessing the same treatment as same-sex couples.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

There are alternatives... as my sisters (gay) friend said ‘Turkey baster... and a male was involved...’. She wouldn’t have dreamed of expecting the NHS to get involved.

Assume this also applies to straight women with an infertile male partner?

They should all find a fertile male and a turkey baster in order to conceive? No NHS help should be offered?

There is a difference between a woman who is infertile and one who is fertile but wanting a child and there’s no man in the picture. I wasn’t thinking about infertile men - but yes they are in the same boat as the mum.

My friend went through so much to get/keep a pregnancy. Another friend lost babies late in the pregnancy before finally giving birth to her twins.

Not the same as my sisters friend who wanted a baby, could conceive and carry a child - is gay and didn’t want to have sex with her male friend who agreed to be the dad.

Whether the NHS should provide services... I’m not sure... in Scotland I believe males have accesses surrogate services via NHS. The NHS has finite funds.

This is why there needs to be equality.

If a lesbian goes to her GP because she can't conceive with her female partner she's told to find a fertile male to conceive with / pay for her own fertility treatment.

If a straight woman goes to her GP because she can't conceive with her infertile male partner they are offered up to £50k of IVF treatment on the NHS. She is not told to go away and find a straight male to conceive with or fund her own treatment.