RUTH HUNT: Culture Wars 2

This is part two of a post on a lecture, given by Ruth Hunt, on how to build bridges amidst the Culture Wars.

You can read that piece below :

I have also transcribed it, after a fashion, below. Quotes used are verbatim but it was a long interview with some repetition so I have just summarised some parts.

Ruth Hunt Building Bridges

Building Bridges Amidst the Culture Wars

Just to recap. Ruth Hunt actually chose the title and topic for this lecture. 😳

Questions and Answers

When she has completed her “prevarications” (I don’t think she knows the meaning of this word, by the way) she invites questions. I am confident this offer was delivered in the certain knowledge disagreement would not be forthcoming. People know what the limits of free speech are on this topic. I didn’t expect any dissenting voices and I was not disappointed. This group think is precisely why Ruth Hunt remains isolated from contrary opinions,

Social Media / Twitter

The first question is about the “fisticuffs” on social media. Ruth talks about her own experience here: “I have had a relentless kind of kicking”, which seems to be related to her, now deleted, twitter account. She goes on to lament the fact that nobody is taking “collective leadership” to reinforce a better culture on social media. Here she justifies silence about the social media attacks on others. Call me cynical but I don’t think she is talking about routine threats, of sexual violence, which accompany the term “terf”. She does, however, make an important point about people unwilling to jump to others defence.

What Hunt fails to extrapolate from this observation is what it says about how people use social media. Women attract, arguably, the worst abuse when standing up for sex based rights. There are twitter rules that officially allow women to be banned for referencing biological reality. Women have been removed for stating the legal definition of Rape, for correctly sexing abusive males and simply for quoting the official crime statistics on sexual offences. (At least 98% of perpetrators are male). If someone, with her social position, and organisational backing, admits to shying away from “a toxic debate” what does she think happens to women without these resources?

It is also worth pointing out the vast, vast, majority of people are not on twitter. Those of us who retain a connection to real life, and move in less elite circles, know most people have no clue about Queer Theory. The magical thinking of the Genderists may have corrupted the powerful but ordinary people do not (yet?) believe that Lesbians come equipped with penises.

Ruth then tells us of some research Stonewall commissioned, from a peace-keeping charity, to help the organisation on “trans issues” and social media. This was their finding: Apparently the opposition came from a “nest” of 700 accounts who were found to be linked up with Liz Truss. As an aside, I found her choice of words, and body language fascinating, through this interview.

So what conclusions did Ruth draw from this exercise? It seems the organisation determined they were giving too much credence to the unhelpful opinions of the, predominantly, female people. The nasty wimmin were a distraction 👇

There is a significant time given over to discussing the incivility on twitter and the failure to establish a culture of respectful dialogue. Hunt compares this to the conduct in the House of Lords and in Academia. (As an aside she expresses surprise that the House of Lords don’t regulate her conduct on social media). She clearly thinks legislation has a role but offers us the benefit of her experience on legal remedies. An observation which is daily more demonstrated by increasing public awareness of, and rejection, of the notion of women with penises.

Political Strategy

Hunt rightly identifies the change of heart from Conservative Ministers was on the basis of the perceived benefits to capitalism. Not a principled stance but governed by hard cash.

Ruth acknowledges her behind the scenes role with government 👇

Decline in Trust in organisations

Ruth Hunt, below, talks about the loss of faith in our institutions. Many of us would entirely agree with this observation and link our own disillusionment, directly, to the widespread adoption of policy based on Stonewall’s “misguided” advice on the law. My own council replaced “sex” with “gender on its public information, as did the Crown Prosecution Services in a guide for schools. Here Hunt identifies a direct line from a decline in trust in once respected, institutions to the emerging of terrorism.

It is not clear whether Ruth anticipates the emergence of balaclava clad bitches running riot across the land with bombs strapped to our bosoms, because we surely have lost faith in, the U.K. charity, Stonewall.

Sex Not Gender

In this aside Ruth cannot even bring herself to say the protected characteristic of SEX. She also prefers to imply that the nebulous concept of gender has some special status which needs to be enshrined in policies to tackle societal inequality. Gender is not, for the people at the back, a legally protected characteristic in U.K. Law.

President Joe Biden

All is not lost though, she reassures her audience. Joe Biden may be our saviour. Britain needs to trade with the United States and we may need to throw off our reputation for being “transphobic” to maintain our alliance with Uncle Sam (or should that be Auntie Samantha?)

