Stonewall change definition of transphobia - questioning gender identity ok now

[fromorbit]

Huge climb down. Looks like those pesky terf women were right all along AGAIN.

Saying that trans women are men is no longer "transphobic" according to Stonewall.

Dennis give good analysis and provides text:
1/ The gender borg have every right to be furious with @stonewalluk for sneakily ditching their belief in gender identity in their new definition of transphobia. Political transvestitism holds that men in dresses have soul-like female gender identities - Stonewall now denies this
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1885735444836388921.html

The reverse weasel move is an attempt to find a safe place to claim lost ground, but opens them up to attack from TA fanatics as well as looking more absurd to normal people. They staked everything on hating women and gay people and now want to retreat when it is unpopular.

Time for a moment of silence folks - not having sex is no longer a gender/sexuality or under threat ! Ace/asexual is gone from Stonewall!

ripx4nutmeg
Just three months ago Stonewall ran 'Ace Awareness Week' and promoted its 'Ace in the UK' report, the result of its two-year 'Ace Project', which supposedly showed the discrimination 'ace people' face. Stonewall has now quietly removed 'Ace' from the list of terms it uses

The Stonewall Gendercide continues. Oh the humanity!

Maya has been tweeting about this. So I think it is only a matter of time before JKR gets involved.

They have however changed their definition of a TW and TM. They have taken out ‘identifies and lives as’ and replaced it with woman and man.

Wow! This is next level coverup. Stonewall now pretending they never had a problem with women who know biology!

Maya
Another thing that has been removed from Stonewall's website this year is the page defending the Diversity Champions scheme, and covering my case.
https://x.com/MForstater/status/1885743344451530912

Too LATE! We kept the receipts.

… So they are defining a trans woman as a woman, and a trans man as a man?

But we’re now allowed to call that out and say what are you talking about that’s clearly bollocks. We all know a trans woman is a man and a trans man is a woman?

Yes there are still no actual gay people. Though to be fair there are also no straight people either as the terms men and women don't mean much.

New on left old on right.

When you cannot define something, eventually, eventually, you have to admit that it is not material.

I wonder where we will be in 15-20 years. Sadly, I suspect the people who are currently dependent on stonewall as people with transgender identity will be disappointed in that organisation.

Yes, the new definition is not much better than the previous version. Basically saying the person always was a man / woman, just got the wrong label at birth.

Re: demisexual and ace/aro, I wondered about that as to whether some of the reasons for this were also the pornified (youth) culture, thus some people's way of opting out of all that. I don't mean to say that it could be the reason for everyone, but perhaps a percentage.

So what is the difference between LBGA and Stonewall now?

In general I think people and even organizations need to be allowed to change direction on this stuff.

I don't think that about SW. I think they should be disbanded.

It's a tragedy what Stonewall has turned into to. It's legacy has been destroyed. No-one will remember it's campaigns for equality for LGB people but remember it promoting dangerous gender ideology.

Re: demisexual and ace/aro, I wondered about that as to whether some of the reasons for this were also the pornified (youth) culture, thus some people's way of opting out of all that. I don't mean to say that it could be the reason for everyone, but perhaps a percentage.

Several of my dcs' female friends and classmates identified as aro or ace from around 12yo until they began to have boyfriends or girlfriends. The majority had girlfriends before they had boyfriends. There was often angsty talk about not really enjoying their girlfriend relationships, even though they were lesbians. (Clue: the reason most felt like this was because they were not actually lesbians.) Many did not start going out with boys until Y12 or later.

It was as clear as daylight that the majority of these girls were just not sexually mature yet. Their bodies were physically mature, but their brains were not. In my day they would have been accepted as late starters. In the 21st century there was something wrong with them unless they had a label.

The labels made them feel safe in the pornified world of heterosexual relationships.

The boys rarely IDd as aro/ace, they just got on with ignoring or being attracted to girls or boys. The only boy I can recall who IDd as aro/ace eventually came out as gay at university. Again, the label represented social safety for him.

If TW were always women, they wouldn't need to falsify anything to be women.

Alternatively the words women and men both need to have the same definition of 'person who is an adult' and we all pretend sex doesn't exist. But then men who want to 'pass' would complain as they wouldn't be able to say they'd transformed themselves into being a woman. It's not possible to destroy definitions and then expect to use the definition you've destroyed.

