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

No, I expect they'll want her sacked.

A horseshoe ferret?

We have horseshoe bats.

I think she and them are getting what they deserve.

Resistance is futile, we will not add you to our perfection because you're a bunch of unhinged nutters. 😂

(I think I might have attached to the wrong one)

And what TRA wants, TRA gets. (or I'll thcweam and thtamp my foots until I gets what I wantses!)

It will probably be the beginning of the end of Stonewall, another burned out husk left behind transactivism.

Maybe more LG Stonewall supporters will see how this obsession with trans rights is affecting them. Stonewall only added trans rights in 2014.

At the point they decided lesbians were sexual racists if they weren't open to straight sex to validate men, I gave up and walked away, and I was there funding them way back at the point they were an excellent organisation.

As once were WI and Guides before the rainbow got them.

They will only accept a trans chair, I expect.

But not a transman.

Hmm. Stonewall may have to choose between complete capitulation to 'trans' as demanded or representing the LGB population it was set up to fight for.

I'm curious why Dugdale made that statement, thinking about it. She's a career politician, married to another career politician. She understands signalling and comms, and she knows very well what open support for JKR would do.

And of course Dugdale is part of Scottish Labour, who are open about support for women as biological sex category. Recently, very bluntly.

Hasn't she left Labour?

Yes, but they’d have to struggle very hard to regain LGB trust if at all.

I wonder how long before Bash Back attack the Stonewall office.

It’s a strange time though isnt it? I imagine that at home most people can talk about their GC views and in a balanced way about JKR. Kezia has probably read the JKR treats and can see they’re not transphobic… so forgot that when saying something benign and true in an interview that she’d get flamed by the radicals who aren’t as well in touch with reality.

But it’s marvellous this has happened - the cancellation of a head of Stonewall for being moderate and saying what most people think will attract a lot of sunlight. Get the popcorn!

It highlights how the TRAs don't give a toss about the LGB they have attached themselves to.

In the original article on this thread it states that there are around 2000 LGBTQ organisations in the UK and out of those there must be a couple of hundred that are just for the T. How many are just for the LGB? I'm guessing it's just the one, LGB Alliance.

We attach great importance to democracy, yet talk very little about capture.

It seems to happen a lot. Most people, in this case LGB people, go happily about their daily lives. They are grateful to Stonewell's past achievements and are generally supportive, including the odd financial contribution. Things are good enough that they are not fired up to actively But they are not sufficiently fired up to get actively involved beyond attending the occasional Pride march with friends.

People who are fired up are the Trans-lobby, who then make a lot of noise within a small space allowing them to set policy direction.

Once an organisation has been captured in this way it becomes hard to reverse. There is a gap between the view of the organisation that ordinary members and general society want. People could get active and organised and try to "retake" the organisation. But most people just withdraw, and we wait till people understand that this is not the organisation we thought it was.

Other examples might include the BMA, which has a strong trans lobby, a strong consultant lobby and a strong overseas medical graduate lobby (for some reason my Facebook algorithms are giving me lot of posts trying to organise a block vote of the last group in favour of specific candidates.) There is so much wrong with the NHS and the BMA should ideally be a constructive voice representing the needs of all its members, especially given the levels of unemployment amongst both British and overseas trained doctors currently resident in the UK. But this is unlikely to happen.

Or the National Trust, with their proxy voting system designed to elect the Chair's nominees. Certainly the Greens , or Labour and Momentum. Or Guardian or BBC editors whose desire to preach "right-think" has lost them their all important credibility.

We need organisations that will give a constructive voice to ordinary people in the different aspects of their lives. If not we could end up with a captured state and society apparatus with its own agenda and populist
politicians on the other, who give voice to ordinary concerns in a less than constructive way.

I wonder if Kezia thought she would lead Stonewall back towards representing the needs of the wider LGBT community. She now knows.

Disappointing to see KD is reverse reversing! But it's given me a nice new user name courtesy of Jolyon so, every cloud and all that

I agree with much of what you have said, however

But most people just withdraw, and we wait till people understand that this is not the organisation we thought it was.

Let's not gloss over the fact that a lot of people (most of them women) have been doxxed, threatened, hounded out of their jobs, and generally all-over cancelled for not "withdrawing" from the fight.

I, for one, am not qualified to judge others for withdrawing, if the alternative was to lose their livelihoods and friends.

What I meant is from active membership of the captured organisation. For most people with busy lives it would be a huge effort to practice the level of entryism to restore Stonewall to be an organisation that properly represents LGBT people.

The fight goes on and there are useful signs that the tide is slowly rolling back. But the fight has mainly had to be via brave individuals and new organisations. Too many existing organisations who claim to represent gay people or women have not been fit for purpose.

I wonder what Kezia will do now she realises she is in a hostage situation.

