Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

JKR response to Stonewall CEO comments

105 replies

BlueLegume · Yesterday 17:03

Just posted on X by JKR in response to Stonewall CEO comments re wanting to take the ‘heat’ out of the debate around trans …..even though their slogan was ‘ no debate’.

A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one.
While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: ‘Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] “overcoming the cotton ceiling”.’
When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’.
In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman – they’re non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read ‘Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'.
^@thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/art…^
In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male.
Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high.
Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.

OP posts:
OldCrone · Yesterday 21:10

CoolforKats · Yesterday 20:35

Huh. Seems about right.

"The background to the “No Debate” slogan
Since the early 2000s, many in the trans community have taken the position that they will not discuss the validity or existence of trans identities; ‘no debate’ became the shorthand slogan for this position.

Over the years, the meaning of that slogan has been intentionally misappropriated to suggest that trans people and their allies were refusing to collaborate, compromise or discuss policy affecting trans people.
Many public forums that aired discussions on trans issues or topics chose not to focus on policy questions, but instead often focused on whether being trans was a valid identity and whether trans people existed. In response to this, many trans people were left feeling vulnerable and unsafe, and refused to engage in public conversations on these terms.

In 2017, Stonewall highlighted how some were using proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act to again question the very right of trans people to exist. As Stonewall highlighted at the time, “This cannot be up for debate.”
Stonewall’s position has always been clear: trans people’s existence is not up for debate. Just as debates over the existence of gay people or people of faith wouldn’t be tolerated, the same applies to trans communities. This is separate from discussions about policy affecting trans people, which Stonewall has consistently and openly engaged with. As Simon Blake, Stonewall’s CEO, reiterated in a wide-ranging 2024 Guardian Interview, drawing on the 2017 ‘Vision for Change’ report, open conversation is always welcomed and encouraged, but not at the expense of legitimising hate or discrimination.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/lgbtq-hubs/trans-hub/trans-equality

Since the early 2000s, many in the trans community have taken the position that they will not discuss the validity or existence of trans identities; ‘no debate’ became the shorthand slogan for this position.

Over the years, the meaning of that slogan has been intentionally misappropriated to suggest that trans people and their allies were refusing to collaborate, compromise or discuss policy affecting trans people.

They were refusing to debate. I remember it happening and discussing it on here. That's what #nodebate was all about a few years ago. It was all stuff like 'transwomen are women #nodebate'. They didn't want to discuss any of this, and refused to appear on TV debates with people who disagreed with them.

CoolforKats · Yesterday 21:13

Datun · Yesterday 21:04

Just as debates over the existence of gay people or people of faith wouldn’t be tolerated, the same applies to trans communities. This is separate from discussions about policy affecting trans people, which Stonewall has consistently and openly engaged with.

i'm pretty certain that Venice Allan said she asked 24 different trans people or organisations (or maybe the same one 24 times, who knows), to come to one of her talks.

No debate wasn't a rhetorical device or limited to apply to mere existence.

It was a flat refusal to talk about any of it. Because it's clearly sexist, irrational bollocks. House of cards, shifting stands, risible, dangerous nonsense.

Hell, you got chucked off Twitter for saying he. You got deleted on here for saying 'bless'. KJK was interviewed by the police for using the word castration. Millwall, bloody Millwall, crumpled.

I hope this runs and runs. I hope all the receipts get projected on to the Ministry of Justice building for days on end.

(In bold!).

i'm pretty certain that Venice Allan said she asked 24 different trans people or organisations (or maybe the same one 24 times, who knows), to come to one of her talks.

Like the link says, if the framing of the debate is 'you don't exist' in the first place there's no where to go from there regardless of how many other relevant topics follow. Its one thing to discuss competing rights & quite another to pretend the other side are delusional while doing so.

And the non legitimacy of trans people is JKR's underlying premise when she implicates them as either being a danger & motivated by predation or in a 'tom boy' phase.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 21:17

Myalternate · Yesterday 20:18

I read a comment somewhere that read something like…
’Say NO to a Transwomen and the man inside appears’

This has been shown to be true all
over social media, at women’s meetings that exclude them, in meetings with parliamentarians around the world, in court and even on MN threads.

I remember one thread where a man told us how feminine he was and all the wonderful feminine feelings, interests and interactions he had. Why couldn’t we just accept him. Within pages he showed us just how thin that act was before he flounced. It has been often repeated too by different male posters. Always telling us how harmless they are but quick to turn abusive, get deleted, and either flounces or is banned.

BlueLegume · Yesterday 21:20

What on earth would a sensible person disagree with in JKRs post?

