Another idea: At the start of the year editors of e-zines write to their readers "announcing" the trends for the coming year. I wrote back to the Deputy Editor of "The Economist" and Editor of "The World Ahead 2022".
" 2022 will be the Year of the TERF: "Telling Everyone Real Facts". Watch the growing influence of JK Rowling, Maya Forstater, Keira Bell, Professor Alice Sullivan, Helen Joyce, Professor Kathleen Stock, Graham Linehan and many other gender-critical feminists of both sexes. The "gender earthquake" is beginning to be felt: it is causing sexual assaults, loss of careers, bodily mutilation to so many women and girls (and some boys), and "Taliban-like" curtailment of opportunity to women in many different domains. "Gender" is a pernicious cult.
So we now call for the repeal the "Gender" "Recognition" Act 2004 and this call will gather momentum.
Everyone knows that is impossible to change sex.
Conflation of sex and "gender" is a big, blatant lie.
JK Rowling tweeted: “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You is a Woman”
I see nothing but nit picking in most of the comments here.
We're, I hope, all contributing to this site because we object to the proposed GRA and the censorship of debate and comment that has grown up around it. It is my belief that homosexuality arises from failure to develop a mature sexuality, does that mean you don't want my support? (THINK before you answer.) If Nigel Garage offered support would you refuse it? Or Carrie the Marriage Wrecker offered support? It appears to me this is a silly girls club for virtue signalling and because of that the GRA will become law.
I noticed a few years ago that staff at a NT shop we’re wearing rainbow lanyards. I thought it was odd, because it wasn’t just one or two people expressing personal beliefs and freedom to choose, but all of them. It looked like something was being imposed & was compulsory. It was obviously a corporate statement.
I’d had some in-depth experience with gender ID issues and had become concerned about the tactics that were beginning to be employed by some campaigners. When I saw all the staff wearing rainbow lanyards I was suspicious about what was going on. I asked about it & was told all front-facing staff had been directed to wear them or go to back room / out of sight work (presumably leaving was another option). There was no choice.
I thought this was an outrage. Imagine if staff were made to wear a religious symbol, or a politically affiliated colour?
Since when has it been ok to demand workers wear insignia or fly flags for organisations / beliefs they do not agree with, support, or believe in? Flags and insignia that represent a movement that threatens their own identity, rights, freedoms, safety, thoughts, speech, work if you don’t comply?
Eh?
I then noticed the same thing was happening across society: artist’s work was being pulled (Jess de Wahls), writers were being targeted (JK Rowling) the BBC were pushing the agenda big time & were affiliated to Stonewall; then I found out that many organisations were affiliated to Stonewall & their ‘No debate’ thought training. This includes includes the Police, the NHS, MI5, the MOJ.... the Labour Party... the Guardian... the list is very, very long, as many of you people already know. Anyone who dissented was a transphobe, right wing; basically evil, unkind, unreasonable. “On the wrong side of history” (or histrionics).
Then they started to take away women’s language. ‘Mother’ was being erased as a definition. ‘Chest feeding’ was to replace ‘Breast feeding’. Women were not pregnant any more; ‘people’ were - yet some trans men ( women) insisted they be called ‘Father’. Their demands were increasingly contradictory & muddled.
Hmm.
Then transwomen (men), - many of them making false claims, or sex offenders - were being put in women’s prisons. Transwomen were being allowed to compete in women’s sport.
This all concerns me. It sounds, looks, smells like the biggest attack on women’s rights in my lifetime. Not only that, it’s an example of compelled speech and enforced compliance. It’s an ideology that cancels critics, is self-defensive, is passive/aggressive; is controlling, bullying, childish. The message is: “You will comply, or else”.
No. I will not comply. I will not bow to such clumsy, inconsiderate thinking.
Hear, hear. Men, and sadly many women, don't appreciate that the war on women is far from a political exaggeration; we're sleepwalking into Gilead, and the manipulation of language is how it starts. The uncritical way everyone seems to have adopted 'transwoman' is a good example. It's an insidious way to gain acceptance for the idea that trans-identified males are a legitimate type of woman.
Referring to men suffering from GD, use either (1) "transwomen" in inverted commas which draws attention to a questionable use or (2) trans-identified men which is an adjective qualifying a truthful use of the word man.
It will virtually imply a total erasure of 40 years of Gender Politics, which started with Feminism erased from academia in favour of Gender Studies in all Western countries including the effect these countries had on non-western cultures, good luck!
Policies & their effects can be questioned & rejected as an argument or policy evolves. It is possible (or should be) to accept some developments & reject others that impinge upon the rights & freedoms of others, or that cause harm.
Anti-Stonewall-genderbollocks GCism mustn’t accompany or be allied with regressive right wing tactics to suppress the NT’s duty to fairly and accurately explore and show the reality of the historical properties it is in custody of.
Massive wealth was created by straight white upper class English males in the 18th and 19th centuries via various exploitations: trying to keep this on the down low is only of interest to present day racists and bigots.
We have to exercise intelligent due diligence - GCism is already erroneously seen by a lot of people as a right wing perspective.
I believe It is historically important to shine a light on the source of much (surely nearly all?) of this great wealth which is represented by these huge estates within the UK. Personally, I consider it extremely important to highlight the historical links of these properties with the Slave Trade and the vast amount of wealth accumulated from other colonial abuses (ref: Willuam Dalrymple's, The Anarchy).
As much as I am completely horrified by the lies and abuse committed by the Trans-activists, I could not tolerate being associated with hiding the truth of historical UK colonial crimes!
Where does this end: Tearing down statues? Tearing down historic buildings? Surely providing balanced historical information about the statues, buildings, etc. is a better way forward. The association with BLM is empty "virtue-signalling": we cannot alter what has happened. Those who destroy the past because it does not accord with "modern sensibilities" are on a dangerous path: in Saudi Arabia the Wahabi sect (the ruling sect of Sunni) has deliberately destroyed and built over sites which used to be considered sacred because Wahabis do not want the faithful to come and worship at any other shrine except the Kaaba stone in Mecca. The result: there are no monuments to Mohamed, his wife, his uncle, etc who are important in the scriptures of Islam. There is literally nothing left of Saudi/Sunni religious history in that country. This is extreme religious intolerance. And this is hardly ever mentioned in the UK press!