Biden, as we know has embraced the rise of medically constructed identities with alacrity and elevates “Gender Identity” above biological sex, in his rush to appease the Gender Industrial Complex. This in a country that has failed to protect access to abortion or paid Maternity Leave. (See the draconion anti-abortion legislation passed in Texas). Just today Biden’s twitter account claimed this would affect “people”. Neither him nor the female Vice President acknowledged the “people” would be women!

Next she launches a broadside against The Sunday Times for shedding some much needed light on the activity of Stonewall and her own role in its, plummeting, reputation. For Ruth there is no legitimacy to the critiques, the media coverage is just click bait to appeal to shameless populism.

However, all is not lost. We may have fallen behind in passing legislation to elevate the transgender community but, she claims, to have the support of Boris Johnson’s wife.

Evidence Based Data

Here, without a trace of irony, she makes a plea for data based on the health and sexual orientation. In a world where women die, needlessly, because we don’t research sex based differences in health she is happy to undermine data on the category of SEX. She collides with the eradication of research, for women, but wants evidence based health care for herself. This is quite hypocritical because she has repeatedly bemoaned the people who think only in terms of “Me” and not “We”.

So where else will Ruth wander in the Q & A session? She is most proud of her caped crusader stint at Stonewall, where she spent 14 years “righting wrongs”. Stonewall do indeed have a proud legacy, right up to her tenure. Hunt took the helm and set in motion the new sex denialism, despite the fact biological sex is foundational to defending same SEX attraction. It is difficult to judge whether this is naïveté or knowing complicity.

Corporate Campaigns

Her next proud achievement, is, she claims the gullible companies, and public sector organisation who were co-opted as “campaigners” without them realising they were part of her cunning plan:

The question of regret garners some thoughts about reflective practice, learning all the time, constantly re-evaluating etc. Yet, the regret she focuses on is her adoption of a “heroic leadership” model when she became Stonewall CEO. Note the blame is shifted and described as mandate by Stonewall. Note also the consumer driven terminology as she laments the negative impact on the Stonewall “brand”.

She had another regret which was the failure to teach the Judiciary about “trans” asylum seekers which, helpfully, gets it on record that the CEO of Stonewall was training our judiciary.

“Terf” Island

The questions return to how transphobic the British are and the moderator asks Ruth to explain how she measures this and what are her benchmarks? Of course she goes straight to the, discredited, Hate Crime statistics. For the neophytes she is taking about “crimes” that are automatically recorded as “Hate Crime Incidents” based entirely on the perception of the “victim”.

Further evidence of our nation’s “transphobia” relies on the way we are percieved by Americans (by which she seems to mean the U.S because she has a habit of referring to “America” when she clearly means the United States). Yes Ruth it’s not science. 👇

Peppered with observations about British exceptionalism, a post Brexit society and our delusions of still having a great Navy she compares and contrasts the nature of the debate in the U.K with the United States. She waxes lyrical about our sophisticated “American” cousins. We, in the U.K, are aggressive which, she argues, is so “unBritish”. Well worth watching her body language at 1 hour 8 minutes, when she talks about the bigoted women worried about pesky details, such as the destruction of female sports and males invading rape crisis centres.

Academic Freedom

Finally she weighs in on the issue of Academic Freedom. Notice she substitutes and example about race for trans issues. She does this on the spurious grounds that people get so confused about trans issues and if they look at it in the same way as racism the course of action will be much clearer. This is a deliberate strategy. It would be a rarity for anyone in British public life, or private individuals, to advocate for racial segregation. The idea that women and girls don’t need sex specific spaces is far from won which is why she uses another example.

Academics discussing the importance of sex based data, rights to single sex spaces, accurate teaching about biology are not the descendants of the Klu Klux Klan FFS!. This is dangerous and irresponsible framing.in my opinion.

Pride

Some thoughts from Ruth on PRIDE. Given she has courted big business and establishment figures, as a central component of her advocacy, I would take this with a pinch of salt. In an era when Lesbians are ostracised, at Pride events, for declaring the exclusion of males from their dating pools, and when a gay man is rounded upon by a 🌈🌈 draped mob there is nothing to be PROUD of…

Divine Wisdom

I will leave you with this final thought from the moderator. Yes. He really did say this:

He also commends Ruth for her kind and compassionate lecture. There is something interesting about the appeals to the divine in this debate and the faith like certainty that they are on the side of the Angels. One thing is clear there is a lot of resentment that the days of backroom deals are over. The scrutiny of the media/social media has, hopefully, limited the stealth activism which has served the advocates of this ideology so, so well.

