Stonewall

RE: Stonewall

Niall Taylor — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 15:26:30 GMT

《It is not that difficult to treat people fairly but one obvious culprit is social media》

On the other hand it has largely been social media which has exposed the moves made by Stonewall and their ilk, which otherwise they might have preferred to keep behind closed doors, in the lobby chambers and in the guise of innocent-sounding workplace awards schemes. I don't think having the debate opened up into the public domain has suited their agenda atall.

But yes, the level of aggression is appalling. This thread is the epitome of civillised debate by comparison, and I'm grateful for it.

RE: Stonewall

Bob Russell — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:45:30 GMT

I find the level of aggression shown to be alarming. It is not that difficult to treat people fairly but one obvious culprit is social media.

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 18:07:29 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238426#238426"]Sometimes it can be portrayed as more aggressive than it is.[/quote]

I don’t see it as aggressive, as such. What it does have is an astonishing reach and an appearance of benignity, with its inspiring sounding encouragement to “get ahead of the law” when what it means is to promote its version of trans rights, which is detrimental to women. Its actual policies, as Niall has pointed out, are extreme.

“Stonewall Law” is shorthand for “the law, as Stonewall chooses to (mis)represent it”.

“This policy is founded on an erroneous understanding of the law,” said Reindorf. “In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is. To that extent the policy is misleading.”

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/stonewalls-diversity-scheme-accused-of-being-unlawful/

As Garden Court possibly found out today, siding strongly with Stonewall, while discriminating against your employees who disagree with their policies, could be a costly business, and Stonewall will likely not go down with you, even if it was their guidance you believed you were following.

RE: Stonewall

Niall Taylor — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 16:51:47 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238426#238426"]For anyone following this thread who is interested in the Stonewall 'side'.[/quote]

Prisoners to be reassigned based on self-declared gender with any exceptions requiring a ton of paperwork; schools and workplaces to have toilets, changing rooms etc assigned by self-declared gender rather than sex; "sex by deception" laws to be changed to prioritise the needs of trans people over non-trans (i.e. so trans people don't have to tell potential sexual partners they are trans); people should be allowed to transition without the need for medical evidence on the basis of "a simple administrative process" only.

Stonewall are promoting exactly the things people on this thread are worried about. I'm not sure what you were hoping to prove by posting this link.

Even the title, "Acceptance without exception" betrays their inflexibility on the subject.

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 13:58:22 GMT

It seems that, following the ongoing research by Hilary Cass into the care of children referred to the gender identity development service (GIDS) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust, it has been decided that GIDS should be shut down.

Other centres will be set up within children’s hospitals to offer a more holistic care with strong links to mental health services.

This sounds like good news. It will be interesting to see Hilary Cass’s update, when it is published.

RE: Stonewall

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 10:08:25 GMT

For anyone following this thread who is interested in the Stonewall 'side'.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/a_vision_for_change.pdf

Sometimes it can be portrayed as more aggressive than it is. Their workplace policies are always just guidance. As awareness of the gender spectrum increases, sometimes the problem is just ignorance of how small changes can lead to improvements for people. Most workplaces can make small modifications in some way, but obviously nothing is ever going to be applicable to everywhere.

RE: Stonewall

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:19:30 GMT

[quote userid="28703" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238420#238420"]Yesterday Allison Bailey won her discrimination case against Garden Court Chambers. She lost her case against Stonewall.[/quote][quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238421#238421"]That is a very simplistic way to describe the decisions of the court.[/quote][quote userid="28703" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238420#238420"]full judgement is available (entertaining).[/quote]

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Bailey-judgment.pdf ... all 117 pages!

From what reading I've done, which I admit is not all 117 pages of the judgement, the court found that Garden Court Chambers had taken a side in the argument when it should not have done.

The side that GCC took, was, of course, the Stonewall side (Stonewall itself had complained about the claimant). But that was the extent of it, and Stonewall was absolved of everything (ie having an influence on way the complaint was handled etc).

I'm not sure I would agree that GCC 'followed Stonewall law' (there's no such thing), just that they clearly shared the same (negative) view of the claimant's opinions on gender identity.

What I have heard various commentators say is that this judgement sends a message to all companies / organisations that in any disagreement about protected beliefs, they must not take one side or the other.