I don't disagree that it is important to know where the wealth came from but I think where some of these campaigns go wrong is in trying to make the average British person feel they are responsible for it, when in reality the average person visiting an NT property is the descendant of someone who themselves was exploited and oppressed and disenfranchised until relatively recently.
We are living in a country where the descendants of the families who invaded in 1066 still own most of the land and wealth that they stole from the people who were already living here, and where the vast majority of the population didn't have the vote until the 20th century, long after slavery was abolished. I think that is a context that gets left out of a lot of this and I think a lot of British people don't even realise these things about the past.
I’d be surprised if that was the intent, frankly. If it makes people feel uncomfortable- well, history is pretty uncomfortable, is it not? (Though not nearly as uncomfortable as living through it).
I’m English: I know what we did, to each other as much as anything.
Don't forget. William Wilberforce was also English...Not all English history is bad...and we are often the first ones there when so many others need us, around the world. The English have been taught to hate themselves in recent decades, REALLY hate ourselves...It's been indoctrination, just as Transworld has made heterosexual children hate themselves, preferring to call themselves 'queer' these days....
I’m a historian. The focus on Wilberforce is very limiting. Not least because it makes it sound like he was single-handedly responsible for abolition, overlooking the many women (Quakers especially) who campaigned, formed networks to help escaped slaves, and helped change public opinion. I’m not knocking Wilberforce, but the way he’s presented as the saviour is both inaccurate & enables us to overlook much that is important, while giving ourselves a vicarious victory lap.
Hear, hear your point about normal children being made to search for a "special identity", even if cultivating one is ultimately mentally destructive. Uncertainty in adolescence is the norm. Any loving parent knows this and would normally step in to provide reassurance, not push the child further down a rabbit-hole.
You know, Ellen, I truly wish Americans would hate themselves at least a little more. Instead, they spend all their time congratulating themselves on how wonderful, how generous, how kind they are. NOT. Like the dope obviously trolling for the Democratic Party talking about the U.S. supporting democracy all over the world. NOT.
However, do not forget the myth of white domination among the "lumpen proletariat', which meant always white is still not black, ie. not lynching material, but being part of the public lynching of blacks
The ruling elite has very cleverly (and evilly) used race to divide the lower classes; Michelle Alexander detailed this well in her book about mass incarceration. Why was Martin Luther King Jr murdered? Why was Fred Hampton murdered? Because both of them realized the only way to fight the ruling establishment was for people to organize across racial lines, and both of them had appeal for lower-class whites. I haven't read enough, but apparently Tupac also had these ideas in mind and was murdered.
History tends not to be “balanced”. At best, it aspires to be accurate.
I’m glad to say the NT has tried to do a certain amount to put things on the record. I was pleasantly surprised nearly 20 years ago, visiting Audley End, that a display about the estate made no bones about marking, and explaining, where a village had been razed to the ground & the inhabitants dispersed, in order to make a nice big park.
I don't see the connection with Saudi Arabia yo be honest. We are not talking about eradicating symbolism of previous religions. What happened in Bristol was unique to the situation in that cit
But that history has been well documented and known about for a very, VERY long time now. It's as if The Wokies have only just discovered it...and think it's been ignored. How stupid can they be? Do they not know of William Wilberforce?
I completely agree. ANY closing down of the expression of ANY opinion because someone, 'finds it offensive", not beneficial for society.
I find the apparently rising censorship power of men in dresses who claim to be women or women who claim to be men reminiscent of McCarthyism, The Spanish Inquisition and our old favourite target The Nazis.
When has The NT ever hidden the truth about the owners of the homes they now care for? They preserve history, they look after and maintain so many thousands and thousands of acres of lands, farms, coastal paths, woodlands, wildlife....The Wokies moving in on them is a farce. Without the hard, hard work of The National Trust we would all be very much poorer, none of their beautiful gardens to visit, relax in, so much history, good AND bad, lost forever, coastal paths left to rack and ruin, etc. etc. etc. It's bad enough that The Wokies are already inside it, as they seem to want to destroy it from the inside, out, but for any NT members to be going along with them, beggars belief. I'm so very, very tired of those who want to destroy the past, or paint it all as darkly as possible....
There is a mansion in Portland, Maine, the Morse-Libby Mansion known as the Victoria Mansion. We visited once at Christmas -- actually a rather ugly house -- and it wasn't until we were on the third floor that a docent told us that the mansion's owner had made his fortune running hotels in New Orleans with slave labor. I found this to be important information that should have been more widely shared.
For god's sake, WHY should it be shared? Should people refuse to enter because of that? Surely you went to look at something from a bygone age rather than to pass moral judgement on the owner?
Because northern Americans like to pretend they had nothing to do with slavery. Of course people shouldn't refuse to enter, but I LOVE history and want to know things such as the source of income that built this huge, ugly house. I generally stay away from mansions because I'm not particularly interested in them -- far more interested in modest homes, a nineteenth-century doctor's office, etc -- but we went because they decorate the house for Christmas.
And anyone who thinks about history and current events is probably passing moral judgment.
Anyone accusing someone of being, 'a bigot', or in fact making comment on the person rather than the argument is demonstrating an underlying and possibly unconscious fear that their point of view is irrational. So just ignore them.
As a member of the Trust I totally agree it should absolutely inform and educate about the awful facts of slavery.
We should be clear though, that this is entirely separate from endorsing a specific political entity like black lives matter who have radical political aims like defunding the police
Just to let those know who don't: An article in The New Yorker years ago regarding Black Lives Matter detailed the transgender links in BLM. Of course TNY thought it was fine and dandy (I'm sure they're getting money from the trans funders).
