Are gay people better off without Stonewall?

I have been meaning to cover this discussion for ages. It was hosted by Tortoise Media and had voices from across the “debate”.

You can watch it here:

Are gay people better off without Stonewall?

The host (referee) is a bit nervous about this discussion and recognises that the topic can be very divisive. She also states that she is a Lesbian so has skin in the game.

Jan Gooding

First introduction goes to Jan Gooding, ex Trustee of Stonewall. Here’s a bit of background on Jan. Main background is in marketing and I did have a wry chuckle at “Brand Reputation Specialist!

It was during Gooding’s time that Stonewall reviewed all their successes, legislatively and looked at their future direction. They had already achieved the repeal of Section 28 and sexual orientation was legal as well as same sex marriage. Seems they needed a new agenda.

Jan did not mention the $100,000 they took from the Arcus Foundation, specifically for them to add the T to their lobbying.

You can learn more about Gooding from her Stonewall review for 2018. #NoDebate

Jan Gooding: 2018

Targeting the Pink Pound.

During Gooding’s time at Stonewall that made many lucrative partnerships and this is one did start to look as if wooing the private sector was a key strategic priority. This is one of Stonewall’s partners; who are salivating at all the £££.

She talks about the history of Stonewall and how it was set up to oppose Section 28 legislation. For readers outside the U.K this was brought in by a conservative govt and banned the “promotion of homosexuality” in schools. Jan is then asked about Stonewall revenue schemes and she makes a couple of interesting comments. Apparently Ben Summerskill of Stonewall was against taking government money but all that changed and the government actively wanted a partnership with Stonewall.

The irony of her next statement was not lost on me given the fact that Stonewall has been misrepresenting the Equality Act consistently and accused of promoting not the law but the law as they would wish it to be. (Source: Akua Reindorf)

Specifically Stonewall set out their aim to undermine the protected characteristic of “sex”; specifically the right to legally protected female only spaces. This is an excerpt from their Vision For Change document.

The presenter then takes a question from an ex volunteer, for Stonewall, in the chat. He describes how he worked in Equality and Diversity but had been put off by the “hard sell” from Stonewall employees exhorting him to join the diversity scheme. He also had grave misgivings about the way Stonewall had embraced “trans” rights in choosing to adopt an extreme version which pushed for “Gender Identity” to be affirmed in all circumstances. Additionally, he also felt Stonewall’s choice to adopt a #NoDebate strategy and refusing to discuss the genuine conflict of rights this raised was a “lethal combination”.

The next commentator (Jonny Best) was again a long term supporter of Stonewall, and a gay man, who took issue with Stonewall’s condemnation of Lesbians who protested Pride in 2018. The group Get The L Out were protesting the Lesbian erasure and the insistence that same sex attraction is inherently transphobic because the women don’t accept trans-identifying males as partners. From his perspective Stonewall is now a Gender Identity Activism organisation who have redefined same sex attraction as problematic and, in so doing, reintroduced a kind of “gay shame”. Asked for a solution he says Stonewall has done so much damage it is now unsalvageable and should disband. Another gay man (Hassan Mandani) concurs and says Stonewall have tried to redefine his same sex attraction as “same gender” attracted thereby erasing the experience of gay men who are same sex attracted.

Christine Burns

After those questions, from the gay men, the presenter decides it is a good time to bring Christine Burns into the discussion. Burns is a trans-identified male and founder of a trans lobby group Press for Change, he also advises Stonewall. He explains that Press For Change was set up as a “trans” lobby group determined to establish their rights through strategic litigation. After outlining successive legal victories obtained by Press for Change the presenter then asks why they had not continued on their own? The answer from Burns is that Stonewall operated on a bigger scale and had money. Burns also reveals they had been working with the NHS after 2007 and also the Press Complaints Commission. Burns also reveals he worked closely with Ruth Hunt at the Department of Health. In addition Burns claims that same sex attracted people are discriminated against because of their perceived gender non-conformity and therefore they should work together.

Bev Jackson: Kate Harris

The presenter now brings in Bev Jackson of LGB Alliance. Bev explains that she and others had tried very hard to get Stonewall to engage over many years and it was only in the face of their intransigence that a decision was made to set up a new organisation. Stonewall’s strategy of #NoDebate had left them with no alternative. Bev also explains that people disagree and calling people “bigots” because they disagree is not helpful.

Christine Burns (Again)

After this brief segment Burns interrupts to state that the “nastiness” had only started in 2017 when Theresa May proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. Burns had worked on the GRA and claims that many compromises were made to get it passed. The delay, Burns argues, had left a vacuum into which many bad faith actors had entered. 👇(Worth saying, at this point, that significantly more time has been allocated to pro-Stonewall voices at this point).

It is not clear whether this accusation is levelled at the previous speakers but Burns clarifies that he is not talking about people in this conversation but, nevertheless, the people on this call “seem to have the same mindset”. CB also makes it clear that Stonewall are right in their #NoDebate stance because there should be no negotiation about the rights he has enjoyed “quietly and politely” for the last decades. Finally Burn’s recommends reading his book to get educated. This is good advice. You can read an excerpt below about how they strategised to force mixed sex spaces on women; by experimenting on female prisoners.

The presenter seems conscious of the inequity in the time allocates so now brings in Kate Harris.

Kate Harris: LGB Alliance.

Kate says what we were all thinking. “Christine you have been speaking far too much”. 😂. Then she directs a comment to Jan Gooding; pointing out that she and others spent nearly three years trying to get dialogue with herself and Ruth Hunt including a petition signed by 10,000 people. Not going to lie, I had to break off during Kate’s contribution which was deeply moving.