That seems a little contradictory to me, because the very act of signing up to Stonewall surely commits an organisation to the Stonewall line.

I guess a company could argue that it had signed up to Stonewall to further inclusivity, but that in individual cases it is impartial.

I might find that a little hard to swallow if I was the subject of a complaint!

RE: Stonewall

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 06:26:33 GMT

That is a very simplistic way to describe the decisions of the court. Discrimination cases against employers, as we all know, are about whether the employer behaved appropriately, said the right things and followed the right process, not whether anybodies opinions are right or wrong.

Her employers were wrong to discipline her for her views. She was entitled to them. (In the same way that if anybody on here was disciplined at work for their opinion that would be wrong). That was why she won that part of the case - for 'hurt feelings'. She was not shown to have lost any earnings or had any impact on her career though.

RE: Stonewall

Jo Godsall — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 06:15:03 GMT

Yesterday Allison Bailey won her discrimination case against Garden Court Chambers. She lost her case against Stonewall.

This is exactly my concern re RCVS involvement with Stonewall. GCC followed Stonewall law rather than the actual law ( which is ironic, since they’re lawyers) and found themselves liable. Stonewall can walk away.

Caveat Emptor

Please see biased information source of your choice for further details: full judgement is available (entertaining).

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:24:18 GMT

I am interested in what other women feel when they find themselves in a situation where they are in an isolated, dead end, and or enclosed place and find themselves alone with a man.

You are on your own on a train late at night. A stranger gets into your carriage and sits down quite close to you. Would you feel exactly the same whatever the sex of the person, or would your (internal) reaction differ, depending on their sex?

You are out for a walk or run in the evening. You hear footsteps behind you and turn around to see a stranger. Would you feel equally comfortable with a person of either sex, or would one sex worry you more than the other.

You get into a lift. Another person walks in behind you and the door closes. Would you be equally comfortable with a person of either sex?

You have been placed in a locked mental health ward in a hospital. There’s another person sharing your room. Would you feel just as safe or unsafe with a person of either sex, or would a person of one sex worry you more than the other?

Please note, I’m talking about minor discomfort here, not something that prevents you from doing any of these things, but for each case, would your internal reaction be exactly the same, or are there some differences, even if very minor.

RE: Stonewall

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 17:41:05 GMT

Apologies , yes it was your quote

RE: Stonewall

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 16:19:56 GMT

[quote userid="2490" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238400#238400"]Sara’s quote not Arlo’s [/quote]

Not sure I quite understood that Clare Tapsfield-Wright, because I think it was my quote, no?!

[quote userid="2490" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238400#238400"]There are no easy solutions but things take time to be accepted and forcing things through causes resentment and unintended consequences. There needs to be acceptance and open mindedness on both sides . I would say that I don’t expect society to prioritise my son over others , but I do expect it to accommodate him and treat him as an individual and help him to live as good a life as is possible. This needs to happen without causing problems to others however , because that is where resentment and negativity result. Sometimes he can’t do things others can do, that’s just how it is. [/quote]

Again, I see so many parallels between people like us, and all the other minorities. What you've written there could apply just as well to an able-bodied member of a minority as it does to your son or my daughter.

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:19:16 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238397#238397"]Has having a son not helped with that? I'm sure he wouldn't be a threat to anyone, regardless of his life choices - wouldn't you want him to have access to whichever spaces make him feel safe too?[/quote]

I would want him to feel safe yes. But no, I wouldn’t prioritize his feelings over women’s rights. That’s very straightforwardly distrespectful to women.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238396#238396"]Prioritize men? Me? [/quote]

As soon as they say the magic words “I’m a woman now” yes, you do. You also stated very clearly that, in your opinion, lesbians, a small minority group of women, some of whom feel they would benefit from meeting other similar women should stop wanting what they want, and instead should work with groups involving men.

Obviously men and women are not a different species. They do, on average, have different patterns of behaviour, different levels of strength, and people react to them in different ways in society. That’s a straightforward fact and is one of the reasons that women have historically been given separate spaces. When those factors are entirely mitigated, perhaps women will be as safe in mixed sex spaces as in single sex spaces, even ones where they are vulnerable. Until then, there will be women fighting for those spaces as they recognize that they are necessary.

