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.

SHE DID WHAT?

Wow.

There is a murky mess at the root of all of this. Plus, a lot of money that seems to have been swallowed up by Stonewall for very little return.

Stonewall is doing harm to women, measurable harm.

I am so disappointed in them.

NK is legit quite sinister, isn't she? She comes across very sweet and reasonable, a bit dim - but behind the scenes she's determined to eradicate women's rights. Lies and manipulation all the way down, but with a charming exterior. Hmm.

Yes, it is difficult to fathom.

She probably is clever as she seemed to be covering her tracks .

NK has now been proven to have lied at least twice in the WH interview. Not a good look for a national charity who receive millions of tax others money.

And although she acknowledged that in sexual relationships ‘consent is paramount and we all want who we want’, she added that ‘structural oppression can influence who we want’.

How would she feel if her relationship with her wife were dismissed in such a way? What structural oppression has made her fancy women instead of men? How can she not see that such a question is hugely homophobic?

“she added that ‘structural oppression can influence who we want’.“

I think this means she is bringing ‘Critical Race Theory’ into her argument. I know little about it, but “structural oppression” would suggest that.

She further complained that the ‘highly toxic’ cotton ceiling issue was ‘analogous to issues like sexual racism’.

When you stack this with her quote in the BBC cotton ceiling article, even without the direct context of the rest of the letter, there's no getting away from it being a Stonewall view that lesbians rejecting males who claim to be lesbians too is a form of bigotry akin to racism.

This really cannot be let go of, it needs to be brought up repeatedly. The biggest LGBT+ charity in the UK is promoting the idea that lesbians are as bad as racists if we say no to male sexual partners. Stonewall advocates for corrective rape.

@FloralBunting

She further complained that the ‘highly toxic’ cotton ceiling issue was ‘analogous to issues like sexual racism’.

When you stack this with her quote in the BBC cotton ceiling article, even without the direct context of the rest of the letter, there's no getting away from it being a Stonewall view that lesbians rejecting males who claim to be lesbians too is a form of bigotry akin to racism.

This really cannot be let go of, it needs to be brought up repeatedly. The biggest LGBT+ charity in the UK is promoting the idea that lesbians are as bad as racists if we say no to male sexual partners. Stonewall advocates for corrective rape.

The racism argument really doesn't work for her, or for anyone who uses it in this way though.

Two reasons - firstly no equal rights campaigners ever argued that the way to achieve their aims was to get their oppressors to have sex with them. Ever.

And secondly in the example of a racist discounting a potential partner because of their race - nobody is missing out because of that. A black person does not benefit from having a racist white partner. It's not the same as being overlooked for a job or harassed in the street. "Lack of sex with someone who hates a fundamental part of who I am" is not a problem for anyone.

Obviously there are men who fetishise certain races and do seek certain women out, but those relationships aren't anything to shout about. Men having sex with women they hate is nothing new. It's very male, in fact, because of the notion that sex is something demeaning that is done to someone inferior (and all the related slang to do with fucking someone over, being totally fucked, etc etc)

Kelley's argument is miles away from what anti-racism is about and is much more akin to incelism.

I’m pleased NK said outright that it is not transphobic and actually totally fine for a woman in a DV refuge not to want transwomen there as well. This issue caused a family argument a couple of years ago which is still having repercussions. I can now approach this year’s family get-together with the might of SW behind me. No doubt the TWAW faction will want her cancelled for this.

Crouton - If you’ve not read to the end of the thread, NK’s interview on Thursday has not aged well in light of today’s exposé in the Mail on Sunday which undercut Nancy’s warm words on Thursday. Link up a page or so.

No wonder the BBC announced it was leaving Stonewall.

If Stonewall is interfering in the BBC’s editorial policy by demanding changes to a journalist’s work because Stonewall doesn’t like it, then Stonewall’s role and its influence in the BBC was completely untenable.

No doubt the TWAW faction will want her cancelled for this.

Yes and it's completely incompatible with her statement that trans women are 'literally women'. If that were the case there would be no justification for ever excluding them from any space which is protected for women.

The racism argument really doesn't work for her, or for anyone who uses it in this way though

While I completely agree with your post, it also doesn't work for the very simple reason that not wanting to sleep with someone is an absolute boundary to the point that, even if you love everything about the person you can still say no with no reasoning needed. No means no. It's basic consent for everyone. It's just an extra-shocking layer of abuse for the lesbian CEO of an LGBT+ charity to back this specific kind of coercion on lesbians.