Kate continues to explain that her life being ruined is not as much of a concern as the young people who have been impacted by Stonewall adopting Gender Identity Ideology in its new incarnation.

Kate continues to outline to focus of LGB Alliance who are in the business of telling the truth and having fact based dialogue and telling Lesbians you do not have to cut off your breasts and pretend you are a boy to be a Lesbian. Kate makes it clear she blames Stonewall for this (so do I) and also for men in women’s sports and for propagating the lies that Gender Identity Ideology is built upon. Finally Kate points out that the fastest growing demographic of supporters of LGB Alliance are “transsexuals”. At the end she asks Benjamin Cohen, of Pink News to stop lying about LGB Alliance. He doesn’t of course because he is in deep. Husband is /was a Trustee of Mermaids.

I don’t know who the next contributor is but he makes an excellent point about organisations that become part of the establishment, eventually, and because they feel they have succeeded in their earlier missions they look for new areas and this is when they can take mis-steps. He refers to the new direction as “mission creep” which has confused lots of natural allies. He also refers to recent homophobic attacks which shows Stonewall still have lots to do on their original mission. He finishes by saying that he hopes the conflict between “trans” people and LGB people can be resolved.

Christine Burns interjects (Again).

He tries to go on but the presenter cuts him off, very politely and brings in a young bisexual who has a boyfriend but has dated women and been publicly harassed for doing so. She explains that she is finding the whole discussion really distressing. She finds the prospect of losing Stonewall scary and references recent draconian, anti-gay legislation in Hungary.

Next up is a straight woman, Ruth Kennedy, who is grateful for the debate and says Stonewall has done great work but is now pushing a version of “trans” rights which is coming into conflict with other protected characteristics and that is a problem and in some contexts, sex matters and it should not be controversial to articulate this. Turns out she is an ex-premier ship Rugby player and is clear that sex matters in sport.

Next up is a woman who is disappointed at the amount of spats and personal point scoring going on. We then move on to the co-founder of Tortoise Media, who are hosting this debate. James Harding makes the point that this event has shown there is a need for this discussion and also how we generally hope a debate ends with consensual agreement but the nature of some debates is this is not always the outcome.

Jonny Best is now invited to share his thoughts about how the LGB could include the T. First of all Stonewall should not compel belief in Gender Identity Theory. He is also critical of Stonewall’s definition of “transphobia” which was a “totalitarian step” because it does demand acceptance of the belief system of “gender identity”. He knows this would not have satisfied many “trans” identified people who find it painful that people are allowed to disbelieve a fundamental belief about your identity. At the same time it was enforcing this ideology which, in his view, was where Stonewall went wrong.

Back to Jan Gooding.

Jan feels some of the accusations levelled at Stonewall misrepresent the organisation. She explains that it is not true they don’t debate and they are in dialogue all the time. That said Stonewall starts from a position of acceptance and here is Jan explaining why there can be #NoDebate

She continues to outline what follows from this premise. We have to accept people are who they say they are, they need to live their lives without shame, with dignity and able to use the loos, alongside people, without insults and without being “misgendered” They need the possibility of playing sport.

She finishes with her belief that the majority of “sensible” people accept Stonewall’s stance and calls “trans” people our siblings in the “queer” community who need to live lives of dignity and respect free from violence. So, basically, has not shifted her stance at all or answered the questions put to her by other people on the call and, in particular, from Kate Harris.

The End.

You can support my work here. If you have intended to do it before, now might be a good time since paypal are banning gender critical voices and I have just put my head above the parapet by formally complaining.

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Graham Linehan: On Newsnight

Featured

As an archivist I have tended to cover people who are key influencers in this debate, but I have probably focused too much on those with whom I disagree. To remedy this I am going to give Graham his own series. I know it’s not exactly Netflix but his role needs to be on the record. I will start with his appearance on Newsnight, interviewed by Sarah Smith. Transcript below and a link to the YouTube.

Linehan Newsnight

Sarah Smith interviews Linehan

Smith starts the interview in, what seems to me, an accusatory tone. Full disclosure, I dislike this style of interview intensely, with both male and female interviewers. I think the idea is that if you rattle the subject they may reveal more than they otherwise would. At the same time, female interviewers tend to come in for more criticism, in general, and clearly it’s a very emotive topic, for me, so, I am not exactly impartial. That said, having watched it a few times, I am inclined to agree with Linehan’s sense that it was an ambush. Here is how the interview opens, after a perfunctory introduction. 👇

White Knighting?

Linehan explains that he felt obliged to step into the debate because he was witnessing the abuse and vilification heaped upon women, like Jane Clare Jones and Kathleen Stock, Graham felt a duty to speak up and also more able to, as he is self-employed. (As we have seen this did not protect him). Had a woman said this it would be unproblematic but I could already see he would be vulnerable to the accusation of “White Knighting” (Smith will raise this later in the interview). As an aside, men really can’t win on this one. I have been irritated myself with Johnny Come-Latelies entering the fray, who seem unaware the women have not been screaming from the rooftops, on this topic, for years and years. Linehan has been at this for years, at significant personal cost, and it is difficult to navigate how to be a male ally in this fight. I would just say, in comparison to Matt Walsh, Linehan is practically Graham Greer.

Also, to feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries, I am a Jane-Come-Lately and, no doubt they are, justifiably, irritated their pioneering work gets less mainstream attention, than it should. In the end I suspect the media will amplify whichever voices they find more palatable /moderate, to the frustration of us all.

