From my expereince of being on the committee of the LGBT+ staff network at a large city firm, there's an element of hysteria when it comes to trying to get onto Stonewall's top 100 list and being a diversity champion. Firms want to be SEEN to be doing the right thing, and getting recognised by Stonewall is viewed as the only way to achieve that goal. Whether firms actually support the campaigns that Stonewall runs is something I am less convinced by.

Interesting to see that it's a smaller firm that had the guts and integrity to speak up.

I comment as a long time supporter of stonewall who believes it's lost its way. I hope it can recover and start representing gays, lesbians and bisexuals wholeheartedly again.

How can so many law firms continue to support a group that has misrepresented the law, and much worse?

The demands of trans lobby come into hard conflict with women's rights; predictable that law firms, who have long had a 'women problem', seem to be prioritizing the former.

It's just business. Compare the logos of major companies' western branches with those of their middle-eastern branches during "pride month". Tells you all you need to know.

Hats off to ROF for the most succinct summary of the trans debate I’ve ever read 

No firm with a high profile wants to be the first to go.  It's a recipe for spending the rest of the year being screeched at on the internet.  Maybe the firms that continue to be members will keep shelling out their annual £3k, but will quietly shelve the misrepresentations of the law that they get in return.  

So many TERFs here.

Harold the Heron has got this one right.

Stonewall has walked itself down a dead-end with its current approach to trans issues. I can't see it surviving continued contact with reality for many more years. It's just gradually accruing more and more bad press (which, for an organisation that trades on being able to grant good press to people who pay it money, is a poor strategy).

Either it will find its way to intellectual renewal and deal with the issue in a more inclusive way, or it will gradually tarnish its own brand to the point that larger firms consider it safe to move to an alternative provider of PR-friendly certificates and rosettes.

One hopes for the former, but fears that the kind of ideologues who now run Stonewall may not be for turning.

Succint? Biased & unbalanced with critical comments routinely censored is more truthful.

Take the reference to founder members of Stonewall. It's just two of them. One of whom happens to also be a Tory journalist with an interest in pushing his party & paper's editorial line. RoF news, in order to peddle a misleading narrative, fails to mention that the majority of Stonewall founders support its current policy.

@10:28 - that's exactly it.

Big firms don't want the PR hit of being first to go, which right now they would certainly get. But the intensity of that hit reduces each time another smaller firm leaves, so they'll eventually shift (a) when enough smaller firms have taken the flak first, making leaving commonplace and unremarkable, or (b) after Stonewall sufficiently toxifies its own brand, at which point several large firms would probably move at the same time.

You can see it coming as Stonewall increasingly makes itself the story (in a bad way). It'll take a few years still, but the above is inevitable without a change of course from the divisive approach to trans issues.

The only thing that will come as a surprise is how quickly the migration will happen when that tipping point is reached. Which is why I hope that Stonewall changes course beforehand, because it will be too late once the moment comes.

@10:51 - describing the objections to the narratives about trans issues currently in vogue at Stonewall is not 'bias'.

It is a contentious issue on which there are at least two valid points of view. Giving a fair hearing to more than one of those viewpoints does not represent 'bias', it represents an adult discussion that hasn't caved in to demands for censorship.

One of the problems that Stonewall and its fellow travellers have at the moment is that they have painted themselves into a corner whereby they consider even the voicing of polite, logical disagreement with their own opinions as being a crime in and of itself. It's a totalitarian approach which is doomed to failure on that basis alone. 

hth

10:51 -

Rof also quotes stonewall, who were presumably given the chance to comment too. It quotes a happy champion too (Simmons).

If a firm says it’s quitting over issues with stonewall’s direction, papers surely have to explain what those issues are.

You seem to just want no criticisms and an article blasting the firm for leaving by citing how much support stonewall has.  This is why I worry about the measures being demanded by lobby groups like stonewall these days. It ends up with little authoritarians whipping anyone who steps out of line and doesn’t provide unfettered adulation for the cause.  

Transpeople really are the canaries in the coalmine when it comes to human rights.

