Clear as mud
Jane Clare Jones livetweets a rare interview with the elusive Nancy Kelley
Jane Clare Jones listened to Emma Barnett interviewing Stonewall’s Nancy Kelley and found herself inadvertently live-tweeting it. I’ve reproduced it here with Jane’s permission. You might want to click the link and listen to the interview as you read!
'Inclusion is inherently tolerant.'
No, it fucking isn't.
Sometimes it’s coercion and colonisation Nancy.
Do we have any evidence of this claim that Stonewall advises people to use additive language rather than gender neutral/erasing language? Because I have seen no evidence of this in any coverage or FOIs. Nor is it showing up on the ground?
Oh apparently Nancy now understands and empathises with women who feel that removing sex based language is erasing.
This is despite her testimony to WESC last year, where she said we never need to be referred to in any way other than organs/functions, and having compared us to antisemites.
The fact that she is even on this program, let alone trying to pretend she thinks we have a point at all, is really testimony to how much on the backfoot we have Stonewall now.
'We only use the cis/trans language when we are talking about differences.'
Bullshit. You use it when positing women as privileged in order to try and railroad us into accepting your ideology and its implications.
And I will now disavow that I ever compared GC beliefs to antisemitism...
Clumsy is right Nancy.
This pretzeling on the matter of whether lesbians are bigots for not wanting to sleep with males is toe-curling.
LESBIANS NOT BEING ATTRACTED TO MALES IS NOT 'NEGATIVE STEREOTYPING' FFS.
Nancy Kelly just said on the BBC that it is possible to hold GC beliefs in a way that is not harmful to trans people.
FUCKING MASSIVE.
We have pushed the Overton window SO FUCKING FAR back towards sense you amazing amazing AMAZING women.
That's it.
She just conceded the ENTIRE PREMISE of No Debate. The entire premise of demonising us and trying to push us out of public life. The entire premise of forcing through their agenda by the backdoor.
MASSIVE.
V interesting, this clarification about holding the belief and how it is expressed, is EXACTLY the distinction made in Maya's appeal that overturned the original verdict.
If Stonewall had always held that distinction to be central, they would have objected to the first verdict.
They didn't, of course.
This is all testament to how important the Forstater verdict has been on the direction of travel.
Now we get to the obfuscation about whether we are allowed to point out that allowing males into female people's space creates a potential risk to women.
Hiding behind the 'you are demonising all trans people and that is harmful' line again.
Oh, apparently we are allowed to say it when we frame it as 'our own feelings of safety' just as long as we don't actually mention that male people are a statistical risk to females and that's just a fucking fact.
Oh no sorry, apparently we are allowed to say we don't want to be in a shelter with males when we are actually trying to get into a shelter but we are not allowed to talk about that at the level of general policy.
WTAF??? @Emmabarnett again really excellent here.
Okay, final answer... women who have experienced DV are allowed to say they want to be in shelters with only women but if they are famous and are talking about policy in general they are 'echoing common forms of transphobia.'
Clear as fucking mud Nancy. Cheers.
Re: Kathleen, this effort to pretend Stonewall has nothing to do with fostering a climate in which students think it reasonable to claim that women with GC views make them 'unsafe' is PAINFUL.
Until 3 minutes ago your organisation wouldn't put anyone up to discuss this issue because coming into any proximity with us was considered to make people unsafe.
Now, all of a sudden, you don't understand how any of this, from the largest trans rights org in the country, might have been implicated????
If you cannot state categorically that you think this woman is a transphobe then your organisation, as the leading organisation on this issue in this country, should have FUCKING SAID SOMETHING sometime during the 3 and half years she was being harassed.
FFS.
Now she's claiming she has experienced something similar to Kathleen.
Until you have to spend three and a half years a work with half your profession treating you like an evil witch and your bosses not protecting you you need to shut up, Nancy.
Okay, that's it.
Two general observations.
1. We really have them on the ropes... the amount they have had to move on this is MASSIVE. And *we* made it happen.
2. Still so much fudging and disavowing responsibility. GC Equality Index: Do better lol.
It cannot be repeated enough that saying women are at risk from males is NOT a transphobic thing to say. As JCJ said it's a statistical fact. Trans-identified males have a rate of criminality equal to other males, not to females, therefore they are placed in the same sex category as males when safeguarding considerations take place.
I don't believe all TW are inherently violent any more than I believe all males are inherently violent, but that's not how safeguarding works. We plan for a worst case scenario and hope it doesn't come to fruition. But the measures remain in place. If that hurts TW's feelings well that's just too bad. We've been emotionally manipulated and gaslit enough on this issue. #NoDebate is over.
Just a small insignificant question … or 2
Who the fuck put Nancy as the decider on peoples sexual attitudes and actions ?
Who gave her the right to decide who had sex with whom ?
We, as men and women make our own choices, and we live by those decisions, I’ve never had to ask permission if what I’m doing is ‘right or ‘wrong’, that’s been up to me and my partner ….. and certainly not someone from Stonewall!!!!