RE: Stonewall

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:48:06 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238398#238398"]

Again, I draw a comparison with another group with significant differences.

I have had to visit special needs centres quite regularly, and I always find it discomforting. This is a group of people around whom I don't know how to behave. They are usually unable to communicate and exhibit strange behaviour patterns. They put my outside my comfort zone.

The weirder their behaviour pattern or physical appearance, the more discomfort I feel.

[/quote]

Sara’s quote not Arlo’s

I don’t want to hijack this discussion but think this is so sad yet completely understandable. I see this reaction all the time with my son but it is where we are at the moment. The more people who are different become familiar the more they are accepted. And yet Arlo is right too and blanket inclusion in main stream school just made those in charge feel better but was detrimental for some children. It was beneficial for others but probably made teaching and learning more difficult for everyone else.

If you can bear it then look at the footage of the Ukrainian children with a variety of physical and learning difficulties and see how far we have come in this country. That is how it was in the uk when I was a child , you never saw those individuals outside of an institution and they undoubtedly suffered and still do in some cases.

Society evolves slowly. There are no easy solutions but things take time to be accepted and forcing things through causes resentment and unintended consequences. There needs to be acceptance and open mindedness on both sides . I would say that I don’t expect society to prioritise my son over others , but I do expect it to accommodate him and treat him as an individual and help him to live as good a life as is possible. This needs to happen without causing problems to others however , because that is where resentment and negativity result. Sometimes he can’t do things others can do, that’s just how it is.
This thread is extremely interesting , I can’t think of many other places where this sort of frank exchange could happen.

RE: Stonewall

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:02:04 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238377#238377"] In the same way that thinking it is a mental illness is just your opinion.[/quote]

I haven't said it is my opinion that gender dysphoria is an illness. Just that I don't see lots of evidence (any, in fact) that it is not.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238377#238377"]But did you look at my link? [/quote]

Yes. It's another opinion! And it is far from being a universal one.

Lots of comparisons with homosexuality, and 'look how far they have come'. But for me there is a big difference. Homosexuals are simply attracted to people of the same sex. They are not denying reality. Trans, on the other hand, believe they are something that if they peer down between their legs, they can see that they are not.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238377#238377"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
This is absolutely fundamental to the debate, because if one keeps peddling the myth that an orange is in fact a banana, then no progress will be made. But if we accept the reality of the situation, that the orange is still an orange, then we can concentrate our efforts more productively on helping the orange live as a banana.

You really can't simplify this situation to orange vs banana. These are humans, and we have very complex physiology. Anybody who knows anything about how genetics, brains, hormones and external influences interact in order to develop a person would be able to tell you that a person cannot be categorised so simply.

[/quote]

It was just a metaphor, and for me, it is this simple. Maybe that makes me stupid.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238377#238377"]Basically, the idea of XY vs XX is outdated.[/quote]

Has anyone actually shown that to be true.

The definition of genders is not just about chromosomes, it's about the language we use. For me, 'woman' is defined as feminine features, female genitalia, childbearing. So ...

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238377#238377"]Put another way, if a transgender person looks 'authentic' to their sex (although I hate even writing that - how someone looks shouldn't matter in this day and age), would they face the same opposition from you to what they call themselves? What if you genuinely didn't know they were transgender?[/quote]

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier which you dismissed: the more authentic the transgender person looks, the easier they will find things.

To say that how someone looks is irrelevant (or should be) in this day and age is, I think, completely idealistic and flies in the face of human nature. We ALL make judgements about others based on what they look like, both from a procreation perspective (which is perhaps subconscious) to a social one (I might look at someone and think 'that's a naff shell suit' you're wearing).

But you're conflating two things here, one is the degree to which I will accept trans people in an abstract conversation like this about rights, and how I will accept an actual trans person to their face.

To a trans person's face, particularly if they look a bit more like their natal sex, I may think to myself: "You look a bit strange, I wonder if you're xx or xy". If they are obviously not as labelled, ie a bearded man in a dress, I am may think to myself: "Now that IS weird".

However, I would obviously not say that. Manners dictate that, er, I am good-mannered towards them; respectful of their feelings.

