The week that Sent trans fanatics into retreat.

[impossibletoday]

Interesting article. I'll try and archive it

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/08/trans-fanatics-retreat-stonewall/

Sajid Javid ordered the Cass review. @lemonpepperlady

It's not a retreat, it's a tactical withdrawal from one front.

Expect advances on other fronts.

Thanks for the article and the archive link. I feel a bit bucked up after reading that. Definitely a few letters of the alphabet away from how I usually feel on a Monday!

The CIPD, which is the organisation for HR professionals, recently stated that gender was a protected characteristic not sex. As long as you have HR professionals spewing this shite, you've got no chance of coming sense prevailing.

That is all great news which I for one needed.

As for amending the equality act, we don't need to providing it's made clear that it always did mean real women and men

If the government simply wrote somewhere prominent "of course it means biological men and women" that would be the end of it.

Failing that we do need it changed or we must convince every store and institution one at a time and then convince them all again when the activists have been at them.

Agreed. There's been far too little frothing. Something is brewing.

I don't blame you, and I'm always cautious.

Bearing in mind what is coming down the pipeline with the WESC (potentially led by Kate Osborne, an extremist who is no friend to women) I'm feeling quite anxious ...

Two things:

Scottish government have chucked their conversion therapy bill (they've 'paused' it). I wonder if Labour are taking note?

NHS are now apparently asking for sex, at least in some instances; I've seen trans people on Reddit complaining about it. But yes, masses of work to be done there.

On we go.

Scottish government have chucked their conversion therapy bill (they've 'paused' it). I wonder if Labour are taking note?

Isn't it just paused in the hope that the Labour Westminster government will do the heavy lifting for them?

.

Like other PPs, I feel cautious. The people behind the transing of children are very determined, very vocal, very aggressive. The fact that their MO is very similar in numerous different countries suggests to me that they have a lot of power too.

However, we have done better in the UK at pushing back than almost any other country. The one thing that I think might really make a difference now is if the Charity Commission publishes a damning report on Mermaids. If it comes out with something wishy-washy, or clears Mermaids altogether, we will have to carry on fighting. But if Mermaids goes under, that will be a major victory for child safeguarding, and it will be difficult to see how the people pushing the transition propaganda will come back from that.

Ostensibly, yes. But I think it's significant that they have not decided to pursue it.

Since when did the SNP declare faith in Westminster policy? That's not how they roll.

Plus, they're on their last legs/shoogly peg, etc. Anything they don't do right now won't be getting done, realistically.

The key thing that will make all the difference is whether we are able to continue to talk about it.

'Gender critical' views are WORIADS, and protected, but that still depends on the media.

In that respect we are, I think, worse off than the US, for example, who have the 1st Amendment rights. Our freedom of speech is very precarious and always, always requires defending.

Keep eyes on the Online Safety Bill, people being jailed for tweets, Ofcom, etc.

(and attacks on X, Telegram, etc)

Keep eyes on the Online Safety Bill, people being jailed for tweets, Ofcom, etc.

At the risk of sounding like Mad-Eye Moody, would that be constant vigilance, Arabella?

This is such a klaxon about the constant need to defend rights and to be on the lookout for stealth actions and entryism that is focused on undermining them.

Of course. There's always a tug of war between state control and individual freedom, and the line moves back and forth all the time. It has to be watched very carefully.

I mean, I used to trust Amnesty and Liberty to do that. But.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

The Free Speech Union have read the article to

"Nonetheless, Labour is standing by its plans to make it easier to change gender by “modernising” the Gender Recognition Act (GRA).
As it stands, transgender people are required to submit evidence they have lived as their preferred gender for two years in order to obtain a gender recognition certificate.
Instead, Labour is expected to replace this requirement with an effective cooling-off period that would last for the same amount of time, while also swapping a panel of doctors and lawyers for a specialist doctor."

Are Britain's institutions turning their backs on gender ideology? – The Free Speech Union

But Labour are not going to amend the EA 2010 to read 'biological sex'.

Some good news in an email today from the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

"I’m writing to let you know that we have decided not to renew the College’s membership with Stonewall and to share our plans to improve our equality, diversity and inclusion work moving forward.

Stonewall helped us to become a more inclusive organisation, however, we are acutely aware that there is a risk in being affiliated with an organisation that may speak on matters relating to the professional practice of our members, but over which the College has no direct control.

The College has evaluated its membership of Stonewall and decided not to renew when it expires in December."

That's a surprisingly detailed response.

Previously organisations have said that they are leaving because it doesn't give value for money, or other similarly bland reasons. By contrast, their statement is a clear distancing from what Stonewall is saying.

Stonewall helped us to become a more inclusive organisation, however, we are acutely aware that there is a risk in being affiliated with an organisation that may speak on matters relating to the professional practice of our members, but over which the College has no direct control.

I agreed that the response is detailed. I might interpret the sentence that I've quoted in several ways. However, the useful outcome is that they have recognised the potential reputational risk of their association with Stonewall and decided to cancel their membership for now.

Stonewall helped us to become a more inclusive organisation, however, we are acutely aware that there is a risk in being affiliated with an organisation that may speak on matters relating to the professional practice of our members, but over which the College has no direct control.

And this is why no organisations should have been affiliated with Stonewall in the first place. All they had to do when considering affiliation was ask themselves the question "What happens when Stonewall's aims diverge from ours?" And then decline.

Yes.. Things feel far less ominous than they did just a year ago, thank god, or SJ and JKR!