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

False.

Public Consultation and Inquiries
2011 Consultation Paper: The Australian Human Rights Commission released a report and recommendations in 2011 following a public consultation process conducted by the Attorney-General’s Department regarding protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. 1, 2]
Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill (2012): In late 2012, the Attorney-General released an exposure draft of a consolidated bill that included gender identity as a protected attribute. The government invited public submissions through December 21, 2012, and referred the draft legislation to a Senate committee for public review. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry (2012–2013): The Senate committee conducted an inquiry into the proposed reforms, receiving numerous submissions and holding hearings (including in January 2013) from human rights organizations, trade unions, legal bodies, and interest groups before the government proceeded with the specific amendments. 1, 2, 3]

Legislative Outcome
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013: Passed by the Australian Parliament in June 2013 and taking effect on August 1, 2013, the legislation formally added gender identity, sexual orientation, and intersex status as protected attributes under the federal Act. 1, 2, 3]

That's a terrible analogy, for so many reasons. There's an obvious clear bright line between being Mexican and a sex offender, and being following the Muslim faith and committing acts of terror. Such a bright line it's offensive to make me say it.

By contrast, this man's fetish is his "transness". To further your (inappropriate) comparisons, it is as though he adopted a Mexican identity because it makes it easier to be a sex offender, his converted to Islam the better to commit acts of terrorism. Things which should and do have the Mexican and Islamic communities apoplectic with rage. Meanwhile where is your outrage? Where is your repudiation? Where is your horror at having the law-abiding and inoffensive trans community traduced?

Putting it more clearly perhaps: he has a little girl fetish (I don't need to explore the details any further) and he's decided that being trans makes that acceptable and justifiable.

I think the reality is you can't actually afford to express any rage or anger, because there are enough people like this man who have adopted a 'trans' identity in order to leverage it to make acceptable what otherwise should not be - and enough trans-identifying people think that's genuinely part of being 'trans' - that nobody quite knows where the line is anymore or can afford to draw it where it should be drawn.

And that's a problem.

No but it was never about whether they existed but about whether they could legitimately change sex and thus access opposite sex provisions. The TRAs then twisted that into a denial of their existence because "we are what we say we are"...
Forever re-writing history, twisting narratives, lying and gaslighting.
So, until some truth and acceptance of responsibility is genuinely put forward, you will find that the GCs and their allies won't budge. We've seen what happens when TRAs are given a single inch. They take our rights and accuse us of things we've never said or done while they do it.

December 21st? To early January? That's a reasonable consultation period for women-led voluntary organisations to review, legislation, consider, discuss and respond is it? I know that the proponents of these changes were advised and consulted well before Dec 21st. There were meetings, round-tables, discussions etc that the womens groups were not even aware of. Public consultation was written submissions only, at a time when most organisations are closed for Christmas and New Years, and women are up to their necks in family responsibilities and holiday preparations.
Same thing happened in Qld with self-ID, except womens groups actually had to beg to be allowed to submit, and got about 2 days.

You seem to have missed this bit:

"Nice try but individual instances don't speak for the majority."

In other words, what this individual's motivation is irrelevant.

Trans people aren’t claiming they changed their reproductive sex. They are claiming to be 'trans gender' not 'trans sexual'.

That’s not true of them all though, is it? Some of them literally do claim to have changed sex.

And of course, if you are correct, it begs the a question whey they think their gender should entitle them to opposite-sex spaces, sports and opportunities.

Can you link where it states Dec 21 to early January?

Changing sex traits like morphology from hormones or surgery isn't the same as changing gametes. Trans people aren't claiming their gametes changed.

it begs the a question whey they think their gender should entitle them to opposite-sex spaces, sports and opportunities.

I never said it did. If an exemption from anti discrimination is justified under the grounds of a legitimate aim they are not.

It's not the individual that's significant. It's that you're standing behind him. You, and the majority of trans supporters who stand by those few individuals, are the real issue.

99.9999% of Muslims aren't terrorists. And 99.99% of Muslims call out those who are. Nobody - bupkes, zero, nada, not a single person in the trans community calls out the fetishists. You don't dare to, you can't afford to, you're structurally unable to. That's a problem.