Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

[AdamRyan]

Apparently Kemi Badenoch is a bit confused about the difference, claiming wide consultation with LGBT groups but actually only meeting GC feminist groups.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1760281735990738972?s=20

It reminds me a bit of when Maria Miller did the consultation on trans rights and didn't consult any feminists.

I would expect MPs to be consulting both sides, but more than that I'm kind of offended to be described as LGBT for my GC stance . Seems unfair to both gay people and feminists and like the old anti-feminist "you are all hairy lesbians" trope

Mermaids was founded as a support group for parents of children attending GIDS. It morphed into something else, I’d say it was policy group first, then became an identitarian group.
Susie Green was the catalyst for the switch from peer support to policy change and then the identitarian takeover made her superfluous to requirements.
The EDI Vampire is eating Mermaids alive.

I don't follow them, I disagree with their policy and so am not particularly interested in what they say.

Stonewall I find more interesting. Its a very long standing charity. I think some of the differences between it and Sex Matters is the relative youth of Sex Matters as an organisation, so its still growing and finding influence. Stonewall is much more established and I think in decline, it's struggling to stay relevant.

Why did the founders of Stonewall disinherit it from their grassroots principles?

Some of the OG Stonewall founders/activists have criticised Stonewall for making a similar shift/losing sight of it’s mission (eg Simon Fanshawe). Adding the T (circa 2015) Is a very obvious change of direction, especially as the T got their big law change first (same sex marriage was legal if one spouse had a GRC way before it became legal for same sex couples with no GRC)

Stonewall is definitely on the decline, I don’t think they’ve actually managed to appoint a new CEO yet? (And Mermaids have just extended the tenure of their emergency acting CEO, rather than appointing a permanent one).

I don't know, you'd have to ask them. I suspect their perspective is that they haven't. I'm also not an expert on stonewall but I do think they did a lot as a charity around gay acceptance in this country so I'm not inclined to see them as the evil brainwashing activist cult that some people them as.

Well why on earth would anyone want to be CEO of stonewall? They are going to get a really hard time.

Same as the speaker of the HoC. Who would choose to do a job where you get personally attacked all day long?

I can foresee a situation where noone has any kind of public profile job, apart from sociopaths who don't care how others view them. In my opinion that's where this polarised, right/wrong discourse takes us to. I see very strong parallels with communism and fascist authorities, which is ironic given so many people seem to start from a perspective of being worried about having other peoples values imposed on them.

I looked it up - Nancy Kelly left at the end of July 2023.
As of now Stonewall have no CEO listed and 2/5 directors are described as ‘Interim’.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are

It’s the perfect time for LGB Alliance/The Lesbian Project/Gay Mens Network to reset the agenda back to the pre-2015 policy aims (and then look towards the countries where LGB people still don’t have legal equality).

There are still loads of T orgs, (Beaumont Society, Global Butterflies, GIRES, Gendered Intelligence, the ghost of Mermaids) and former LGB that added the T orgs without the name recognition of Stonewall (ie the conglomerate that initially proposed to challenge the LGB Alliance’s charity status but then mostly backed away leaving Mermaids to do the heavy lifting… and subsequently self destruct under oath).

I don’t see anyone giving Stonewall’s interim Managing Director a hard time?
Surely it’s possible to run a charity without becoming a media figure? Mermaids temporary CEO seems to be doing a reasonable job of not attracting negative attention (eg gives interviews to relevant specialist publications rather than going on This Morning)

Example: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/lauren-stoner-this-organisation-needs-stability.html

Of course they are. When politicians are saying things like "Stonewall does not decide the law in this country" it is making g the organisation sound like a threat to democracy and so whoever is running it will be getting all kinds of hostility, from outright threats to ongoing questioning.

If the government of the day are also vocally opposed to the aims of the organisation, a lot of people aren't going to view the organisation as a place they can make the kind of impact they want to.

I am not at all surprised noone wants to take the job.

https://care.org.uk/news/2023/12/govt-stonewall-does-not-decide-the-laws-of-this-country

Stonewall has misrepresented the law and that is a serious fuck up (and there will be more court cases because of it) but they either hire someone like Mermaids Lauren Stoner to go in and say ‘Troubleshooting interim CEO, new start, lots of internal reflection to do’ or they admit their brand name is so tainted that they can’t hire a CEO and dissolve the whole thing.

Why limp on as a charity that is so distrusted they can’t hire anyone? And if you do decide to carry on regardless, you can’t really complain when the government don’t want to meet with you.
The Stonewall Equality Index and the Stonewall Champion scheme have imbedded imported Californian EDI policies into UK institutions, orgs and businesses that are incompatible with U.K. Equalities Law. They fucked their own good name into the dirt.

Erm. Perhaps you'd like to take the time to find out.

Its been well publicised...

I know thanks.

