1/ When gay children abandoned to gender needed Stonewall to stand up for them, Ruth Hunt wasn't even absent from her post, it was worse than that. She conspired against them, joined and led enemy forces and today she sets out her defence. But this prosecution is overwhelming.
2/ I remark in passing Stonewall could have stopped the Tavistock scandal at any time. At the height of its power, had Stonewall agreed with Dr Bell, Sue Evans, Marcus Evans, Sonia Appleby it would have ended. These heroes stood up for gay youth, Ruth Hunt stood against them.
4/ If Hunt thinks today's Times article amounts to a defence, she is very much mistaken. When @Transgendertrd did the right thing and tried to warn schools that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones were dangerous, Stonewall went into attack mode.
5/ Stephanie at TT tried to protect Gay Youth, Ruth Hunt and Stonewall acted to thwart that advising that "One thing we want every educator to be clear on is that they must have nothing to do with this deeply damaging publication." Stonewall Scotland said to shred it.
6/ Cass has proved TT right. They were always obviously right. Stonewall were blinded by ideology and the result is a generation of young gay children treated like lab rats and damaged, some boys now have atrophied testicles and increased cancer risk.
7/ Even lately Stonewall push medical lies, they poison public debate like their quack doctor friends poison the testicles of little defenceless boys. Atrophy is not reversible. Contracting cancer is not reversible. And to think they are a charity said to be of public benefit.
8/ Let us not forget brave lesbians, gay men and others opposed them and were viciously and mercilessly harassed and made miserable. @DreyfusJames lost his career for simply asking for discussion. @SimonFanshawe was vilified for wisely and politely asking for discussion.
9/ @BluskyeAllison was put through hell and back. @BevJacksonAuth and Kate Harris were put through trial by litigation in an effort to break their resolve. All of them, like @bindelj were lied to by Hunt who promised not to embrace the trans madness. But she did. Now she slithers
10/ Let's examine the defence lines Hunt relies upon today. This one is galling. Stonewall punished ideological not compliance like no other charity has before. Compare it to a truth @_lliesl_ highlighted for how hunt speaks about lesbians who disagree. Pink News of course.
11/ Remember, somewhat paradoxically, Stonewall under Hunt reserved a particular venom for lesbians who tried to protect lesbians. Heroes like Magdalen Berns were castigated by Stonewall who were more interested in workshops on the "cotton ceiling".
12/ Now let's consider the modern version of "I was only following orders" which in Hunt's case is "I was only following experts". This is outrageous. Polly Carmichael well and truly meets the bus she is thrown under here it seems, but this is not convincing.
13/ The heroic @sueevansprotect has been raising concerns as far back at 2004. Other experts were available. In any event, without medical expertise it is not Stonewall's place to be pronouncing on this and now vulnerable gay children pay the price for ideology.
14/ Ruth Hunt, you know damned well many raised objections to this model of malpractice. The diagnostic criteria for mutilation and experiment drugs was being different, being gay, being autistic. You know the Tavitock patient cohort was almost all gay. You have no excuse.
15/ Next up, Mermaids meet the bus. To which I say, "oh no you bloody don't". You and Mermaids worked hand in glove. You know damned well their malign influence at the Tav, and it was your job to know because you are supposed to stand up for gay people.
16/ Some of us remember Ruth, we remember the day the Good Laugh Project announced their action against the Alliance that the Stonewall logo briefly appeared. Now that was under sexual racist Nancy Kelley, but don't pretend that closeness was an overnight thing.
17/ I cannot believe you said this Ruth. This is a lie. You are lying. Stonewall during your tenure adopted "no debate". Ask James Dreyfus what response he got to the polite letter he was one of the signatories too. Ask Simon Fanshawe what happened when he sought discussion.
18/ I know that Stonewall deals in lies, but this really is galling. I can only guess you intend this for a straight audience who don't know the ins and outs of this. The gay community is small. We speak to each other. We know this isn't true. Once again, I think you sell us out.
19/ Here I think the Times well and truly have you. Here you are slandering and attacking decent people raising the truth that a generation of lesbians were maimed by this evil. 89% of Tav girl patients were same sex attracted. Here you are denying that.
20/ This is telling. First time you've mentioned "internalised homophobia" and bizarrely you think that needs dealing with at a damned clinic. Whoops. There's your accidental concession to the truth. You know you were complicit in medicalising lesbians. Mask slips.
21/ I cannot believe you now position yourself like this over puberty blockers when the Stonewall website still claims they're reversible and you lot cheered this on. Ruth, this is a disgusting piece of chicanery. Take some damned responsibility woman.
22/ The Times piece ends with a reality check by @cwknews from @Transgendertrd. She is a gay rights hero, you are not. Her information pack for schools would have saved and protected children. Your organisation advised schools to shred it.