I find Simon Fanshawe and Matthew Parris' claim that "it used, after all, to be just ‘LGB’ before it became ‘LGBTQ+" very strange given that Stonewall is named from the 1969 riots in which a significant number of trans people participated and, arguably, led. 

Trans people have always been part of of the LGBTQ+ community and I'm glad that Stonewall continues to advocate on its behalf. 

Nothing is quite so disgusting as people who were part of previously discriminated against groups who, now they have reached their goal, turning around and pulling up the drawbridge to prevent another marginalised group (and a group that had stood shoulder to shoulder with them through their own struggle) realising it's own asperations.

Matthew Parris etc used to argue for gay rights on the basis of fairness and equality.  So did many feminists, and they were 100% right.  Turns out for many of them it was just a tool for them they cynically used to advance their self interest, rather than an actual principal they believed in.  

Good for Moon Beever,

 -the way Stonewall have bullied Allison Bailey is a disgrace.  Hopefully my firm will also drop out but I won't hold my breath.

The real point to take away from this article is that there exists a firm called Moon Beever. 

Completely agree 11:12. Although the official records claim the stonewall riots were led by gays and lesbians, famously it was a Demi-romantic asexual non-binary queer person who actually threw the first brick at stonewall, leading a chant of ‘they/them’ at the cops before dousing themselves in purple hair dye.
As a gay man, I for one am glad that stonewall has finally rediscovered its roots. It’s high time I was accused of transphobia for requiring my lover to have male genitals. 

The lack of generosity of spirit towards the quite small number of people who are transsexual and resistance to any small accommodation of their needs - when the rates of self-harm and suicide among trans people is so high - is really disheartening. Well done, Stonewall, for standing up for this vulnerable group and shame on the idiots who make it all about women's toilets...

That is a good summary in the article and Stonewall have lost their way over this issue., Most of us want to treat trans, gay/lesbian and all the others equally and well but there are ways to do it which do not damage women or lesbians and ways that hurt vast numbers of women (50% of the UK) are the expense of a tiny number of trans people. Apparently there are FOIA requests going into universities and schools about what has been paid to Stonewall so at least people are starting to realise the damage that has been done.

I am also taken back to the bible on these issues - treat people equally -

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"  and

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.".  There is a very public form of virtue signalling going on at present which feels morally wrong to me. Do not shout it from the rooftops that you treat black lesbian women well - just treat them well and hire them. Do not have them on every last video (not least because they need a break from constantly being dragged out on every PR exercise). Just quietly go about being fair, even if the lack of shouting about how good  you are means you do not win some silly reward.

Trans people had nothing to do with Stonewall (the riot). That's a piece of historical revisionism peddled by the likes of Stonewall (the organisation). The only trans person (self-identified as such much later) associated with the riot was Sylvia Riveira and she wasn't there until the second night. The riot was led by gay men and lesbians. That's it. 

And no, Marsha P Johnson was not trans. Never identified himself as such. Always said he was a gay man. 

The appeal to ‘be kind’ won’t wash anymore. We all sympathise with trans people struggling with dysphoria, but how about you display some generosity to women who want to organise by sex, because they are oppressed on the basis of their sex? What about gays and lesbians who want to be able to define their sexuality as same sex attraction? Where is your recognition that this is very different to gay rights and impacts upon other groups in a seismic way? 
We are all expected to make way and ‘be kind’ to those you support - how come you are not prepared to be kind and recognise the issues that this creates for others? ‘No debate’, that was the mantra, wasn’t it?

Anonymous @11.28

We are far beyond making a "small accommodation" here.  Stonewall is campaigning to remove the concept of single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.  That's not a "small accommodation" by any stretch of the imagination.

The problem for Stonewall is that it has to adopt an ever more extreme position in order to justify its continued existence.

At some point firms will start to find that being a 'diversity champion' puts off as many potential recruits as it attracts. We are probably getting close to that point already.

Then, if someone created an alternative, more moderate, more straightforward scheme (which doesn't call for an annual 100 page submission), everyone could jump ship without being accused of having become bigots overnight.

Maybe that is what the newly formed LGB Alliance have in mind.

