The BBC announces it is leaving Stonewall

[AlwaysTawnyOwl]

www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/stonewall-diversity-champions-programme?at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom4=8686C1E8-4222-11EC-AA97-45113A982C1E&at_custom3=%40bbcpress&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_campaign=64

This is great news! Some factual errors and vague information in Stonewall's response though

*Ultimately, it is LGBTQ+ people who suffer. Our research shows that LGBTQ+ people are often disadvantaged at work:

Almost one in five LGBTQ+ staff have been the target of negative comments or conduct from work colleagues because they're LGBTQ+.
More than a third of LGBTQ+ staff have hidden or disguised that they are LGBTQ+ at work because they were afraid of discrimination.
Almost one in five LGBTQ+ people who were looking for work said they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity while trying to get a job.*

Not in the least helpful to group LGB people in with trans people in this sort of information. Many LGB people do not feel they have the same needs or beliefs as someone who is trans and I would like to know how many LGB people have experienced this discrimination and how many trans people. This presentation of information is hiding that data.

Many of the arguments against trans people today are simply recycled homophobia from the 80s and 90s. We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces. That wasn’t true of lesbians, bi and gay people then, and it isn’t true of trans people now.

Yet a lot of people believe Stonewall is homophobic. This cherry picking of ideas also misses the multitude of other reasons why people have concerns about trans ideology.

At Stonewall, we stand for LGBTQ+ people everywhere.

Well lots of LGB people don't think so. That's why the LGB alliance was set up. Not a statement compatible with the response to the brave women who shared their stories of being pressurised or forced into sexual contact with a transwoman.

Even in a response to the BBC, Stonewall manage to show their bigotry, ignorance and willingness to spin 'facts'. They are a disgusting organisation.

D of e need to first. Then pressure will be on for schools to withdraw.

Government guidance for RSE explicitly states that schools must not use any resources which rely on stereotypes and yet time and time again we see schools teaching "gender identity" based on stereotypes because there's no other way to explain gender identity . Now that Ofsted are no longer stonewalled and are properly scrutinising RSE we can hope to see some improvements.

This is really big isn't it? Can't believe it to be honest!

I remember seeing this on the Stonewall website a couple of years ago and just not being able to believe what I was reading, and that the organisation that it came from seemed to have its tentacles absolutely everywhere!

Now, finally, the grown ups seem to be taking charge.

I'd love to see the BBC tackling some "difficult" subjects now, like the effects on women of self-id around the world or a programme about detransitioners, just for some balance to the "sweet little girlie boys who just want to pee" agenda that they seem to have had for a long time.....

Honestly the fact they don't see the fucking irony in this is raising my blood pressure.

Yay awesome 💪💪💪💪🔥🔥🔥🔥

Allying yourself with a organisation that's totally at odds with a protected belief must put companies in a very precarious position when they are forcing staff to obey polices that are not compliant with the law.

Having the BBC admit there is an issue of impartiality means other organisations cannot pretend they were not aware of this conflict of interest.

Definitely. The opportunity for plausible deniability just got smaller.

I breathed a sigh of relief when I read this. As a mother of a 12 year old girl questioning her 'gender identity' and being totally consumed by it all, this is a big 'top down' deal, that I hope will filter down to people actually being able to discuss the issues - thank you Kathleen Stock - and hopefully to younger people considering that they aren't in the wrong body after all its just that they are at a time in their young lives when their bodies are changing and all sorts of sexual attractions may or may not be happening, but that it is a natural part of growing up and that when they ADULTS they can make informed choices about their sexuality. And that stupid companies like LUSH will stop trying to peddle chest binders to kids to score brownie points with the so called LGBTQ+ supporters (same goes for you CIN). Leave my bloody child alone. Sorry, rant over. This is a massive step for impartial media reporting, freedom of speech, sex based rights, and young gay and lesbian people. Which reminds me, instead of my annual donation to CIN Im going to give the money to the LGB Alliance.

liverpoolresisters.wordpress.com/2018/08/16/the-bbc-and-transgender-children/

Some details of money donated in 2017 to trans charities including Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence by Children in Need

Honestly, the Stonewall statement, which has been thoroughly unpacked on this thread, just makes them look ridiculous. They have absolutely fuck all, don't they!

The 80s and 90s? They were all about fundraising for AIDS. Not thinking gay men were predators and lesbians were gonna get you in the changing rooms.

Quite apart from anything else, way before then, I was raised on books where any self-respecting girl would have a 'pash' on a jolly sixth former.

They're talking out of their blue haired, queer theoried, Johnny Come Lately arses.

So very happy to hear this

Well lots of LGB people don't think so. That's why the LGB alliance was set up. Not a statement compatible with the response to the brave women who shared their stories of being pressurised or forced into sexual contact with a transwoman.

I keep repeating this, because it is phenomenally important to notice and repeat, a lot.

Stonewall are working hard to shift the phrase 'LGBT+' from meaning lesbian, gay, bi, trans etc people united by having that characteristic whatever it is in this group in common while being a large, diverse group of people with all different beliefs, politics, faiths, races, cultures, countries, worldwide, etc etc -

• into meaning 'ONLY those who believe in this particular political agenda and ideology', and this is the ONLY thing they have in common.