I reckon they appointed her with a brief to take Stonewall back to a more LG focus and recoup some of its credibility in the corporate world. And that her comments about JKR were part of this shift, only of course the TRAs have gone crazy and now she is having to manage them. Butbi doubt they really care about regional trans groups ignoring them. They want their seat at the tables where it matters back. I think the JKR comment was directed there.

Women (some of those "brave individuals") have also been threatened and hounded because they were "active members."

I don't think we are discussing at cross purposes here, but I don't agree that individuals reneging on their membership was the root cause of the problem. It was a reaction to the problem, which was loud, aggressive men deliberately targeting charities and umbrella organisations in order to block democratic processes (illegally).

Blame those who are actually guilty. Blaming members (women) for not staying and getting involved sails perilously close to victim blaming.

What she and everyone else not yet initiated will learn is that no, once you've taken that TQ focus, you can never take even the slightest step away again. It's now all TQ or nothing forever. This is not a political agenda that can handle sharing.

And of course the TQ view is that homosexuality is unacceptable.

You have to call it 'queer' because that removes any mention of sex.

Homosexual attraction is wrong because it relies on sex, recognising people's sex and acting on their sex reality rather than their chosen reality. Someone declaring that they are homosexual is not tolerated; the TQ beliefs can't and won't exist in the same space as a sex realist who names sex and wants relationships exclusive to sex.

Conversion of homosexuals is required (the right kind of conversion obvs, it's fine to tell lesbians to 'learn to cope' with providing unwanted straight sex to men in the role of unpaid sex workers, with no selfish thoughts like actually wanting to enjoy it or to be with a partner capable of any kind of empathy or care for you in the process). Oddly this is almost entirely about women on a sexed basis; gay men are annoyed and harassed by women seeking sexual connections and experiences with them but those women are not, for example, suggesting that they die in a grease fire, mentioning barbed wire wrapped or splitery baseball bats with which to beat or rape them, and those women are not any kind of threat of sexual violence.

Stonewall had a chair announce that a lesbian who was not prepared to consider a man expressing his inner self to her as sexually relevant to her was a 'sexual racist'.

What's left of the LGBT+ in Stonewall and other such orgs is merely the TQ and allies where the sexuality of the allies is irrelevant. It's just a TQ lobby group now. It is not even compatible in beliefs with the EqA protections for homosexual people; the SCJ was as much about their protections as women's. The LGBA is the first major group of those LGB people who wanted to have an organisation that represented them instead of them being there merely to support and further the TQ political interests against their own.

I don't think the TQ will permit any walking back on this, but I'm heartened that this suggests that the world is realising (and so is Stonewall) that Stonewall has become solely a TQ organisation and the LGB bit is just meaningless window dressing. It is no longer relevant as the voice of lesbian and gay people.

I am not "blaming" anyone. A few years back my gay neighbour and I discussed Stonewall. It had been his life. It had helped him gain his rights, it was a voice for gay men through the initial Aids crisis, he had several friends who had worked there and he had actively volunteered.

There were still a load of problems affecting the London gay community, too many drugs being one. (the reason he eventually moved out of London and away from temptation.) Another was transgenderism. He had no fewer than three friends who were suffering from mental health or drug related problems who had somehow been convinced that all their issues stemmed from the fact they were in the wrong body. Vulnerable gay men, teenage girls, all being gas lit by a lobby led mainly by a group of hetero-sexual men.

Stonewall was no longer "his" organisation.

I don't disagree that women have had the brunt of the abuse. They usually do, and you have only to look at the hate JKR receives. What I was talking about was the hollowing out caused by entryism, which leads to ordinary members to withdraw. Which means that support for those who might find themselves under attack is gone.

It is difficult. I am not very good at expressing myself.

No, as I said, I don't think we are discussing at cross purposes here, and perhaps we are both conflating two different points: the fact that these organisations are no longer fit for purpose, and the fact that former members no longer feel that these organisations have their backs.

One leads to another, one stems from the other (I'm not sure that makes sense). It's chicken and egg.

I'm sorry about your neighbour. I left Stonewall many years ago, but was still having to deal with it through their workplace schemes. We all had to go along with it, or risk losing our jobs. In fact, for a while, helping to drive these schemes became part of my job! Talk about a rock and a hard place! Thankfully, I have left that job behind now.

You're not alone in being unsure how to express things - apologies, I didn't mean that you were trying to blame women. I just don't want the horrible experiences of women in all of this to be forgotten in the shuffle of "it's all so complicated, and people should have done more to stop it from happening."

If the tide is truly turning (how many years have we been saying this?), I am very much concerned that the blame game lies ahead, and women will be the first targets for "why didn't you say something at the time?"

Is that what Karma looks like?

The organisations who handed themselves over to the trans rights activists will find themselves forever force teamed.