Toxic Debate

Next Smith questions whether Linehan is adding to the debate in a constructive manner. 👇

Graham asks for examples and she duly delivers, with a bit of a chuckle, I might add. I presume she doesn’t think these interventions are funny because she is highly critical of Linehan’s rhetoric. So is it a “gotcha” chuckle?

It’s worth pointing out that Smith seems unaware that women are routinely called “Nazi” ; for speaking up about sex based rights or opposing “trans” medical treatments given to children. This, sadly is not confined to those my son dismisses as “nutters on the internet” The Council of Europe and a coalition of “Charitable foundations” have badged the disparate group, opposed to gender ideology as “anti-gender” activists. This has allowed them to lump U.K. feminists /femalists in with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, for one. Orban is also keen, on restricting of both abortion and gay rights; treating us as if we are allies is known as the association fallacy and is intended to discredit us. I have done a series on these documents which you can read here:

Moral Panic?

Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike. 

Here is how Smith responds. I wonder if this is already coming back to haunt her.

Puberty Blockers!

Graham responds to defend his position, pointing out that we are performing experimental treatment on young women but it is actually worse than that. We are giving these drugs to children, of both sexes, as young as ten.

I believe the actual drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin, which, by the way, is also used to chemically castrate sex offenders. The specific drug is relevant in the U.K because the makers of Triptorelin are Ferring Pharmaceuticals, who gave the Liberal Democrats, U.K political party, £1.4 million in donations.

I did a piece on this funding.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Furthermore, children put on puberty blockers will invariably progress to cross sex hormones. (98%) and they will be sterile and have ruined sexual function. Don’t take my word for it, here is Marci Bowers; a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs surgery on “trans” patients. (Infamously on Jazz Jennings).

I should also add that Bowers also works to try to help rectify female genital mutilation and is one of the most high profile to speak up about this. Cynics may see this as damage limitation, and it could be self-interested, it could also be a genuine concern at seeing the results of puberty blockers on the operating table. This is because boys will have stunted genitalia which will not only make it harder to re-identify with their sex but will also make any genital surgery more difficult; crudely there will be less material to work with.

Less heat, more light, Sarah.

This is Smith’s response to the concerns raised about puberty blockers. I am tempted to say “less heat, more light,Sarah!”. Notice she does not respond to the substance of Linehan’s point but dismisses his expertise and focuses on the “offence” angle. Well, given this is happening to my son I frequently call it “Mengele Medicine”. Sue me!

Graham pushes back hard on this point and his rebuttal comes across strong when you watch him speaking. (at the 2:30 point). Here is the exchange. Notice she cuts him off and doesn’t allow him, from my vantage point, to make his point.

I also found this an astonishing admission after Linehan raises the issue of the 35 staff members who have departed the Tavistock. Many of those ex-staff became whistleblowers and some of them were interviewed by other Newsnight Staff!

I am inclined to concur with the theory that Newsnight were worried about the excellent research done by other journalists on the same team. This may represent real divisions in the Newsnight team or a belief that a hostile interview, with Linehan, would persuade Stonewall et al, of their “balance”. (The BBC was still in various Stonewall “schemes” at this point.).

Bodily autonomy versus child safeguarding.

Sarah also seems to be woefully unaware, or disingenuous, of what is being taught in schools about “gender Identity”; I am going with disingenuous because her own employer produced something, aimed at children, claiming there are a hundred genders. She seems to be arguing for bodily autonomy here 👇. Remember kids are referred to the Tavistock as young as three and we start puberty blockers at 10 years old. Should it be entirely up to them?

Graham pushes hard back at this point and again, you can see the passion and urgency in the recording. (Time stamp 3:07).

Smith is utterly dismissive on this point; calling it ridiculous exaggeration.

Gay Eugenics.

Graham then brings up the reports of homophobic parents at the Tavistock.

Here are the reports of the Tavistock whistleblowers supporting his claim. Smith studiously avoids responding to this point.

Both sides!

Linehan makes it clear that the women he supports are being deplatformed, attacked and getting rape and death threats online. He sees it as his role to amplify these voices. He says he would be happy to step aside once they are given a fair hearing. He also points out that he has had threats, police visits and been doxxed, as had his wife.

Smith does not respond to any of this. Nothing about the sterilisation of proto-gay kids. Nothing about the silencing of women, the threats or aggression. Instead she, predictably, attacks him for his presumption.

There is some repetition of Smith accusing Linehan of ramping up the toxicity of the debate as if the interviewer wants the viewer to be left with that impression and not what is being done to children. She shows no curiosity about this, at all; which is shocking for an ordinary citizen, let alone for a, purported, journalist.

Graham points out that a number of prominent people, even ex Stonewall founders, pleaded with Stonewall to open dialogue, precisely, to detoxify the discussion. Stonewall refused, the same day. Smith could have probed this a little further but, instead, she read out a prepared statement from Stonewall. There is no surprises in their content, it’s the usual claim that “trans” people are oppressed, abused and hate crime victims.

Graham is allowed a final response until he is cut off. He is cut off at the word children which seems fitting since this is what will be remembered from this interview; the complete unwillingness to consider that something really dark was happening at the Tavistock.

Conclusion.

Linehan is probably correct in his assessment that this interview was not a serious attempt to address the concerns he, and many others, were raising. However it felt, at the time, I think he has been vindicated and Sarah Smith should be haunted by her role. Imagine if so many journalists had not failed to do their job? Had this been stopped at the time of this interview maybe the reckless prescribing, currently harming my son, would have been stopped.

Final word to another Tavistock whistleblower.