Maybe that is why certain other organisations are trying to strangle it at birth.

The Stonewall Champions scheme is a protection racket, in my opinion, used by companies to get their diversity brownie points with the public and a sticker to put on their Web site and promotional leaflets. Look at all the Rainbows on UK company sites for Pride month, eg BMW -  noticeably absent from their Saudi and Middle East sites.

After the right to gay marriage was won, what was left to achieve for Stonewall? Not much, so in order to keep the money coming trans rights became the new mantra in 2015. It's true what they say; all good causes start as a movement, become a business, then degenerate into a racket. Stonewall have given years of inaccurate advice on the law and hopefully more companies will realise and find the courage to leave this scheme.

I would ask anyone interested in the conflict between trans activism and women's rights to read up on the case of Marion Millar in Scotland. Arrested this week for, it seems, offending trans activists on Twitter. Perhaps RoF could look at how the new Hate Crime legislation in Scotland is being used, in my view, to frighten women into silence on trans issues? The legislation seems to cover hate crimes against trans people but not hate crimes against women. 

@ 11.40 - Exactly

also the classic argument that we should give the trans lobby what they want because “look at all the suicides and mental health troubles trans people go through”. They’re suffering because of the dysphoria they are going through, not because people won’t let them use the toilets they want. 
 

Our profession isn’t helped either when we have practitioners like Jolyolyolyoln trying to force through the trans lobby’s demands by (il)legal means......

"if someone created an alternative, more moderate, more straightforward scheme (which doesn't call for an annual 100 page submission), everyone could jump ship without being accused of having become bigots overnight"

That is exactly what will happen without a change of course from Stonewall.

At the moment it is the UK's 'Premier' brand for awarding D&I certificates - but that hard won position isn't unassailable. Many other charities would happily take its place and money.

The more Stonewall tarnishes its once strong brand by pushing a viewpoint that isn't logically sustainable and which alienates many of the minority groups it alleges to be in the business of protecting, the more likely it becomes that some other charity will leapfrog by offering an alternative product which takes exactly the form you describe.

One can only survive on dewy eyed nostalgia about a riot in 1969 for so long - especially once you start watering that story down by revising and reinventing it to put the latest diversity trend at its forefront. 

How do you go about getting a list of who continue to pay Stonewall? I would be interested so I know who NOT to give my business to. 

The  Stonewall riots were started by a lesbian called Storme de laverie. 
Stonewall is a protection racket that wants to remove the single sex services exemption from the EQ2010 and even wants to erase the word mother! 
‘Being kind’ has led to rapists like Karen white being allowed to identify into female prisons and rape the female inmates, it has led to Philip Bunce winning business woman of the year, and to children being chemically castrated and becoming lifelong medical patients.
Stick a fork in it, it’s done. 

Our profession isn’t helped either when we have practitioners like Jolyolyolyoln trying to force through the trans lobby’s demands by (il)legal means......

That preening fool, and the kind of practice he represents, is a far wider problem for the profession.

The approach of going to court to make new law, then calling that outcome 'justice', genuinely undermines the public's faith in the courts and their collective sense that their elected representatives have the will to actually represent them. Never mind the fact that it effectively allows activists to legislate for extreme outcomes that Parliament would have recognised lacked democratic support.

It's always for a supposedly good cause, and the people involved inevitably feel like good eggs for 'taking the fight to the government' on an issue they deem personally important - but the more ubiquitous it becomes the angrier the public gets that new law seems to be getting made in London courtrooms by wealthy lawyers who self-describe as 'progressive', rather than in Parliament by the people they voted for.

City dwelling progressives feel like doing it over and over again is 'winning' and assume these small victories will all add up (and they'll swear blind that it's all "interpretation not legislation") - but then they scratch their heads at election time and wonder why the dreadful oiks keep voting for the Tories, cheering for legal aid cuts, and applauding the Home Secretary's proposals to cut back the powers of the Courts and the HRA. 

Spoiler: This is one of the key reasons why. So stop bloody doing it.

Hehe, Moon Beever. Hehe.