Please read it. If you don’t agree start you own thread. For now we on this thread like her stance.

Goodnight 😴

OP posts:
Mmmnotsure · Yesterday 21:21

Here we go again. This time, retrofitting - or trying to - the arguments.

No, that's not what we meant. When we said 'no debate', we didn't actually, er, mean, no debate.

Do the TRAs not know we have the receipts? Do they take us for fools?

SylvanMoon · Yesterday 21:25

BlueSkyers are going beserk over both the Stonewall statement AND JK Rowling's response! Apparently EVERYTHING and EVERYONE (but them, of course) is transphobic

Helleofabore · Yesterday 21:25

OldCrone · Yesterday 21:10

Since the early 2000s, many in the trans community have taken the position that they will not discuss the validity or existence of trans identities; ‘no debate’ became the shorthand slogan for this position.

Over the years, the meaning of that slogan has been intentionally misappropriated to suggest that trans people and their allies were refusing to collaborate, compromise or discuss policy affecting trans people.

They were refusing to debate. I remember it happening and discussing it on here. That's what #nodebate was all about a few years ago. It was all stuff like 'transwomen are women #nodebate'. They didn't want to discuss any of this, and refused to appear on TV debates with people who disagreed with them.

Indeed.

Many of us regular posters remember it.

The demonstration of rewriting of history that we ourselves experienced is not surprising though. The DARVO nature of that denial is pretty instantly clear.

Having been to quite a few women’s rallies and facing down male people using loud hailers, sirens and loud music and just general yelling and even screaming, I think it is pretty ludicrous to deny that ‘no debate’ and ‘no discussion’ are popular tactics.

Look at films being prevented from showing, debates at universities being interrupted, venues cancelled and the list goes on. But apparently, that wasn’t any thing to do with ‘no debate’.

BlueLegume · Yesterday 21:26

SylvanMoon · Yesterday 21:25

BlueSkyers are going beserk over both the Stonewall statement AND JK Rowling's response! Apparently EVERYTHING and EVERYONE (but them, of course) is transphobic

Excellent ❤️

OP posts:
Barbie222 · Yesterday 21:30

That’s such a shift of the goalposts to say that @CoolforKats - very, very few people (including trans women) are prepared to declare that trans women are actually biological women. Think it’s just IW holding on tight to that fallacy now?

But that’s for sure what #nodebate was all about at the time, and the Internet never forgets, despite all the squirming now.

NotBadConsidering · Yesterday 21:32

The actual article of the interview in the Guardian is so full of eye rolling irony I am struggling to keep them inside my head.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt2 · Yesterday 21:49

Over the years, the meaning of that slogan has been intentionally misappropriated to suggest that trans people and their allies were refusing to collaborate, compromise or discuss policy affecting trans people.

Haha. Looking forward to the 'compromise' bit.

Redditors, meanwhile, are at the discussing violence stage: Y'know, fuckheads like this guy are going to drive sooo many people to violence.

onlytherain · Yesterday 21:57

They are still unwilling to discuss. In many organisations gender critical women do not talk about women's rights for fear of losing their jobs. If TRAs are so willing to discuss and compromise, how come we are not aware of any suggestions?

CassOle · Yesterday 22:10

How can you compromise with someone who doesn't want you to tell the truth? Every position between a lie and the truth is still a lie.

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · Yesterday 22:13

You've only got to work in the NHS or schools and see just how oppressive no debate is. The TRAs seem to believe their own lies that debate was always possible

Ereshkigalangcleg · Yesterday 22:18

Datun · Yesterday 21:04

Just as debates over the existence of gay people or people of faith wouldn’t be tolerated, the same applies to trans communities. This is separate from discussions about policy affecting trans people, which Stonewall has consistently and openly engaged with.

i'm pretty certain that Venice Allan said she asked 24 different trans people or organisations (or maybe the same one 24 times, who knows), to come to one of her talks.

No debate wasn't a rhetorical device or limited to apply to mere existence.

It was a flat refusal to talk about any of it. Because it's clearly sexist, irrational bollocks. House of cards, shifting stands, risible, dangerous nonsense.

Hell, you got chucked off Twitter for saying he. You got deleted on here for saying 'bless'. KJK was interviewed by the police for using the word castration. Millwall, bloody Millwall, crumpled.

I hope this runs and runs. I hope all the receipts get projected on to the Ministry of Justice building for days on end.

(In bold!).