If you think what I am doing is worthwhile you can support me here.

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley

Featured

Interview with Jessica Parker for the BBC. Link below.

Nancy Kelley May 2021

The interview took place after one of the fourteen founders of Stonewall, Matthew Parris, criticised the organisation. He is not along among the founders but joins Simon Fanshawe who also believes the former gay lobby group has lost its way. Here is why Parris is disillusioned. 👇

Kelley is dismissive of his concerns.

Section 28

It is worth remembering that Stonewall was formed to defend Gay rights during the era of Section 28. This piece of legislation was introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government with the intention of stopping the “promotion” of homosexuality. The legislation was repealed in the year 2000, in Scotland, and in 2003 in England and Wales. This has been very hard to live down for the Conservative party and is partly explains why there has been a slow response to the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology in schools. To neophytes it looks as if any opposition is akin to eighties style homophobia. In reality, the idea gender non-conforming children should be medicalised, via puberty blockers, followed by cross sex hormones, disproportionately affects proto-gay kids. These are the statistics on referrals to the U.K. Gender Clinic. Natal females are in blue, males in orange.

Arcus Foundation

After the repeal of section 28, Stonewall still had work to do, to provide legal protection for gay couples. In 2004 legislation was passed to enable gay couples to enter a Civil Partnership; prior to this gay couples could find themselves unable to inherit their husband, or wife’s, assets or even to be in charge of funeral arrangements.. In 2010 the Equality Act was passed; which made sexual orientation a legally, protected characteristic. Finally in March 2014 the same sex marriage act passed into law. Stonewall found itself with less headline grabbing work to do. In 2015 the gay rights charity accepted $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation, money which was conditional on Stonewall adding the T to LGB.

You can read more about the Arcus Foundation here;

ARCUS FOUNDATION GRANTS

So, when Nancy Kelley became CEO, of Stonewall, it was a very different organisation to the one her predecessor, Ruth Hunt, inherited.

Free Speech

Stonewall now finds itself having the defend the idea that Lesbians have a penis and it is no longer “SEXual orientation” but “same gender attraction”. Unsurprisingly many people oppose this and after trying to impose a blanket ban, arguing for #NoDebate, on discussing Gender Identity Ideology, Stonewall now find themselves opposed by many who would have been its natural supporters.

Stonewall now find themselves opposing the Equality and Human Rights Commission who, somewhat belatedly, came out in favour of women’s right to discuss this issue. (The previous Chair of the EHRC, David Isaacs, came via Stonewall, which may have coloured his views).

Stonewall were clearly rattled by the intervention of the EHRC, who also cautioned the Scottish government about their plan to allow “self-identification” as the sex you wish you were. This was a provocation too far, for the Trans Lobby group, who appealed to the United Nations to intervene. The EHRC is accredited, as a Human Rights organisation, by the United Nations and, it seems, Stonewall wished to see this removed.

Kelley’s response to the EHRC is displayed below:

Writing this in the wake of Salman Rushdie’s stabbing gives new urgency on the right to defend free speech. 👇

Stonewall Law

Nancy denies that Stonewall are giving bad advice to the members of its protection racket, oops, Diversity Schemes.

The new spin from Stonewall when they are caught lying about the law.

Here is what Akua Reindorf said in the above mentioned report: “the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be rather than the law as it is”.

Unrepentant Nancy?

The attempt to label womens rights campaigners as akin to one of the most egregious forms of racism is rather too common in Trans Supremacist circles.

It is no accident. Accusations of “transphobia” have been denuded of their power, likely through their over abundant use, hence the escalation. Here is Judith Butler comparing us to fascists. 😳

750F76B7-4505-4823-B3CA-2AEFB30A4E4C

Nancy Kelley is what I call a Vichy Feminist. How any self-respecting Lesbian could be the midwife for this regressive, mysogynistic, lesbian hating ideology is beyond my underst££ding.

If you can afford to support my work it would be gratefully received. I have just had my annual bill for software and I am working up to get my stolen garden gate replaced. 😳. Only if you have ££ to spare. Irrespective my content will remain open access.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

Archiving information about the latest popular delusion.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley: Woman’s Hour

Featured

As promised this is a record of Nancy Kelley’s interview with Emma Barnett. You can listen to it here:

Nancy Kelley

Here is a transcript.

Nancy Kelley WH interview 18th Nov 2021

The interview opens with a soft question about why Kelley wanted to become the CEO for Stonewall to which Nancy gives a predictable answer about wanting to “give back”.  During the course of the interview we learn that Nancy is in a fifteen year marriage, to an American woman . They then covers a Lesbian couple and their fight to get access to in vitro-fertilisation.  Then the interviewer, Emma Barnett dives in to the most controversial topic. 

Nancy’s agrees that the BBC needs to be seen to be impartial but this part of the answer might be called disingenuous /damage limitation give Stonewall, at this time was haemorrhaging participants in its various, money making schemes. 👇

Barnett is not letting Kelley get away with that and responds “But, the sense where you said the BBC doesn’t agree with itself, well it obviously did, it pulled out”. She then goes on to make a really good point that all these organisations are actually paying money to a lobby group, to be lobbied. It is worth a reminder, at this stage, of how Ruth Hunt described these schemes. It was not flattering to the participants, it made them look rather gullible.

Nancy plays down the role of Stonewall schemes explaining that they have one strand of work to help firms become more “inclusive” (She uses this word repeatedly and I would have preferred for her to be pushed on what this means. To me, now, it means make sure men can invade female spaces). Then they have a “completely separate” team the lobby politicians and work with the media. Barnett presses her on this and Kelley conceded the two teams nevertheless have the same goals.

