Stonewall – evil or stupid?

[MsGrumpytrousers]

Just looking at the completely idiotic tweets Stonewall have made about the 'gay cake' case, where they've managed to completely misunderstand the implications.

"Today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights is a backwards step for equality. Human rights belong to people, not businesses.
No business should discriminate against their customers, and no discriminatory behaviour should be held up by equality law. Today’s decision leaves the door open for legal uncertainty across the UK and causes continued unease for our communities.
Our thoughts are with Gareth Lee [they know he hasn't DIED, right? He just had to walk to a different bakery to get his cake iced?], who deserved more support from the European Courts after seven years of working towards equality.
At Stonewall, we will continue to work with our partners, the TRPNI, to address the implications of this judgement for all lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer communities.

They've got about two hundred replies pointing out that the ruling isn't about refusing to serve a gay man, it's about refusing to ice a cake with a slogan that goes against your beliefs, and it's exactly the same as if Gareth was a baker and someone had asked him to ice a cake to say "Gay men are perverts".

So is it that Stonewall are stupid? They've done so much harm that I assumed they must be evil. Or are they just so misguided they can't think straight?

Desperate to remain relevant and keep the money flowing in ...having taken up the cause of the Most Oppressed Ever they still need to appeal to gay men as they , generally , are relatively better off and may be persuaded to offer financial support ..follow the money ...or desperate need for it ..

Some people are just very heavily invested in the idea that they are morally superior to others. And that’s where Stonewall are. Trans rights have been presented as the cause all right thinking people should be behind. And this is why it’s so hard for them to take any criticism or even alternate viewpoints on board. Because that would mean admitting that they don’t always hold the moral high ground. And that threatens their entire self image.

Evil doesn't appear in a puff of sulphurous smoke and cackle loudly. It only looks like that in films because otherwise the character wouldn't stand out or be easily identifiable.

Dismantling human rights is evil.

For all these people that talk about having lovely trans friends, don't they have lovely women friends? Or don't they matter?

I feel incredibly let down by SW.

I was extremely active in the campaign against Clause 28 and then in the push to repeal it.

I donated money, took part in various interventions, wrote, lobbied, agitated etc.

My work frequently collaborated / cooperated, I had close friends who worked for the organisation.

But this latest iteration?

My stomach turns at what they have done to same sex attracted people who define their sexuality according to sex not gender. I abhor their erasure of ‘homosexuality’ . I am disgusted by their manipulation of the corporate and public sectors as a power mongering money grabbing campaign that puts power snd money before women’s rights abd lesbian interests.

I hate the way they have colluded with the shutting down of free speech. Used non democratic mechanisms to shut down debate in parliament. Stoked the attack on the LGB Alliance.

Having righteously and staunchly won the repeal of clause 28 and won the right to equal marriage, they have become the epitome of the phrase ‘Power Corrupts’.

The honest and old position of LGB was that it represented a group of people of all ethnicities, faiths, politics, every other characteristic, and the sole unifying factor was sexuality.

I wonder how much is motivated by the fact that if they did acknowledge and try to represent the interests of the whole, they would have a limited number of areas they could really lobby in? Because you probably are only going to find a few things that say, Julie Bindle, Cynthia Nixon, Douglas Murray, Andre Tally, et al, will agree on with regards to politics and social issues.

Which raises the question, to what extent is pretending they are representing a more united constituency mainly about creating a means for a few people to shape political policy as they see fit.

It also reveals the limits of identity politics. Sure, identity groups share a few interests. But without any exceptions I can think of they all represent groups that contain a wide diversity of political, economic, social and religious views.

It has trod the Tony Blair path from hero to zero: Gay rights were its Kosovo, trans rights are its Iraq.

Very well put!

They're a charity in search of a cause

Stonewall was indeed, after gay marriage set the seal on society's acceptance of gay rights. Now it's a money-magnet that's found a way to keep the funds pouring in.

@CheeseMmmm

Thanks for explaining oink!

Santa interesting comparison and made me have another thought.

Could also be related to the current way things are discussed, esp on social media.

In this case around-

The way it's generally not discuss etc.
But pick a side. Ignore any parts you might not be sure about. And take your place as a combative in a fight.
All that matters is winning.
If anything said by opposition that means any little doubt. Dig in deeper. Fight harder. Advance more aggressively. Any weakening in resolve, any niggles about the total justness of the fight. Ignore. Focus on the win. You can't desert your fellow combatants.

There must be plenty people who are caught up like that. At this point CAN'T do anything to cause dissent in ranks, weaken the resolve to win at all costs.

Interestingly, I often interview for what one might call “elite university” applicants, and one of the key skills we are looking for is the ability for candidates to change their mind and synthesise a new argument when presented with new evidence that contradicts a previous point. We’re looking for people who are flexible in their thinking style, and who can respond to new material and use it to change or develop an argument into a new position, not ideologues who ignore evidence.

If someone keeps doggedly arguing a certain position, even when they are given new contradictory evidence and asked how that changes their view, that tells us they aren’t going to do well at a subject which requires a high level of conceptual thought, and making use of logic and evidence to construct an argument.

What we really don’t want are people who think their job is to defend a losing position against all comers. That’s not what critical thought is about at all!

Human rights organizations and institutions are structured in ways that assumes continuous growth, like any company. But this model is incompatible with human rights organizations because their mission is to destroy the justification for their continued existence.

