STONEWALL REVERSE FERRET INCOMING

[Taytoface]

So, it looks like their income tanking might have finally made them see that trans rights is not quite the gravy train they thought it was. They are now pivoting to getting compensation for gay veterans who were badly treated. And apparently JKR is a wonderful lady, just needs to be a wee bit more kind.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/19/things-could-go-backwards-kezia-dugdale-on-safety-lgbtq-rights-and-the-future-of-stonewall

I think this is a very good point. It may be that Stonewall's only possible move now is to shut down, to avoid the force teaming. Or admit that, going forward, they accept the force teaming, and announce that they will only be about the TQ, and no longer anything to do with LGB. Thereby losing their historic, famous raison d'être.

I wonder which they will choose? Probably the one that loses them the least money.

It’s really not good for ferrets to keep changing direction 😞#FerretRightsAreMustelidRights

My point was primarily about entryism and the fact that once a determined, energetic and focussed group take over the organisation is changed and no longer represents what people think it represents. It is a slow process, both before people/members become aware of what is happening and for an alternative organisation to grow and gain a level of trust.

And in the meantime the real risk of false prophets claiming to represent the views of ordinary people. So far-right populists are espousing views on gender that many reasonable people share. But that does not mean that those people are far right or are anything other than mainstream centrist (both right and left). In the same way that Tommy Robinson kept banging on about Rotherham when very few were doing so. What happened was shocking and everyone should have been appalled, and this Government should be making sure the problem stops now and never happens again. Here, to me the blame lies in those politicians and organisations who prioritise their own interests, given lobbyists or voter blocks, over what they know is right.

Ie that the inability of "democracy" within key organisations to prevent entryism and resist lobbying is leaving too many people without representation. And that this is dangerous. Especially in our age of AI ridden social media, where more than ever we need organisations we can trust.

Don’t worry @MassiveWordSalad, the ferrets are being well looked after.

I think I agree with what you have said. I'm not sure I completely understand, it's all getting a bit esoteric for me!

Perhaps you could start a thread on "entryism" vis-à-vis organisations and their democratic processes. I think it would be an interesting discussion, although I'm not sure how much intelligent insight I would be able to contribute!

No new thread! My point was that Kezia may have thought that by becoming Chair she could be part of a process of steering Stonewall back towards where it should be. Representing all LGBT people, not just TRAs. I assume as part of the recruitment, discussions were had about the need to stop the revenue losses and regain trust.

However TRAs are well organised and energetic. Whereas your "ordinary" gay or lesbian has a life to lead and is not looking for a fight. So TRAs start controlling key committees and policy making. They are wise enough to stay away from the public facing roles, but as Kezia is discovering, she will not be allowed to lead from the front.

We are in agreement ( got there in the end) 😀

... except that I think Kezia has been thinking only about Kezia in all of this...

And for many of us, in the meantime, anything longer than LGB has become a big waving red flag anyway.

Or maybe a skull & crossboners.

As Ophelia points out upthread, prioritising one PC above all others is contrary to the EA and in most cases, against the law. Much as there is a lot of work done to try and maintain an ignorance of the law, court cases and the glacial direction of movement of the govt should reveal that any organisation not following the law will not be getting funding. Any sensible government will recognise the terrible mess that has resulted from supporting the TQ+ - and sacrificing/subordinating the rights of all other groups is not sustainable.

So I expect Stonewall were trying to tentatively inch back towards a more balanced stance.

We all know how that goes down with TRAs.

Well that was quick. Poor old Kezia. So no-one is going to get a chance to ask the questions I'd like to ask, and that she should have asked before she took the job and now she very urgently needs to ask herself:

What really is the point of Stonewall now? What is it actually for?

And once she's figureed that out, what can Stonewall do for same-sex attracted people that LGBA can't? Plus LGBA does it with energy and enthusiasm and with side orders of women's rights and child safeguarding built in, which Stonewall doesn't.

She wouldn't have needed to apologise to anyone if she'd worked that out before taking the job. She'd have said: this is where we're all going, L, G, B, T, Q, + and all, like it or lump it.

She's attached herself to some version of Stonewall that just doesn't exist any more.

This.

I would like to see a compelled returned to honest advertising. Stonewall is not in support or favour of homosexuality. Because it's incompatible with the T.
The only LGB people left are those submissive to and enabling of gender ideology. It is a trans lobby group and should not be able to imply it is anything else; they need to be honest.