Yes, this is the manner in which transgender (but also Stonewall and LGBTQ) gets global influence in all campaigns about oppression/exclusion, but we should remember that this as a male-dominated voice, a female voice in all these organisations is not specifically mentioned, like 'mankind includes a silent womankind', which is why lesbians may be silently included, but once we speak of our biology there is no voice at all for those sexed beings
I think the principle of the motion is that the political position of a campaign should be irrelevant. Even if the UK version stop short of these positions, they're still a political campaigning group with no link to heritage preservation.
"(2) that they were being forced to support political campaigns which had nothing to do with the preservation of the NT's heritage assets."
With this in mind perhaps I should have said...
"separate from endorsing a specific political entity. **Especially one** like black lives matter who have radical political aims like defunding the police"
My understanding is that even within the U.S. BLM groups differ widely in their perspectives. It is not a cohesive organization, rather groups are loosely affiliated.
To John Caramel. How do you arrive at the word SHOULD in your first sentence?
I'm from a long and proud line of the persecuted Irish, but I don't see many demands that British potato sellers should be educating potato purchasers about the genocide committed by the British when they left in excess of 1,000,000 people to die of starvation while they were exporting Irish corn.
It seems to me that only some moral causes are fashionable.
Heavens this is either disingenuous or simply plain irrational.
The right thing to do now is that the British-owned properties currently in NT hands should inform and educate on the Irish Famine, if their owners at the time were influential figures eg politicians. Would you not agree?
As far as history goes, the “right thing” is to aim for as much factual accuracy and completion as possible, given the resources available ie official records, photos, eyewitness accounts, letters and diaries.
Facts don’t care about your feelings - they are not personal attacks on you, however narcisstic and fragile you must be to interpret them as such.
Sorry, I entirely agree with your idea, and it is already known that BLM would be better called BMLM because of the dominant role males apparently play in the US BLM. Perhaps BWLM would show the situation then of black women more openly. I am reminded of socialist politics, when we began to maintain that socialism's general politics is about/by/for men (see a nice feminist classic by Batya Weinbaum "The Curious Courtship between Feminism and Socialism"), where 'free love' is in favour of men, not women! But I think to mention women seperate (lets not even think about 'first'!), probably would need a world feminist revolution!
Years ago I read a fantastic article about the downfall of the Black Panthers. Yes, they were infiltrated and murdered and imprisoned by the U.S. government, but it didn't help that they had little respect for women, which was the point of the female author.
I understood this site to be about curving the power of transexuals to close down debate on the matter of gender. All I'm finding is a great deal of holiness on the subject.
We do wander afield which I appreciate. There are a lot of very intelligent people commenting and I enjoy their perspectives. I'm not sure there is holiness but some people have more respect for the opinions of trans than others of us do.
Wholly agree the NT need to explore where wealth that created their assets came from and inform the visitors. All too often it’s slavery or other exploitation. However very happy to protest against any alignment with trans activism.
I think there is an inclination to identify those coming a GC perspective with people and organisations, etc, who might be GC, but will probably also be homophobic and misogynist, and have a whole host of other undesirable prejudices.
I agree, it will be about exercising diligence, because whilst there may be no difficulty in maintaining the distingtions and distance intellectually and ideologically, it's conceivable there will be less clarity from a pragmatic perspective. It needs thought and caution..
Using 'left' and 'right' perspectives as either 'right' or 'wrong' has always been used against feminists, so be careful what you are attacking, women's exclusion of left-(and right)-wing party politics by the myth of "dont worry, your time comes when we win the revolution" is well-known and should encourage women to base their politics uniquely on their sexed bodies, and forget any other 'left' or 'right' tactics
it is time to rethink this 'left' and 'right' taboo, parties and right/left rules may well be a hindrance in realistically defining a situation, events can change sides when groups, parties and institutions may be formed to fight for minorities, but it is not always sure that the institutions become not themselves fascist organisations which 'gobble up' dissidence to make it dictatorships, it depends on the people who run them and their own goals
I am referring here to the influence of Stonewall and LGBQT (after the nineties), and their role in supporting transgender politics, which has damaged women's situation, since 'women' is no longer just a word for those born female, but is adopted by male born individuals who imagine themselves to be women (apparently suffering from autogynephilia = being in love of himself as a woman!)
Perhaps GCism is better identified as anti-feminism womanhating ideology, since its tactics are defined by a male normative power, which is beyond classes, based on the phallocentricism of human cultures, viz we used to call humankind "mankind" which says it all!
Well I don't know. You're the one recommending works on the subject.
Anyhow this site is concerned with the apparent power of sexual inadequates to close down debate.Why aren't we thinking about strategies to oppose this rather than what we all know is a pro male bias in speech and language.
Yes, but the male body stayed the norm of humanity until 15 years ago, the female body was an anomaly, having to be regarded as a deviancy compared to normal bodies should operated.......only the reproductive function of the female body was specially regarded as different
That is thousands of world old and probably simply meant warriors, but once reproduction became a control of females males became the model of humanity
I'm old and feeble. Easily confused and so forth. Please confirm my understanding of Emma's post of 1st January is that it's alright to make people wear symbols of organisations they disagree with as long as it's an organisation or point of view with which you agree.
This is my second attempt to post so part of this may appear elsewhere.
If I can add something here Margaret and with the intention of helping. I realise this style of online interaction is tricky, and feels like shark-infested waters at times, but people do take against their stated views being 'reframed'. It would help to put a question mark next to any question, to emphasise that it is a question or questioning (rhetorical or not). You asked for a confirmation of something that did not happen. Asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you desire is likely to get a poor response.
It is disingenuous, or appears so, to deny something, when a poster (Emma) has come to an understandable conclusion as laid out above. You dismissed her reply twice. Inferring that you have then 'won' a bit of keyboard swordplay as you have is also likely to rile others. Viewing something as swordplay, when it wasn't is also likely to rile.
