Stoneewall accused of dictating LGBT event

[flyingbuttress43]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/26/controversy-hits-governments-first-global-lgbt-conference-stonewall/

Sir John Hayes, a former Cabinet Office minister told the S. Telegraph that it is odd that the Government had given Stonewall a whip hand in organising the Safe To Be Me conference in June - the largest event of its kind, with worldwide policymakers gathering to tackle discrimination and promote legislative reform and equal rights.

Sir John said that it was odd that not withstanding its understandable purpose it is being dictated by the very people that much of the homosexual community no longer believes is working their interests.

Eighteen officials across three government departments are planning the event, headed by Liz Truss, who has called for Whitehall to cut ties with Stonewall's diversity training.

Kate Harris, co-founder of LGB Alliance said it appeared that "only those who promote gender identity ideology are involved in conference planning".

The S. Telegraph also has a feature by Zoe Strimpnel headed "Left-wingers used to champion women - now they appear to have abandoned them"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/26/inconvenient-truth-cannot-roll-play-dead-existence-women/

She said it was not at all surprising that women have been abandoned by the left. "After all, the Left has a long history of misogyny: in 1970 the women's liberation movement burst out of the frustration of socialist women tired of being treated as third-class citizens, there mainly to serve tea, provide sexual favours and have their ideas pinched by their beardy comrades."

As a second wave feminist I can attest to the truth of that - as indeed did Doris Lessing in her biography.

It seems as if Stonewall has been encouraged to do this by their allies within the Civil Service who gain career points from doing this.

Yet again, where is the enforcement of Nolan Principles? There is a distinct CV and career advantage for the people involved to do Stonewall's bidding. These are non-immediate financial and reputational advantages and they stand in direct conflict with Nolan.

I think the strategy is right. Election coming in 2023/4. Let the conference go ahead, involve Stonewall all the way through. That makes it harder for them to say the Tories don't support LGBT people.

Meantime, you say no to self-ID, you put through new free speech legislation, you deal with childhood transition and you put GC people on your front bench. You await outcomes of key court cases (Forstater/Bailey/Sanchez). You let Labour/Lib Dems/Greens make fools of themselves about cervices and dinosaurs for as long as possible.

After the next election you deal with NHS, school, university, police and civil service capture.

After the next election you deal with NHS, school, university, police and civil service capture.

The longer these policies and cultures are entrenched, the more difficult, laborious, and expensive it will be to unpick all of this mess.

I'm struck by how often from 2015 onwards, people keep talking about a turning point and yet, here we are, with the same issues, more entrenched, and it's worse.

Leaving everything in place is acting in line with Denton. Not having these discussions so that the public can understand what is happening is exactly what Denton advises.

www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/dentons-campaigns-kids-switch-gender-without-parental-approval

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document?s=r

Embarrassing:

I agree that that's an issue. I also think you have to move with caution and not scare the horses sometimes.

The Tories have a large number of MPs who support LGBT rights (as I do). If done right, changes to deal with the overreach of the trans movement could bring some of the them along. If done wrong, the same changes could alienate those people as well as empower Labour to position the Tories as anti-LGBT.

Labour look silly at the moment. If the Tories go too hard they won't.

I understand the strategy point being made. It makes sense. For true free speech and inclusivity though, the government should ask groups like LBGA.

Personally I think the government should roll out impartiality training like the EHRC did. It should be required.

I also think you have to move with caution and not scare the horses sometimes.

The Tories have a large number of MPs who support LGBT rights (as I do). If done right, changes to deal with the overreach of the trans movement could bring some of the them along. If done wrong, the same changes could alienate those people as well as empower Labour to position the Tories as anti-LGBT.

It sounds like an invert of the Denton playbook. Except that, in the interim, anti-women policies have been approved, women's services erased, schools turned into a ideological battleground, women are being abused for holding public meetings with some degree of collusion from the Police and various authorities, and the public understanding of basic science has been muddled in a way that defies belief.

The invert Denton playbook would be played out on a completely different territory. The territory is the manipulation and creation of one side which is a tactic of which Sun Tzu would approve.

I acknowledge why you and others have adopted the rhetoric that supporting women's legal rights is anti those of other people through forced teaming. That has been one of the most striking successes for Denton's strategy.

They should. But if the conference lets a certain group of people keep their slogans while the work gets done elsewhere, I can live with it.

there was a thread sometime ago related to this. A whistleblower from No.10 shed sunlight on the 'lgbt' advisors ideological agenda and this conference. also related to the so called 'conversion therapy' bill which they wanted to announce at the conference under the 'safe to be me' tagline

'I acknowledge why you and others have adopted the rhetoric that supporting women's legal rights is anti those of other people through forced teaming. That has been one of the most striking successes for Denton's strategy.'

I don't know what you mean by this. I don't think supporting women's legal rights is anti those of other people at all.

"i think most people in this room know the people who are self-appointed experts are not experts at all they are activists with a very specific agenda and if you leave it to these people to make decisions you do not end up with evidence based policy making and you go down a path which in some cases is extremely dangerous that is what we're here to discuss today now""
Bev Jackson co-founder LGB Alliance

Thinking about it again, coverage of the conference may be difficult for the government.

It seems unlikely that it will be so carefully managed that what's discussed, is so clear that its free of confusion. "LGBT conversion therapy" is one such area. The LGB element is clear enough, with the proviso that it's rooted in some form of same-sex or bisexual "cure". "Sex" being the operative word.

But discussions on "gender identity" - including about "gender identity conversion therapy" are likely to be unclear. They're also likely to lack evidence.

Given the lobby groups' near-exclusive focus on "young people" (ie children), it seems a safe bet that political and biased "recommendations" about what should be taught in school will be another lobbying area in this event.

