Stonewall CEO attempting to adopt a more moderate position

[ItsCoolForCats]

He wants to "turn down the heat" 🙄

I can't imagine this going down well amongst the TQ++++.....

"Stonewall was not, Blake stressed, aiming to overturn the supreme court ruling.* *“We understand that this is the law. But we also want to ensure that trans people are protected and, along with other organisations, we are looking at what that would look like.”

Article in the Guardian today

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/nov/01/progress-takes-time-stonewall-ceo-on-turning-down-the-heat-on-the-trans-debate?shem=dsdf,sharefoc,agadiscoversdl,,sh/x/discover/m1/4

I suppose, though, peddling lies is what the CEO of Stonewall is paid to do.

The Stonewall survey finds that while almost half of British LGBTQ+ people feel more accepted by society than a decade ago, 58% of trans+ people – and 75% of trans women – feel less so.

Are they talking about acceptance as in people leaving them be or acceptance as in the validation of their identities ?

Makes it sound like they are having trouble not pissing all over the seat

'Also progress implies we are asking for something new. What happened is rights were taken away, we are fighting regression at this point.'

'What the fuck is the point of you if you don’t oppose a ruling that removes our human rights? You think they’ll stop with us?'

Ahh, men, eh!

Quite. Another term ("acceptance") in need of a definition here.

Do they really think women can't read between, under, over, through, and around all the deliberate subterfuge? We've been at this too long! 🙄

“when trans people went around the table in some of those conversations it felt really difficult and therefore (they) didn’t feel able to participate …”

Because they had no valid, reasonable arguments, presumably. Very difficult to debate when you have pre-decided that the only outcome was that women should shut up about their rights and validate the men who invade their spaces.

Didn’t feel able to participate = demand there’s no debate

'It felt really difficult'..... they were the only guests there, treated like VIPs, everyone pronouning and head tilting and soft voicing and listening with intent sympathy while excluding anyone they said they were scared of (like women, and gay people who's rights they wanted to trample in their trembly voices...)

this is all of a piece with the six foot man with stubble in a little girl frock who thinks the world will see him in the way he instructs, while just blocking out both the reality of his appearance and the reality of very dodgy behaviour. This wobbly lipped vision of poor little trembling men with gender identities being shouted down by women and unkind ears - it's not just pure bloody fantasy, it's actively malicious. It's deceit. It's hoped that well meaning decent people not aware of the subtext and history will believe and be manipulated by the cry bullying.

There is no reasoning with people this lost inside their own heads and fantasies. There really isn't. You can't reach them. They cannot hear you. You can only have very firm boundaries and one hell of a lot of grey rocking. Fuming at that. How bloody dare he?

This is clearly why they needed to capture the media. So there would be no one left to point out the flaws in their "logic." I agree, duplicitous.

Spot on Wishes.

We have the receipts. Their endless intimidation, threats and bullying handed out by the blokes to anyone who dared suggest that women were entitled to rights or that children should be safeguarded from the born in the wrong body lot.

Too late Simon. You can no longer twist reality to suit the bullies. The game's up.

But until he and his ilk say this kind of guff in a studio on air where someone can pull out the receipts - somewhat in the manner of the fairy godmother I imagine, 'that meeting - oh look, no women! ... this one... oh look, still no women!' and prove it's all intentionally manipulative deceit to silence and override women and gay rights, this stuff gets reported uncontested.

And of course he and his ilk would go wobbly lipped and say they felt 'unsafe' if they had to share a studio or show with someone representing women or gay needs. And they would feel unsafe - they'd be scared to fuck of being caught out!

There's lies, damned lies, and then there's activists.

Didn't nancy whatsherface pedal this line when she took over as CEO

not long before sex started calling lesbians sexual racists?

so I'm going to assume by turning down the heat he means 'continue our tactics of private conversations in the tea rooms of parliament to get our way'

"Didn't feel able to participate"??

Can you imagine if the original founders of Stonewall had been too timid to sit round a table with people who disagreed with them? Or had insisted that they must be sheltered from any views that could ever offend them?

You’re not wrong!

I think this is my fave. Difficult though; so many to choose from:

Motherfucker we're going to melt the ice palace you're clearly dependant on for self-regulating, and then act like perfectly average Sims players whilst you writhe around begging for someone to turn down the heat oh please turn down the heat until you pop like that dreadful narcissist from new Dr Who.

Yes, I was wondering how much of a 'success' their female colleagues considered it. 🙄

I agree with this sentiment:
"Or, don't upset our gravy train. The well paying jobs, the access to civil servants and ministers. The invitations to all the right dinner parties."

Or silence women. After all, women talking loudly and assertively is ‘heat’, whereas men threatening rape is them being upset at ‘transphobia’.

Crikey, thats utterly raving quite a detailed fantasy scenario.

Wow they are quite cross on Reddit. And the Guardian's getting it, too.

They turn on anyone who tries to apply reason, moderation, or compromise.

It makes the fantasy reality 'unsafe'.

Theyve tried the 'less heat, more light' before, and it never goes well.

Its the 'more light' bit that goes against their case.

Am I alone in wondering how they propose to do this to the 'ice palace'?

Very angry bunch of chaps. I'm surprised they now consider The Guardian to be problematic..

They've been calling the Guardian transphobic for a while now. I've no idea why. Maybe because the occasional non-affirmative, non-worshipping article by Susanna Rustin has slipped through?

There has barely been a more allied paper than the Grauniad, do they actually read? Can they?

I see he doesn't consider the possibility that transactivists "found the conversations difficult" because they were talking utter nonsense.
No. It must have been because of those pesky TERFS women who didn't agree with their every whim and demand.
Righto!