When you look at threads as a whole it can feel and appear that it's a 'pile-on', no matter if it's one, or more than one person, responding to a comment you have made/asked. It's a collective sealioning.
Someone may have a reasonable and reasoned reply, but not wish to engage further as trust has been lost. Some like a bit of tit-for-tat back and forth. Or may have moved on to other subjects. People are less likely to reply to months old posts.
People can harass and be very well aware, or less aware and be intransigent by accident or without intention. I take you and this at face value as being like that. When it's suggested that something has fallen flat, or not been understood as intended it's 50/50 whether it's worth responding to clarify online.
You also saw an alternate meaning in something I had written on several other posts, which I thought was obvious from the context. Although understandable, it's a tactic some trolls use to deflect, distract and draw attention and you may be viewed as coming across as such. Having to clarify and reclarify is wearying.
Try not to read too much into what is written. By the way, I do not want to 'cause real XY men problems' or 'invade' their spaces and do not see how you could have read that in to what I wrote on another post as it was a subtext that wasn't there.
The Wokies started to take over The National Trust c15yrs back. I was, at that time, working for them in one of their town shops. It was a lovely job, lovely people, lovely principals. Then, The New Guard moved in. Our manager moved out, fast, as she knew what was coming, left a job she absolutely loved. In they swept, wanting to modernise The National Trust up, bigtime, spending fortunes doing just that, changing colours, logos, names, making all staff, even volunteers fill in huge booklets of total drivel, giving us 3 months each to do this, asking stupid question after stupid question, as if none of us knew our jobs...knew nothing about The National Trust or its' history. Ye gods! I left too...If I'd been there a little later in time, when Stonewall moved in, I'd have been sacked, without doubt, because I kicked up a huge fuss as it was, but Stonewalling the NT would have just finished me off and I'd have gone totally doolally in the shop itself...Stonewall, one of the most, if not THE most, putrid, tyrannical organizations ever to have taken over society....They will ruin the National Trust, totally ruin it......and as for forcing anything on their volunteer staff, upon whom they depend enormously, well, they'll find themselves with very, very few volunteers at all soon. Well done to those speaking out, speaking up....let your voices be heard, louder and louder.
At last the time has come that this 'nazist' ideology can be unmasked, which is not 'woke' but woman-hating at the base via individual 'gender identities' policed by the LGBTQ police
My partner works for the NT. I asked him if he's been told to put pronouns in emails etc. No.
An email with around 100 people in went around back in November in support of trans people. May have been trans remembrance day. He said it seemed to be from a T+ staff member. Only around 4 or 5 people responded to the absolute crap spouted.
Again, trans politics is not a theory of 'living in the wrong body', but the last face of male domination, because 'transmen' do not undo the phallocratic culture we have lived under for aeons, because they remain female born (LACKING THE PENIS), while only 'transwomen' , because they are male-born and recognised as POSSESSING THE PENIS, represent the extending of the phallocratic culture, when men are accepted as 'women'. Thus trans politics is womanhating
say *no* to badges, pronouns and so on plus insist sex not gender in policies. As per our existing laws. I think it is in the hands of ordinary workers - good that there’s help in how to approach these obstacles for normal thinking people who are tired of all this
Some of the stonewall affiliated organisations aren't public entities and aren't listed on UK stock markets and for them I think the only thing they might listen to is bad press or being publicly called out on social media etc. Sex Matters published the known list of Stonewall fans, maybe calling them out on socials and in the media and asking them if they are still linked or why they are still linked might help.
If organisations want help preparing their HR documents to comply with Equality Law - a basic need for public and private bodies - then they can get proper advice from the independent Authentic Equity Alliance (AEAlliance.co.uk) set up by ex-Cambridge City Councillor Ann Sinnott. Ann resigned from the Council over their policy to allow transwomen into female loos. She also tried to take the Equality and Human Right Commission to court because they were promoting at the time "gender identity" instead of sex as the PC. Of course the EHRC has since acquired a new CEO who takes a very different gender-critical line.
Thanks for this, and good for Ann. I was furious about all that. What a superb resource. I was just filling out a consultation form and my local Borough has just asked me 'Is your present gender the one you were assigned at birth?'.
It stopped me in my tracks but at least it allowed no response and to move to the next question field. I didn't wish to answer 'prefer not to say' or 'yes', as I am happy to tell them it's my sex that remains the one I was born as, we are not 'assigned' at birth, we are, and gender is a ridiculous, meaningless term. I'd prefer it if they stopped asking Stonewalled questions.
If possible I always fill out a text box saying "My sex is female. Sex is real, binary and immutable - impossible to change. Gender is a performance, etc...." Giving them a lesson about the difference between sex and gender. Do I have a life? I am not sure.... But I am sure that we must reclaim single-sex provisions!
Good idea , really annoying that massive companies are still members through laziness/ cowardliness. Shining a light on their membership would be good. Can we take a billboard out with their names on - plus what they are meant to believe eg some women have willies
Please support the new organisation sex-matters.org. They are addressing all the harms of "gender". Their current campaign is against the proposed "conversion therapy ban", with a deadline of 4th February. Please go to Sex Matters website and follow their clear instructions. They are working hand-in-hand with Transgender Trend and Genspect.org, (Stella O'Malley).
That’s good to hear. I know they wrote to stonewall champions early last year. I’m surprised though that so many large companies are still sitting on the fence. CEOs need to find their backbones fast -they deserve to be ridiculed at this late stage.
Look forward to supporting further Sex Matters initiatives. Hoping for more Nolan podcasts too
With some of the stonewall affiliated organisations I am familiar with I feel like they are doubling down on it. Certainly I know Mermaids were invited in to give a presentation to staff at one only a couple of months ago and this isn’t a firm that works with kids, so it’s just talking to staff as parents.
I am hoping that Safe Schools Alliance are going to find a cause of action against a school and local authority following Mermaids' advice. This means finding a child who has been harmed.
