When will Stonewall speak up? How can they be held accountable if they wont engage?

[JustcameoutGC]

So, i just about see how SW can take up a position that they wont debate trans rights. I don't think it is the right approach, but i can just about see why they would adopt this stance.

However, when questions are asked about whether it is appropriate for a political lobby group to have the relationship they do with prominent organisations, they still refuse to engage.

More importantly they seem to have unilaterally decided that exclusively dating people of the same sex is bigoted. No different to excluding dating people of colour or disabled people.

The premier organisation that is supposed to be fighting for gay rights has pretty much said those who are exclusively same sex attracted are bigots. I am guessing they view anyone who bases who they date on their sex as bigots, including heterosexuals.

This would be an extraordinary position for any organisation to adopt, but for Stonewall, this is fundamental to who they are and how they advocate for those they claim to advocate for. They need to explain this and be clear that they now do not include people who are same sex attracted in their remit.

I suspect that awkward questions about this is why they are not named in the court case against the LGB alliance.

How long can they hide for?

They can hide until they are forced out of hiding. It will take a legal challenge compelling them to speak before they ever will but because they are slipping and sliding behind the scenes out of the line of fire I cannot see that ever happening. So if something bad happens is a workplace that they misadvised on the law it will be the workplace that gets it in the neck for example.

Silence is a universal human response to extremely uncomfortable questions.

I think that it says a great deal about those who support Stonewall that they accept stonewall’s snide asides in response to being caught out. For instance, their response to Stephen Nolan’s podcasts.

And when Nancy Kelley gives statements they so often are misogynistic in some way. Such as the quote about lesbians needing to review their prejudices, such as women disagreeing that males can be women are like anti-semites.

Stonewall’s position has started to erode, they either have to change direction or they will be diminished completely.

For me this makes their position within employers untenable. If they wont come out and explain their thinking and have it openly scrutinised, then they have no place influencing the policies of employers behind closed doors.

Stonewall has become a gay conversion charity, hasn't it? They are telling lesbians that not wanting to have sex with biological males is a prejudice akin to racism. That's heavy pressure, especially for this young generation who these days 'second guess' themselves for fear of being pounced on for a slip.

""Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly."

As they said in GoT, 'everything before the word 'but' is horse shit'.

For me this makes their position within employers untenable.

Given the views expressed by their boss, they're far more clearly homophobic than LGB Alliance could ever be said to be transphobic.

LGB Alliance doesn't think being trans is wrong, just that it doesn't change your sex (or sexuality).

But Stonewall thinks being homosexual (or heterosexual) is wrong.

Is it not arguable that anyone bringing Stonewall into their workplace, especially for training, is in danger of breaching the equality act w.r.t. discrimination on the basis of sexuality?

Stonewall is a dead man walking, unless it rapidly picks a side. It can either support lesbians, or it can support the TWAW mantra and accuse lesbians of bigotry for not accepting penises in their dating pool, but it patently can’t do both.

That was the question i was asking myself last night. Are they in breach of the equality act, both by giving advice "in advance of the law" but also holding a position that one of the protected characteristics, sexual orientation, is not valid.

For anyone wanting to challenge the relationship of their employer with SW, this could be a very effective tactic.

Why - if their position is that excluding any group means you need to examine your prejudices - would limiting your dating pool by gender be any better than limiting it by sex? Do they just see LGB as identities and presenting styles rather than orientations?

Are they in breach of the equality act, both by giving advice "in advance of the law" but also holding a position that one of the protected characteristics, sexual orientation, is not valid.

How can they not be? And surely they're in breach of their own articles, objectives and charter as a charity?

Yes indeed, yet somehow the LGB Alliance are the ones in the dock.

Anyone want to crowd fund to show SW is in breach of its charitable articles? We need some angry lesbians and gay men to show how Stonewall has abandoned homosexuals.

@JustcameoutGC

For me this makes their position within employers untenable. If they wont come out and explain their thinking and have it openly scrutinised, then they have no place influencing the policies of employers behind closed doors.

Not just employers Op but public services, civil service, the lot. It makes me wonder whether I still live in a democracy, when an organisation can leap ahead of the law and cause legal, moral and discriminatory confusing and yet still expect us to accept being called bigots and Nazis

Anyone want to crowd fund to show SW is in breach of its charitable articles? We need some angry lesbians and gay men to show how Stonewall has abandoned homosexuals.

Not sure how easy it is to argue that they're not fulfilling their statutes.

And they could easily change them - drop the stuff about homosexuality and make it more vague. A charity doesn't HAVE to support homosexuality.

You could pincer them more effectively by targetting companies that use them. Those companies could be in breach of their EA2010 commitments if forcing employees to undergo anti-homosexual training.

It's pretty simple. You don't debate fundamental human rights.

It would be asking them to debate Gay and lesbian equality.

Why debate a prejudiced position? They are just working as they should be for equality of LGBT+ human rights as is their remit.

Debating fairness of rights - just should not be needed.

Sadly some do not see this. Ultimately IMHO it's simply prejudice. You do not lose rights by sharing them with another group.