Lesbians do not have a penis. Gay men do not have a vagina. Stonewall has not represented me or my gay family for many years. I am labelled as "transphobic" for wanting to only date other women, i.e. adult human females. I am NOT cis. I was not assigned a sex at birth. I have lost all my lesbian only safe spaces due to men, who identify as women, attending. P. S. Seeing as it is Pride time, I am really annoyed at the transing of a black butch lesbian, Storme de Laverie and Martha P Johnson, a gay man who was not trans. 

The Law Society ARE currently Stonewall Diversity Champions and have been for years. Their membership renewal is due on 31st August.

In a response to an FOI request submitted on 4th Feb 2021 they confirmed that in 2019 and 2020 they paid a total of £6000 inc VAT ( £3000 annual membership fee).

So years of spending our fees to join and promote the Stonewall protection racket that misrepresents the law. 

Sure as hell they don't want to 'clarify' whether they are still members. Cowards.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_your_dealings_5?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow

Anonymous @ 12.52

Here’s a list of the diversity champions: https://sex-matters.org/stonewall-champions-list/

Stonewall did publish this list on its website but took it down recently, presumably to protect the nice revenue stream it gets from this racket. 

Everyone knows transmen are biological females, and that transwomen are biological males.

People accept gender dysmorphia since everyone has some form of body or identity glitch.   

Who wants to be a working class, average/ugly looking person in a low paid job - for example ?  Most people fit this bracket.   They can't just demand access to being tret as sex gods or goddess, or demand the same lived experience as popstars or a billionaire.      

I want to be a 6ft gorgeous Nordic blonde,  to match my inner soul however, the reflection in the mirror dictates my reality, wether I like it or not.   There is only so much we can do to blur the stark reality of our visual and biological  lack of bullshit detector.    We can be kind and polite but biology speaks its truth one way or the other and shafts everyone, not just transgender souls.

Just following on from Lesbian, female homosexual, same-sex attracted at 13:37, does anyone else find the use of the phrase "assigned a sex at birth" strange?

It's clearly become part of the Trans lobby's verbal armory, and is trotted out a lot, but seems to assume that, so far as I can tell, babies are born without any genitalia, and a doctor or nurse either says "Hmmm.... we're out of penii... better make this one a female" or "we're low on the male quote this week. Next 4 to be male, please everyone".

I'm sure it's me being insensitive or not reading into the issue, but in what was is a sex "assigned", and by whom?

How to get the law changed in favour of your preferred minority group:

Become an 'expert' on certain minority rights.

Get everyone to subscribe to your scheme to protect those rights.

Encourage your subscribers to favour your preferred minority group illegally, by misrepresenting to them what the law says.

Lobby government to change the law to favour your preferred minority group because it's what employers are already doing in practice anyway.

"I want to be a 6ft gorgeous Nordic blonde,  to match my inner soul however, the reflection in the mirror dictates my reality, wether I like it or not."

Well then all that you need to do is buy a pair of stripper heels, dye your hair platinum-blonde, put on a bit of a generic euro accent, and call yourself Ulrika and/or Freya.

Congratulations, you have successfully transitioned to Swedish.

Next stop the sauna.

Even juicy sex stories do not even come near the clicks that comments get on trans related stories. Are the lawyers so trans-phobic? I just don’t understand. Literally one of the most marginalised minorities and lawyers ‘yeah, kick them hard’. 

Lawyers deal in facts rather than feelings. As a result, trans issues perhaps get tougher handling than we are used to seeing in the press and polite conversation.

Although Stonewall has stopped publishing its list of 'Diversity Champions' online, since just last week, the last iteration of the list has been archived on the Wayback Machine facility. Note that some organisations and  companies listed have left since the snapshot was taken. Scroll down for the law firms signed-up;

 https://web.archive.org/web/20210514165034/https://www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members

"The lawyers" are engaging critical thinking faculties, not swallowing the lobbyists bullsh1t and being aware of where rights are being eroded. You should take a leaf from their book.