The question was directed towards you to research and actually stop talking and rejurgatating bollocks without critical thought and actually bother to listen and think...

Oh get over yourself. I am perfectly capable of critical thought. The ins and outs of stonewall are irrelevant to Badenoch lying to parliament.

If I were to do some reading, I expect I'd still be able to see the nuance in Stonewalls position because I'm naturally a consensus builder. So I doubt any view I'd have on it would be acceptable to you or others on this board, because even without reading i can pretty much say that I'm not going down the line of "Stonewall is a brainwashing death cult...."

Well I agree with the first part.
I think the latter part is more difficult, our law isn't that clear and requires interpretation which is why there are all the legal challenges going on and the focus on amending the EA. Which I really really wish the Conservatives would just fucking do, rather than engaging in pointless political jockeying and fighting.

My personal belief is that TRAs did a very good job of infiltration (I'm using the old definition of very coordinated extreme trans activists like Whittle). They are a busted flush now. But at their peak they were influencing the Conservatives as much as the other political parties and public organisations.

I still believe there is a role for a charity to push for LGB rights and I think the ongoing focus on trans issues is a red herring. It would be more productive to acknowledge what happened and move forwards together rather than refuse to work with people because "they are captured" or "they are trans exclusionary". It just creates heat and noise rather than action.

Well why on earth would anyone want to be CEO of stonewall? They are going to get a really hard time.

Perhaps they should stop trying to push unworkable, unfair policies on everyone by stealth then? As Kemi Badenoch made clear, they do not decide the law in this country.

You keep lecturing us with a complete lack of understanding of basic principles and posing questions which are totally disengenous.

What do you expect?

You need to improve your understanding of the basics.

Stonewall haven’t acknowledged their wrongdoing tho, so the only way to move on is without them.

You keep calling me stupid, disingenuous and bad faith so what do you expect?

I was on the original westminstenders threads with you and you were really balanced and rational. Why have you moved to a more hostile way of engaging with people? It's not a competition to prove who's most clever or something

I can't comment because I'm not LGB. I assume they must still be doing valuable work because they still exist. Will be interesting to see what happens to them.

Good old Kemi eh?
Maybe she could get on with delivering the amendment to the EA. It's been almost a year of mulling which is quite a long time.

To actually understand what you are saying before you say it!

Like the whole concept of why lobby groups can be problematic and the differences between grass roots movement and top down power imposed on and against grassroots movements.

You have THE most superficial understanding but you think because youve hear 'lobby groups bad' that ALL lobbying is bad.

Sometimes lobbying is simply a group of the wider public who have got off their arse and got together to campaign against the odds.

The fact you have totally failed to grasp the difference between that and powerful well funded and well connected organisations and individuals speaks volumes.

Saying you are disengenous is the more diplomatic option.

Oh and the reason Stonewall’s EDI training scheme is incompatible with UK Equalities legislation is that it fails to acknowledge that the various protected characteristics have competing needs and that clashes are inevitable.
Stonewall puts T above everyone and everything, which is why it’s an identirian org, rather than a policy org.

Sex Matters aren’t campaigning for the removal of the Gender Reassignment protections entirely, they just want the clash with Sex protections acknowledged and both groups catered for in separate provision (or where appropriate, eg sports, for the category that can best accommodate both MtF and FtM-on-performance-enhancing-substances to be renamed ‘Open’)

Speaking of which, I hear a trans and NB domestic violence shelter has just opened in Lancashire, which is exactly the sort of 3rd space provision that can resolve the competing needs of 2 groups (and the sort of segregation Stonewall has been vehemently opposed to, lobbying the Gov to remove Sex based protections entirely).

I became a ‘terf’ when I realised that supposedly pro LGBT orgs were promoting ideas that would harm both LGB & T people in the long term via backlash/over course correction.

Stonewall threw away their years of solid reputation by overreaching aka ‘getting ahead of the law’.

Kemi is not a super human who can necessarily a) circumnavigative parliamentary process and schedules just because she wants to b) persuade enough of her party to support the issue c) persuade her party masters that it's worth doing before an election rather than use the subject as a traction issue for an election.

I'm not a fan girl by any means but christ understand what individual MPs (Inc minsters) can and can't just 'do'.

Kemi is still trying to win an argument within her party on several levels

This is just another stick to beat with.

I dont say all lobby groups are bad and I did say upthread I misunderstood what lobbying could mean.

I think groups that are not transparent about their agenda, are set up by former MPs, are financially donating to the current government and are being used as "starter jobs" for future MPs are shady as fuck and I don't think that's controversial.

If you don't see a problem with that then you are "disingenuous at best".

Kemi is the minister for women and Equalities and has the backing of "A man is a man and a woman is a woman" Sunak. The party has a huge majority. If they can't get this change through then they are just as "captured" as anyone else and nothing would change if Badenoch was in charge.