Ruth Hunt: Culture Wars. 1

Featured

You can watch this here:

Ruth Hunt: Bridge Building

I have also transcribed (most of it and will add it here when I have finished Part 2.

After a potted history of her career (Baroness) Hunt made attempt at levity re the zoom times and engaging an on-line. She tells us she enjoys a live audience and, in the absence of one, she is going to get out her lego figures and pretend her Jodie Whittaker figure is here to appreciate her words of wisdom. As this is Ruth Hunt I fact checked this and there is indeed a lego figure for Whittaker.

I found it a rather painful introduction but I am not the target audience and it may have gone over quite well with “da yoof”. Ruth explains that she wishes she could see the faces of her audience. Trust me, she doesn’t want to see mine as I watch her pontificate on social justice issues.

She first provides some personal background information and we learn that her mother is a trained Nurse, midwife and a retired Professor of women’s health and midwifery. I wonder if her mum agrees with terms such as “bleeder”, “birthing person” and the attempts to pretend women’s historic position in our society has nothing to do with the fact we are of the reproductive sex class? She also shares a very personal revelation about the death of her young aunt, in childbirth. For both these reasons I find it hard to understand why she has allowed herself to be persuaded that biological sex is no more than an “identity”. Hunt also explains her Christian faith and realise she was a Lesbian. She talks about the books she read and which she doesn’t recommend, and that Lesbian kiss in Brookside.

Another revelation was that Hunt began writing for “Diva” magazine at age 16. She describes herself, at this stage as very much “Cock of the Walk”.

Diva magazine, as you may be aware, was started by Linda Riley who has an interesting background. Private Eye cover some of her chequered financial history and also her notorious involvement with the Jack the Ripper Museum; which claimed to be a Women’s history museum on it’s planning application. 😳

Ruth then treats us to a potted history of her progress through Oxford University where she became the first Lesbian to become the President of the Student Union following her grammar school education and being Head Girl. She relates how she was subsequently head hunted by prominent companies and how she was attracted to the idea of joining the Army. In the end she rejected all of these options because “they won’t want me, they want someone prettier, with longer hair and swishy head, brooch wearing and ears pierced and loveliestness (sic)” So, instead she took a job at Stonewall (U.K.) .

Ruth gives us a whistle stop tour of the achievements of Stonewall up to 2010 and how she felt they were “banking” success during this period. She also deliberately uses the phrase “Gay Rights” and explains, to her audience, that Stonewall was, in those days, campaigning for Lesbian and Gay rights and had not yet included the bisexual and trans groups in their advocacy. All that was about to change when Hunt became CEO, in 2014. Hunt’s appointment coincided with the legislation to introduce the right for Gay marriage so a cynic might say Stonewall was casting around for a new remit. Hunt describes this in a somewhat different way and seems to think her projective was all about collectivism and a move away from individualism. I find this deeply disingenuous. The neoliberalism on cross sex hormones, that is Gender Identity Ideology, is deeply individualist with a strong streak of narcissism.

Hunt contextualises the environment in which Stonewall pivoted to campaign for trans rights and makes an interesting slip in this clip. She begins to describe legislation about “Gender” and then corrects herself to acknowledge the legislation was actually to do with Sex discrimination. She makes a similar slip when she takes about the Trade Union movement being led by White male misogy…but she stops herself from acknowledging misogyny.

Ruth then talks about opposition to “trans-inclusion” which is really an opposition to the sex denialism of Stonewall’s position with the concomitant impact on Women’s (sex based) rights and Gay rights. Like many commentators she situates this conflict of rights in the context of the advent of social media and the rise of Donald Trump. Indeed Trump which may explain some backlash, in the United States, but has zero to do with the Left–wing and Trade Union women who established, for example, Women’s Place U.K. This is how she characterises the debate on social media:

Ruth Hunt clearly found the responses very challenging. She is keen to point out that she has many times sat in rooms with people who disagreed with her stance on a range of issues. It is, by now, abundantly clear it is in back rooms in which Stonewall has been operating. The people who were not around this ever inclusive table, which Ruth likes to refer to, were the female people with a second wave feminist analysis. Ruth prefers to lament a lack of social cohesion and a decline of acceptance to the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump. That serves her narrative better than the truth which is the opposition of simple, grass roots, women’s rights campaigners and Gay rights activists. Never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh, Ruth?