23/ Any reasonable person should prefer Stephanie's evidence to yours. She says of your organisation "I have never experienced such aggressive campaigning against my work...It is laughable that Stonewall now claims it has always supported evidence-based medicine and was instrumental in suppressing any opinions that differed from its own.”
24/ Look at what you and Stonewall have done Ruth. You've taken the battle weary gay community post AIDS, just when we deserved a rest and some reflection and you were complicit in wreaking a terrible schism in it that makes misery to this day. You abandoned gay children you should have protected.
25/ You stood against the gay right to puberty and the gay right to grow up free from surgery. You stood against lesbians most and you harassed and humiliated the bravest who opposed you. I cannot wrap words around the anger I have for you and Stonewall.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I'm getting a bit sick of "anonymous government sources" (ie Bridget Phillipson's SPADs) writing off For Women Scotland as "culture wars". Let us remember the Scottish Government in FWS literally tried to abolish the legal category of sex and sexual orientation.
2/ Had they prevailed, gays and lesbians would have lost the right to single sex associations under the Equality Act, furthermore, gay and lesbian as categories would effectively be rendered "meaningless" in law (to quote the law lords).
3/ That in turn would have seriously adversely affected any protected characteristic claim we might want to bring effectively turning any direct discrimination case into a much more complex indirect discrimination case. That's a pretty bold assault on gay and lesbian rights.
1/ Sen. Wiener cuts a haunted, panicked figure, like a man who's seen the ghost of Gender Future, but unlike Scrooge, there's no hope of some act of redemption or contrition. This is a man who prefers his collateral human damage to have no tongue, so he moves like a malfunction.
2/ The bitter harvest of gender, a crop Senator Scott did so much to bring about, was never going to be an easy or pretty affair for him. The shape of things to come was always going to be the innocent complaining of their own shapelessness. Cut to fit in to the point they do not
3/ So often the Gendocrat class Weiner belongs to can write these people off, "let them eat puberty blockers", "only 1% ever complain" etc. But the flippant dismissals of aristocrats have a poor historical pedigree and now Scott faces his rhetorical and metaphorical guiloteen.
1/ Whether we like it or not, there is a shadow falling over Western discourse, the harbingers of this new "body as commodity" cult speak in honeyed words of "choice" and "autonomy" and "kindness", but lurking behind those terms is something unmistakably and viscerally dark.
2/ We are entering a phase of history where some people are deemed too broken, too troublesome, too old, too damaged and most importantly too inconvenient to possibly save. The days of enlightened and compassionate superintending of people in extremis are over in Span at least.
3/ This is the prospectus the ghouls at Dignity in Dying and their bovine MPs don't want you to see. This is the dirty little secret of a world in which politics is conducted without context and where liars pretend no one is ever coerced, damaged, hurt or feels a burden.
1/ Expect some fun and games on this one. “Gender identity” up to now in criminal law has only featured in sentencing when the messy business of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is over. The Crown now have the burden of proving one exists and defining this theological term
2/ This was always a bad idea and arguably, even the elastic protected characteristic definition from the EA would have been a bit easier to use. The problem here is going to be precision, and the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” only makes this harder.
3/ We can all too easily imagine some Stonewall trained forces going all in on this, and only a fool would think certain agitators won’t be chomping at the bit to confect test cases offering up progressively more absurd “gender identities” for debate in the criminal courts.
1/ It is rather galling to hear Lord Falconer and pals complain about the Lords scrutinising his dreadful bill and imply some sort of skullduggery is going on. This is a de facto government bill masquerading as a PMB in order to dampen down Labour opposition in the commons.
2/ A PMB was dishonestly selected as a vehicle because Starmer knew that would exclude MPs including some cabinet members debating the point and further it would exclude concerned unions had it been in the Labour manifesto. This is student politics on life and death.
3/ This dishonesty continued into committee stage where Kim and pals drew up a witness list which disgracefully excluded the Royal College of Psychs and all disability charities in favour of lightweights who supported her reckless campaign.
1/ The Civil Service are to recruit a person with the all but explicit aim of subverting the judgment of the Supreme Court in FWS. No one who thinks the case was correctly decided need apply, no minister wants to hear someone prepared to say "no" to this over indulged ideology
2/ This is a soft form of corruption, the appointee will no doubt have a long history of subverting the law in the third sector. This is revolving door fraud, women and gays are screwed over by an unspoken elite consensus that judgments are there to be managed, not obeyed.
3/ We, the despised lowly taxpayer are to put up £100K for the privilege of the continued corruption of the bodies we pay for in the name of an ideology that is meeting defeat in just about every courtroom where it misrepresents the law. This is corrupt.