Stonewall: Lower the Temperature

[PorcelinaV]

https://news.sky.com/story/lower-the-temperature-stonewall-chair-calls-for-end-to-megaphone-diplomacy-around-trans-rights-debate-12924483

'Lower the temperature' just means women be quiet and stop making it awkward for us whilst we fuck you over.

This is why the Denton's document existed, why no debate existed and so on. They wanted to do all this with under the radar, shady backroom deals so that it was all over for women and girls before we even knew it began.

They've managed to do this effectively in a number of other countries but here we caught on to their game.

So no I don't think we should lower the temperature. We need to keep up the pressure, not just for ourselves but for all the women and girls living in the countries where it was a done deal before any of them knew a deal was on the table.

What an arse! There's no point in saying 'let's talk' and then refusing to answer this simple question.

We can lower the temperature when men get out of all women's spaces. Until then, asking to lower the temperature just means 'women! Accept your subjugation!'

'Lower the temperature' just means women be quiet and stop making it awkward for us whilst we fuck you over.

Quite. And I don't think he realises how deluded he is. I imagine he thought that Nancy Kelly was fucking this up, and now he, behold, a man, can adroitly sort it all out.

Mr Anderson, women have absolutely no intention of lowering the temperature. In fact we'll continue turning it up to white hot until men fuck off out of our spaces.

I attended Stonewall allyship workshop at my university (northern redbrick) a couple of weeks ago, to see what was being said, and it all seemed very toned down compared to the polemics of the past. They're clearly covering their arses.

Misogynistic weasel.

‘Lowering the temperature’ is not quite the same as ‘building trust’, is it?

When you try to build trust with someone, you usually give them something, a token of your good faith. What will it be?

''megaphone politics''

''A narcissist will always seek to control and manipulate you so that they can meet their own needs by using various weird and insidious manipulation techniques. They will cause chaos to keep you focused on them as they know they cannot sustain your interest for long because their mask will eventually fall off. They will try to distort your reality so that you cannot see them for who they are as you keep supplying their selfish needs. One of the techniques a narcissist will use is called baiting.''

https://toxicrelationships.medium.com/narcissistic-baiting-8-types-of-narcissistic-baiting-and-how-to-deal-with-it-e763038a7038?source=topics_v2---------5-84--------------------63481bea_fbb5_4ce6_971b_00f66c7219fe-------17#:~:text=A%20narcissist%20will%20also%20bait%20you%20by%20exploiting%20your%20insecurities,that%20they%20can%20manipulate%20you.

Given how central "no debate", cancelling people for wrong think, the threats, intimidation, and violence, the results it's had on society e.g. banks deciding to close people's accounts for political reasons. All the very dirtiest tactics, the ends justifying any means, no line they wouldn't cross. After all that they can go fuck themselves. They chose scorched earth, and not as a last resort, as a first resort.
Now they are clearly losing they want to sit down and lower the temperature? Nope, get fucked, scorched earth it is. Not until Stonewall and Mermaids no longer exist as anything other than an embarassing historical monument to the hubris of quasi-religious ignorance, a warning from history to future generations of useful idiots.
We are at the bunker memes stage, there's the metaphorical pistol in front of you, have the guts to do the decent thing.

I think it's important that we remember that Iain's position here (incoherent as it is) is very likely him putting forwards Labour's position going into the next GE, which they currently are likely to win.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12304879/With-Keir-Starmer-unable-define-woman-no-wonder-Stonewall-targeting-Labour.html

Last month, former journalist Iain Anderson and Stonewall chief executive Nancy Kelley met with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and a group of LGBTQ+ business leaders.
Nine days prior, Anderson had been photographed alongside other senior Labour figures: a beaming Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader; and an equally cheerful Anneliese Dodds, the party's Shadow Equalities Secretary.
'Great to host @UKLabour deputy leader @AngelaRayner + Shadow Equalities Secretary @AnnelieseDodds today for a @stonewalluk breakfast with business leaders who want the UK to be world leading on #LGBTQ at work,' ran Anderson's effusive caption on Twitter.