This next clip takes some chutzpah. Ruth thinks we don’t have FACTS! Ruth has deleted her twitter account ostensibly because it was an unproductive and agrees i’ve medium. I think she has deleted it so she can avoid scrutiny and accountability for the damage she has done to Women, especially Lesbians and our Gay youth of both sexes.

She characterises the opposition to Stonewall version of “trans rights” as “cruel” and “mean” . Yet not one word does she say about the violent threats, often sexual in nature, which accompany attacks on “Terfs”. It also doesn’t seem to occur to Hunt that is precisely the awareness campaigns, pushed by Stonewall, that have informed more and more people about Gender Identity Ideology.

In all this Hunt looks to the United States for inspiration and remind us that President Biden has his pronouns in his bio and appointed a trans person to a senior position in his administration. The trans-identified male, appointed to policy-making positions around health issues, is a heterosexual, late transitioner who publicly refused to oppose puberty blockers for children. Where Hunt feels hope there is only despair. She is right that there is a danger in our need to trade with the United States, especially post Brexit.

So where does Ruth stand on the bridge building? She concedes that there is a need to speak to the “enemy” but then goes on to say this:

So it seems Ruth Hunt has declared WAR and yet she seems in utter ignorance about why so many people, within the Lesbian and Gay community, are also at odds with the Stonewall agenda. It also seems the Lady is not for turning. There is no golden bridge for those of us who are not won over by her arguments. So how does Baroness Hunt propose to win the war?

She will be using her position in the House of Lords and also her new initiative Deeds not Words. She will be withdrawing from those talks to more backroom discussions with government departments. What is becoming clear is that this agenda doesn’t have widespread public support and Hunt likes to operate in stealth. Using the precise tactics advocated for by the Dentons Document which I cover here:

That Denton’s Document

She the. proceeds to reference research on how to effect social change and I think she is referencing the work covered in this article.

Tipping Point

The article explains that you only need 25% of committed activists to reach a tipping point and, ironically, the hypothesis was first tested on eradicating sexist behaviour in the workplace. The authors do however identify a danger in this type of activism. It can also be used by “organisations trying to control people”

All of which brings to mind the many articles that abound in the demonic power of self-righteousness. Maybe Ruth needs to consider the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. I am not in possession of religious faith but I get a strong sense of Messianic zeal from the Baroness. Pride comes before a fall.

Ruth then expounds on her theories of declining power of our politicians and presents a theory about different kids of activism and how to use your power for good. One of the ways Ruth intends to use her power in the house of Lords is to effect legislative change to help “trans people” or to destroy women’s sex based rights, depending on your perspective. She also claims it is important to be unafraid of uncertainty which is something she may also wish to reflect upon.

Next up Ruth shares her views on forgiveness. She recounts a tale about a good friend of hers being confused about the important of pronouns. Saint Ruth realists, she tells us, the temptation to lecture her friend by, er, lecturing him on any pronouns are important t until he adds pronouns to his email.

The Q & A will be covered in Part 2.

Ruth Hunt on Hard Talk

Featured

In this interview Ruth Hunt talks to Sara Montague about her time at Stonewall and, in particular, her decision to expand the remit of Stonewall, traditionally a Gay rights charity, to include the Trans community. Link to interview here. It’s audio only so the pictures are taken from images on-line. I may have over-used the ones that make her look like a Bond Villain. 😉

Ruth HuntL Hard Talk

I transcribed the interview here. RUTH HUNT HARDTALK.

The interview takes place after Ruth Hunt has announced she was stepping down, after 14 years at the helm of Stonewall. This was during a period in which more voices were beginning to speak out against the, extremist, positions the organisation was taking. After a brief introduction Sara gets straight to the heart of the conflict around the Gender Recognition Act.

It is certainly the case that Stonewall took the more extreme position on reform of the Gender Recognition Act. They advocate to allow anyone to self-identify, as the opposite sex, and have this belief ratified by the State. This changing legal landscape has occurred in countries such as Argentina, Malta and Ireland with little public debate. In Ireland this took place, notably, before Abortion was legalised and piggy backing on the bills for Gay marriage. This is a common tactic, a kind of forced-teaming. Very difficult to oppose a bull when a significant part of it is progressive and opposing it, because of the Self-Identified sex would have been easy to discredit as a cover for homophobia. The exact same tactic has been used with legislation agains Gay Conversion Therapy. The real intention is to out law therapy for gender confused teens, many of whom, if left alone, would simply be gay. A deeply sinister tactic.