“Most marginalised” minorities - I’m sorry but this is just bullshit. There are more transwomen murderers in the UK, than transwomen murder victims - this kind of rhetoric always harks back to the USA where the murder rate is higher for every group and completely ignores the fact that between 1-3 women a week are murdered by a current or former partner, 1 in 4 women is a victim of rape, 1 in 3 is a victim of domestic violence - that’s your marginalised group right there! 
 

So so glad that pp mentions Marion Millar and the hideous mess that is the Scottish Hate Crime Act 2021 and the treatment of Allison Bailey. Stonewall has long ago lost its way and is now actively misrepresenting the law and incorrectly claiming “gender” is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. Nancy Kelley has openly admitted that they no longer represent all sections of LGBTQ.There is a really grim undercurrent of misogyny and homophobia running through a lot of transactivism now. 

@15:09  "I'm sure it's me being insensitive or not reading into the issue, but in what was is a sex "assigned", and by whom?"

Most humans are "Sex observed at birth". 
"Sex assigned at birth" is the phrase used to describe how a baby with indeterminate genitalia is assessed and assigned to the most likely sex. It's unusual and apparently (I have only read descriptions) it's a difficult and delicate task for those who undertake it because their call will influence much of that person's life. Often but not always people with indeterminate genitalia are intersex, which means (in a tiny nutshell) they have a chromosomal irregularity that prevents them developing into a fully functioning male or female.  

'Assigned at birth', 'AFAB' [assigned female at birth], 'AMAB' [assigned male at birth] have become code phrases for people who believe themselves to be something other than the sex they were (probably) observed to be.  Sometimes sex is conflated with gender, too (sex is biological, gender is performative, as in following gender stereotypes). It's a mess. I'm just really, really glad that the wheels are falling off the Stonewall bandwagon because lesbian, gay and bisexual people deserve better.

Isn’t Marion Millar the lady in Scotland who is presently facing trial for posting a photo of a suffragette ribbon tied to a fence? Meanwhile, some lovely he/him student posted about shooting ‘TERFS’ along with pictures of his gun collection and was clapped on the back by his university! Strange times indeed. 

Yep trans can defend their rights and 'terfs' as everyday women are now described by some can defend ours.

Never had a problem with Stonewall campaigning for gender reassignment to have protected status but any NGO ‘selling’ a misrepresentation of the law is a problem for public and educational bodies. Blurring the distinction between sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment is not inclusion. It elevates the status of an ill-defined ‘trans’ identity group as it actively excludes other protected groups. Demanding censure and launching libellous attacks on individuals (mainly women) for challenging this subversion of the law has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and has no place in a democracy that demands only that interference in this right is proportionate and legitimate.

Yeah, fuck Stonewall.  I am a silenced Lesbian women.  Let's get rid of trans people, the the White Gay partners, allow me to thrive.  Then we can removed a few of the other minorities we hate!!! Wooheee, I am so happy to remove the rights of a small group of people that do absolutely no harm.

Wait a minute, why does every one hate Lesbians, now??? Oh god why are my rights being questioned!!!  Help!!! They are banging on the door!!! Oh god, forgive me, I didn't realize that take one groups small rights that they would all topple!!  How did we go so right wing Nazi in the UK.   They are here, goodbye, remember m.......................

A lesson in accurate professional journalism that RoF might want to take note of.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/05/stonewall-trans-debate-toxic-gender-identity

"Yeah, fuck Stonewall.  I am a silenced Lesbian women.  Let's get rid of trans people, the the White Gay partners, allow me to thrive.  Then we can removed a few of the other minorities we hate!!! Wooheee, I am so happy to remove the rights of a small group of people that do absolutely no harm."

The fantasy dribblings of a disordered mind. I don't know anyone gender-critical who thinks like this. Grow up, put your battered old victimhood violin away and stop trying to silence women.

That guardian piece rather undoes itself by representing Peter tatchell as an unbiased voice of reason asking ‘why can’t we all just get along?’ This is a disingenuous formulation of the familiar invocation for women to just ‘be kind’. Getting along and being kind in effect means, ‘move over and shut up, women’. 