Alternatively the Dept for Education has left Stonewall. Parents should prod and follow up to ensure that DfE weeds out any and all "guidance" in the past which wrongly supported the ideology of "born in the wrong body".
And DfE should instruct schools to disaffiliate from the Stonewall "Schools Champions" scheme. This is (1) another protection racket and (2) wrongly promotes "gender identity" instead of sex. And of course the mental harm to a child who would not have thought of "changing gender" if he had not had this suggested to him either by an RSE teacher (teaching this material far too early) or by a social media/porn site which he or his peer group stumbled on and gossiped about. Kids actually deserve far BETTER safeguarding from sites which promote mental disorders (of which GD is a very serious one). I wonder whether schools could be ordered to confiscate all smart phones from kids in school below the age of 14 when they might begin to need them for their studies. I think kids only need "dumb" phones before that age.
Why not use for your kid as an example a girl instead of a boy.......(viz. Man-made Language by Dale Spender is a good text about language as never being innocent
But that is equally ridiculous and actually an attempt to make parents feel guilty if they do not take the Mermaids serious when talking with their kids, and support the stupid idea that 'gender' is 'sex, ie. just assigned or adopted and alway open to change!
Where is the known list of Stonewall? Could you provide it to me, I have been trying to make a list, but it is a bit of a secret how far the tentacles of Stonewall reached.....so please give some info about this. Thanks!
There’s an enormous problem with the concept of ‘woke’ - it force teams support for gender ideology with acknowledgement of the pernicious legacy of slavery.
The optics of allying with a group whose main concern appears to be refusal to acknowledge slavery’s role in the building of many of the NT’s properties are not good.
Yes I agree, - it makes me feel very uncomfortable at the thought of being associated with the whole 'anti-woke' package, just because I believe in biology.
That is your last chance to be a self-thinking human being: be anti-woke, because there are oppressive systems and males who hate females, none of that should be just woke, ie. just individuals with different meanings and beliefs
The "gender-critical" campaign is very specific: it is in the name, and in these terms only. Dissociate yourselves from any idea of being "woke" or "anti-woke".
Gender-critical feminism is pro-single-sex provisions and for the reality of sex (important, binary, immutable). There are more than enough practical issues to fight for in this manifesto. And we have allies in many political parties and non-political organisations like "Restore Trust".
Can I suggest that some left wingers regard themselves as anti-woke, but they support the idea of transgenderism as an individual right, without realising that its political support is based on woman-hating, so perhaps we should include sexism and female abuse and killing as part of 'the sexual side' of socialism? Remember deBeauvoir wrote (in 1949!) that women have a problem about not easily seeing themselves as a class "oppressed/silenced and even violated by men (as a 'class'), because women are always already directly connected to (and care for) men, as mothers, sisters, daughters, partners, wives......which is not like workers, who know their class and their enemies!
I would be really keen to know if there are similar voices in the SNP and green parties in Scotland. The local elections are coming up in May, and as things stand, I feel politically homeless. These are the parties I would naturally support, but I cannot while they maintain their current positions on self ID.
Attend the hustings, tweet the candidates, write in local micro-news sites: ask the candidates: "What is a woman?" Any hesitation in the answer, then come in with the Staniland Question. Do this a few times to get the timing with the audience response. You are aiming for either a straightforward supportive answer "I would never affirm an anorexic saying I'm fat" OR embarassment and anger. With the anger you can point out that truth should not cause the candidate any difficulty. End of!
You will get no response from any MSP in either party on this subject. They are either totally cowed or trans captured. I have given up on both and told them so.
I am a gender critical feminist and no longer support Stonewall. However, just because NT subscribe to them, is not necessarily a reason to rubbish any efforts by NT to be be inclusive. In one of the NT owned mansions where I live in Norfolk, there was an attempt to diss a real effort to re visit the history of a gay ex lord of the manor. This prompted right wing criticism of which I do not agree. Similarly , efforts to tell a more balanced history which includes English involvement in the slave trade opposed by conservative elements with a small and a large "c" within and outside NT, have my support. I really do think that, while opposing trans ideology and organisations like Stonewall that propagate it, we should be wary of sensationalising and polarising every debate and becoming too close bed fellows of the right wing.
There’s a weird misapprehension that history is all about making us feel good (or bad) about ourselves today.
Information is judged not on “Did this happen? What’s the evidence? Is this a reasonable interpretation?” but “does this show my ancestors / people like me in a good light or a bad light?”
And (as with the almost certainly gay) lord of the manor, what some people think of as “in a bad light” can be very questionable.
Straightening the dead is as silly & as reactionary as transing the dead.
Like others I think Gender Critical people should work with others on that issue. If individuals want to deny that British colonialism had no malign impact let them go so separately. While some NT campaigners may have good intentions many are rapidly on the far right, that is clear in their comments.
Pardon? Your comment is highly insulting to the very many good and caring people who are NT members, and to the staff who work very hard to protect history, to preserve thousands and thousands of acres of countryside, woods, farms, wildlife, coastal paths, etc....
This sounds like a good move. A similar group called something like 'early-career academics' has been set up to counter the onslaught in universities, and I believe there's parallel group in nursing and midwifery. At a recent GC pub gathering I was encouraged to join Liberty for the same reason, which I'm considering. This could be a goer!
I saw a UK list of Stonewall members organisations and since it looked like the whole of Britain was affiliated, it reminded me of the national so-called popular push by the Nazi party ! Apparently no-one could object to the membership, because of the slogan "diversity and inclusivenesss"
Something like 25% of the workforce were employed by a Stonewall-affiliated entity, as of last year. That’s a horrifying figure, but I think it’s diminishing.
Which means there are openings for other groups, not necessarily any better, to step in.
live long and prosper Graham. I hope you win the lottery. You deserve it. Collecting information on social media like you do about this topic (women, trans, etc) surely takes a toll on you mental health. I myself could not do it bc i get triggered when reading about men in female prisons and condom being distributed to prisoners
I hope it’s ok to post this link here to a reddit thread that (as yet) hasn’t been deleted.