The current position in U.K Law, is that a panel, made up of judges, determines whether an applicant can be granted a change to their birth certificate to retrospectively record a different sex from that recognised and recorded at birth.

I have covered the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) based on an interview by one of the members , a Judge.

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

As you can see, from the above, the system was designed to be “enabling”. It is also perfectly legal for a SINGLE Judge to overturn refusals of Gender Recognition Certificates, made by the GRP. I covered one such example below. Here a thrice married, father of seven, with convictions for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life, was granted a legal certificate to say he is a woman.

Gender Recognition Certificates

Sara presses on with this line of questioning: Here she makes it clear that Stonewall had other alternatives to the line they have chosen.

Ruth’s response was illogical. Apparently this is already the position and few people feel the need to get a Gender Recognition Certificate and self-identify already. Yet, she squandered Stonewall’s reputation go campaign for certificates which, by her own argument, few people feel the need to obtain! So which is it Ruth? A vital change? Or superfluous to “lived experience” ?

Next up Sara outlines what she thinks are the problems with the current process. I strongly disagree with this interpretation, as outlined in the above linked posts. I believe Sara has bought into the Stonewall narrative.

Sara does, at least, follow up on why Stonewall determined to lobby for the most extreme accommodations to be enshrined in law pushing for Hunt to say something about the process she proposes.

Ruth Hunt fleshes out the desired process for a man, who wishes to be recognised as a woman “for all legal purposes”, should go through. Sign a fucking form! Make a pinky promise! I am being a tad sarcastic here but there are no recorded cases, that I wcould find, of any prosecutions for lying on a Statutory Declaration. She seems similarly unaware of what that would mean for detransitioners. There is already one young woman having trouble because she was advised to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate to revert to her biological sex, in law. Problem is that it requires a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and she cannot get one. BECAUSE SHE IS DETRANSITIONING due to the abatement of her Gender Dysphoria.

Hunt is also mandating how we are to even “think” about this. Because they say they are a woman, “that’s how they should be regarded”. Again, you can’t dictate an instinctive recognition of biological sex. Women need to respond to recognition of sex to ascertain our safety in certain circumstances. You can’t unpick evolution with a piece of paper, we are hard wired to recognise biological sex.

It is quite chilling to hear Ruth Hunt dictate how someone should be regarded when all the evidence, especially for biological males, is likely to contradict the way someone sees themselves. Testosterone, on females, packs one hell of a punch and it is likely they will be more “passing” but for biological males this is rarely the case. Trans-ID females, of course, are unlikely to present a threat in male spaces. Though there are more females demanding to be included in Gay Male spaces which is likely why we are seeing more Gay Men with Gender Critical positions.

Sara moves on to explore the cases of males abusing the self-declaration process to access vulnerable women, especially in prisons. First up Christopher Hambrook. This case is in Canada. Christopher Hambrook assaulted women in two homeless shelters in Toronto.

Christopher Hambrook

Ruth’s, disingenuous, response is to say that changing to a self-identification process would not make this any more likely to happen!

The above statement directly contradicts the advice of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, reproduced below, who had this to say in their submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. They called this stance naive.

Next up Sara confronts Ruth Hunt about the issue of female only spaces, generally. There are many reasons why women may wish to meet without any males present, however they identify. Some of them may relate to bodily privacy but others may be to discuss and advocate for women’s rights. Lesbians may wish to socialise with same sex attracted females. All of these things are under threat due to the domination of the Gender Identity Idealogues.

Ruth’s response is to advise that experts have been risk assessing the trans people (males) coming into female spaces for “a very, very, long time”.

Sarah’s rejoinder is to bring up the infamous case of “Karen” White who, according to the judge “used her transgender persona to put herself in contact with vulnerable persons”. Notice the judge grants the male rapist female pronouns but erases the raped women as “persons”.

Ruth’s defence of her position is to waffle on about risk assessments and how they clearly failed in the context of Karen White. She lays the responsibility firmly at the door of the Ministry of Justice. What she omits is any reference to who advised them in formulatig their policy. This was Jay Stewart., also from the queer theory stable. She even has the cheek to say we need to focus on safeguarding, which is the first casualty of this bonkers ideology.