I have been sitting here with my mouth open reading this this morning. I only just listened to her interview on WH yesterday and found it fascinating how hard she worked to convince people Stonewall are of very little consequence. It was like someone from the Vicar of Dibley had accidentally found herself on national radio and was slightly bemused to be discussing her little charity which raises £532 and a half eaten Victoria sponge in donations every year at her local village fete. Insert tinkly laugh. Her answers were all so weirdly at odds with the harm they have done as a charity and the role they've played in whipping up a lot of aggression online.

I am grateful that the Mail is doing its thing exposing some of the more toxic elements of all this. I mean, who on earth could have predicted 15 years ago that one of the leading charities set up to support LGB people would imply that lesbians are the equivalent of sexual racists because they don't want to sleep with men?

It was like someone from the Vicar of Dibley had accidentally found herself on national radio and was slightly bemused to be discussing her little charity which raises £532 and a half eaten Victoria sponge in donations every year at her local village fete. 🤣🤣

her little charity which raises £532 and a half eaten Victoria sponge in donations every year

Which reminds me that the Stonewall annual accounts are due to be filed by the end of the year.

It was like someone from the Vicar of Dibley had accidentally found herself on national radio and was slightly bemused to be discussing her little charity which raises £532 and a half eaten Victoria sponge in donations every year at her local village fete. Insert tinkly laugh.

Totally brilliant analogy!

Particularly apt as it comes out today in Jo Bartosch's journalism, that she was most of the time as near as lying through her smile and tinkly laugh and head tilt "I'm just a mum" performance.

That STonewall had tried for a year to intervene in BBC editorial decisions

There are multiple FOI proofs that Stonewall has also directly and explicitly encouraged organisations to remove the word mother from maternity policies.

And so on ...

She gave a verrrry careful performance on Woman's Hour. So careful it makes me distrust anything she said.

@LizzieSiddal

NK has now been proven to have lied at least twice in the WH interview. Not a good look for a national charity who receive millions of tax others money.

I said on the other thread, that I wondered whether EB have prior knowledge of that email before the interview.

Other people on this thread, had said they had a feeling that EB was setting up the interview for NK to have to come back for part 2 when something else came out.

It then begs the question, who leaked the email, and why?

In a time line, you have Stonewall's Head telling the BBC how they should do journalism, the BBC eventually telling the to piss off and publishing the article, Stonewall and some staff throwing a tantrum about it, the BBC confirming they were leaving Stonewall, Stonewall's head doing this interview, and then the leaking of the fact Stonewall's head was trying to control the BBC.

It looks a lot like some executives at the BBC have got thoroughly fed up with the emotional blackmail and bullying and have pushed back massively to expose the crap and the behaviour that led to them telling Stonewall that they'd lost the plot - whilst being able to behave in a completely professional and sane manner (unlike Stonewall).

It take a lot of heat off the BBC for making that decision. And it makes Stonewall look like a bunch of basketcases.

Which is quite frankly, what they have become. They certainly aren't serving the interests and the goals they set out as an organisation to achieve. Its in the public interest for us all to know. And the BBC have a public interest / service remit.

Stonewall jumped the shark.

People are going to really start noticing now. NK tried to throw her weight around too much and the over reach has pissed off the wrong people. Finally.

As we heard in the interview on Thursday...

EB: You would love to have more influence over the BBC and its editorial policy?

NK: Yeah, of course.

Stonewall jumped the shark.

I used the same phrase yesterday in RL. I think there’s no coming back for them and wonder whether NK will “resign with mutual agreement” so the board can blame everything on her, then do several reverse ferrets.

Great post @RedToothBrush. I agree entirely. I think a lot of people at the BBC have been thoroughly pissed off about the Stonewalling for a long time.

Sharks jumped. Worms turned. Genie out of bottle. Naked Emperor etc etc

@FloralBunting

The racism argument really doesn't work for her, or for anyone who uses it in this way though

While I completely agree with your post, it also doesn't work for the very simple reason that not wanting to sleep with someone is an absolute boundary to the point that, even if you love everything about the person you can still say no with no reasoning needed. No means no. It's basic consent for everyone. It's just an extra-shocking layer of abuse for the lesbian CEO of an LGBT+ charity to back this specific kind of coercion on lesbians.

You're absolutely right, but it's terrible that it needs to be said. Agree also with other posters re. the disingenuous VoD village fête fundraiser vibe.

I missed @RedToothBrush's post.

Someone is certainly keeping a very close eye on what women are saying.

I can just picture them fogging up their screens with their outraged hyperventilations.

@BoreOfWhabylon

I missed *@RedToothBrush*'s post.

Someone is certainly keeping a very close eye on what women are saying.

I can just picture them fogging up their screens with their outraged hyperventilations.

Hopefully that means they’re getting worried.

After all, if they were feeling confident they wouldn’t feel the need to silence us.