And so the most successful and effective human rights organizations necessarily turn harmful when they're eventually forced to manufacture outrage for their continued existence.

Brilliant analysis. That's exacty what is happening. Not only Stonewall, but others that thought jumping on the trans bandwagon would revitalise their fund-raising. Amnesty is a shameful example. Sending placards to a demonstration against a conference on ending violence against women and girls:
filia.org.uk/latest-news/2021/10/26/filia-statement-on-amnesty-international-uk

@Theeyeballsinthesky

The really awful thing in all of this is that there are actually positive things they could do with their money for the trans community. They could fund support services for trans ppl, they could fund refuges, they could put money into third spaces but they don’t. There is good that they could go but they eschew that in favour of steam rolling over womens rights

Couldn't agree any more if it were possible.

Noticed a while ago and once noticed it's so so obvious. And also eye opening, upsetting, outrageous, morally bankrupt and any other words that mean past shitty and into blatently outrageous.

All the orgs with a T included or only for T that I've come across. Read strategies, visited their websites and nosed around a bit, read fair bit SM and various statements in SM. Read 'what we do' blurb, documents and reports produced, etc.

Obviously this is the main ones and ones I've come across. There are (I really really hope) smaller/ lower visibility orgs with a defined remit to deliver help and support on the ground. Orgs who are actually DOING something in real life to help actual trans individuals who are struggling.

Because all the ones I've seen are doing FUCK ALL to actually do anything tangible for any of the group they exist for.

And that is despicable, dishonest, irresponsible, underhanded... I can't express how angry, upset and just, I find it difficult to get my head round tbh.

What do they do?

• insist that no reliable, large scale data is available eg NHS, prisons, housing, benefits/employment data..

Anything that collects sex AND gender (the totally obvious way for everyone to have meaningful data) is told that they must only collect gender meaning gender ID. They work to prevent credible data of any sort on trans population being available.

-How do they decide what support to prioritise?
*Generally surveys circulated on twitter
*Selecting certain sets of people to ask
*Using methodology that is just utterly useless for rigour, reliability etc
*Some/many discard any responses they don't like and handwave it away, I think one has not even mentioned they just ignored masses of inconvenient responses
*Using a small set of surveys, findings from 1 report 20 years old, stats from different countries with implication UK etc.
*IE they control the data, actively suppress decent data, therefore control the narrative.

-I did read a report on one org site, flagged homelessness as a big problem. So I expected the conclusion- actions part to have that prioritised.
Nope, not even mentioned.
ALL the recommendations said. X is an issue. Recommended lots of (paid for) training and focus on T. Because THEY need to do something about this.

They work to ENSURE as best they can that NO ONE is able to have decent data to drill down in any way to understand if/where/what sort of issues trans people are having. Are TM or TW struggling more? Is there a large population in Birmingham who are homeless? Etc.

“They work to prevent credible data of any sort on trans population being available.”

So true.

And the TRA’s say we’re the ones trying to deny their existence.

It is now a men’s rights movement, with the exception of biological men who are exclusively attracted to other biological men.

It's been a men's rights movement for years.

Possibly all along.

Of course many who support aren't raging misogynists. They have been swept up in the cause.

The huge number of males though.
Even if not bog standard types- Ha, in your face women! You wanted equality how do you like it now!
Invariably show that they have deep seated views about women/girls from bland everyday all the way through to misogny max.

Depressing to see that so starkly.

They're recruiting:

"We accept people for who they are, regardless of age, disability, gender identity, marital status, race, faith or belief, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, and whether you're pregnant or on family leave."

Note that "sex" is missing but "gender identity" is there. Staying with sex-based rights, maternity and paternity leave have either been squashed into "family leave" or, since that follows on from "whether you're pregnant", sex-based rights deriving from the other missing characteristic - pregnancy and maternity - have been further shaped without reference to the condition of being pregnant. If it's meant to mean adoption leave then it's unclear.

The job is for an HR manager:

stonewall.earcu.com/jobs/vacancy/hr-manager-0039-stonewall-/47/description/

Evil definitely evil.

It hasn’t come as much of a surprise to me that they don’t understand the issues with compelled speech. They’ve been articulating this position for quite some time.

It’s a foundational issue with all identity politics- the failure to distinguish between compelling people not to say and do discriminatory things (generally a good idea) and compelling people to say particular things, regardless if those things are antithetical to people’s beliefs, if they believe them, or if they are actually at all constructive and desirable.

There’s a yawning gulf between the two. It’s not a direct comparison, but it calls to mind the Evergreen debacle, with the traditional “Day of Absence” where Black (BIPOC/BAME, as you prefer) students and staff would absent themselves from campus in favour of events and activities geared towards celebrating/commemorating issues particular to their population. It was turned on its head and rather than the graceful and well understood withdrawal being called for, all white staff and students were instructed to absent themselves instead. It’s a completely different proposition.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

The really awful thing in all of this is that there are actually positive things they could do with their money for the trans community. They could fund support services for trans ppl, they could fund refuges, they could put money into third spaces but they don’t. There is good that they could go but they eschew that in favour of steam rolling over womens rights

Yes, absolutely this! People are just beginning to point out that instead of ranting away all the time, they could actually do something practical with all their millions. They could be building refuges and shelters for transpeople, funding extra toilets. But somehow practical help doesn't interest them.