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

colour me shocked that the usual visitors have turned up spinning their usual lies

the internet is forever abd we have all the receipts

That is absolutely and precisely what it meant, we were there. We all have memories. We have the receipts. This is all part of the 'if I make you use the language I restrict you to, and insist that you entirely re write your entire perceptions and histories around what I tell you to, I can control your narrative' thing.

It's also, as per bloody usual, projection and DARVO.

They've spotted the issue for women - and this proves they've acknowledged the truth of it because they've seen the angle for sympathy or that its attracting support from others -and grabbed it to skin-walk it as with so many other things. Hence the insane: 'We weren't allowed a voice at the table!'

Mate. The evidence is everywhere.

All this we didn't have a seat at the table is such risible bollocks.

Remember the awful Women and Equality Committee supposedly garnering views re Self-Id? Women and Women's Oganisations had to fight to be heard and when they were grudingly allowed to give their views they were treated aggressively, dismissively and with barely disguised contempt whereas TW and organisations for TW were fawned over, addressed respectfully (especially with regard to professional titles) the contrast was glaring. This was from The Women and Equality Committee betraying their remit shilling for the men.

Didn't have a voice? Theirs were the only voices being considered.

Exactly. Gaslighting, lying wankers.

I have a phone full of receipts going back nearly a decade.

Yes, I suspect softly-softly, weasly back room negotiations, back scratching, and even bribes in the form of jobs and promises of positions of influence. All coalescing at the moment around the Conversion Practices Bill. Recruiting the unions, politicians and former NHS, civil service, and BBC senior managers, and disgruntled B-list politicians who don't have enough power in their lives.

And while they are creating busywork and anxiety around the Bill, other minions will be working in the shadows to see where the threads in the EA might unravel if they tug hard enough.

All this despite the radical TRA factions, who have clearly become extremely inconvenient for Stonewall. I imagine Simon thinks there's a world out there in which he can just ignore them.

Stonewall are definitely shifting. We'll need to be on the ball.

All coalescing at the moment around the Conversion Practices Bill.

Yep, #nodebate written into criminal law.

Please enough with the denial, the goal posts have always been the same: Gender. And gender as a valid identity. Let's be honest here, its a concept that the gender critical movement can't or won't reckon with which is at the heart of this dispute that they will use all manner of other perverse motivations for the existence of trans people to avoid.
Now before anyone starts up, I get it. I get that for gender critical feminists gender identity is understood as a perpetuation of gender stereotypes but the thing is, that in itself doesn't invalidate the identity or the motivation for it existing. And if you can't accept trans people's own conception of their identity then there is no moving forward with a civilised discussion about competing rights.
I see only one way forward here & that's a recognition of gender identity (which isn't the same as justifying it) without attributing other nefarious motivations from gender critical feminists & trans people accepting that rights need to be balanced. And until gender critical feminists make a good faith charitable move in acknowledging gender as a legitimate identity they can't be realistically be considered to ever have been serious about wanting to debate.

Are you going to copy and paste that garbled nonsense onto any other random threads than the ones you already have put it on, or is that it for now? This thread is specifically about Stonewall.

Exactly. Definitely the focus right now, with that smug guy at the oral evidence session the other day.

Are you going to copy and paste that garbled nonsense onto any other random threads than the ones you already have put it on,

Um, that's rich coming from the one trick pony 'debate' crowd.

And this comment is relevant to Stonewall's defence of 'no debate'.

Now see if you can join the dots but i won't hold my breath.

Hashtag no debate.

And until gender critical feminists make a good faith charitable move in acknowledging gender as a legitimate identity they can't be realistically be considered to ever have been serious about wanting to debate.

Maybe you're the person finally to answer the question as to what a trans-identifying man shares in common with a woman, and why they have aligned interests that would make it sensible to consider they share some kind of 'identity'.

If you could justify it, we could accept it. But you can't.

Part of not gender critical feminists not being able to reckon with gender is they confuse it with sex. They are not the same thing so there is no shared identity being proposed in terms of reproductive sex. The shared identity is the sociologically constructed associations with cis/natal women as in gendered associations - a completely different concept to sex.

Therefore, clearly the real source of friction is the shared usage of words rather than the concepts themselves. But I don't know how you can reasonably get around the fact that women & men have both gendered associations tied to them hence the shared usage of words.

And what's disingenuous about this resistance to shared words 'because it confusing' is prefixes as in 'trans' & 'cis' solve this confusion….& yet its still not enough.

You can't expect to be considered to be entering a negotiation or even a debate in good faith where there is no possibility of rational discussion.

So what exactly are these "associations" that turn a reproductive male into a woman who is entitled to intrude on women's single sex spaces?

List them. Be specific. If you don't think you can manage a comprehensive list, then list the ones you can. Explain why those particular "associations" mean that women should be required to accept such a person in their spaces.