Basically the areas which are currently a cash cow, may well be the ones on the agenda. They seem not likely to be uncontroversial because as is well-rehearsed by now, such areas might well be loaded with emotional statements along with a dearth of evidence.

It's hard to imagine that this will pass without event for the government.

This is an important discussion. I'm hoping that tabbycatstripy is right. Despite Stonewall's calamitous behaviour, they used to have a brilliant reputation. To abandon them would involve the UK in a tedious international slanging match.
How on earth this conference will play out heaven only knows. But with their excessive anti women/lesbian ideology and catastrophic approach to child safeguarding, it's likely that some of their regressive beliefs will be exposed. OR they'll behave like grown ups.
My money is on the former but I'd like to be proved wrong. Those of us who used to support Stonewall, attend their events and use some of their once great resources with children in schools would like to see them back in the democratic fold of mutual respect and democratic values.

I think they'll behave themselves much better than they have been doing. They recognise they're losing the war now.

But (frankly) I can't see them back in the fold of respect and democratic values. They are clearly extremists.

Former no10 SPAD(?) has commented:

"Govt pays £m and assigns 19 staff to conference where someone else decide who attends. Even though this organisation wants to nullify Equalities watchdog & thinks lesbians should be re-educated to like a penis on their women. Nuts.
🚩Plain and simple - if a lobbying organisation wants to nullify the @EHRC and stop it having a voice on the UN because the equalities watchdog dared to balance rights, then that organisation is not a good part of civil society. There is nothing it will not destroy to “win” 🚩"

mobile.twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1507844459412832265

"a Government Equalities Office official replied by pointing out that Stonewall was the civil society co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition, a global partnership currently held between the UK and Argentina, which is organising the conference."

very telling. it's worse than just organising a conference.... see here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4282385-UN-Report-erases-female-people-as-a-distinct-group

Well it is, yes. The UN is very much for gender ideology. Bearing in mind that we left the EU, so risked being politically isolated in Europe, then (I'd argue) the Johnson govt misread the room in terms of any potential alliance with a Biden administration that is much more left-wing and in favour of GI than anyone thought it was going to be, I don't think the Tories are doing too badly in countering some of the harmful stuff.

They need to do much more, but doing it in line with other countries as people become more aware of the implications and the whole thing unravels has to be the better bet.

Thanks for making the link with the older thread, DERF. It's certainly worrying. From the other thread's OP, there's this in particular:

"To make these a reality, “States must uphold rights related to gender and sexuality as universal and inalienable, and ensure recognition of the right to bodily and mental integrity, autonomy and self-determination of everyone,” said Madrigal-Borloz.

[This includes a demand for recognition of sexual rights for everyone. The report does not distinguish between children and adults and the special protections children are placed under by UN law, especially in regard to sexual exploitation and abuse.]"

"Everyone" includes "children"

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

Resister yes red flags indeed. The 'experts' organising the Safe To Be Me conference including the Equal Rights Coalition, aim to get Argentinian style gender identity into the national laws and policies of 42 countries.

lgballiance.org.uk/2021/11/14/un-expert-endangers-lgb-rights/

That LGBA link is informative and concerning. It'll be interesting to see if LGBA and/or any other groups make more formal representations about how this conference is being convened and governed.

If MP’s get letters from LGB constituents asking for the conference to be cancelled, they’d be able to raise it wouldn’t they?

The original Whistleblower was Nikki da Costa, who stood down as Johnson’s director of legislative affairs in August.

Related:

Boris Johnson’s senior advisers are ‘letting Stonewall dictate trans policies’
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4400323-Boris-Johnson-s-senior-advisers-are-letting-Stonewall-dictate-trans-policies?msgid=112455715#112455715

Boris Johnson warned of 'ludicrous contradiction' - Stonewall
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4401172-Boris-Johnson-warned-of-ludicrous-contradiction-Stonewall-TRA-advisors-Rushed-conversion-therapy-bill?msgid=112477166#112477166

Gary Powell: Why Conservative backbench MPs should demand that Boris Johnson cancel the “Safe To Be Me” international LGBT conference
lesbianandgaynews.com/2022/02/gary-powell-why-conservative-backbench-mps-should-demand-that-boris-johnson-cancel-the-safe-to-be-me-international-lgbt-conference/

Like the GOSH event, it perhaps shouldn't be cancelled. But it should be inclusive and it should reflect UK legislation, and not the repressive dogma of extremist agendas.

Da Costa now has a column in Conservative Home (not sure if weekly or monthly). It may be that she could address all these issues there.

Agree it should not be cancelled but if it could be made inclusive.. what Stonewall don't realise is that if they asked LGBA to join them and help make it more inclusive then their own survival would be more assured.

@tabbycatstripy

I think the strategy is right. Election coming in 2023/4. Let the conference go ahead, involve Stonewall all the way through. That makes it harder for them to say the Tories don't support LGBT people.

Meantime, you say no to self-ID, you put through new free speech legislation, you deal with childhood transition and you put GC people on your front bench. You await outcomes of key court cases (Forstater/Bailey/Sanchez). You let Labour/Lib Dems/Greens make fools of themselves about cervices and dinosaurs for as long as possible.

After the next election you deal with NHS, school, university, police and civil service capture.

The problem is if they don't win the next election and they haven't made the changes, Labour's going to be self-fecking-ID all over the shop.

I HATE that I'm worried about Labour winning. Hate it.

re Stonewall and TRAs working with GC's... it was momentus when the TRA's were sat next to GC feminists at the Middle Temple LGBTQ+ Forum Inaugural Annual Dinner in November.
twitter.com/MForstater/status/1460675198278062082

It took a neutral body to stand up to the TRA's. Could the government do this?