Next Kelley is tackled on the detail of the Workplace Equality Scheme and, in particular that Stonewall evaluate submissions from the scheme participants and suggest ways they can get an improved score. Following Stonewall “suggestions” helps get your company higher up the rankings and there will be entire teams who are set a performance objective to complete for an improved place on the Workplace Equality Index.

Nancy is also keen to emphasise that membership doesn’t compromise editorial integrity, at the BBC, which stretches credulity to breaking point. Kelley denies that the BBC is aggressively pro-trans rights and, in fact, argues it tips the other way. Nancy maintains their role is only advisory and they do not have control over what an organisation does. Furthermore she says she only wishes she had more influence.

Stonewall and the Scottish Government.

Next Barnett tackles Kelley about a leaked Freedom of information request, that illustrates how Stonewall encouraged the Scottish government to drop the word “Mother” from its maternity leave policy. Kelley insists that she doesn’t want the word “mother” eradicated, as a mum herself. She claims the FOI document is historic and Stonewall give a range of advice leaving it up to their scheme members to decide the course of action.

Barnett points out that the document is only two years old and that Stonewall did push to remove “all gendered language” from the Maternity policy and raises this with Kelley:

Next Nancy denies that Stonewall have an interest in changing language and illustrates this beautifully by talking about “cis” and “trans”. This was in response to a direct question about whether she believes people can change their biological sex. She avoids saying no or yes by talking about changing sex characteristics and claiming that everyone knows that “trans” bodies and “cis” bodies are different.

Sexual Racists.

Next Kelley is asked about Stonewall’s acceptance of male lesbians or “transbian’s” or females who identify as gay men. This section covers what Nancy had to say about lesbians who exclude males from their dating pools. Nancy lumps a belief in biological sex, women’s rights to exclude men from our spaces and Lesbians refusal of “lady penis” is on a par with anti-semitism”. 👇

This speaks to the right of lesbians to exclude men from their dating pools and has particular impact on dating apps and attempts to have Lesbian only events. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario: Tasmania a Lesbian groups has recently been told their women only, Lesbian nights are now illegal.

Nancy alleges that she was not talking about dating practices and that her wording was rather clumsy. This would be believable we’re it not for the fact that numerous trans-activists have used exactly the same argument.

Barnett then digs up another quote from Nancy :

Then we get onto Kelley’s dating preferences. A moot point because she is safely married. She claims to respect either people’s dating preferences and that she is “trans-inclusive”. Pretty confident this is a big fat lie and she knows she won’t have to walk the walk. This is the most despicable betrayal of Lesbians, especially newly out, young Lesbians.

Nancy slips in a “trans women are women” during this spiel and Barnett asks her if she is talking metaphorically. Kelley simply answers “literally”.

There follows a brief reference to the protection of Gender Critical beliefs which is clearly about the Forstater case but Barnett does not name it. Nancy ties herself in knots acknowledging that “Gender Critical” beliefs may be protected but there are limitations in how you express them. What Kelly would like is to create a world where you are allowed to think these things but you should not verbalise them.

Is JK Rowling a transphobe?

This section interrogates Kelley’s views on the world famous author. She tries to duck the question but ends up going round in circles about whether Rowling is a “transphobe” but, in the end, claiming that she had a large platform and had said things that had “caused harm” to trans people. Barnett does quite a good job in this section as she pushes Kelley to explain what she has said that was “transphobic”. Kelley pretty much ends up agreeing that an individual woman has the right to a single sex service if she has been raped or suffered domestic violence but still implies there is something wrong with saying this in the public square. I think she skewers Nancy in this bit and she does sound a bit petulant in places.

Kathleen Stock

This section was less satisfactory. Nancy manages to come across as reasonable and she expresses empathy for what Kathleen went throug, but, there are some very big buts. Barnett seems unwilling to raise the fact that Kathleen is a Lesbian, who Stonewall should protect. I think this made this section weaker than it should be. Stonewall’s CEO should have asked why they were silent on the harassment of a Lesbian.

Kelley affects to know little about the Stock case and falls back on the idea that Universities are responsible for adjudicating on staff issues. The Stonewall model seems to be built on encouraging their clients to over-extend/break the law and then running away when they’re are consequences. Any organisation still paying to be in this protectionless, protection racket needs to get a new head of Human Resources.

The interview ends with some general talk about how Stonewall are working to protect LGBTQ+ kids in school.

Nolan Podcast

Barnett ends the interview but added a couple of postscripts. Confirmation that Stonewall had attempted to get the word “mother” dropped from a maternity leave policy. The Scottish government claim they have not removed the word. Finally a, dignified, “no comment” from the Rowling team.

This piece is part of a series on Nancy Kelley’s public utterances. There’s not as much in the public domain as there is on Ruth Hunt. You can find the Nancy Kelly series and Ruth Hunt, former CEO, below.

Nancy Kelley

Ruth Hunt

If you can support my work with a gift here is one way you can do so. My content is all open access but I do have expenses so any help is much appreciated.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

Researching Gender Identity Ideology to document the madness and fight for the end to medicalising healthy bodies and trashing women’s rights.

£10.00

MORGAN PAGE: Stonewall Ambassador

Featured

Morgan Page is a member of the Stonewall Advisory group (STAG).