This discussion is about something different. It's about whether trans should be accepted in law, in sport etc. I can believe it is wrong for a trans person to compete with their adopted gender in sport whilst still being accepting of them if I met them face-to-face.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238377#238377"]Is it possible that it is your discomfort that is causing the problem?[/quote]

I've pondered on this question. Whether 'discomfort' is the right word. Perhaps it is.

Again, I draw a comparison with another group with significant differences.

The weirder their behaviour pattern or physical appearance, the more discomfort I feel.

The same would be true of trans. The more they look like their natal sex, the more discomforting I would find it if I found myself at a trans conference on a Friday afternoon. If I cannot tell the difference, of course I won't be even remotely discomforted.

We all have unique and very personal reactions to things outside our comfort zones, which I guess depends on all sorts of factors including the degree to which you are acclimatised. As I see more and more people with special needs, so I become less discomforted, more at ease in their company.

I am sure the same would be true of trans. Fact is, I have only met one (to my knowledge). If you pushed me into a room full of bearded men in dresses, I wouldn't know what to say, how to behave. I would feel uncomfortable. If you pushed me into that room once a week for a month, by the end I'd probably be happy as Larry.

Thing is the number of trans people is so small, that few of us are going to come into contact with them, still less regularly. As I say, I have met one in 56 years. I've heard of another. I've seen a few on the news. So as with many minorities, there are not many opportunities to interact, understand, become comfortable with etc.

Gillian, I can sense (call me a clairvoyant!) your irritation with some of what I write. Please remember that regardless of what turn of phrase I use, one thing I think we have in common is that neither of us wish anyone any ill, and we both only want for people to lead happier lives. We may disagree on how you get there, but I suspect we would agree on the goal.

RE: Stonewall

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 07:02:31 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238393#238393"]My daughter made it clear she didn’t want to wear dresses from the time she was around two years old. [/quote]

You're right that it is easier for girls than boys though. Girls can generally choose to dress in whatever they choose.

I'm curious - you really do sometimes talk like you see men and women as different species, and unfortunately you feel unsafe around men due to past experiences. Has having a son not helped with that? I'm sure he wouldn't be a threat to anyone, regardless of his life choices - wouldn't you want him to have access to whichever spaces make him feel safe too?

RE: Stonewall

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 06:46:29 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238395#238395"] there are always some women who will fawn over and prioritize the men. You are one of them, and have demonstrated it very nicely throughout this entire thread.[/quote]

PMSL. If you knew me, you'd know just how funny that statement is. Prioritize men? Me?

Anyway, you're overlooking the fact that I consider these people to be women.

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 04:06:54 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238394#238394"]Ah. The LGB vs LGBT argument. All seems a bit sad really when these groups could be working together to find amicable ways forward.[/quote]

Lesbians might wish to simply meet other lesbians. The presence of men, whether they claim to be women or not, makes a significant difference to the dynamic within a group. Whatever they claim to be, people treat men differently and there are always some women who will fawn over and prioritize the men. You are one of them, and have demonstrated it very nicely throughout this entire thread.

RE: Stonewall

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 22:24:29 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238393#238393"]I wasn’t talking about other children.[/quote]

Fair enough. My daughter was just the same - hated dresses and never wore them. She tolerated the school skirt as the alternative was some horrible navy trousers.

She loves wearing dresses now!

[quote userid="4037" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238393#238393"]She does get really pissed off being asked her pronouns all the time,[/quote]

Isn't there a parallel to be drawn here? It sounds like she is having problems because people are judging her on her appearance? Or am I misunderstanding you? (I'm assuming if she looked typically male or female, these questions wouldn't happen?). Wouldn't she prefer it if her gender was simply her own business? That's why the advice is now to use gender neutral terms anyway.

My daughter is sat next to me so I asked her, and she hasn't had that experience. She says she is asked occasionally, but certainly not enough for it to become annoying. She has just had her hair cut very short, so maybe it might happen more now.

[quote userid="4037" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238393#238393"]and also has commented that it isn’t possible for lesbians to meet as a group, as there are males claiming to be lesbians who insist they must be allowed to attend. [/quote]

Ah. The LGB vs LGBT argument. All seems a bit sad really when these groups could be working together to find amicable ways forward. (And I assume you mean transgender women rather than men?)