One of them was definitely Stonewall. Bex Stinson, a TRA at Stonewall, was invited to come to the original We Want to Talk event at New Cross Centre, he then said he was going on holiday and other TRAs bullied New Cross into cancelling the event, leading to the meet up at Speakers Corner where Maria McLachlan got beaten up by TRAs who came there to cause trouble, notably Tara Wolf who was ultimately (grudgingly) convicted of assault.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/transgender-activist-tara-wolf-fined-ps150-for-assaulting-exclusionary-radical-feminist-in-hyde-park-a3813856.html

Transgender activist fined £150 over Hyde Park assault

A transgender activist has been fined £150 after being found guilty of assaulting a radical feminist during a rally in London's Hyde Park.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/transgender-activist-tara-wolf-fined-ps150-for-assaulting-exclusionary-radical-feminist-in-hyde-park-a3813856.html

2021x · Yesterday 22:25

Yep! I am going to need a microscope for those crumbs!!!

Stonewall is in trouble- this is their last shot. There is an American gay Pysch you tuber who has completely held gay men to account for their shitty behaviour towards women and he is not backing down. The tides are turning- being trans/non binary is no longer fashionable amongst the influential up and comers.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Yesterday 22:26

JKR actually got herself into trouble with TRAs earlier than her woomud wimpund tweet by accidentally leaving some text about Speakers Corner in a tweet about her children’s book:

In a since-deleted tweet sharing one of the drawings, Rowling wrote: “I love this truly fabulous Ickabog, with its bat ears, mismatched eyes, and terrifying bloodstained teeth!”
The tweet then bizarrely continued: “In court, Wolf claimed the Facebook post in which he’d said he wanted to ‘f up some TERFs’ was just ‘bravado’. #TheIckabog.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-apology-terfs-transgender-tweet-accidental-paste-a9540031.html

JK Rowling ‘mortified’ after accidentally swearing in response to 9-year-old’s drawing

Author apologised for her copy and paste error following a backlash

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-apology-terfs-transgender-tweet-accidental-paste-a9540031.html

whiteroseredrose · Yesterday 22:29

Bloody hell. Well said!

KilkennyCats · Yesterday 22:36

2021x · Yesterday 22:25

Yep! I am going to need a microscope for those crumbs!!!

Stonewall is in trouble- this is their last shot. There is an American gay Pysch you tuber who has completely held gay men to account for their shitty behaviour towards women and he is not backing down. The tides are turning- being trans/non binary is no longer fashionable amongst the influential up and comers.

The tides are turning- being trans/non binary is no longer fashionable amongst the influential up and comers
Hallelujah! I hope to God you’re right 🤞

MrsOvertonsWindow · Yesterday 22:43

While many people don't follow this debate closely, the oppressive tactics used by transactivists have seeped into every day life with the majority resenting what's happened.

Rendering the word woman as bigotry, excluding women from healthcare by renaming us as birthing people, uterus havers.
Asking men if they can be pregnant before getting an Xray
Women civil servants being lectured about not reversing out of the ladies on finding a man in there
Children lecturing their parents,grandparents about non binary, that incorrect pronouns are genocide & that sex change is possible.
The media calling male rapists and paedophiles women with the police insisting that TIM police officers must intimately search women because they want to.
& so much more.

From major scandals to daily irritants, you now see the collective eye rolls, the insincere compliance, the muttered irritation and resentment. Transactivism has undermined the social contract, made many institutions a hostile environment for so many while deliberately targeting the youngest in society who are now paying a terrible life long price after what transactivism has done to them.

They're reaping what they've sown and it couldn't happen to more deserving folx.

ScrollingLeaves · Yesterday 22:50

That is wonderful. It so succinctly sums up the list of deep wrongs.

BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp · Yesterday 22:51

Thanks for this, OP. Hilarious in a sort of macabre way. Time for all the receipts to come out - no one's going to rewrite THIS history!

cryupmykingdom · Yesterday 23:16

The natural rate of occurrence of the thing some people call 'trans' was reckoned for a long time to be 0.0033%, so it stands to reason that a considerable % of the deviation in numbers above that level must be, to use the technical term 'a load of balls'😎

CoolforKats · Yesterday 23:44

Barbie222 · Yesterday 21:30

That’s such a shift of the goalposts to say that @CoolforKats - very, very few people (including trans women) are prepared to declare that trans women are actually biological women. Think it’s just IW holding on tight to that fallacy now?

But that’s for sure what #nodebate was all about at the time, and the Internet never forgets, despite all the squirming now.

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.

cryupmykingdom · Today 00:00

> good faith charitable move

When a bloke like Alex from Stonewall transplains 'I can fix a car but that doesn't mean I can't be a woman' of course it's not possible.

'Charitable' ain't gonna help you there, pet.

F**king brain transplant? Maybe.