I have deferred this blog until the end of Alison Bailey’s Employment Tribunal, because Page featured in that case. Alison is a Black, Lesbian, barrister who is taking her Chambers to court alleging discrimination. The case hinges on whether Garden Court Chambers colluded with Stonewall to dish out treatment designed to have an adverse impact on Bailey’s career / income. You can read about Alison’s case here 👇

Alison Bailey

Cotton Ceiling

Morgan is a trans-identifed male who made an appearance in the tribunal because he infamously ran this workshop. 👇. The “Cotton Ceiling” refers to the underwear of Lesbian’s who, naturally enough, don’t wish to engage in sexual activity with men, even those who think they are women. Note also that this workshop was only open to men, here referred to as MAAB, meaning male assigned at birth. This is a queer theory version of the Pick Up Artist with added creepiness.

This was Alison Bailey’s comment on that Workshop 👇 (from the employment tribunal transcript).

This generated outrage at Garden Court Chambers who described it as “bloody shocking”

“Trans” social group: Toronto

You can also read about the time Page ran a ”trans” social group in Toronto and the experience of a young Lesbian, who was then trans-identified. This article appeared on the 4thWaveNow website. Below are a few key quotes.

GNC Centric and her “trans” youth group

In what appears to be a now deleted YouTube, Page talked about being a former prostitute and providing blow jobs. Despite all this being in the public domain Stonewall took issue with a description of their staff member as a ”stripper”.

Morgan was invited to speak at Slut Walk in Toronto and used the platform to attack radical feminism and claim that ”transwomen” were literally dying on the street because they were refused access to female only rape shelters. During this talk, to rapturous applause, Page referred to women as ”Cis” and explained this meant ”none transwomen”.

Page at Slut Walk

Page also did an elaborate thread, since deleted, attacking Janice Raymond, author of Transsexual Empire, accusing her and all Gender Critical Feminists, of stoking a genocide of trans people.

For those of you who have not read Janice Raymond’s work, or followed women resisting Gender Identity Ideology, this is a gross mischaracterisation. A medicalised identity, involving a life time of cross sex hormones and varying levels of surgeries, should be a last resort. Nobody sane would wish to create a class of people dependent on #BigPharma.

No other, purported, human rights, movement has allowed one class of people to claim the identity of an oppressed group. Furthermore the new eunuch class have proceeded to invert reality in order to claim that women; the people being colonised, are actually the ones harming our new overlords. This movement only makes sense if you fetishise the idea of women as a “victim class”. More victimised = more of a woman. By this twisted logic women have “cis-privilege” over men who identify as women.

“Trans feminism”.

A few samples of ”trans” feminism from prominent “trans” activists. You can be forgiven for thinking it kind of looks like a men’s sexual rights movement because, er, that’s exactly what it is 👇

You can read the outcome of Alison Bailey’s case here.

Alison Bailey: Legal Judgment

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus and don’t prioritise me over important legal cases, or your gas bill.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, its origins, funding sources and impact.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 2.

Featured

Part one set the scene for this interview giving the background of the interviewer and the participants.

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1

After a long preamble, replete with many false/exaggerated claims (debunked in part one) Lamont goes in 👇

He addresses the question to trans activist, Christine Burns, who feigns bafflement and, after a little chuckle, claims it’s a mystery.

What Burns omits is the over-reach of trans-activists who right around this time were making ever more extreme demands. The specific issue that woke a lot of women up, especially lesbians, was the campaign to de-medicalise ”transition” and allow bearded, penis-wielders, to self-identify as women.

Burn’s then outlines how much progress had been made in protecting ”trans” rights including their own role in getting the Gender Recognition Act passed, in 2004.

Nancy Kelley then jumps in to make somewhat contentious claims about public acceptance of ”trans” people. She is right that there was a widespread acceptance of people we used to call ”transsexuals”. If they thought about the issue at all, people assumed we were talking about, a tiny number of, people who were post-operative. When it is explained that many/most retain their penis and are heterosexual there are significant qualifiers to that “acceptance”. Nancy also implies it is a matter of education.

Back to Burns to explain why our media are so out of step with views Kelley claims are held by the majority of the British public.

In reality most people had no idea activists were involved in a social engineering project; to reorganise society on the basis of ”gender identity” and ride roughshod over women’s sex based rights. Once that became clear opposition began to mobilise.

Lamont then reads, in a skeptical tone, some of the U.K headlines. They all seem rooted in reality to me 👇

Nancy wades in about the proliferation of articles in the media. Nancy thinks it’s too much and would really rather it wasn’t covered. Of course she does, thats the advice from the Denton’s document.

Lamont then asks Burns why so many of the criticisms come from women who ”identify as feminists”.

Burns is having none of it and invents a complete fiction that second wave feminists were working with men, like Burns, because we had common interests. 🤷‍♀️

Then Burn’s pivots to ”White Supremacists” . Bit of a leap there Christine, love. 👇

After he takes it upon himself to define feminism he then advances the argument that these feminists, many of whom are Lesbian, are trying to separate the T from LGB so that the rights of the other letters can be attacked.

The interviewer pushes back, a little bit, to ask Burns for his thoughts on ”Terfs”. [BTW No self-respecting woman, let alone a “Terf” accepts the appellation “cisgender”. ]

Christine, like sexist men from the beginning of time, thinks we have misunderstood.

LGB Alliance

Lamont now turns to Nancy:

Nancy doesn’t dare, outright, deny this.

Next Nancy, conveniently, overlooks that even Stonewall didn’t include advocacy for ”trans” rights until 2015.

It’s women’s rights, stupid!

The interviewer is from the United States and, to give him credit, he does not assume U.K politics is a mirror of the political landscape of our American cousins. However after raising the source of the ”transphobia” on Terf Island (It’s women’s rights, stupid) he immediately pivots to how dangerous it is to be ”transgender”.