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 21:37:47 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238392#238392"]Maybe, but you might be surprised. Young children are generally gender neutral in how they treat others, and very unlikely to care unless the adults around them make a fuss.[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about other children. My daughter made it clear she didn’t want to wear dresses from the time she was around two years old. Various adults on various occasions tried to tell me it would be disrespectful if she didn’t wear a dress to their special occasion. I ignored them. The only time she did was when she was about 8 and (briefly) had to wear a pinafore to school, at which point I calmly explained to her that there were odd occasions when we just have to do things we don’t much like, even if we think it’s stupid.

She seems fairly well adjusted now she’s a young adult. She does get really pissed off being asked her pronouns all the time, and also has commented that it isn’t possible for lesbians to meet as a group, as there are males claiming to be lesbians who insist they must be allowed to attend.

RE: Stonewall

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 21:14:39 GMT

[quote userid="4037" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238390#238390"]Even if you were fine with it in theory, you would have to negotiate a lot more potential bullying outside the home.[/quote]

Maybe, but you might be surprised. Young children are generally gender neutral in how they treat others, and very unlikely to care unless the adults around them make a fuss.

[quote userid="4037" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238390#238390"]there are parents who are dedicatedly pretending their very young children are the opposite sex, even at ages when those children might just as easily believe they are a cat.[/quote]

I would suggest that parents aren't 'pretending their children are the opposite sex'. In some rare instances of children being distressed about their own gender, less harm is done by allowing them to live as they wish than by constantly battling with them. Afterall, allowing them to call themselves a different name and wear different others really is no big issue.

It is not dissimilar to the child who wishes to wear their superman costume 24/7. Any parent who is faced with a child determined to wear their wellies understands that sometimes you just pick your battles.

I would absolutely support you in saying that a parent should not encourage the behaviour as such, and children should not be influenced either way. They should be reassured that they are loved, and let them grow into whoever they feel comfortable as.

RE: Stonewall

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 21:04:01 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238388#238388"] I'd find my wife less attractive if she stopped brushing her hair and shaving her legs. [/quote]

Speechless.

But even more grateful for my own husband, who has loved me unconditionally for 28 years and who I know will love me even if I grow a beard.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238388#238388"]No, it really isn't. Not for most people. I have 2 boys and I will raise them as boys.[/quote]

You have the privilege of raising two boys. Don't risk your future relationship with them by thinking you have final say on how they eventually choose to live their own lives.

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 21:01:18 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238388#238388"] I have 2 boys and I will raise them as boys.[/quote]

What does that entail?

If they wanted to wear princess dresses, what might you do?

FWIW, I do think having boys that want to wear feminine clothing is more complicated than having girls who don’t want to wear dresses. Even if you were fine with it in theory, you would have to negotiate a lot more potential bullying outside the home.

In response to “I will raise them as boys” I would love to give the tongue in cheek response that you don’t have much choice, but unfortunately there are parents who are dedicatedly pretending their very young children are the opposite sex, even at ages when those children might just as easily believe they are a cat.

RE: Stonewall

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:37:47 GMT

1. Of course it matters how people look. Heaps of research showing attractive people have an easier ride in life. I'd find my wife less attractive if she stopped brushing her hair and shaving her legs. Look at the money spent on make up, clothes etc.

2. the more authentic the person looks then the more accepting I am, yes.

3. I would feel disgusted in myself if I subsequently found out I had been kissing a man in a dress in a nightclub. That situation is absolutely unacceptable and would never have happened if I had the full information (this is hypothetical, I've been with my wife for over 20 years)

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30212/stonewall/238377#238377"]Basically, the idea of XY vs XX is outdated.[/quote]

No, it really isn't. Not for most people. I have 2 boys and I will raise them as boys.

RE: Stonewall

Sarah McGurk — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:30:40 GMT

Well yes. Some human rights campaigns are successful and some aren’t. Listing the successful ones doesn’t make any difference to that fact.

Did any of the above push through laws under the radar? Did they keep their campaigns secret and cover up what their eventual intentions were? The current trans rights campaign is playing out very differently from any other in history that I am aware of.

Why do you keep comparing homosexuality to the claim that men are women? Claiming men are women directly erodes women’s rights. Whose rights are eroded by allowing people to marry who they wish to marry?