Maya Forstater Profile picture
May 24, 2021 15 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Some thoughts on Stonewall's rebrand and strategy.

Erm.... does anyone else think that the rebrand is an 'up yours' to EHRC??
They went from LGB to LGBT in 2015 .... now adding "queer, questioning and ace" (asexual .... a spectrum which includes "demisexual", which means heterosexual who experiences sexual attraction based on emotional connection with a person...)
This is likely to mean that lesbian and gay men are a minority in the LGBTQ+ movement.

The government's LGBT survey (not a representative survey, but still interesting) suggests this is already the case amongst 16-24 year olds
Stonewall's charitable objects concern human rights and in particular sexual orientation

…of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search…
The word "sex" does not appear in the document

"gay" and "lesbian" appear exactly once

"trans" appears 12 times
The word "women" appears twice, both times prefaced by LBTQ+

There can be no category of women that does not include males who identify as women
Their vision is that "LGBTQ+ people should have the same rights as everybody else"

What rights do "LGBTQ+" people lack in the UK?...
Hmm...
1. A legally enforceable ban on conversion therapy

(there is no evidence of a trend of actual abusive conversion therapy going on in the UK. This is clearly intended to outlaw 'watchful waiting' of children w gender issues) & medical assessment in general
Hate crime and hate speech laws

(this is deeply illiberal and worrying - anonymous hate crime reporting?? 😬)

sex-matters.org/wp-content/upl…
A fairer system for asylum is needed all around.

Are "ace" people really fleeing in persecution??
Legal gender self-ID - including for people who identify as non-binary
They are expanding the Diversity Champions workplace scheme, work in schools, and sports.

And with faith communities and "elders" (the photographs are all of youngers though...)
They lobby governments across he UK to "protect and extend LGBTQ+ rights"
LGBTQ+ is not a category recognised in the Equality Act 2010 - public and private bodies would be wise not to delegate decision making to this lobby group.
It feels like a protection scheme.

Everyone can join.

And anyone who doesn't Stand With Stonewall will be fair game to be reported to their school, university or employer.

You are "Free to Be" what we tell you to be...

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Maya Forstater

Maya Forstater Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MForstater

Jun 3
In the case of Peter Wilkins v @dstlmod there is a bit about a "threatening FOI" Image
Wilkins had requested disclosure of DSTL's strategy on gender identity and gender expression.

The request was refused because it was anonymous. Image
After the judgment I repeated the request Image
Read 7 tweets
May 16
Just taking a look back at what Amnesty International said very confidently to the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation in 2018 (they were advocating for removing all safeguards and controls from getting a GRC)

Giving out more GRCs will not affect anyone else they said. Image
It would have no effect on the operation of the single and separate sex exceptions in the Equality Act. Image
None on the occupational requirements exceptions in the Equality Act. Image
Read 11 tweets
May 16
There has been much sound and fury about the Supreme Court judgment and claims that it is very *difficult* to tell who should use which toilets.

Remember: this has always been the law.
Back in 2003 a group of transexual men sued a pub after it asked them not to use the ladies.

They were backed by the Equal Opportunities Commission.

They lost.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n…Image
Then there was the case of Croft v Royal Mail.

Father of 3 Nicholas Simpson became Sarah Croft. He wanted to use the ladies at work. His employer said no.

He sued (again with support of EOC) and lost.

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/08/16/cro…Image
Image
Read 13 tweets
May 11
This, by one of the Darlington nurses is heartbreaking (CW: CSA)

Women should not have to tell these stories to get the basic dignity that is their right under workplace health and safety law.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.

It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.

It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.Image
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.

And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed Image
Read 7 tweets
May 7
Minister @RhonddaBryant says “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.”

Let’s look at the knots he ties himself in

He says “data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service.”

OK so your new law will enable people to prove their sex accurately then? 🤔
Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”

This is distraction.

Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:

- For their own healthcare
- For social care
- For a job where sex matters
- For sport
- For safeguarding
- For use of single sex services
“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”

“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.”
Read 10 tweets
May 4
A 🧵about signs.

What do I mean by this sign excludes all men?

I mean the sign itself is discriminatory. Image
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against? 

Men directly.

What all of them?

Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.
Read 31 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(