The next exchanges cuts to the heart of the problem with the Gender Recognition Act and it’s privacy provisions. You are not allowed to ASK to see a GRC, and if you come by the knowledge of someone’s biological sex, in an official capacity, you are not allowed to disclose it. The penalties for this have been set very high, it is a criminal offence which attracts a level 5 fine which is unlimited.

This accounts for the bizarre position public officials find themselves in. A patient detained on a mental health ward sees an obvious man and a Nurse is forced to lie to the patient about the sex, of an obvious man, in the next bed. Even when he is exposing his genitalia. This actually happened by the way!

Asked about if she understands why some women “who feel very, very, concerned about the ease with which somebody could now say “I am now a woman”…Ruth interrupts with more guff about assessments which we are now seeing regularly “fail” across the Prison system.

The above amounts to Ruth telling us the privacy provisions set out in the Gender Recognition Act are already inadequate to protect female spaces so why not make it even easier?

Sara the. introduces the voice of transsexual campaigner Kristina Harrison. KH makes the point that Stonewall are enshrining the most extremist positions in law and the lack of any public debate. KH also takes aim at the stealth policy and legal capture and the “toxic authoritarian atmosphere and the dissenting voices being sidelined are particularly women”. I am not suprised Sarah uses a “trans” voice to articulate these points, which have been made by many, many women. This looks like a human shield tactic but nevertheless KH summarised the position well.

The astonishingly arrogant reply from Hunt is this. Apparently Parliament abolished sex in 2004 and there was a debate and everything…

Next up, without referencing Posey Parker /Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall by name, Sarah talks about the billboard campaign involving the shocking use of the dictionary definition of women. Does Ruth find the words Adult, Human, Female offensive?

Ruth says no, she doesn’t find it personally offensive and says it’s not within her power to decide what goes on billboards or not. She then deflects with an astonishing bit of DARVO, (Deny, Accuse, Reverse, Victim and Offender).

I notice Ruth has now deleted her twitter account but she knows this bad on both sides argument is tosh. The rape threats, the obvious males posting with weapons, the die in a fire “Terfs” are ubiquitous from trans id males and allies. Women are generally much more restrained. Its almost as if this is a tale of two sexes. So, YES I agree with her, it is toxic. I part company on her delusional perspective which is wilfully obtuse.

Next we hear about one of the founders of Stonewall, Simon Fanshawe, who has publicly broken with the organisation. Eventually he will be followed by Matthew Paris and latterly Simon Callow. When asked about this he is dismissed because “he hasn’t been involved in Stonewall for over thirty years”. Hunt also repudiates any suggestions that Stonewall has shut down debate. This is interesting because they had a whole campaign saying #NoDebate. Hunt then claims that Stonewall have been involved in constant debates on this issue. That’s a whopping great lie for a woman who likes to bang on about her faith.

Undeterred Sara presses her on the fact that Stonewall have refused to debate and pulls people from panels when the topic is the GRA and the impact on women’s rights. I would argue that it is not entirely coincidental that the BBC have cancelled women speakers when Stonewall have refused to appear. The BBC claim “balance” wouldn’t be achieved with only one side willing to appear. I would say this is strategic and the BBC have either been played (or played along?). They should have “empty chaired” rather than amplifying the myth that Feminists are too terrifying for Trans people to appear alongside.

Sara then moves on to question Hunt about the opposition from Lesbians and Feminists including the public repudiation by a Lesbian and former donor. Maureen is a writer and a had been a high profile and generous supporter of Stonewall.

Ruth’s answer to this quetion is very revealing she immediately justifies Stonewall’s stance by referencing how lucrative it has been for the organisation.

I do wish that Sara had spent a little bit more time exploring Maureen’s concerns and mentioned the famous penis bearing “Lesbian” who is one of Stonewall’s advisors. Ruth should also have been confronted with the bodily modifications young lesbians and gay boys are being groomed to think are “natural”. It’s not “playful” when you sit, as I have done, with young women post testosterone, double mastectomies, hysterectomies and ovary removal. Women in their early twenties who realise, in the main, they were just lesbians.

And what does Ruth pivot to? MONEY and, below, their support from the establishment.

