Beth Rigby interviews Iain Anderson

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

He does not do well!

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1682117673277337600?s=46&t=aWQLrPtVicDNf6MQpq5WVg

Single-sex exemptions

The Equality Act 2010 already supports the operation of single-sex services, where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It also permits the exclusion of trans people from those single-sex services where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This means that trans inclusion is the universal practice in day–to–day single-sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, but trans inclusion is not a universal practice in single-sex specialist services.

As Beth Rigby pointed out, in 2015, we recommended for the removal of these clauses in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry based on consultation with trans people at the time.

It is really important to say that we do not advocate for the removal of the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. When the Equality Act was first introduced, Stonewall did. That was because we were worried that they would be applied in a blanket way and would be used to wholesale exclude trans women from many single-sex spaces. We know that that has not been the case.

The bar set in the Equality Act, which is that trans women and trans men—although it is mostly used around trans women—access to women’s spaces should only be restricted as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, is very high. There has to be a very specific set of reasons to exclude trans women from single-sex spaces. Although we dearly wish that no single-sex spaces wished to exclude trans women, trans men or non-binary people, we also recognise that, for the minority of spaces that want to, it is probably not a particularly safe service for those trans people to access.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-affirms-trans-equality-policy-positions

(Just posting the actual link to the statement as it is easier for later reference to have that than text lost somewhere in a thread)

It is really important to say that we do not advocate for the removal of the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. When the Equality Act was first introduced, Stonewall did. - what does this even mean - there is a pre Stonewall Stonewall that isn't anything to do with today's Stonewall?

Bit weird that Stonewall now claim to have been so pro trans in 2009/2010 that they were fretting re: single sex exceptions potentially excluding men-with-lady-souls from women-only spaces when Stonewall didn’t even add the T to the LGB for another 5 or so years…

Is the phrase 'specialist single sex services' new? I have no idea what this is referring to. It seems to me that this is an attempt to try and create 'no debate' around some single sex spaces (non specialist??!!) - and pushing debate to just those areas where there is no chance of winning the debate.

I can't get my head around the exemptions. It there is a defendable reason for having a single sex space (proportionate and legitimate) surely this means the rationale for excluding males (regardless of how they identify) is built in. If it wasn't, wouldn't this fail the bench mark for having a single sex provision in the first place?

At least Pronce Andrew didn’t sweat his way through Emily Maitlis’s interview.

If I had been ambushed on the street by a full film crew springing nasty questions on me, I might want to publish clarifying comments (what I would/should have said) afterwards.

But this was a planned interview between Rigby and Anderson! He had plenty of time to prepare!

Did you see where PRIDE doctored a sign from ye olden days to put new modern TRA slogan on it to make it looks as if the T had always been with the LGB?

I can't get my head around the exemptions. It there is a defendable reason for having a single sex space (proportionate and legitimate) surely this means the rationale for excluding males (regardless of how they identify) is built in.

Yes. The exemption is to the default "no sex discrimination" rule. Not anything about "trans".

To be permitted to have a reason to sex discriminate, you need a proportionate and legitimate reason to exclude males. And if you have that, then that obviously includes transwomen.

And failure to exclude transwomen would call in to question the exclusion of other males - if you're prepared to admit some males, then it's not clear you can any more justify excluding other males under those sex-discrimination exceptions then you can't justify excluding others. This is one of those things we've yet to see a test case for.

I’m very pleased with Stonewall’s statement.

They’ve effectively admitted (contrary to what IA said in the interview) that they are not willing to do public interviews on so-called “trans rights”. IA only did it as he was tricked into it by being told it was a celebratory interview with a fluffy, positive slant on safe topics.

That is an admission that they are entirely unable to argue for the so-called “rights” they are demanding in an open arena.