About 5 years ago, when gender ideology was really at it's peak, I worked in a small, tiny library in a quite rural village. For Pride month the central library decided we should have a big basket of all the sexuality flags on buttons to give out to kids, along with a chart to tell them what the differernt flags meant. The idea was the kids would pick the button which corresponded to their identity.

A few things struck me as interesting:

I never saw a boy even look at the basket.

The girls who were interested were in the 8 to 13 year old age, and all knew a fair bit already about the differernt flags and which one was "theirs".

Almost all were lesbians or asexual.

I could not credit that all of these adults thought it made sense to teach these kids that they should define their immutable sexuality at age 11.

My pride group at work was encouraging us to celebrate asexual awareness day quite recently, I wonder if they've had the updated information.

WPATH is not an organisation that has stuck firmly to scientific facts and data, so I assume that figure was firmly lodged in the area of the brain called 'figment of my imagination'

Who needs to be aware of asexual people, let alone “celebrate” them?
Mind boggling.

All of gender ideology is illogical, but there have been a few threads about asexuality and as a topic it rivals non-binary in incoherence.

Did you know some people who call themselves asexual do have and enjoy sex, but only with people they’re attracted to or have a connection with?

No, it doesn’t make an iota of sense to me either. And it seems it’s too much for even Stonewall to bother with.

Did you know some people who call themselves asexual do have and enjoy sex, but only with people they’re attracted to or have a connection with?

I had a friend who was a strict vegetarian, apart from the kebabs he'd have after a night out.

Have they actually changed the definition back then so it is clear it is same sex attracted?

apologies i've just seen upthread that that they haven't.

Is this, the general change in definition in response to the Forstater case?

If gender critical beliefs are worthy of belief in a democratic society then they cannot be transphobic?

Did you know some people who call themselves asexual do have and enjoy sex, but only with people they’re attracted to or have a connection with?

Wait.. wait… they only have and enjoy sex with people they are attracted to / have a connection with?

I’m sure I’ve heard that motivation somewhere else . Wait…. Nope .. nope, it’s on the tip of my tongue, I just can’t remember where I’ve heard that before..

Basically not just the Forstater case but also many other cases which said sex wasn't real and lost because of Stonewall advice. How many is it now ? Around 15 or something. So that idea couldn't last.

So this has resulted in a lot of places pulling out of supporting Stonewall which results in less money - and as a lot of this is about money even more than ideology means they are adapting. Trying to detoxify the ideology so it is an easier sell, but the problem is it is inherently dumb so it still makes no sense.

Even the Greens think paying Stonewall is a waste of money now.

Note also worth remembering Trump's actions in US have defunded groups abroad including Stonewall. Some worthy causes lose out of course, but that is what is going to happen.

Trump’s foreign aid pause expected to impact funding for UK charities

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/trump-s-foreign-aid-pause-expected-to-impact-funding-for-uk-charities.html

I'm focusing on the new definitions of homosexual and lesbian, which I find just plain odd.

Homosexuals
'have a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender'
First of all, to paraphrase T. Turner, what's romance got to do with it? What is the definition of a 'romantic orientation towards someone'?

I'm trying to work out what nefarious purpose Stonewall could have in defining homosexuality as romantic rather than sexual.. there has to be one, it's Stonewall..

Secondly, the old definition said 'attracted to someone of the same sex or gender', whereas the new one has dropped 'sex' altogether and says
'towards someone of the same gender'.
🔊Nefarious purpose alert again:
I am exclusively attracted to people of the same sex as myself. Not gender, whatever that means. Stonewall may well mean that I should be attracted to 'someone' of any sex, as long as they claim to be of the same 'gender' as me.
This being Stonewall, there's bound to be a subtext.

Again, in their new definition of 'Lesbian', they drop the old clear definition of
'a woman who is attracted to women' for the
'romantic and/or sexual orientation' phrase again.

It also says that 'some non-binary people may also identify with this term' - which is a comment not a definition, so not very helpful.

So Stonewell has introduced a new category of women with a
'romantic [but not necessarily sexual] orientation towards women' .

It arrives just in time to boost sales around Valentine's Day. Watch out for more of those Pandora jewellery ads on telly..

So far the only definition of 'romantic attraction' I have found is from Stonewall Scotland - 'Romantic attraction can be defined as a desire to have romantic contact or interaction with an individual.'

Not hugely helpful.

It seems to be a term associated with defining 'asexual' and 'aromantic'.

My best guess is not platonic but not sexual either. Lord knows what that might look like in real life.