Therefore, clearly the real source of friction is the shared usage of words rather than the concepts themselves. But I don't know how you can reasonably get around the fact that women & men have both gendered associations tied to them hence the shared usage of words.

The real source of friction is men demanding access to toilets, sports, prisons and the like that are for women. Those things are not assigned on "gendered assocation".

I'm happy to allow anyone to declare their own gender, using any definition of gender they like. Or that they don't have a gender at all. However, I'm still hoping someone can tell me (perhaps you can be the one?) what specific services that should be divided, should more advantageously be divided on the basis of gender (by any definition you care to use) instead of by sex.

It would be helpful if you can avoid a lot of theoretical waffle which isn't interesting and simply invites more waffle, and stick to specifics.

Your'e gender critical feminist for crying out loud which should mean you know
what sex stereotypes are….& you do. So save feigning the pretend ignorance on what gendered associations mean for some one else who doesn't know you are attempting to distract from your refusal to validate another's right to their identity.

And until identity can be respected there can be no effective discussion about single sex spaces.

The real source of friction is men demanding access to toilets, sports, prisons and the like that are for women.

False. This forum is a hot bed of denial of identity smear campaigns of trans people being deluded fetishising predators & 'tom boys'. So don't pretend the only barrier with reaching a compromise is access to spaces when there's something else much more sinister going on.

We all know what sex stereotypes are, and we're all very clear about everyone's (of both sexes) right to adopt stereotypes (of either sex), or not, at their pleasure. If you think there's any doubt about that you're mistaken.

Many people here have been arguing for years exactly your point that gender identity is nothing more than a collection of sex sterotypes.

What nobody accepts is that sex stereotypes have any greater significance or should be some formal measure of "identity", or entitle anyone to any particular access or service.

If a fetishistic man in a dress and a wig is truly transgender, then there's no denying the association between being transgender and a man putting on a dress and a wig to satisfy his fetish. He makes that association himself.

If the fetishistic man in a dress in a wig isn't truly transgender then you should be working very hard to distinguish which men are really trans, and which are instead merely "cis-" fetishists in a dress and a wig.

I say again, we don't need to make the association - the male fetishists in wigs and dresses do it for us, all over the internet, by claiming to be trans.

The one thing you cannot credibly deny is that there are a lot of fetishistic men in wigs claiming to be trans. The evidence is all over the Internet.

Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected - that all the grand talk about "gender" and "gendered associations" simply means sex stereotypes.

We've had lots of transactivists on here squirming about, desperately trying to avoid admitting it outright, suggesting that there's some mysterious "more to it" that we haven't grasped. But it seems there isn't.

We don't exclude women from women's spaces because they don't look and behave like an animated Barbie, and we don't include men just because they try to. It's irrelevant either way.

@CoolforKats Fetishistic men in dresses claiming to be trans - here's the latest one to achieve fame:

https://reduxx.info/ontario-bus-driver-dismissed-after-wearing-pink-schoolgirl-uniform-on-duty-naming-bus-the-lolita-line-files-discrimination-complaint/

Is he not a fetishist? Or is he not "trans"? Or is he "trans", and a fetishist, but it's just a coincidence that he's both? Are you comfortable with him sharing toilet facilities with young girls?

What nobody accepts is that sex stereotypes have any greater significance or should be some formal measure of "identity"

Thank you for being honest but we knew that & what's more you are reasonably entitled to believe that.

But here's the problem, by the same logic atheists reasonably believe the same thing about theists but that doesn't give them the right to deny the validity of their identity or deny their right to advocate for their rights.

We can all reasonably disagree on other people's conception of identity….& we do because its individually subjective. But to say 'because I disagree & therefore my more valid identity extinguishes any claims you might have' is not living by egalitarian liberal principles that underpin western civilisation.

Nice try but individual instances don't speak for the majority. Exploiting a minority to represent a majority is a far right oldie but a goodie. See: 'all Muslims must be terrorists' or 'all Mexicans must be rapists'.

100%
And to add to that, in Australia, women weren't even at the table in the first place. It is documented that women with alternate views were not consulted, or were consulted inadequately (2 days to submit for example, at best) on changes to the SDA, the States all bringing in self-ID, "anti-bullying" education in schools, which was really just gender ideology training in disguise, boys and men in girls and womens changing rooms and services, drag queen story hour in libraries for children sessions, men in womens sports etc etc - these changes were just introduced behind doors that were closed to the general public and GC women in particular.
It is a part of CEDAW that women are consulted on policy and law that affects us, and not only were we not, but we have been silenced doxxed, sacked, litigated, cancelled and socially outcast since, for daring to suggest that perhaps our rights are under threat.
Now they want to "turn down the heat".
Bollocks to them.
Cue the "come on ladies, they want to talk, don't hold grudges, it's unbecoming"...