He knows the trans policies he advocates for mean any male can self ID as a woman, but he implies in the piece that only transwomen would use self-ID. That’s not the case - we know male predators will take advantage of self-ID to gain access to women and children in vulnerable situations.

This unfortunate fact is constantly presented by the trans lobby as if we are claiming, transphobically, that transwomen are a danger. We are not - they are no more or less a danger than any other subset of males, but those other males can and will take advantage of the access rights which trans activists want us to give to transwomen to enable them to be validated. 

Tatchell at least recognises the existence of ‘a few bad apples’ who are trans, but then, outrageously, dismisses the impact of them as negligible and not something trans policies should take into account. It is of course exactly what trans polices should take into account, as should all safeguarding polices. By his logic we should not carry out CRB checks, because only a few men are child predators.

This is, though, the same campaigner who once wrote “Whilst it may be impossible to condone paedophilia it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful” (https://gript.ie/peter_tatchell_see_no_evil/#Jump-response) so I’m not sure, despite all the good work he has indisputably done, he’s the best guy to listen to on balancing the rights of the vulnerable when those groups include women and children. He has an expert area, and this isn’t it.

So I suppose you’re right, that guardian piece is a very illuminating read if you didn’t appreciate that the other side both knows there are safeguarding issues, and is worryingly happy to casually dismiss them. 

As a gay woman I have witnessed other guy women being called TERFs because they have said they would not engage in a sexual relationship with a transwoman (in particular pre-surgery).

As a woman I have witnessed women being called TERFs because they query the inclusion of transwomen in elite sport.

As a member of society I have witnessed intelligent women such as JK Rowling being hunted down as a TERF for eloquently stating her concerns with regard to potential changes in the law whilst detailing why she holds their concerns.

This does not, in my opinion, bode well for the future. There appears to be little room for people to question, debate, hold valid opinions without being hunted down by Stonewall and their supporters. 

"guy women"

Steady now, you can't say that anymore.

I work in the legal sector and now choose not to work at any legal firm which is listed on the Stonewall Champions list - yes that's limiting, but i just can't sign up to this. I am a lesbian. Coincidentally, a magic circle firm I also worked at wondered why they had so few out lesbians. Go figure 

I am straight.

I care that any gay person is being told someone whom has different genitals to themselves should be classed as their sex, and being called transphobic because of this. 

We care that women's sports will be ravaged by Transwoman and records will be broken, that no born female will ever be able to beat.

As in "The Emperor's New Clothes" a child would once have been able to scream a truth, now though schools and law will force a child to lie. How legally can that be right?

I read an interesting comment in The Times the other day. They said the last thing they would do is hire a law firm with connections to Stonewall.

When paying for legal advice they want expertise in the law as it actually is, not the law as Stonewall wants it to be.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-misinformation-about-diversity-champions-programme

Trans people are some of the most marginalised people in society and suffer terrible prejudice and often violence so though Stonewall may be misguided or even just plain wrong we still have to find a way to resolve the difficulties trans people face.

Where should trans people try on clothes, change or use toilets?

How can people tell if a trans person using a women's changing room is a danger to women?

If trans people are forced to use changing rooms of their biological gender will women accept being joined by trans men on testosterone with beards and penises?

Stonewall's stance is at least highlighting the problems trans people face and society's failure to solve them.  If we don't solve them we condemn trans people to a half life, at risk of prejudice and violence themselves.

@7.49 assuming you are genuine…… why not a third, gender neutral space for trans people ? In reality most women have no issue with trans men using their toilets, changing rooms etc as they are biologically women and therefore present very little danger to them. The issue is trans women, who are biologically male, and may retain their original anatomy and who provide cover for the worst kind of predators. As men they present the greatest risk of harm to women of any section of society (in fact the greatest danger to trans women is from other men, something that gets ignored time and time again). This is really the issue - it’s a hugely asymmetric position.  Men know they have nothing to fear from trans men using their toilets, facilities or trying to compete against them in sports (ha!). There is also no discernible attempt to erase them from the discussion. I don’t see any trans activists complaining about the use of the word “man” or men’s working clubs, or demanding that Cancer Research refer to “prostate havers” rather than men, in the way they do with women, insisting that they be reduced to their anatomy as “menstruators” or “uterus havers”. 
 