This is also significant:

’Stonewall’s Chair, Iain Anderson said: “We remain at the forefront of campaigning for trans people’s rights, and I’m sorry if yesterday’s interview caused concern amongst the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. My priority is fighting for trans people & securing a trans equality strategy that will support the trans community”’

No pretence here that they are concerned with anyone else’s rights. It’s blatantly obvious that lesbian and gay rights are no longer important to Stonewall. Indeed trans rights are so important to them that they literally object to a charity being created that prioritizes lesbian and gay rights.

So rather than my original assumption that perhaps this was an attempt to soften the Stonewall position, to begin to admit that there are competing rights and perhaps look at how to address that fact (albeit poorly done) this interview was an absolute cock-up where an unprepared Stonewall leader was exposed, as not knowing Stonewall’s own policies and positions, and in trying to fudge them made it absolutely clear that their position is untenable.

So it would appear they are not testing the ground to see if they should replace Nancy Kelley with someone with a more moderate stance. Rather, it seems they are likely to continue with their militancy. I know it’s taking a great deal more time than it should for their policies to be thoroughly publically dismantled, but that they are pushing forward with policies that won’t withstand even the tiniest ray of sunlight is good news.

Best thing that could happen now would be for Stonewall to go to ground and mainstream media to give LGBA ample time instead.

I found it interesting how unapologetically and self-evidently Beth used the term "male bodied". I'm sure she said it at least ten times. Most times, she did say "trans woman, who MAY have a male body", sometimes she even said "intact male body".

This terminology was not challenged at all, no accusations of transphobia and no detours down the road of "female penis" or any of that nonsense.

This has to represent a fairly recent Overton window shift I think?

Perhaps it's true that the waffling answers won't have directly peaked anyone who was not particularly well-informed before, but this shift has got to help in the overall project of rolling back the lies of "be kind".

“So it would appear they are not testing the ground to see if they should replace Nancy Kelley with someone with a more moderate stance. Rather, it seems they are likely to continue with their militancy.”

That was clear from the messaging at the time of Kelley’s departure.

The messaging talked about working with their existing senior team to continue with their existing strategy.

That was a clear, albeit read between the lines, message that they thought their plans were being undermined by Kelley.

It’s hilarious that the existing team thought the problem was with the person communicating their campaign goals, not the campaign goals themselves, and then the man who presumably gave Kelley the push does an absolutely woeful interview.

“They’ve effectively admitted (contrary to what IA said in the interview) that they are not willing to do public interviews on so-called “trans rights”. IA only did it as he was tricked into it by being told it was a celebratory interview with a fluffy, positive slant on safe topics.”

That’s Stonewall’s attempt at victim status to stop the criticism from the TQ groups by claiming the Chair was ambushed, to excuse his inability to defend Stonewall’s published campaign goals.

Well done at spotting and pointing out what else it reveals about Stonewall’s position on public debate. I’d completely missed that.

Is the phrase 'specialist single sex services' new? I have no idea what this is referring to. It seems to me that this is an attempt to try and create 'no debate' around some single sex spaces (non specialist??!!) - and pushing debate to just those areas where there is no chance of winning the debate.

Yes, that’s exactly what it is. They are reluctantly conceding where it’s clear they have lost an argument - for example their preferred position is that the safety of women rugby players should be sacrificed to the desires of some males who’ve played rugby to experience ‘trans joy’ in the form of inflicting physical harm on female players. But they recognise they’ve lost that specific campaign goal and they are seeking to shore up their position with their remaining sports and award males access to whichever other sports there are with a sporting body that doesn’t care about fairness for women.

On single sex exemptions, they have given up campaigning to change the law to remove single sex exemptions and are pushing the Stonewall interpretation that they’ve used their award scheme to impose on organisations, making arguments about “case by case” basis, and “safety”.

They will never concede women’s right to privacy and dignity, and they will never concede women’s right to fairness.

They won’t do that because they would have to concede that it’s fundamentally about women’s right to privacy and dignity from men.