If transing is about becoming closer to one's true self, how come they’re such irritating ‘actors’ all of the same mould huh…it seem pennies really are dropping widely
I've read Charles Moore in The Spectator about this for a while now. There are presumably other such organisations- within-an-organisation. Be good to know about them.
I can't remember exactly. I know there was one, certainly not the first either, nor long before Christmas. I'll have a hunt through the ones I have - not sure if you can do an online search?
Another idea: At the start of the year editors of e-zines write to their readers "announcing" the trends for the coming year. I wrote back to the Deputy Editor of "The Economist" and Editor of "The World Ahead 2022".
" 2022 will be the Year of the TERF: "Telling Everyone Real Facts". Watch the growing influence of JK Rowling, Maya Forstater, Keira Bell, Professor Alice Sullivan, Helen Joyce, Professor Kathleen Stock, Graham Linehan and many other gender-critical feminists of both sexes. The "gender earthquake" is beginning to be felt: it is causing sexual assaults, loss of careers, bodily mutilation to so many women and girls (and some boys), and "Taliban-like" curtailment of opportunity to women in many different domains. "Gender" is a pernicious cult.
So we now call for the repeal the "Gender" "Recognition" Act 2004 and this call will gather momentum.
Everyone knows that is impossible to change sex.
Conflation of sex and "gender" is a big, blatant lie.
JK Rowling tweeted: “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You is a Woman”
Happy New Year 2022!
This is an excellent idea! announcing the trend sets the trend!
Please include the 'gender identity' cult which started in 1982 and only grew via LGBTQ and Stonewall (under the banner of "diversity and inclusivity"
At last some suggestions for concrete action.
I see nothing but nit picking in most of the comments here.
We're, I hope, all contributing to this site because we object to the proposed GRA and the censorship of debate and comment that has grown up around it. It is my belief that homosexuality arises from failure to develop a mature sexuality, does that mean you don't want my support? (THINK before you answer.) If Nigel Garage offered support would you refuse it? Or Carrie the Marriage Wrecker offered support? It appears to me this is a silly girls club for virtue signalling and because of that the GRA will become law.
What are we going to DO???
Farage not Garage. Obviously.
I noticed a few years ago that staff at a NT shop we’re wearing rainbow lanyards. I thought it was odd, because it wasn’t just one or two people expressing personal beliefs and freedom to choose, but all of them. It looked like something was being imposed & was compulsory. It was obviously a corporate statement.
I’d had some in-depth experience with gender ID issues and had become concerned about the tactics that were beginning to be employed by some campaigners. When I saw all the staff wearing rainbow lanyards I was suspicious about what was going on. I asked about it & was told all front-facing staff had been directed to wear them or go to back room / out of sight work (presumably leaving was another option). There was no choice.
I thought this was an outrage. Imagine if staff were made to wear a religious symbol, or a politically affiliated colour?
Since when has it been ok to demand workers wear insignia or fly flags for organisations / beliefs they do not agree with, support, or believe in? Flags and insignia that represent a movement that threatens their own identity, rights, freedoms, safety, thoughts, speech, work if you don’t comply?
Eh?
I then noticed the same thing was happening across society: artist’s work was being pulled (Jess de Wahls), writers were being targeted (JK Rowling) the BBC were pushing the agenda big time & were affiliated to Stonewall; then I found out that many organisations were affiliated to Stonewall & their ‘No debate’ thought training. This includes includes the Police, the NHS, MI5, the MOJ.... the Labour Party... the Guardian... the list is very, very long, as many of you people already know. Anyone who dissented was a transphobe, right wing; basically evil, unkind, unreasonable. “On the wrong side of history” (or histrionics).
Then they started to take away women’s language. ‘Mother’ was being erased as a definition. ‘Chest feeding’ was to replace ‘Breast feeding’. Women were not pregnant any more; ‘people’ were - yet some trans men ( women) insisted they be called ‘Father’. Their demands were increasingly contradictory & muddled.
Hmm.
Then transwomen (men), - many of them making false claims, or sex offenders - were being put in women’s prisons. Transwomen were being allowed to compete in women’s sport.
This all concerns me. It sounds, looks, smells like the biggest attack on women’s rights in my lifetime. Not only that, it’s an example of compelled speech and enforced compliance. It’s an ideology that cancels critics, is self-defensive, is passive/aggressive; is controlling, bullying, childish. The message is: “You will comply, or else”.
No. I will not comply. I will not bow to such clumsy, inconsiderate thinking.
Hear, hear. Men, and sadly many women, don't appreciate that the war on women is far from a political exaggeration; we're sleepwalking into Gilead, and the manipulation of language is how it starts. The uncritical way everyone seems to have adopted 'transwoman' is a good example. It's an insidious way to gain acceptance for the idea that trans-identified males are a legitimate type of woman.
Referring to men suffering from GD, use either (1) "transwomen" in inverted commas which draws attention to a questionable use or (2) trans-identified men which is an adjective qualifying a truthful use of the word man.
It will virtually imply a total erasure of 40 years of Gender Politics, which started with Feminism erased from academia in favour of Gender Studies in all Western countries including the effect these countries had on non-western cultures, good luck!
Policies & their effects can be questioned & rejected as an argument or policy evolves. It is possible (or should be) to accept some developments & reject others that impinge upon the rights & freedoms of others, or that cause harm.
You put your finger exactly on what was the origin of transgenderism: LGBTQ and the global and national membership of Stonewall after the 1990s
* ‘Were’ not “we’re” at beginning of comment. User or spellchecker error? I dunno. It looked ok before I posted it. Bloomin’ Gremlins whodunnit!
Anti-Stonewall-genderbollocks GCism mustn’t accompany or be allied with regressive right wing tactics to suppress the NT’s duty to fairly and accurately explore and show the reality of the historical properties it is in custody of.
Massive wealth was created by straight white upper class English males in the 18th and 19th centuries via various exploitations: trying to keep this on the down low is only of interest to present day racists and bigots.