Ruth makes it clear that Stonewall have followed the lead of United States charities who added the T well before Stonewall. Nobody brings up the £100,000 the organisation took from Arcus Foundation to add Trans advocacy to their agenda. This was in 2015 and I am sure the fundraising department soon realised they were looking at a Cash cow if they added the T. She also makes it abundantly clear that this course of action was approved by the entire board, as the actions of her successor confirms.

Elsewhere Ruth has stated that they knew some people would be opposed to the addition of the T. They went ahead anyway. Who is paying for this? The bodies of our Gay boys and Lesbians who are being mined for profit by the Gender Industrial Complex. I don’t believe for a second she doesn’t know what she has facilitated. I hope she enjoys purgatory because, for me, nothing will expiate her sins. Luckily I am not God.

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Featured

Introduction:

Ruth Hunt may believe that she got out of, the UK Charity, Stonewall, reputation intact, I am here to state that she did not. More public, and private, bodies are declining to renew membership, of the Charity’s many, money-making initiatives. Hunt may be congratulating herself that this did not happen on her watch. She is in for a rude awakening, this is her legacy. I intend to capture as much evidence as I can while we wait for the public accountability as the dominoes begin to topple.

Now that Hunt has been elevated to the the House of Lords I want to remind her that it took decades for Lord David Steel to be held to account; over his failure to deal with the child predator, and MP, Cyril Smith. How many more children could have been saved from abuse had he spoken up? Similarly how many of our, young, gay males and Lesbians will have been unnecessarily medicalised before Gender Identity Ideology is defeated. David Steel, eventually, resigned from his party and stood down from the House of Lords. His status did not save him. Stonewall had a proud history of standing up for Gay Rights but have now trashed their reputation. They bear a significant share of responsibiity for the harm Trans ideology has visited on young Lesbians and Gay Males. As CEO Ruth Hunt is similarly tarnished.

Ruth Hunt will indeed have a reputation, even a place in history, but it is one likely to take the proud out of PRIDE! Queer Capitalism indeed!

Primary Source:

Here is the interview. I have saved a copy. There will be mass deletions of tweets, interviews, newspaper articles. We need to archive as many of these as we can. We must NEVER forget who is reponsible for the promotion of this ideology. (Ruth Hunt has already deleted her Twitter account).

Owen Jones interviews Ruth Hunt

Here is a transcript. I have tried to reproduce it accurately but I did have to correct some parts, the intent was clear, but it didn’t translate to the written word. You can cross check the interview for yourself.

owen jones and ruth hunt

The Interview:

The interview takes place when Stonewall were campaigning for a review of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). The GRA allows someone to obtain a revised birth certificate to reflect a “sex change”. The legislation was designed to facilitate a legal fiction for, we were told, a tiny number of people who we commonly considered to be “transsexual”. What Trans Activists, supported by Stonewall, wished to do was to allow anyone to identify as the opposite sex on a “self-identifying” basis. This would remove any gatekeeping and, as I have shown in previous blogs the process, as it exists now, already allows fully intact, male, rapists to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

In the U.K, this proposed “reform”, triggered alarm in many women and led to the formation of Women’s Place U.K and Fairplay For Women as well as other, groups like Standing For Women. Other groups like Object and Filia had existed prior to the GRA.

The strategy Stonewall used to enable this legislative change was to avoid debate. We were told there was no need for one and we should just “skip it”. This approach was perfectly represented by this campaign material.

Stonewall and other Trans Activists also opted for a policy of #NoDebate on the spuriousgrounds that we “debated” Gay Rights and we should simply #Skipit this time. This strategy was exemplified in BBC Radio 4 Women’s Hour attempts to cover the issue. Those representing the Trans Lobby would refuse the appear, on the same programme as Women’s Rights campaigners, claiming this would render them unsafe. This propagated the myth of a vulnerable community and also avoided any, direct, challenge to their arguments. Sometimes Woman’s Hour used taped segments, other times Trans activists refused to appear, at all. Many segments were simply cancelled because nobody, for the Trans Side, would agree to contribute.

Freddy McConnell (Trans-identified Female) outlined their stance, re debate, for the Guardian. Note the framing, discussing this issue is presented as a literal threat to life. It is also notworthy that females are often put up to oppose Women’s rights campaigners to avoid people concluding, correctly in my view, that Trans Lobby Groups are dominated by Men’s Rights Activists. It is a lot easier to get away with the hyperbole of “vulnerable” trans people when using a female with a small build.

