Stonewall have change the word “research”

[stealtheatingtunnocks]

This is an article citing “research”, which comes from the metro, by a female percentage who believes themselves to be a man.

stonewll does not understand normal child development and this charity is doing harm

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1550427949819695104?s=21&t=cGLUbAr7pnFA-jxzzZ6avw

Sonya Douglas has done a thread on it too:

twitter.com/SonyaDouglas/status/1550787777771589632

"Blocked by Stonewall so can’t comment directly, but what they’re essentially showing us is that their business model incorporates children rejecting their bodies in return for several annual celebrations of their subsequent lifelong medicalisation and worsening mental health.

If the #Savile scandal taught us one thing, it taught us people are willing to turn a blind eye to abusers if they can plausibly plead ignorance of intent. It’s important to know that Stonewall is making money out of promoting this disconnect between bodies and personality.

As SRS’ market value is projected to hit $1.5B by 2026, every step of the road to transition, from Gender+ education to all the repeated corrective operations, is an opportunity for someone to earn a pound of flesh as the price of their strategic silence.

www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/sex-reassignment-surgery-market

Stonewall’s pronouncements, like Mermaids, like certain ally MPs, should always be read with these financial incentives in mind. Unlike with #Savile, we all have a chance to speak out this time. This is monetised child abuse on a global scale. You should say something."

How do people know that the writer of the crappy article stonewall quoted is a transman?

Research. Yeah, right.

This, following hot on the heels of the girl guiding article about the boy who wanted to be a girl since he was a toddler and now goes to Rainbows like all the other girls, is worrying but I think going after EYFS is a tactical mistake.

Also in the Mail on Sunday

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042699/LGBT-charity-Stonewall-says-children-aged-two-tell-theyre-transgender.html

I agree about so openly going after EFYS being a tactical mistake

This seems acute

They have lost their minds.

if they mean ‘teaching a binary concept of gender’ then they clearly mean gendered toys.

mermaids say toy choices are nothing to do with gender identity.

which is it?

’trans identity aged 2’ fucking hell, is there any insane depths they will not plumb?

Stonewall said: ‘As children and young people grow up, it’s crucial that they can be themselves without feeling that there is anything wrong about doing so.

Being a child imagining himself or herself as different beings, as people they know, or in varying roles; or being a child who doesn’t like girl’s things if she is a girl, or boy’s things if he is a boy, does not mean the child is in a mismatching body that has something wrong with it.

No child should ever feel there is anything wrong with the body they have.

Stonewall said: ‘As children and young people grow up, it’s crucial that they can be themselves without feeling that there is anything wrong about doing so.

The gaslighting is industrial. They know. It's not an ideological belief. It's deliberate.

‘LGBTQ+ inclusive education simply means ensuring children grow up understanding that LGBTQ+ people exist and that we are valid. It means learning that some families have two mums or two dads, and that some people are trans and non-binary

I find this quote from the article worrying for some families teaching children about traditional family values is important. No one is under any obligation to believe or support anyones religion or approve of same sex couples /families. Thats their choice surely. As long as they arent bullying anyone or inflicting harm on anyone thats up to them surely.

I can tell you this , that any comments my dd gets about her sexuality, well its not from those who have a religious background where its just not a thing. They are they ones who keep they mouths shut, are still.perfectly polite/civil its just not something they embrace fir them selves.

Which is surely their right ?

This overstep from ensuring that children are not being bullied, and kids know that there's nothing wrong with them for feeling the way they do, to you must celebrate and make huge big deal out of very openly and obviously accepting everyone's lifestyles and everyone being made to think.amd speak.the same way is horrific.

SW desperately trying to backtrack and damage control. Think they’re just upset someone said the quiet bits out loud and showed their agenda

LGBTQ+ inclusive education simply means ensuring children grow up understanding that LGBTQ+ people exist and that we are valid. It means learning that some families have two mums or two dads, and that some people are trans and non-binary.’

This is why they backed mermaids to sue the LGB alliance. They're still desperately trying force team the TQ with the LGB to give trans ideology the same legitimacy.

Blatant.

Good to see this nonsense getting a wider audience than Twitter - I think it might give a few more people pause for thought.

They are getting a terrible pasting on Twitter.

I keep saying this and I keep being wrong - but this time surely they've overstepped the mark.

A lot of ppl tweeting at James Cleverly to pull their funding.

Yes, the tweet was about transing toddlers, but they realised to try to mitigate the backlash they would have to force team it with LGB. It’s funny they don’t insist toddlers know their own sexuality isn’t it? Because they know how absolutely horrifying and disgusting that would be, but by conflating LGB and T, the LGB get dragged into this too.

There are some very rich people who will fund stonewall even if the public funding ceases.

They need shutting down.

How much public funding does SW receive each year? I object strongly that tax payers are funding this warped ideology.

1.25 million per year @mrshoho

@Clymene

It's hidden way down in the metro article

Anti-bullying policies aren’t cutting it. Not for my daughter, or for anyone in the trans community – as a trans man, I know this firsthand.

I mean an important piece of information like that really should have been in the first paragraph or two. But it's not. Hmmmmm? Wonder why?

Just a quick reminder that there is a petition on the petitions board against teaching the idea of a ‘gender identity ‘ in RSE lessons in schools. It has no basis in science and promotes the idea that a child has a potentially ‘wrong’ body that doesn’t match their mind.

Remove references to 'gender identity' from relationships education guidance'

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618970

Stonewall seem to have had an interest before in this kind of age group, if not in EYFS then in KS1 ie the next group up from reception.

Tim Loughton's question revealed this, as it contained information about them invoicing the DfE for a "report on English KS1" in financial year 2020/21. From the Excel file here downloadable here:

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-10-22/61056

Thank you. Such a waste of Public funds. On top of the various public organisations who currently pay them for providing resources and training.

I’ve been trying to figure out who the author of the metro piece is.

there aren’t that many trans men who are parents, and very few of them have written about it, and even fewer who’d write for a newspaper.

it reads fo me like an audition piece for a job at Stonewall.

<points at the obvious pachyderm>

Now that Stonewall have said the quiet bit out loud - that they're after transitioning 2 year olds - it'll be interesting to see whether this mess of a government make any response?
Nancy Kelly said in an interview that primary schools were their next target and this is the outcome.
Maybe time for another letter to my MP asking why an organisation looking to transition 2 year olds is allowed to work in schools?

Nancy Kelly said in an interview that primary schools were their next target

Which interview was this, please? Seems somewhat odd, given the apparent direction of travel of say, the Cass Review.

i wondered that too @stealtheatingtunnocks but then that particular person is usually more than happy to attach their name to what they write

unless of course they’ve worked out if it’s only ever them writing about it, that actually it’s an infinitesimally tiny issue affecting less than 10 ppl and that just maybe we should rewrite our language, policy & practice just to make them personally feel better

Should not obviously