We have to exercise intelligent due diligence - GCism is already erroneously seen by a lot of people as a right wing perspective.
Thank you Emma, I entirely agree with you.
I believe It is historically important to shine a light on the source of much (surely nearly all?) of this great wealth which is represented by these huge estates within the UK. Personally, I consider it extremely important to highlight the historical links of these properties with the Slave Trade and the vast amount of wealth accumulated from other colonial abuses (ref: Willuam Dalrymple's, The Anarchy).
As much as I am completely horrified by the lies and abuse committed by the Trans-activists, I could not tolerate being associated with hiding the truth of historical UK colonial crimes!
Where does this end: Tearing down statues? Tearing down historic buildings? Surely providing balanced historical information about the statues, buildings, etc. is a better way forward. The association with BLM is empty "virtue-signalling": we cannot alter what has happened. Those who destroy the past because it does not accord with "modern sensibilities" are on a dangerous path: in Saudi Arabia the Wahabi sect (the ruling sect of Sunni) has deliberately destroyed and built over sites which used to be considered sacred because Wahabis do not want the faithful to come and worship at any other shrine except the Kaaba stone in Mecca. The result: there are no monuments to Mohamed, his wife, his uncle, etc who are important in the scriptures of Islam. There is literally nothing left of Saudi/Sunni religious history in that country. This is extreme religious intolerance. And this is hardly ever mentioned in the UK press!
I don't disagree that it is important to know where the wealth came from but I think where some of these campaigns go wrong is in trying to make the average British person feel they are responsible for it, when in reality the average person visiting an NT property is the descendant of someone who themselves was exploited and oppressed and disenfranchised until relatively recently.
We are living in a country where the descendants of the families who invaded in 1066 still own most of the land and wealth that they stole from the people who were already living here, and where the vast majority of the population didn't have the vote until the 20th century, long after slavery was abolished. I think that is a context that gets left out of a lot of this and I think a lot of British people don't even realise these things about the past.
I’d be surprised if that was the intent, frankly. If it makes people feel uncomfortable- well, history is pretty uncomfortable, is it not? (Though not nearly as uncomfortable as living through it).
I’m English: I know what we did, to each other as much as anything.
Don't forget. William Wilberforce was also English...Not all English history is bad...and we are often the first ones there when so many others need us, around the world. The English have been taught to hate themselves in recent decades, REALLY hate ourselves...It's been indoctrination, just as Transworld has made heterosexual children hate themselves, preferring to call themselves 'queer' these days....
I’m a historian. The focus on Wilberforce is very limiting. Not least because it makes it sound like he was single-handedly responsible for abolition, overlooking the many women (Quakers especially) who campaigned, formed networks to help escaped slaves, and helped change public opinion. I’m not knocking Wilberforce, but the way he’s presented as the saviour is both inaccurate & enables us to overlook much that is important, while giving ourselves a vicarious victory lap.
Hear, hear your point about normal children being made to search for a "special identity", even if cultivating one is ultimately mentally destructive. Uncertainty in adolescence is the norm. Any loving parent knows this and would normally step in to provide reassurance, not push the child further down a rabbit-hole.
You know, Ellen, I truly wish Americans would hate themselves at least a little more. Instead, they spend all their time congratulating themselves on how wonderful, how generous, how kind they are. NOT. Like the dope obviously trolling for the Democratic Party talking about the U.S. supporting democracy all over the world. NOT.
That’s right. Because History is not taught in our schools, only propaganda to protect the establishment.
You're not wrong, Her.
However, do not forget the myth of white domination among the "lumpen proletariat', which meant always white is still not black, ie. not lynching material, but being part of the public lynching of blacks
The ruling elite has very cleverly (and evilly) used race to divide the lower classes; Michelle Alexander detailed this well in her book about mass incarceration. Why was Martin Luther King Jr murdered? Why was Fred Hampton murdered? Because both of them realized the only way to fight the ruling establishment was for people to organize across racial lines, and both of them had appeal for lower-class whites. I haven't read enough, but apparently Tupac also had these ideas in mind and was murdered.
This does not mean that the USA proletariat invented slavery!
History tends not to be “balanced”. At best, it aspires to be accurate.
I’m glad to say the NT has tried to do a certain amount to put things on the record. I was pleasantly surprised nearly 20 years ago, visiting Audley End, that a display about the estate made no bones about marking, and explaining, where a village had been razed to the ground & the inhabitants dispersed, in order to make a nice big park.
This happened: why not say so?
I don't see the connection with Saudi Arabia yo be honest. We are not talking about eradicating symbolism of previous religions. What happened in Bristol was unique to the situation in that cit
To clarify nobody is talking about destroying the NT historical houses!
But that history has been well documented and known about for a very, VERY long time now. It's as if The Wokies have only just discovered it...and think it's been ignored. How stupid can they be? Do they not know of William Wilberforce?
Well said Una-Jane.
I completely agree. ANY closing down of the expression of ANY opinion because someone, 'finds it offensive", not beneficial for society.
I find the apparently rising censorship power of men in dresses who claim to be women or women who claim to be men reminiscent of McCarthyism, The Spanish Inquisition and our old favourite target The Nazis.
When has The NT ever hidden the truth about the owners of the homes they now care for? They preserve history, they look after and maintain so many thousands and thousands of acres of lands, farms, coastal paths, woodlands, wildlife....The Wokies moving in on them is a farce. Without the hard, hard work of The National Trust we would all be very much poorer, none of their beautiful gardens to visit, relax in, so much history, good AND bad, lost forever, coastal paths left to rack and ruin, etc. etc. etc. It's bad enough that The Wokies are already inside it, as they seem to want to destroy it from the inside, out, but for any NT members to be going along with them, beggars belief. I'm so very, very tired of those who want to destroy the past, or paint it all as darkly as possible....