Burn’s arguments are all about the difficulty of looking like a man and being unable to use female changing rooms. Worrying about being recognised as a man when going to get a pint of milk. This, right there, tells you he has no idea of what it means to be a woman. Men who identify as women are well on their way to having more rights than actual women. That’s male privilege Christine.

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus, after the many worthy crowdfunders and if you are not panicking about your fuel bills.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and how it’s has such a stranglehold over our institutions, politicians and the elites who run our media.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1

Featured

As part of my series on Nancy Kelley I found this astonishing interview on Al Jazeera: a media outlet partially funded by the government of Quatar. You can watch it at the link below: 👇

Nancy Kelley on Al Jazeera

YouTube add a note to the Al Jazeera YouTube channel to highlight their financial backers.

Gay Rights in Qatar

A reminder of the state of gay rights in Qatar. 👇 The punishment for homosexuality is death.

The alleged context for the interview.

The segment focus is on the rising ”transphobia” in the U.K. To explore the issue Christine Burns,trans-identified” male and Nancy Kelley are invited to a discussion. In truth Burns is given much more air time than Kelley. Burns is a key trans-activist (TRA) in the U.K. Nancy Kelley is the CEO of controversial, lobby group Stonewall. You will also notice the interview takes place against a background draped in the transgender flag.

The presenter is Mark Lamont Hill, a former journalist with CNN who was, reportedly, let go for his views on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. He is also a Professor of Media Studies.

Lamont Hill introduces the segment by claiming that Hate Crimes against trans people are rising, there is hostile media coverage and he singles out the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for failing to introduce a ban on ”Conversion Therapy”.

Mark Lamont

Hate Crime: The Facts.

These are the numbers charged with a hate crime defined as ”transphobic”. As you can see it was 49.

Its important to note that misogyny is not considered a hate crime so offences motivated by animus, toward the female sex, is not monitored. If we consider rape /domestic violence as a proxy for misogyny the statistics below are for one quarter of the year. The statistics are taken from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Media Coverage

Complaints are made about the volume of media coverage with little attempt to explain why this became a contested area in 2017. Neither Nancy or Burns explain that Stonewall only began to campaign on “Transgender” issues in 2015 and this has been accompanied by an escalation in demands. TRAs openly began to demand that any man could ”selfidentify” as a woman and campaigned vociferously for access to female only spaces. Here is Stonewall’s open statement that they wish to see the end of single sex spaces. This 👇 is a blatant attack on women’s rights to dignity, privacy and, crucially, safety,

In truth papers like the Guardian, Independent, Pink News and free paper, Metro, are cheerleaders for the Transgender Lobby. The Guardian in particular, much to the dismay of this erstwhile reader. I wrote about the Guardian links to lobby groups here:

Why are the Guardian suddenly so woeful on women’s rights?

Conversion Therapy

The demand to ban conversion therapy includes both gay conversion therapy and ”gender identity” . The main place where gay conversion therapy takes place, in the United Kingdom, is at U.K gender clinics. These are the statistics for referrals to the Tavisticock, looking at sexual orientation.

Here is a reminder of what Professor Villain had to say about this. He is one of a growing number of experts raising the issue of Gay Conversion Therapy in relation to Gender Clinics.

Including ”gender identity” in the bill would hamper therapeutic approaches to treat “gender dysphoria”. This context it important but the audience will gain no understanding of this from the interview.

Framing the question

After this disingenuous framing the interviewer turns to his guests. At least he doesn’t project a U.S perspective onto the U.K political context by assuming we are right wing, Evangelical Christians. 👇. He does recognises the concern’s raised about women’s rights before pivoting to the vulnerable, transgender people. An editorial decision was taken to invite a trans-identified male and Nancy Kelley on the show, even though they agree with one another. Noticeably they failed to invite anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Christine Burns

Burns is a trans activist who appears here with the book Trans Britain; which they edited, in the background as well as the M.B.E they were awarded.

Burns is asked to define ”trans” and ”cis” . I won’t insult your intelligence by repeating the usual verbiage.

Lamont now references a Council of Europe report which conflates the attacks on gay rights and reproductive freedom in Hungary and Poland with UK feminists opposed to Gender Identity Ideology. I covered in this blog, below 👇. In brief they completely mis-characterise the debate we are having in the U.K, quoting the controversial lobby group, Mermaids amongst others. You can read more about this here: 👇. Short read: Blatant propaganda.

Council of Europe: Moral Panic

Burns, is asked to explain why if has got so bad for ”trans” people in the U.K. Burns professes bafflement and, claims everything was going in the right direction up until 2017 and implies this came out of nowhere. “It’s a mystery“ says Burns.

Burns fails to mention that people were unaware of what was happening in our schools, prisons, NHS wards and all our major institutions because it was a deliberate strategy. As set out in the Denton’s document, a guide to embedding Gender Identity Ideology in law and in life.

I wrote about the Denton’s document here 👇

That Denton’s Document

Of course, Burns doesn’t mention the campaign to let any man self-id as a woman; putting male rapists in female prisons; the sterilisation of children and the other horrors, which galvanised women and generated this backlash. Here’s a clip from a chapter in Burn’s own book illustrating Burn’s complicity.

The mendacity is strong with this one. Burns was one of the architects of the Gender Recognition Act , which set the stage for this debacle, and proudly boasts of it in this interview.

I will cover the details of the interview in part 2.