“How can people tell if a trans person using a women's changing room is a danger to women?”

Well, we can’t can we? So we unfortunately have to assume that all men, including trans women are a danger and exclude them from our safe spaces for our own protection. But even if you came up with a 100% accurate way of determining this - I still don’t want trans women in women only spaces or women’s sports or in roles such as a “woman” police officer or “woman” probation officer (with their ability to conduct intimate searches). We are entitled to our privacy and our dignity as women without having to allow access to trans women simply because they demand it for their own validation. 
 

What about the “half life” of prejudice and violence faced by women across the world?!

"Stonewall's stance is at least highlighting the problems trans people face and society's failure to solve them.  If we don't solve them we condemn trans people to a half life, at risk of prejudice and violence themselves."

No. Don't try to deploy that well-worn rhetorical device.

Stonewall is not just 'highlighting' the problem, they're calling for a solution which actively prejudices and undermines the rights of several other groups.

Stonewall's proposed course of action is not the only way to 'solve' the issue and thereby rid ourselves of 'prejudice' (and/or the nonspecific 'violence' which we're repeatedly warned of but which never really seems to materialise in the UK). There are other solutions available which aren't as divisive, don't prejudice other groups, and which don't rely on obliging everyone in society to pretend they believe that men can literally turn into women by the power of positive thinking alone.

Everybody here would like to find a way to 'resolve the difficulties trans people face'. So don't try to pretend that giving Stonewall's useless suggestions the treatment they deserve somehow means that we're rejecting any and all other reasonable options.

Everybody here would like to find a way to 'resolve the difficulties trans people face'.

Would they? Really?

Seems to me it's being made into an "either / or" situation.  The reason Stonewall have taken the position they have is because no-one is trying to find a way to resolve the difficulties trans people face.

They might be misguided.  They might be plain wrong.  But if they weren't doing what they are doing no-one would be doing anything for trans people.

We can get hung up on Stonewall's position if you like (or rather you can - I'll pass) but it'd be better if you can find some helpful answers to the three questions I posed in my 07:49.  I don't know what the answers are but I think the only way people can move beyond their entrenched positions is finding solutions.

Where should trans people try on clothes, change or use toilets?

How can people tell if a trans person using a women's changing room is a danger to women?

If trans people are forced to use changing rooms of their biological gender will women accept being joined by trans men on testosterone with beards and penises?

And if there are no obvious answers that fit in our current systems then perhaps we have to find you systems and ways of doing things - which may, of course, create new problems and pushback.  People are resistant to change.  But the way things are currently is not working for anyone.

typo:

perhaps we have to find new systems and ways of doing things

What about the “half life” of prejudice and violence faced by women across the world?!

While I absolutely agree that women tend to experience prejudice and violence, blaming that on trans people is a bit like blaming the budget deficit on too many public libraries in Wolverhampton.

Trans people are not the cause of women's oppression.  They are victims of gender stereotyping and patriarchy just as much as (and probably more than) women.

Prior to going into law I worked for a very large private healthcare company, I was reasonably high up in the marketing department and I have seen first hand the thought process that goes into seeking stonewall accreditation. It is viewed as a shield, something which the businesses or organisation can use to protect them when they do something wrong. 

The focus is never on avoiding doing things wrong, and I recall with some shame that I sat across a table from a young man who was only in his early 20's, who pointed out it that if we want to be seen as supporting gay people, perhaps we should stop doing business with certain prominent organisations in the middle east who supported regimes that were openly hostile to homosexuality.

'm sorry to say I didn't do anything to defend the young man when he was told his ideas were idiotic and bigoted because I was in the running for a step up on a career I left later that year anyway. Maybe if all of us middle managers would have put our foot down 10 years ago we wouldn't have the issues with identity politics we have now. 

Stonewall has lost its way, pride month is a corporate money spinner and the trans lobby is terrifying in both its reach and vindictiveness to those who oppose it.