They are actively excluding LGBT+ people who do not share this one partisan political view while at the same time claiming to speak for all of them.

This in fact lets them imply that they are speaking for all of this group and to make use of people's good will to this group in its original form and its legal protections, while in fact excluding actual LGBT+ people and using this as a trojan horse to further their political agenda. They are shifting LGBT+ to mean in the public eye and government eye people who all without exception believe in and want this, and we want to do the right thing by LGBT+ people don't we? While sliding under the table that LGBT+ who are not compliant to the politics have been excluded.

Judging by the history and pattern of behaviour, (and some posters on recent threads) it will not be long before they try the idea that anyone not compliant with this particular political position is not LGBT+. In the same way that meanings of other words have been adjusted to be more convenient to the political agenda.

This is why the LGBA are such a threat. And lesbian women saying that they want to be allowed to be homosexual females and say so without harassment, discrimination and oppression is also so wholly unacceptable.

Having dewomaned woman
and delesbianed lesbians
Stonewall are now de LGBT+ing LGBT+s

Notice the 'we speak for all' bit.

Those who disagree with them are just disappeared from being LGBT+

Politicians and journalists will you please catch on.

I checked the children in need donor page and couldn't see mermaids on it when I searched, hopefully they've been ditched but someone might know better

@MrsJamin

This is brilliant. Only just this morning I was checking which trans affirming charities Children In Need supports and found this - they're not getting any of my money this year as "5 projects to the value of £400,000 are focused specifically on gender identity". Gendered Intelligence being one of them with funding of £135,576 to provide children as young as 4 with lessons which encourage them to explore their 'gender identities'. I hope that CIN quickly regain their independence from Stonewall's clutches and severs links with all 5 of these projects.

This is why I don't think the BBC - a publicly funded broadcaster should be allowed to use its position to take more money from the public for its pet causes or supposed 'charities'.

Really pleased to see this but how sad we've got to this place, where an organisation set up to defend the rights of gay people ends up binned because they chased the money.

They should have stuck to sexuality -I foresee a vacuum shortly and hope that LGBA have the funds and infastructure to fill it.

Also I personally was never, ever told anything about gay people being a threat growing up in the 80's/90's so "we all remember" is a bit rich.

Ditto. Born early 80s so I'm bang on the right age for this. I was never told to see lesbians and gay men as a threat, and I don't have any recollection of that being the general feeling in the room either.

[quote HappyDays101010]Its very easy to leave feedback for the BBC

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments[/quote]
I've done this.

I'll probably submit a separate comment making the point about BBC CiN giving money to controversial groups who promote controversial gender identity ideology to kids. It's not right, whatever your party politics.

- into meaning 'ONLY those who believe in this particular political agenda and ideology', and this is the ONLY thing they have in common.

They are actively excluding LGBT+ people who do not share this one partisan political view while at the same time claiming to speak for all of them.

This is correct.

They are actually appropriating the word homosexuality, turning it into something different, but pretending it's the same in order to push the 'something different'.

It should be illegal.

Homosexuality has a legal definition, and you cannot change it to push transgenderism.

This was the biggest single scandal, in my opinion, of the Nolan podcast.

The complete re-definition of homosexual, to mean what the fuck you like, as long as you can push transgenderism by appropriating it.

I can't help wondering what the fuck they were thinking?

Did no-one actually sit them down and say, er, there are an awful lot more homosexual men and women, than there are cross dressers, transvestites and HSTS's.

Excellent news. When will everyone realise that just about nobody is part of the mythical LGBTQ+ community. We are either lesbian or gay, or bisexual, or heterosexual , have a strange sense of self or like dressing up.

I’m over the moon about this. As a lesbian I’m disgusted at the way gay people and women in general are being treated. Stonewall do not represent me, they view my sexual orientation as bigoted and fetishist. Now let’s get them out of the NHS and schools.

@Scout2016

As others have said, well done Nolan and Thompson.

On the money from the DofE, DD's school is a Stonewall Champion. Which I assume means they have to pay them something, and yet more money gone from an education budget, but I can't find Stonewall's price list or going rates anywhere.

It's more than a year's worth of PTA cake sales, that's for sure, even for a smaller school.

There's a membership fee. Staff time. And fees for extra 'training' and conferences.

The BBC article was on the homepage when I saw the news here about an hour ago. It is now buried part-way down the Entertainment news page - are they hoping no one will notice?

@MrsOvertonsWindow

So pleased the BBC said: has led some to question whether the BBC can be impartial

That's the question every government department, organisation and school should be asking. Following the demands of those enforcing queer theory is not impartial.

Nailed it

Reaction of relief mixed with absolute fury.

How can this have been allowed to happen? Impartial reporting is supposed to be the basic. The BBC allowed itself to be dominated by Stonewall and their reporting on the issue has been slanted for years. What effect has this had on the situation of questioning children/ lesbian spaces and women in general?
Massive step forward but alot to answer for.

Same for Offsted, D of E, how dare they have accepted this organisation to dominate their policies with this snowballing downwards to children?

So much respect for all the women that have led the charge on this, applying pressure and being villified. Losing careers, reputations and friends. I am so pleased with this news, however it just should never, ever have got to this.