You can support my work here. Don’t donate unless you have surplus cash, I know there are lots of important legal cases going on at the moment.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology to expose the fact it is a social engineering project which hurts women’s rights, gay rights and the bodies of our young gay, lesbian, autistic and other vulnerable children and teens/ young people.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley: Transition

Featured

Ever the optimist that a post Stonewall world may be on the horizon I want to get on record the role its current CEO has played in besmirching the reputation of a once great organisation. I will begin with this interview, from two years ago, which she did with Linda Riley of Diva Magazine.

You can watch the interview here: 👇

Nancy Kelley: Interview

For those of you unaware, Riley has somewhat of a reputation herself as covered by Private Eye. None of these revelations concerned Dawn Butler, who appointed Riley as LGBT advisor to Labour.

The interview took place four weeks into Kelley’s tenure as CEO of Stonewall and Riley selected questions, put to her from Diva readers.

One of the earlier questions related to a question on whether Kelley had intended criticism of her predecessor, Ruth Hunt, in a Guardian interview. She had stated Stonewall would no longer insist everyone needed agree with their stance on “trans” rights. I am confident that this was the interview in question and the comment Riley singles out for questions is linked below: 👇

Nancy Kelley

Kelley is keen to dispel any notion that she is being critical of her predecessor:

She proceeds to outline her own position which reflects the Stonewall dogma, right down to forgetting about ”trans” men, I might add.

She, then, professes to accept that not all feminists will be intersectional and it is these people she would like to reach. It all started so reasonably.

The next question asks if she can elaborate about her impressions on taking up the role and the thing that surprised her the most. Her answer is very revealing and somewhat ironic at this point; as we watching Stonewall’s influence drain away.

Later she follows up the issue of Stonewall’s influence, revealing that they are acfively lobbying the NHS over healthcare issues and why they are uniquely placed to be successful; because of the high number of NHS trusts in their protection racket, oops, sorry, I mean their Diversity Champions scheme.

Asked to let the audience know what she is currently up to she says the quiet bit out loud about her liaison with Stella Creasy and the attempt to class misogyny as a hate crime. Of course they are trying to make sure it covers trans-identified males; no doubt making some litigious trans activist salivate over the prospect of the maximum validation attainable in prosecuting a woman for the crime of misogyny against a “transgender woman”

She also reveals she has been doing a bit of Northern outreach to address concerns they are too London centric. This would be the same Andy Burnham who has remained studiously silent about the aggressive “trans” (men’s) rights activists in his city.

Sexual Racists

Nancy’s conciliatory tone didn’t last as illustrated in a superb article by Jo Bartosch.

Sexual Racists

The BBC finally covered some research about Lesbians being pressured to have sex with trans-identified males.

Nancy responded with an astonishing outburst about Lesbians who are ”gender critical”. i.e. think being a Lesbian means you can refuse to date men who identify as Lesbians (Nancy, is not vulnerable herself, as she is in a long term partnership with an American woman).

It then emerged that Stonewall had attempted to suppress the report on Lesbians being sexually harassed.

Five Year Plan.

I was disappointed that Nancy didn’t acknowledge Stonewall’s intention to indulge in a bit of historical revisionism about the riots which inspired their name. Pretending the entire Gay rights movement was kickstarted by ”Transgender Women” and ignoring the role of Lesbians and Gay men would have made even Stalin blush. This 👇is abject capitulation from a once proud organisation. She is bending the knee to a Men’s, sexual, rights movement and throwing the gay community, particularly, Lesbian under the “transgender” train.

Finally!

Lest Kelley tries to airbrush herself out of the trans debacle and the fall of Stonewall she condemned herself with this statement.

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus after all the worthy legal cases. Every penny helps but I know everyone is feeling the pinch.

Documenting the fall of Rome. Don’t let them lie about who removed the bricks from Stonewall till it collapsed. The end is Nigh.

£10.00

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.

F29CBEEC-85B4-4853-9C25-18AC8F89CF91

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 Leftwing and Trade Union women who established, for example, Women’s Place U.K. This is how she characterises the debate on social media:

1AD24A0A-29CE-42A9-AEE1-54FAEFB4F270

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.

65A95882-69FA-428E-827E-F7B88CA9EB35

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:

F30F254B-C25C-47CA-922F-20E923E5D5BA

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.

C50D05F2-5981-439B-8C9D-C0F1AA435C36

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.  

EDDDF995-DFDE-4C0F-AACA-EC2202A3CF8F

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. 

4A790F30-96C7-446B-91A8-5790915C85FC

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” ?

0E6A1D19-4040-497A-A832-0E1247645158

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.

1A0FD400-EE48-4815-94C3-62ADAA30E6E7

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.

3CC3685F-57B5-40ED-8114-37E5D7A8ACE3

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!

D18A6D55-ED3B-431E-9C0D-2DD5426B1946

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.

3E5AF53A-FE3E-46AF-9779-F26B557AA4F3

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.

6C39F11F-2970-4DFF-9A95-2388B46E5129

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.

3A491F0F-9449-429C-8B4C-EB996E7AE9BC

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…

53C77D6F-3F1A-4290-BEA9-87161B1BE729

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).

69C5C010-02F7-45FC-B3A6-2763219F593A

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.

0265D6E6-A601-46DB-B317-EFD455ECD19C

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.

B1A334A9-6A53-4A42-82E5-6AC2BEB0155F

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.

83253199-D356-41A2-B9FA-26FCAEC16D32

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.

0A7449E9-C5B6-4452-8B8A-AF01FBDEE2F1

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.

AF0EF328-5091-4EEE-9A7F-4DD0D6B201B8

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.  1C26C996-9CDD-4969-99D1-B3280272CCE8

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.