There's a reason Iain went ahead with this prime Sky News interview and I believe it was to kick start the 'new' Stonewall and Labour partnership to convince us all to 'calm down' and 'nothing to see here'. Which is how Labour want to play it going forward.

I know a few here think all this will stop Labour getting into power but I don't think it will. At best we have around 18 months to make Starmer and Labour realise this will never stop making them look stupid and spineless even if it doesn't stop them forming a government.

Beth Rigby made a really good start on holding their feet to the fire and hopefully journalists with integrity will continue to do so if they turn out to be the incoming government.

It's a bit of a terrifying prospect having a party very wedded to all this in power but at the same time no longer being opposition makes them much more accountable and we all watched what a mess the SNP made of it.

I think (hope?) that if Labour form the next government more journalists will remember what their job is and take the Rigby approach to scrutiny.

No more deflecting to Tories bad. If Starmer becomes PM this does all become his problem.

The worst type of abuse and most people are enabling it.

He's rather yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, isn't he:

Meanwhile, Stonewall appears to have softened its stance on the divisive issue of single-sex spaces, with Mr Anderson telling Beth Rigby that he supports exemptions in law that can be used to exclude transgender people from women's prisons and toilets.

Mr Anderson said:* *"There are protections that are in place. Those protections were put in place for a very, very good reason.

"I do support these protections, absolutely. The question is, do we need to look at the legislation that's currently in place? Does it work? I think it does work."

So, whilst he is admitting that such exemptions are necessary, he's actually arguing against them, by saying that the current "GRC? Access All Areas" situation is just fine, when we all know it's pretty bloomin' far from fine.

He's rather yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, isn't he:

This was doing the rounds straight after the interview last night 😁

A new approach, but nothing new to see. Rather than using a "megaphone" as they have before, Stonewall have now decided that is not working for them, and now they need to appear 'reasonable'.

Anderson says what he is interested in is "trans rights" and " my community". He's keen to emphasise changing the language and the specific words that are used - but the intent is just the same. Evasive and dishonest.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/people/iain-anderson

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall-strategy-free-to-be

Gosh you're right @OvaHere. Which is worrying because the tras frothing on Twitter and or others laughing is essentially people glossing over the fact this man has a degree of influence and power. I feel pretty chilled having read your post. Starmer is betraying women, just almost softly and passively and in a way that's a bit invisible to most.

I wonder when this was filmed. Was it before Nancy Kelly left, and if so, was it the pressure to comment on Kelly’s Nazi take that prompted her jump or push.

I also think OvaHere nails it. The GRA was Labour legislation, after all. They own it. I would really like to know what Keir Starmer thinks about the Martin Ponting situation. Or is it just too gauche to talk about it?

They all are

Anyone who would prefer women to stop talking about this is

" lower the temperature " ???

Absolutely not! Pour more petrol on it and burn it to the ground, i say!
No quarter should be given, nor one single inch of ground be ceded! NO, NO, NO!

And as for the labour party, if they ( keir and the NEC ) were serious about upholding womens rights and safeguarding children, they wouldn't have let the 25 year old, Oxbridge grad, also called Keir, stand for election in one of yesterdays 3 by - elections, who from what i gather, has now been elected and amounts to another twaw voice on the labour benches!

Boiledbeetle · Today 10:29

I hadn't seen that, but it's so obvious, isn't it?

Does anyone remember the Open letter from 2018 when a number of people (including the founders of LGB alliance) wrote to Stonewall setting out their concerns about a clash with women's rights. They got an extremely pissy reply from Stonewall denying there was any clash of rights and a refusal to discuss further. It was in response to this that LBG Alliance was founded.
The Chair of Stonewall acknowledged that there was a clash of rights, I wish this letter had been brought up and he could of been asked if he disagreed with Stonewall's stance now. No debate only ever came from one side.

At best we have around 18 months to make Starmer and Labour realise this will never stop making them look stupid and spineless even if it doesn't stop them forming a government.

And if they get in, prepare to create a women's movement and a temperature on this debate that makes the current one look like mid bloody winter.