Now that it’s a protected belief, they can’t stop others stating that transwomen are men. But they will never acknowledge that themselves. Look how enraged the TQ lobby were about Anderson conceding the safety issues.

The use of “day to day” was pretty offensive, I thought.

“They’ve effectively admitted (contrary to what IA said in the interview) that they are not willing to do public interviews on so-called “trans rights”.

This is pretty much sticking to the 'no debate' strategy, despite the fact that there is a debate and the narrative is becoming less constrained by the day.

Every charity/lobby group that I know would love a prime time interview slot on national media to discuss their cause.

Their claim that they didn't know this strand of their work was going to be the focus shouldn't be a problem, if the focus isn't a problem. At worst it should be disappointing that another priority didn't get sufficient air time.

I am left wondering if they are genuinely ignorant about the significant errors in their reasoning, aware and conscious of their best hopes for masking it, or if they do know - deep down- but are psychologically defended against this as they can't face the truth?

Should be a fun episode 😆

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WcpKhlF6aHM

I used to live in Aberdeenshire. I'm aware of that.

That's not why Anderson is using, though. It's part of a concerted campaign both sides of the Atlantic to shift thought by manipulating language.

Yes, they have responded very quickly to the clear public revulsion and are now trying to ban the topic and have all references to it disappear.

Sport has already been lost; prisons are peaking people ( though not in the U.S yet).......

I am left wondering if they are genuinely ignorant about the significant errors in their reasoning, aware and conscious of their best hopes for masking it, or if they do know - deep down- but are psychologically defended against this as they can't face the truth?

Here, here. (Or is it "hear, hear"? - a different debate!)

It's basically the same argument as sport, isn't it.

Why do we segregate sports by sex in the first place? For fairness. This is compromised when we allow male-bodied people in women's sport. (With the added problem that you can't distinguish, certainly at amateur levels where the distinction relies on self-id and honesty, between a transwoman and just any old man).

Why do we have single-sex spaces in the first place? For privacy, dignity and safety. This is compromised when we allow male-bodied people into women's spaces. (With the added problem that you can't distinguish between a transwoman and just any old man).

‘Trans folk’, or even worse, ‘folx’, seems all-pervasive now, as is ‘y’all’ when used by non-Americans. All part of the creeping takeover of language by this ideology.

Another way that the ideology is being advanced is by its wilful conflation with issues of race.

We must be very sensitive and aware to such changes and manipulations because it will pinpoint where the movemnt is heading with its strategy.

Which is why it is important always to highlight women's needs for dignity and privacy - and not just safety.

Every charity/lobby group that I know would love a prime time interview slot on national media to discuss their cause.

Their claim that they didn't know this strand of their work was going to be the focus shouldn't be a problem, if the focus isn't a problem. At worst it should be disappointing that another priority didn't get sufficient air time.

This is a good point. For a different charity and cause it would be annoying for the interviewee to not recall the pecific detail about that strand. They would keep saying 'I'm afraid I don't have the figures to hand ...' but this guy didn't know the basic principles of their work on trans rights. Even though that's the charity's main focus. He didn't know the underlying claims and aims beyond fluffy 'everyone should be included and live their best life'.

Presumably he's signed off documents and made speeches which set it all out, but he got some of it backwards. He said there are competing rights. The statement said there are never competing rights. Polar opposites. The problem for him was when actually facing direct questions, and being a human being, he had to acknowledge the competing rights because it's blinking obvious there are competing rights.

It's interesting that the example of the woman asking for a female to do intimate care managed to find his human being instincts, but sport (& it sounds like breastfeeding too) didn't.

So, if Nancy Kelley left Stonewall yesterday and the Chair has been put back in his box, I wonder who decided they needed to issue yesterday's press release?

It's going to be hard for Corporations to justify spending ££ to be diversity champions if Stonewall has just announced that they don't give two hoots about lesbians and gays....and....would women please just shut up and do what they are told.