History shows us: The fight of people of colour, the fight of lesbians and gay people, and now the fight of trans people - just to live their lives without being challenged and debated every week.

I feel sorry for trans people. I really do. And totally support Stonewall. They stand by LGBT+ people.

Meanwhile the so-called LGB Alliance won't back anti-conversion therapy? Oh why not? I thought you stood for LGB people? Weird huh? Perhaps they are just a hate group masquerading as a charity (IMHO).

MishyJDI

Simple question Do lesbians have the right to state they are only attracted to the female sex. Do they have the right to exclude Transwomen from their dating pool?

You don't debate fundamental human rights.

How about the fundamental human right of women to single sex spaces?

How about the fundamental human right of lesbians to be same-sex attracted?

There is no fundamental right to be treated as the opposite sex.

MishyJDI 'You do not lose rights by sharing them with another group.'

Can you explain your above sentence when it comes to women's rights to safe places? If we are supposed to 'share' those safe places with biological males, how can they still be safe places for women and girls?

(and yes, I know a small percentage of biological males will abuse this, not all, but even a small percentage is too much for me personally).

"So, i just about see how SW can take up a position that they wont debate trans rights. I don't think it is the right approach, but i can just about see why they would adopt this stance."
Because as soon as you start debating individual issues such as should trans girls be allowed to compete in girls races, and submit girls to always being second ( as an example), you see the nonsense of some of the radical transactivists. Best not to talk about it and just demand it.
When we should be talking about how everybody can be catered for.

It like blaming the fire brigade for consulting unis in matters of fire safety. They wouldn't engage with people thinking this was somehow wrong either.

Hiya Mishy. Spectacularly missing the point as ever. I clearly said in the original post i wasn't referring to SW's position on no debate of trans rights. I was referring specifically to them unilaterally redefining what it means to be gay or heterosexual for that matter. That surely has to be up for debate. I completely object to my exclusively dating biological males to be rooted in prejudice.

You do not lose rights by sharing them with another group.

Really Mishy? How do you explain the loss of rights for female rape victims to be able to choose to attend Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and not be told to 'reframe' their trauma to be able to receive the care they need? And to be able to have the ability that they can choose a female counsellor and have confidence that that counsellor will be female.

What about the right for females to be able to compete fairly in sport against only other females (unless they choose not to)?

I think Mishy, you are again resorting to mantras without applying much critical analysis. In this case, you might as well have said 'rights are not pie'. But it has been shown recently that right are indeed like pie.

@Bellusaurus

Why - if their position is that excluding any group means you need to examine your prejudices - would limiting your dating pool by gender be any better than limiting it by sex? Do they just see LGB as identities and presenting styles rather than orientations?

This is a good question. If you declare yourself a homogenderist rather than a homosexual you would still be excluding some people. Except I guess it's easier to self-declare gender or make a new one up?

The other question, which never really seems to get an answer from TRAs, is whether, once examined, unpacked, and challenged, a lesbian woman's "preferences" continue to exclude men, is that acceptable? Or does the examination, unpacking and challenge have to result in a victory for cock? In which case its not introspection they want, but compliance.

Apparently limiting by gender is not okay in some spaces. This is from Tinder, apparently (via Ovarit).

It’s very obvious women’s rights are being trampled by Stonewall/the TRA movement.

• Women being assaulted/raped by TW in prisons

• Women being assaulted/raped by TW on hospital wards

• Girls being assaulted/raped in toilets at school by TG pupil

• Women/girls being subject to sexual assault in changing rooms by TW

• Lesbians being coerced/pressured/assaulted/raped by TW and labelled ‘bigoted’ for not wanting to have sex with male-bodied people

• Children/teens being put on path to transition at scarily early age, puberty blockers and hormones that cause vaginal atrophy, infertility, osteoporosis, increase chances of hysterectomy and heart attack, many while presenting comorbidities (autism, depression, anorexia)

• Women being bullied out of their jobs/work for being GC

• Women being arrested for utterly innocuous GC (or not even GC) tweets

• Women being subject to rape and death threats, doxxing, cancellation for any GC comment

• Women in sport losing team places and medals to TW proven to be unfairly advantaged by having grown up male

• Women being denied guaranteed single sex care after rape/sexual assault and being labelled bigoted for wanting this

Etc

More and more examples come to light every single day.

But the wider public, who were clueless about a lot of this, are becoming more and more informed via Nolan podcast, BBC article, mainstream media (Telegraph, Times, Observer, Mail) covering what’s going on and the impact on women and children.

TIME’S UP!

Any responsible media organisation (or other organisation for that matter) really should turn around to Stonewall and say "we need to know precisely what you are asking for and how you justify (morally and logically and practically) what you ask for... if you cannot do that, if you can't argue convincingly in response to your critics, then we have to treat you as toxic and to be ignored completely".

To a very large extent my journey from "TWAW be nice" to GC was all about -

(1) The realisation that the TRAs literally deny homosexuality and heterosexuality, and think I am bigoted for having a sexual orientation.

and

(2) The realisation that the TRAs literally have NOTHING, NOT EVEN A HINT AT A GOOD ARGUMENT.