And yes, funding has to be equally spread between characteristics, and the T lobby is absolutely clear that anything they are involved in has to be solely at all times about them. They have chosen to make themselves incompatible with any other groups' needs being recognised or aided at the same time. Which is fine, but means separate funding and separate organisations that are specifically for meeting the other groups with firm boundaries.

May be it's time to drop the L and the G and just say homosexuals, words matter, it would be harder for the genderwangers to hijack something that is that unequivocable. It means what it says, Same Sex attracted, no gender, no identity, no wiggle room for the fantasist and liars.

I've been using that word for myself for years.

However it draws immediate criticism and targeting, because it makes obvious that you are an evil sex-based person who won't put out for a man's special inner self. It's like everywhere (AI included) insisting that the word is 'queer' and not 'gay'. It's like saying you're a lesbian. If you're a man everyone goes ahhhh and applauds. If you're a woman you get glared at and challenged, because nice women don't see sex and call themselves 'queer' to genuflect to gender ideology.

I spend a lot of time pointing out the offensiveness of that, not to mention that gay and 'queer' are not at all the same thing any more, queer could mean anything from 'I'm straight but not boring' to 'furry'. I don't use the LGBTQTIB&Q etc etc, wtf does any of that mean or have to do with me? It's nothing to do with homosexuality.

I'm not sure I would feel comfortable using the term "homosexual " to describe myself. Maybe it's a holdover from when some of these terms were used as slurs, and still are by some people. I never relinquished my claim to the term "lesbian" - I'm using it!

I think we'll get there eventually. I just worry that there won't any lesbians left from Gen Z or Gen A by the time we sort it all out.

Good thing there is LGBA.

But why do you need to describe yourself as homosexual, surely that would only be necessary if you think you're being chatted up or you're doing the chatting up. In everyday life why would you need to identify as anything.

Is a trans chair a bench that identifies as a chair?

#TransChairAreChairs

Well, lesbians used to have organisations that offered support and health information and other places like that. Not just dating nights and sites. Holiday companies. Walking tours. Therapy sessions. Now there are almost none, because the word "lesbian" has been forcibly appropriated by those who think that anyone can be a woman, anyone can be a lesbian.

There was a very brief time, perhaps 2010/13-2015, when I used to think, well, we have all the rights we need now, do we really need all these separate, lesbian-only organisations?

Then along comes Stonewall's spectacular bandwagon, then social media, then smart phones, and then suddenly lesbians need those organisations more than ever! And now they're gone.

😂Clever!

When I came out in the late 90s I was able to call the local Lesbian Line & get involved in pub nights, quiz nights, book groups, Sunday lunches, hikes… all exclusively for lesbians. It was wonderful.

It feels immensely unfair that the young women coming out now dont have all that as an option.

I remember it well! We didn't yet have equality, but we sure had a lot of places to ourselves. I'm not even sure how many young lesbians would want to come out now, or even if they know that being a lesbian is actually an option! Feels like being back in the 70s and 80s again.

And the idea that lesbians could have or would have been remotely interested in penises was viewed as a stupid & tasteless joke.

Victoria Smith in the Critic

https://archive.ph/BIMwo

https://thecritic.co.uk/dont-kowtow-to-cry-bullies/

Dizzy ferrets, who've also taken a few nasty blows to the ego head, are now under the rainbow umbrella.

This 'umbrella' seems to be surrounded by barbed wire and have machine gun towers at the end of each spoke. I've seen people dragged into its shelter. They'd seemed perfectly happy outside. Now they're pale and quiet. They glance nervously over their shoulders when they talk. I'm surprised it's so dark, under the rainbow.

It was a (straight) male porn fantasy when I were a lass. Said as a joke to women, but definitely a sexual fantasy.

I suppose it still is, but now they’re able to get naive young women who no longer feel “empowered” to tell them to F off, as we would have. “Be kind” really has been a disaster for women hasn’t it?

Excellent article, thanks.

You have to put your actual principles to one side, and instead be on hair trigger to respond to every potential tantrum. How can you do good in such a position? How can you do anything?

Does Kezia Dugdale actually have any principles to put to one side?

To paraphrase: Yes, she's got principles. And if you don't like them, she has others.