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.
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!!!!
Of course we can all have "dating preferences". If I like only blond men and exclude all other colours of hair, that is not a prejudice that I need to examine. It is no one's business but my own. And one might dare to argue that hair colour is rather less significant than a potential partner's sex!
"MASSIVE" shift indeed. Yin caveat..the labelling us with "cis" needs to be robustly challenged. It is a misappropriation of chemistry term, Natal women/men are not opposite to or on the other side of trans. Trying to "other" us is male privilege in a frock.
Call me cynical but I don't believe she has really had a change of heart at all. Now that public awareness is being raised and the media narrative is changing, she's just worried about losing more organisations and £££s. In future, Stonewall will now just use more underhand tactics to get what they want, that's all.
Exactly. She hasn’t had a change of heart. As JCJ said, Kelley is just trying to execute some fancy footwork to respond to the Overton window of acceptable narrative being moved—all because of massive effort by ppl like Glinner, JCJ, Doc Stock, Maya, JK Rowling, et al.
This entire issue is starting to wobble underneath her, and she's trying hard to stay where she is, in her perch at the very very top. Suck eggs.
God it takes SO LONG, and costs some ppl SO MUCH to move the window of acceptable discussion, when orgs like Stonewall have conditioned everybody to be labeled as BIGOTS merely for objecting.
It is extremely infuriating to see people like the Stonewall CEO refusing to accept any responsibility for the the huge harm they have done. We just have to remain very focussed on our objective which is to change the narrative so that their stance is deemed unacceptable, difficult though it is not to want to see people like her get their just deserts. It won't happen. They are adept at lying, cheating and defaming others to get what they want.
I listened live while busy and then listened to the whole thing again. It was an incredibly bad performance from Kelly and (at last) an absolutely great interview from Emma Barnett.
Does this mean Nancy Kelley is now a heretic to the gender ideologues? Given that she was such a vocal advocate of 'No Debate With Hate?'
Not that I want to see anybody mobbed by these swivel-eyed lunatics, but I also don't want to see Nancy Kelley let off the hook by those she's now deigned to debate. I don't believe for a second that she's genuinely come around to a more reasonable position, I believe she's repositioning to try to save her career as reality encroaches on the gender fantasy. I want an interviewer to ask her how she could sit back and not even attempt to moderate the tone of attack when women were being arrested and subject to vile online abuse, for saying things that she now deems suitable for debate.
Anyway, this feels like progress. Between Stephen Nolan and Emma Barnett my faith in the BBC has been, not restored, just not completely extinguished.
Nancy Kelley claiming it's just fine for women to ask to be accommodated in a shelter without TW. 😐 And does that gel with the CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre who told us THOSE women would be expected to "reframe their trauma" because even bigots might need their services one day.
Jesus Christ.
Sounds like Kelley is massively trying to backpedal or minimize the damage done to SW's public image over the last year(?).
I was so disappointed when Emma didn't swoop in for the kill with the "reeducation" quote when they were talking about shelters. It was a missed opportunity.
None of the people who promote this stuff can actually defend it when challenged. Ben Cohen and Owen Hurcum on the Nolan podcast couldn't and Nancy Kelly couldn't today, because it's nonsense. If what Kelly said today on Woman's Hour is what she thinks, then she isn't fit to run an organisation. She must have known every twist and turn of what happened to Kathleen Stock; if she didn't then Stonewall should sack her for incompetence. She's typical of many people with narcissistic traits that they think they are cleverer than everyone else and we can't see through them. She came across as a bit thick. I wonder if the trans-extremists will now turn on her for not holding the line.
As befits the thinking of the other side, Kelly's performance has been like something from The Thick Of It.
I'd have liked the interviewer to have asked her about why Stonewall decided to redefine homosexuality as relating to same gender attraction (whatever the hell that is) rather than same sex attraction.
She stated that she believes transwomen are literally women. No way would she consider "dating" a transwoman as she painted a picture of her safe, cosy little family unit but she's quite happy to tell other lesbians that they need to consider they might be prejudiced for excluding males from their dating pool.
Emma has at long last become the journo we needed her to be - after her grilling of the BBC exec which was painful (for him) and now the NPD Nancy pants on fire Liar - I think Emma did a fab job but wished when she asked if she believed humans can change sex she said NO but when asked if TW were 'women' she said 'yes absolutely' - I wish Emma had said how it is possible!
Great. Thank you for sharing this.. Maybe Nancy Kelley has finally started to wake up from the fugue state she's obviously been in for far too long ! Hopefully ,she's starting to see how much damage Stonewall's agenda has caused ,especially to lesbian women ,of whom I presume she is one .
I cannot thank all of you enough for making this happen!!!!!! Meanwhile in Sweden: we have our own Owen Jones making a move this week auditioning for the part on twitter. And already have a bunch of straight dudes tagging along because bros! This because of self-id debate due to new law proposal this week. A big player in the biggest party did talk about the lancet thing on television and seemed concerned so perhaps there is hope for a real debate in sweden! Fingers crossed and thanx again I needed to see this this week. The dumb swedish ”intellectuals” are painful to watch usually and know it is waaay worse. Hope yall have a good evening
I like the reference to how ‘inclusion’ can also be colonising and coercion. I know how Maori in New Zealand describe being forced to ‘include’ Europeans in their world. Wasn’t a total success for them, either. They, too, started off by being quite welcoming - until they realised that things were going tits-up for them from the ‘inclusion’.
Well well! That was a stupendous exposition of exactly why they take the no debate stance. It makes them look foolish. Kelley was absolutely taken to the cleaners and like Keir Starmer had to waffle her way through the WHOLE interview; at virtually no point saying anything coherent whatsoever. Dared not say JKR is transphobic and dared not say JKR is not transphobic. One could almost hear the sweat dripping down the brow in the enormous strain to avoid pouting obvious bullshit at the same time as having to not let the side down by inadvertently admitting that anything in trans / Stonewall ideology and policy might be crap and/or dangerously reckless. I almost began to feel sorry for her at one point. But only almost. She's made her own bed and will have to lie in it. But I doubt if we'll be hearing anything from her again over the next year or two on any major media platform. That was just too embarrassing and pathetic for words.
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!!!!
She did, from what I can tell.
Of course we can all have "dating preferences". If I like only blond men and exclude all other colours of hair, that is not a prejudice that I need to examine. It is no one's business but my own. And one might dare to argue that hair colour is rather less significant than a potential partner's sex!
We need to edit the part where she says people can't change sex and roll it out every time we're told we're Nazis for saying the same thing.
"MASSIVE" shift indeed. Yin caveat..the labelling us with "cis" needs to be robustly challenged. It is a misappropriation of chemistry term, Natal women/men are not opposite to or on the other side of trans. Trying to "other" us is male privilege in a frock.
I read the cisgender term only today in a bbc online article about Section 28. I've complained to the BBC about using this highly contentious term.
A "highly contentious term" it is. I first came across it on a link posted on twitter. Here it is http://genderapostates.com/cissexism-and-you/
Thanks for this, I'm reading it now. I'll be honest, CIS gets my hackles up when I see it used.
And me.
I, rather childishly, feel like shouting ‘we were here first ‘!!!
No add ons here tyvm
Thank you for this. Good to see such honesty from a trans-woman - and written quite a while before I was even aware of what was going on.
well. this seems like some kind of turning point. I am going to enjoy feeling slightly hopeful.
Call me cynical but I don't believe she has really had a change of heart at all. Now that public awareness is being raised and the media narrative is changing, she's just worried about losing more organisations and £££s. In future, Stonewall will now just use more underhand tactics to get what they want, that's all.
Exactly. She hasn’t had a change of heart. As JCJ said, Kelley is just trying to execute some fancy footwork to respond to the Overton window of acceptable narrative being moved—all because of massive effort by ppl like Glinner, JCJ, Doc Stock, Maya, JK Rowling, et al.
This entire issue is starting to wobble underneath her, and she's trying hard to stay where she is, in her perch at the very very top. Suck eggs.
God it takes SO LONG, and costs some ppl SO MUCH to move the window of acceptable discussion, when orgs like Stonewall have conditioned everybody to be labeled as BIGOTS merely for objecting.
It is extremely infuriating to see people like the Stonewall CEO refusing to accept any responsibility for the the huge harm they have done. We just have to remain very focussed on our objective which is to change the narrative so that their stance is deemed unacceptable, difficult though it is not to want to see people like her get their just deserts. It won't happen. They are adept at lying, cheating and defaming others to get what they want.
Totally agree, with you and Helena
I listened live while busy and then listened to the whole thing again. It was an incredibly bad performance from Kelly and (at last) an absolutely great interview from Emma Barnett.
Does this mean Nancy Kelley is now a heretic to the gender ideologues? Given that she was such a vocal advocate of 'No Debate With Hate?'
Not that I want to see anybody mobbed by these swivel-eyed lunatics, but I also don't want to see Nancy Kelley let off the hook by those she's now deigned to debate. I don't believe for a second that she's genuinely come around to a more reasonable position, I believe she's repositioning to try to save her career as reality encroaches on the gender fantasy. I want an interviewer to ask her how she could sit back and not even attempt to moderate the tone of attack when women were being arrested and subject to vile online abuse, for saying things that she now deems suitable for debate.
Anyway, this feels like progress. Between Stephen Nolan and Emma Barnett my faith in the BBC has been, not restored, just not completely extinguished.
Nancy Kelley claiming it's just fine for women to ask to be accommodated in a shelter without TW. 😐 And does that gel with the CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre who told us THOSE women would be expected to "reframe their trauma" because even bigots might need their services one day.
Jesus Christ.
Sounds like Kelley is massively trying to backpedal or minimize the damage done to SW's public image over the last year(?).
I was so disappointed when Emma didn't swoop in for the kill with the "reeducation" quote when they were talking about shelters. It was a missed opportunity.
None of the people who promote this stuff can actually defend it when challenged. Ben Cohen and Owen Hurcum on the Nolan podcast couldn't and Nancy Kelly couldn't today, because it's nonsense. If what Kelly said today on Woman's Hour is what she thinks, then she isn't fit to run an organisation. She must have known every twist and turn of what happened to Kathleen Stock; if she didn't then Stonewall should sack her for incompetence. She's typical of many people with narcissistic traits that they think they are cleverer than everyone else and we can't see through them. She came across as a bit thick. I wonder if the trans-extremists will now turn on her for not holding the line.
Just listening to the interview now. Kelly really isn't in command of her subject in any way, shape or form. She's an appalling communicator.
I wonder if JKR has called her legal team over what Kelly has said about her in the interview...?
As befits the thinking of the other side, Kelly's performance has been like something from The Thick Of It.
I'd have liked the interviewer to have asked her about why Stonewall decided to redefine homosexuality as relating to same gender attraction (whatever the hell that is) rather than same sex attraction.
She stated that she believes transwomen are literally women. No way would she consider "dating" a transwoman as she painted a picture of her safe, cosy little family unit but she's quite happy to tell other lesbians that they need to consider they might be prejudiced for excluding males from their dating pool.
Emma has at long last become the journo we needed her to be - after her grilling of the BBC exec which was painful (for him) and now the NPD Nancy pants on fire Liar - I think Emma did a fab job but wished when she asked if she believed humans can change sex she said NO but when asked if TW were 'women' she said 'yes absolutely' - I wish Emma had said how it is possible!
Great. Thank you for sharing this.. Maybe Nancy Kelley has finally started to wake up from the fugue state she's obviously been in for far too long ! Hopefully ,she's starting to see how much damage Stonewall's agenda has caused ,especially to lesbian women ,of whom I presume she is one .
I cannot thank all of you enough for making this happen!!!!!! Meanwhile in Sweden: we have our own Owen Jones making a move this week auditioning for the part on twitter. And already have a bunch of straight dudes tagging along because bros! This because of self-id debate due to new law proposal this week. A big player in the biggest party did talk about the lancet thing on television and seemed concerned so perhaps there is hope for a real debate in sweden! Fingers crossed and thanx again I needed to see this this week. The dumb swedish ”intellectuals” are painful to watch usually and know it is waaay worse. Hope yall have a good evening
I like the reference to how ‘inclusion’ can also be colonising and coercion. I know how Maori in New Zealand describe being forced to ‘include’ Europeans in their world. Wasn’t a total success for them, either. They, too, started off by being quite welcoming - until they realised that things were going tits-up for them from the ‘inclusion’.
Well well! That was a stupendous exposition of exactly why they take the no debate stance. It makes them look foolish. Kelley was absolutely taken to the cleaners and like Keir Starmer had to waffle her way through the WHOLE interview; at virtually no point saying anything coherent whatsoever. Dared not say JKR is transphobic and dared not say JKR is not transphobic. One could almost hear the sweat dripping down the brow in the enormous strain to avoid pouting obvious bullshit at the same time as having to not let the side down by inadvertently admitting that anything in trans / Stonewall ideology and policy might be crap and/or dangerously reckless. I almost began to feel sorry for her at one point. But only almost. She's made her own bed and will have to lie in it. But I doubt if we'll be hearing anything from her again over the next year or two on any major media platform. That was just too embarrassing and pathetic for words.