Jo Bartosch in the MOS

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Stonewall, BBC, cotton ceilings...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225111/Stonewall-brands-lesbians-sexual-racists-raising-concerns-sex-transgender-women.html

That article covers a hell of a lot.

Well done Jo Bartosch and MoS for publishing it.

'sexual racism'? You what, now? This is Nancy Kelley, what does she mean?

So the BBC bowed to pressure to suppress an article about young women being coerced into sex for over a year. And meanwhile, the situation the article described was still an ongoing, live issue.

@ArabellaScott

'sexual racism'? You what, now? This is Nancy Kelley, what does she mean?

It means she's been sniffing glue on the subject for sometime and is firmly away with the fairies.

Talk of suddenly backtracking on language doesn't make sense in this context, unless Stonewall are firmly into damage limitation mode.

The more clicks it gets, the more prominently it is displayed on the site.
Say what you like about the DM/MOS, the readership is vast and they have been consistently good at covering this issue.

Say what you like about the DM/MOS, the readership is vast and they have been consistently good at covering this issue.

Agree and their vast readership reaches the people who are just learning about this issue and that vast readership tend to vote.

That article doesn't pull any punches when it comes to stonewall

Comments are going up

I read the MoS without comments, what are they like BoreofWhabylon?

in her email, Kelley suggested that the BBC article would end up being ‘transphobic’ because it represented trans women as ‘sexual predators’, which was a ‘central anti-trans argument’.

She JUST said on women's hour that the BBC said, 'quite rightly', said it's editorial output had not been influenced by Stonewall.

For fuck's sake. How dare she.

And listen Nancy, if certain transwomen didn't predate on women, they couldn't call them predators could they??

And your denial might sound a little less hollow if so many women standing up to this ideology weren't threatened with rape.

Ffs.

At least the people in the comments are absolutely bloody outraged. Well, those who even understand what the fuck Stonewall are talking about when they say women can have penises.

They are having to read the article several times because it's so bloody ridiculous.

I'd be interested to know what input Stonewall have been having into drama series plotlines behind the scenes.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but Jo did hints on Twitter yesterday - I'm going to pop off to read it and come back some time later. Thanks Bore

On of the comments says BBC have now switched to Involve UK.

Just had a quick look and they seem to be full of gender crap and 'inclusion' too.

I just love how the headline refers to Stonewall as the trans lobby group. Never truer words said.

@RedDogsBeg

I read the MoS without comments, what are they like BoreofWhabylon?

there are a lot of comments that state they do not understand the headline

and a lot of general confusion

@BlackeyedSusan

and a lot of general confusion

That’s because the article actually notes that the transwomen in question retain their penises. People do not know this, and, rightly, are confused about what makes them women.

The “trans” umbrella has been a great smokescreen up to now.

Question: How much of what NK said in this email did EB know prior to the woman's hour interview?

EB laid one journalist mine for NK over JKR.

Others on the women's hour thread said they felt EB had set up the interview to be part 1 of 2 expecting NK to drop clangers which would later unravel.

It makes more sense and explains that sense, if EB knew about NK email and how this madness isn't going to wash in the slightest with a significant amount of the public.

Imagine if this had been a film or tv studio, or a church, or royal family, or political party, who was being allowed to vet and filter and cancel BBC news stories of sexual abuse by some of its stars or members.

We know Jenni Murray was silenced on this issue on the BBC's prime women's discussion programme, and this at a time when most people now know a family with a child demanding hormones and even surgery, but who must have looked at the mainstream media and thought they were going through this alone because there was no discussion.

What else have Stonewall vetoed over the years? I cannot believe we have got to this stage and not one mainstream, primetime investigative journalist outlet has wanted to cover this phenomenon that everyone I know now knows at least one child in the grip of, in some cases entire sibling or friendship groups, and I don't live in a hip or trendy area.

Another much needed article !

The sooner the lies are exposed the better

Said this on the WH thread, but no one should let go of this - Stonewall, the biggest LGBT+ charity in the UK, in calling lesbians who do not submit to sex with males who claim a lesbian 'identity' as bad as 'racists', are advocating for corrective rape.

This should be the end of them. It likely won't be, but it should.

As the email from Nancy Kelley has been leaked, why has it not been published.

Probably a data protection thing? Just because one person breeches the protocol doesn't make it legal fir eveeyibe to publically publish it does it?

The mermaids leak messages weren't publicly shown either. One assumes it would himder any legL case if there's one open?

One thing I’d disagree on is she implies that Stonewall only went militant under Nancy Kelley when Ruth Hunt was pretty much the same, she just didn’t do interviews. I meant she didn’t call us anti-Semites, but apart from that?