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:
Prekoc2 · Today 00:17

totino · Yesterday 17:35

It's funny that people are still trying to play "When was she ever transphobic" about this lady and then she bangs out another screed about "bearded men in skirts" and "male-bodied people"

"You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say..."

They are bearded men in skirts and male-bodied people.

Datun · Today 00:39

CoolforKats · Yesterday 21:13

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.

Edited

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

Well that would be news to Miranda Yardley, the transwoman who got up and talked at the actual event.

Stonewall? Not so much.

My conscience genuinely wouldn't let me defend an organisation who employed a man whose business was training other men to coerce lesbians into sex.

And that would be my next favourite projection.

'Hey Stonewall, what's the cotton ceiling?'

Emblazoned right across the front of their office.

CoolforKats · Today 00:51

Datun · Today 00:39

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

Well that would be news to Miranda Yardley, the transwoman who got up and talked at the actual event.

Stonewall? Not so much.

My conscience genuinely wouldn't let me defend an organisation who employed a man whose business was training other men to coerce lesbians into sex.

And that would be my next favourite projection.

'Hey Stonewall, what's the cotton ceiling?'

Emblazoned right across the front of their office.

If you think pointing to individual instances of illiberal 'wrong speak' is a defence then it works both ways. The big picture here is what is really at the crux of two groups being unable able to talk to one another & how its being facilitated by the weaponisation of a minority of extremists.

NotBadConsidering · Today 02:08

totino’s post highlights how important it is to bring the receipts, because it seems like it’s been forgotten exactly what Stonewall did with people like Alex Drummond.

cryupmykingdom · Today 02:40

NotBadConsidering · Today 02:08

totino’s post highlights how important it is to bring the receipts, because it seems like it’s been forgotten exactly what Stonewall did with people like Alex Drummond.

Bring the receipts, in order to maintain the numbers on the majority side, and then sit and wait.

Since the groups can't talk, the comparitive size of groupings, plus external factors, probably mainly economic, will determine who actually remains. Whether there's a need for talk after ? Unsure.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page