Ruth Hunt remembers Stonewall Strategy slightly differently. In this interview she claims the problem is that they had over-estimated the capacity of the general public to engage in the debate in a mature enough fashion. Elitist claptrap. I would, however, agree with Ruth on one point they legal/policy proposals are indeed “naive”. I would suggest the truth of the matter is that Stonewall thought that they could adopt the strategy of passing legislative change by stealth. (See my piece on The Denton’s Document. Thankfully the days of them operating in the shadows are over. We See You, as they say, and we don’t like what we are seeing..

Owen’s response is to profess bafflement. Who are the people (can’t even bring himself to say “women) who want to discuss the conflict of rights between Women and Men? They would be WOMEN, Owen. This illustrates how out of touch Owen is with the Working Class on whose existence and lives he has built his career and income streams. Not one thought for the women in prison’s forced to share space with male rapists? Naturally he frames this as “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. He is grossly ill-informed.

Ruth also knows perfectly well she is talking about people with no desire for a “medical” transition. She even claims that women, opposed to male-bodied people in their spaces, are in danger of putting pressure on the NHS who would not be able to cope with the demand. On this point I can set Ruth’s mind at reast. Surgery does not convert a man into a woman and women still have the right to single sex spaces irrespective of surgical status.

This is how Ms Hunt frames the discussion about the Gender Recognistion Act. It is well worth watching the footage to see the jocular way she and Tiny Owen discuss this proposed amendment to the GRA. “It’s just admin”.

Owen cannot contain his glee at the opportuniity to laugh at all those silly women, kicking up a fuss about nothing.

Ruth then goes on to share her opinion on the existing, legal position. This is what is known as Stonewall Law. Repeat the law as you wish it to be not as it is. If the law already allowed all these things there would have been no need for the amendment. What she is doing here is making sure, even if the law does not change, they can continue training organisations across the land that single sex spaces are illegal.

Below is a clip from the Reindorf Report which investigated the no-platforming of Feminist academics from Essex University. Here’s what the author had to say about Stonewall.

Ruth then goes on to make a statement worthy of Goebels level propaganda. The breathtaking audacity of the following statement flabberghasted me to the point of a Benjamin “butter gasp”!

Yes! It’s not as if we don’t already have male rapists in female prisons, competing in women’s sports, taking Women’s Officer roles in the Green Party and Labour. Its not as if a male, who lied about his sex, is now running a Rape Crisis centre for women. Its not a if Mental Health Nurses are telling a female patient, undergoing a psychotic episode the person who has just exposed his penis to her is a “woman”. Its not as if a man in Monkey costume complete wearing a Dildo is going into Nurseries to read books for children!

Hurdles versus Loopholes.

This is a major social engineering process which requires females accept males in every conceivable space. I cannot resist sharing one final screenshot of this interview. This is where Ms Hunt made a (freudian?) slip and substituted the word “loophole” when, from the context, it seems she meant to say “hurdle”. Daft!

I am looking forward to looking at how Ruth squares this with her Christian Faith and why she claims she would be a good person to navigate the so called “Culture Wars”.

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.

£10.00

Tag: Ruth Hunt

RUTH HUNT: Culture Wars 2

Building Bridges Amidst the Culture Wars

Questions and Answers

Social Media / Twitter

Political Strategy

Decline in Trust in organisations

Sex Not Gender

President Joe Biden

Evidence Based Data

Corporate Campaigns

“Terf” Island

Academic Freedom

Pride

Divine Wisdom

Like this:

Ruth Hunt: Culture Wars. 1

Tipping Point

Like this:

Ruth Hunt on Hard Talk

Sara presses on with this line of questioning: Here she makes it clear that Stonewall had other alternatives to the line they have chosen.

Ruth’s, disingenuous, response is to say that changing to a self-identification process would not make this any more likely to happen!

Like this:

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Like this:

Building Bridges Amidst the Culture Wars

Questions and Answers

Social Media / Twitter

Political Strategy

Decline in Trust in organisations

Sex Not Gender

President Joe Biden

Evidence Based Data

Corporate Campaigns

“Terf” Island

Academic Freedom

Pride

Divine Wisdom

Share this:

Like this:

Tipping Point

Share this:

Like this:

Sara presses on with this line of questioning: Here she makes it clear that Stonewall had other alternatives to the line they have chosen.

Ruth’s, disingenuous, response is to say that changing to a self-identification process would not make this any more likely to happen!

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: