Woman's Hour 18/11/2021 Nancy Kelley CEO of Stonewall

[Abitofalark]

From the programme notes:

"Nancy Kelley is CEO of Stonewall, the largest LGBT rights charity in Europe. She speaks to Emma about her organisation’s work and gives her reaction to recent high-profile withdrawals from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions workplace inclusion scheme, including the BBC."

Hmmm...yes, we've heard - and dissected - the previous pronouncement from that quarter about the BBC pulling out of the Stonewall scheme. Let's see what waffle and spin come out in this interview.

I really think with Nancy, Ellie whatserface etc. we're seeing a concerted effort to undercut this as a women's right issue. It's a classic tactic - bring out women who enforce the male dominance because they get personal benefit/reward from doing so, and you undermine the women speaking up for women who are harmed.

We probably need to have a conversation at some point about the significance and influence of these female enforcers and why patriarchy always needs women at key control points.

@FlyingOink

And she also said of lesbians, ‘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.’

Didn't she say she's been married for fifteen years? Technically she's writing off the entire world apart from her wife, surely that's even more discriminatory?

There is not a named sexuality protected in law of fancying only white people, or disabled people or thin people.

There is a named sexuality, protected in law, created by bloody SW ffs of sexual orientation exclusively to same sex people (of any colour, weight, race, creed, ability). Utter disingenuous fuckwittery.

This advocate of lesbians being allowed to lesbian only if they do it in private, behind closed doors, telling no one and not hurting anyone is returning female homosexuality to the bloody Victorian era and she is the bloody head of STONEWALL and claiming to be speaking for LGBTQ+ people!

Dolores bloody Umbridge indeed. Riddickulus!!

Artichokeleaves

I agree, I'm just pointing out that "writing off" someone or everyone is just normal behaviour, because sex isn't a public resource.

So Kelley "refuses to date" shedloads of people because she is married, and therefore by her own shitty logic she's discriminatory.

I refuse to date her, in return. I'm obviously Kelleyphobic.

I am so angry

1. my sexuality is an orientation not a preference
2. I'm same sex attracted
3. Prejudice is inferred if I choose not to sleep with a transwoman
4. A person who remains male irrespective of any bodily changes

Stonewall are toxic. I have lost all respect. They achieved fantastic work back in the day but now are just insidious. I hope they implode

@HoardingFloralBuntingInACervix

I really think with Nancy, Ellie whatserface etc. we're seeing a concerted effort to undercut this as a women's right issue. It's a classic tactic - bring out women who enforce the male dominance because they get personal benefit/reward from doing so, and you undermine the women speaking up for women who are harmed.

We probably need to have a conversation at some point about the significance and influence of these female enforcers and why patriarchy always needs women at key control points.

Good point.

@FlyingOink

Artichokeleaves

I agree, I'm just pointing out that "writing off" someone or everyone is just normal behaviour, because sex isn't a public resource.

So Kelley "refuses to date" shedloads of people because she is married, and therefore by her own shitty logic she's discriminatory.

I refuse to date her, in return. I'm obviously Kelleyphobic.

I completely agree with you, that was exasperated disbelief at the bit you quoted, sorry. I'm afraid rational thought tends to follow behind wtaf, there is not enough glue in the universe to be able to get my head around this these days.

It is interesting what was NOT said on today's interview, the questions which were not asked.

I'm convinced that the House of Lords has a plan behind this - get the podcast out, get WH done, push for a news night or force Andrew Marr to do an interview - get public enquiry through in the full headlights of the media.

That's where they'll have to define what a woman is. And so will the politicians who are upholding this nonsense. The Lib Dems, Labour, Greens will look like absolute idiots and only the Tories will have been able to say "we never thought that". And we'll be stuck with a Tory government forever because we'll lose all the people with potential but not enough gumption to say what they know to be true.

@HoardingFloralBuntingInACervix

I really think with Nancy, Ellie whatserface etc. we're seeing a concerted effort to undercut this as a women's right issue. It's a classic tactic - bring out women who enforce the male dominance because they get personal benefit/reward from doing so, and you undermine the women speaking up for women who are harmed.

We probably need to have a conversation at some point about the significance and influence of these female enforcers and why patriarchy always needs women at key control points.

Yy and Ellie kept saying 'more women agree with me than you' to Rosie Duffield.

Er, not if you make it clear what you mean by transwomen they don't love.

The Lib Dems, Labour, Greens will look like absolute idiots and only the Tories will have been able to say "we never thought that". And we'll be stuck with a Tory government forever because we'll lose all the people with potential but not enough gumption to say what they know to be true.

Gumption, honesty, whatever you want to call it, is more important to me than "potential". I'd rather the Labour Party die off completely, and rise again like a Phoenix from the ashes than have to keep cobbling together bullshit alliances between middle class Queer Theorists in the cities and the working class/lower middle class who'd quite like schools and the NHS funded properly.

I've said it a million times - if schools and the NHS were important enough to Labour activists (specifically activists) then they'd ditch the politically toxic stuff to get voted in. They don't. They are willing to lose votes to stay ideologically pure, and in so doing fail to help anyone.

The lib dems are even worse, they actually came out and said they don't want our votes.

Placemarking... nearly 300 posts in! Yikes much to catch up on!

Just listened to this on the podcast and I am in awe at Emma. Whe she first took over WHs I had my reservations (even made a thread about it on here) but the last month or so she keeps impressing me more and more, today was the cherry on the cake. She us so clever and talented. Emma, if you're reading this thread (I hope you are!), you are incredible ....so much respect

@FlyingOink

The Lib Dems, Labour, Greens will look like absolute idiots and only the Tories will have been able to say "we never thought that". And we'll be stuck with a Tory government forever because we'll lose all the people with potential but not enough gumption to say what they know to be true.

Gumption, honesty, whatever you want to call it, is more important to me than "potential". I'd rather the Labour Party die off completely, and rise again like a Phoenix from the ashes than have to keep cobbling together bullshit alliances between middle class Queer Theorists in the cities and the working class/lower middle class who'd quite like schools and the NHS funded properly.

I've said it a million times - if schools and the NHS were important enough to Labour activists (specifically activists) then they'd ditch the politically toxic stuff to get voted in. They don't. They are willing to lose votes to stay ideologically pure, and in so doing fail to help anyone.

The lib dems are even worse, they actually came out and said they don't want our votes.

This ^^

Potential just means that whoever it is hasn’t done it yet, they haven’t lived up to it yet.

If that’s an adult of reasonable age (not just turned) and life experience, then I’d be thinking the reason they haven’t lived up to potential yet is because they can’t or won’t.

So it’s the same as ‘when people show you who they are, believe them’.

Not sure I need to rtft; last few posts have been A⭐️ 👏

An interesting interview. I did wonder why Nancy Kelly chose this job. EB did a great job but homosexuals wanting same sex relationships should d finitely not be having to rethink their prejudices otherwise what was the point of repealing section 28 if being homosexual is now seen as transphobic and gay people have to contemplate their prejudice?

@nauticant

EB is signing off with evidence that NK had not been completely honest in the interview they'd just played. Neat.

Couldn't listen - what was said? Thanks in advance.

She said that the evidence actually showed that Stonewall had sought to get the Scottish Government to remove the word "woman" in government documentation, which was also later picked up on by David Thompson:

twitter.com/dt_ni/status/1461311137107136517

Thank you!

Stonewall are a different breed to most charities though aren't they?

Yeah I’m not defending Stonewall here. As I’ve said, on a personal level I feel sorry for Nancy as she’s someone I know beyond what I hear in interviews and I feel she’s out of her depth.

I think the die was cast under Ruth Hunt and Nancy Kelley has taken on an impossible job where it’s impossible to row back from the strident positioning on trans issues started by her predecessor.

I’ve had some dealings with Ruth Hunt as well and had a lot of respect for her and Stonewall’s campaigning up until the point they centred on trans issues. I think she made a massive strategic mistake by adopting a similarly aggressive stance on trans rights to the one they had recently adopted on gay rights (eg the “some people are gay, get over it” approach).

I’m saying this dispassionately as someone who is broadly gender critical but also supportive of trans rights and am just sad this has turned into such a vicious debate.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

It is interesting what was NOT said on today's interview, the questions which were not asked.

I'm convinced that the House of Lords has a plan behind this - get the podcast out, get WH done, push for a news night or force Andrew Marr to do an interview - get public enquiry through in the full headlights of the media.

That's where they'll have to define what a woman is. And so will the politicians who are upholding this nonsense. The Lib Dems, Labour, Greens will look like absolute idiots and only the Tories will have been able to say "we never thought that". And we'll be stuck with a Tory government forever because we'll lose all the people with potential but not enough gumption to say what they know to be true.

Part of me wonders if this is a shake-down of the parties, orchestrated by members of the Lords.

Some are, after all, the senior statesmen and stateswomen of Labour and the LibDems. It must be excruciating to watch what is happening to their parties. Maybe they've just had enough.

Labour and the LibDems have never been ruthless "knives in the dark" like the Conservatives, which means they've kept poor leaders and had waves of infiltration, and just dither about what to do.

But this is so beyond reality that maybe some of them have decided to act.

I’m saying this dispassionately as someone who is broadly gender critical but also supportive of trans rights and am just sad this has turned into such a vicious debate.

That unfortunately was inevitable from the point of Stonewall et al insisting on a position incompatible with women's rights and gay rights, lying that women and gay people were not affected, and now trying to disappear the populations inconvenient to their political agenda. Which also makes a complete lie of their using words like 'tolerance' and 'inclusion'.

The only way out of this is to accept that people with different beliefs can live side by side and have different provisions, and respect and tolerate this. It is not women or homosexuals who have a problem with this and insist that it must end in winners and losers instead of solutions that equally meet all needs.

Huge thread and I've not time to check if already mentioned but Kathleen Stock made very good point on twitter linking to this

warwick.ac.uk/services/equalops/learnmore/chartermarks/stonewallworkplaceindex/

archive.md/qSjNr

which show the extent of the direct influence Stonewall has on a university and how the need to move up the index affects how they pursue their HR policies.

which all rather undermines NK batting away responsibility for what happens when institutions apply Stonewall law.

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1461290418075807745

What are we supposed to do? Go on a date with anyone that asks us, and sleep with them whatever their biology is? To not go out with them or not sleep with them would be discriminatory?

Apologies if I am rehashing the general discussion, I'm new to actually reading this board.

@ItsRainingProstateOwners

This is Dolores Umbridge, to give you an idea. It amazes me that for a generation seemingly obsessed with Harry Potter those who want to cancel JKR really don’t seem to have understood any of the messages in it.

Thank you for posting that clip. Umbridge seems rather creepy!

I think she made a massive strategic mistake by adopting a similarly aggressive stance on trans rights to the one they had recently adopted on gay rights (eg the “some people are gay, get over it” approach).

It's interesting that you mention the slightly aggressive tone of the "get over it" campaign. I was never a fan of that, because plenty of us were never anti-gay but reading them it felt like I was being told to change an attitude I never had in the first place. And I can't imagine it would persuade someone who was anti-gay for whatever reason.

Just listening to the interview now, it's pretty painful.

Just listening to this now.

What an absolutely dire, dire interview. What poorly formed views and opinions. What an inability to produce a coherent, workable position.

Painfully bad.