"Seems to me it's being made into an "either / or" situation.  The reason Stonewall have taken the position they have is because no-one is trying to find a way to resolve the difficulties trans people face."

That's so divorced from reality that it's hard to believe you're saying it in good faith.

There have been a multitude of potential solutions offered to resolve these difficulties, both by private groups and by the UK Government itself. Stonewall et all's approach is to declare those efforts to be 'insufficient' at best or 'transphobic' at worst; then to demand a solution which actively prejudices the rights of others.

Stonewall et al did not begin doing that because "no-one else is trying to find a way", they did it because they wanted their own extreme way at any cost.

If you don't believe me about the existence of these solutions, then go look up the Gender Recognition Act. I'm staggered you hadn't appreciated it's existence.

Or, alternatively, you know all of this already and are just trying to paint yourself/Stonewall as victims, when in fact you're the ones actively pushing an approach that will prejudice others, undermine their rights, and create safeguarding issues - all for the sake of feeling personal validation. 

"I don't know what the answers are but I think the only way people can move beyond their entrenched positions is finding solutions."

... and yet you think anyone pointing out that Stonewall's solution isn't the right one should then be able to do more than you can? That they should know what the answers are and be obliged to answer your arbitrary questions to your satisfaction?

Again, if I didn't know better I'd suggest that you're just falsely pretending concern and neutrality, while you try to paint anyone who doesn't agree with your preferred proposal as being a 'transphobe' who is actively trying to prevent any kind of solution being found.

Please put that overused rhetorical device back on the shelf - nobody is buying the idea that the people seeking to implement oppressive changes to the law (which would actively take away other peoples' freedom of belief and conscience) are actually the victims here.

"the way things are currently is not working for anyone"

...bar the 99.9% of the population that are not trans and/or who don't sign up to the mad suggestion that the right answer is At Will Self-ID with enforced acceptance.

With no disrespect intended to them, the only people for whom the current solution "isn't working" are the sub-set of the trans community who advocate the Stonewall endorsed solution. That's a sub-set of an already very tiny minority.

They don't get to dictate public policy any more than the tiny sub-set of Muslims who think Sharia Law is the right answer. That fact does not mean that they are being 'oppressed' as a result of being unable to impose their far-out views on everyone else.

"women tend to experience prejudice and violence, blaming that on trans people is a bit like blaming the budget deficit on too many public libraries in Wolverhampton"

What, in the sense that nobody except you is doing it?

Moon Beever - Fnnar

bar the 99.9% of the population 

Well if minorities and the marginalised don't matter then women will just have to take what they're given until they can make it stop.

@ Anonymous 08 June 21 12:03

So you've had a nice long rant.

Now let's get back to the practical stuff.

Where should trans people try on clothes, change or use toilets?

How can people tell if a trans person using a women's changing room is a danger to women?

If trans people are forced to use changing rooms of their biological gender will women accept being joined by trans men on testosterone with beards and penises?

"So you've had a nice long rant.

Now let's get back to the practical stuff."

What an astoundingly pathetic whimper of a response.

I didn't expect much, but I did expect better.

@10.15 

“Trans people are not the cause of women's oppression.  They are victims of gender stereotyping and patriarchy just as much as (and probably more than) women.” 

Yeah this is really up for debate, given that transwomen benefit from being male for a large portion of their lives until they decide that they identify as a marginalised and oppressed group (and that discrimination and oppression against them is so much worse than that experienced by any other group - spoiler, it isn’t!). Transwomen then further benefit by having access to enhanced opportunities to participate in women’s sports (taking away opportunities from natal women, see for example Laurel Hubbard, the New Zealand weightlifter and oldest “female” weightlifter at the Tokyo olympics. Plus increasing the rate and severity of injuries suffered by natal women in contact sports), women’s prizes and positions reserved exclusively for women (like heading up Edinburgh Rape Crisis - see Mridul Wadhwa (who is a man - doesn’t have a GRC and hasn’t had surgery to correct their gender dysphoria btw). Their identification as women also seems to hang on really reductive, regressive ideas about gender and what women are - liking the colour pink, feminine things, makeup etc.