There is a mansion in Portland, Maine, the Morse-Libby Mansion known as the Victoria Mansion. We visited once at Christmas -- actually a rather ugly house -- and it wasn't until we were on the third floor that a docent told us that the mansion's owner had made his fortune running hotels in New Orleans with slave labor. I found this to be important information that should have been more widely shared.
For god's sake, WHY should it be shared? Should people refuse to enter because of that? Surely you went to look at something from a bygone age rather than to pass moral judgement on the owner?
Because northern Americans like to pretend they had nothing to do with slavery. Of course people shouldn't refuse to enter, but I LOVE history and want to know things such as the source of income that built this huge, ugly house. I generally stay away from mansions because I'm not particularly interested in them -- far more interested in modest homes, a nineteenth-century doctor's office, etc -- but we went because they decorate the house for Christmas.
And anyone who thinks about history and current events is probably passing moral judgment.
I do agree, we get lumped in a group that we don't belong to. We're not bigots.
Anyone accusing someone of being, 'a bigot', or in fact making comment on the person rather than the argument is demonstrating an underlying and possibly unconscious fear that their point of view is irrational. So just ignore them.
As a member of the Trust I totally agree it should absolutely inform and educate about the awful facts of slavery.
We should be clear though, that this is entirely separate from endorsing a specific political entity like black lives matter who have radical political aims like defunding the police
https://twitter.com/Blklivesmatter/status/1334211638044581901
and housing men in women's prison
https://twitter.com/Blklivesmatter/status/508417503278956544
Just to let those know who don't: An article in The New Yorker years ago regarding Black Lives Matter detailed the transgender links in BLM. Of course TNY thought it was fine and dandy (I'm sure they're getting money from the trans funders).
Yes, this is the manner in which transgender (but also Stonewall and LGBTQ) gets global influence in all campaigns about oppression/exclusion, but we should remember that this as a male-dominated voice, a female voice in all these organisations is not specifically mentioned, like 'mankind includes a silent womankind', which is why lesbians may be silently included, but once we speak of our biology there is no voice at all for those sexed beings
The Black Lives Matter organisation is American though. Does anyone know if the UK version holds exactly the same official views?
I think the principle of the motion is that the political position of a campaign should be irrelevant. Even if the UK version stop short of these positions, they're still a political campaigning group with no link to heritage preservation.
"(2) that they were being forced to support political campaigns which had nothing to do with the preservation of the NT's heritage assets."
With this in mind perhaps I should have said...
"separate from endorsing a specific political entity. **Especially one** like black lives matter who have radical political aims like defunding the police"
Ok yes, I understand and am in agreement with this
My understanding is that even within the U.S. BLM groups differ widely in their perspectives. It is not a cohesive organization, rather groups are loosely affiliated.
To John Caramel. How do you arrive at the word SHOULD in your first sentence?
I'm from a long and proud line of the persecuted Irish, but I don't see many demands that British potato sellers should be educating potato purchasers about the genocide committed by the British when they left in excess of 1,000,000 people to die of starvation while they were exporting Irish corn.
It seems to me that only some moral causes are fashionable.
Heavens this is either disingenuous or simply plain irrational.
The right thing to do now is that the British-owned properties currently in NT hands should inform and educate on the Irish Famine, if their owners at the time were influential figures eg politicians. Would you not agree?
to continue - otherwise, how would the history presented possibly be as complete and accurate as possible?
One man's complete and accurate is another man's censorship and bias.
Concentrate on the here and now.
As far as history goes, the “right thing” is to aim for as much factual accuracy and completion as possible, given the resources available ie official records, photos, eyewitness accounts, letters and diaries.
Facts don’t care about your feelings - they are not personal attacks on you, however narcisstic and fragile you must be to interpret them as such.
If you can explain to me how to identify, 'the right thing', then I will consider your question.
Sorry, I entirely agree with your idea, and it is already known that BLM would be better called BMLM because of the dominant role males apparently play in the US BLM. Perhaps BWLM would show the situation then of black women more openly. I am reminded of socialist politics, when we began to maintain that socialism's general politics is about/by/for men (see a nice feminist classic by Batya Weinbaum "The Curious Courtship between Feminism and Socialism"), where 'free love' is in favour of men, not women! But I think to mention women seperate (lets not even think about 'first'!), probably would need a world feminist revolution!
Years ago I read a fantastic article about the downfall of the Black Panthers. Yes, they were infiltrated and murdered and imprisoned by the U.S. government, but it didn't help that they had little respect for women, which was the point of the female author.
I understood this site to be about curving the power of transexuals to close down debate on the matter of gender. All I'm finding is a great deal of holiness on the subject.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
We do wander afield which I appreciate. There are a lot of very intelligent people commenting and I enjoy their perspectives. I'm not sure there is holiness but some people have more respect for the opinions of trans than others of us do.
Curbing not curving.
Curving not curving.
Wholly agree the NT need to explore where wealth that created their assets came from and inform the visitors. All too often it’s slavery or other exploitation. However very happy to protest against any alignment with trans activism.
Me too.
I think there is an inclination to identify those coming a GC perspective with people and organisations, etc, who might be GC, but will probably also be homophobic and misogynist, and have a whole host of other undesirable prejudices.
I agree, it will be about exercising diligence, because whilst there may be no difficulty in maintaining the distingtions and distance intellectually and ideologically, it's conceivable there will be less clarity from a pragmatic perspective. It needs thought and caution..
I agree, it's an important distinction to make. One is spotlighting reality, the other is hiding from it.
Using 'left' and 'right' perspectives as either 'right' or 'wrong' has always been used against feminists, so be careful what you are attacking, women's exclusion of left-(and right)-wing party politics by the myth of "dont worry, your time comes when we win the revolution" is well-known and should encourage women to base their politics uniquely on their sexed bodies, and forget any other 'left' or 'right' tactics
it is time to rethink this 'left' and 'right' taboo, parties and right/left rules may well be a hindrance in realistically defining a situation, events can change sides when groups, parties and institutions may be formed to fight for minorities, but it is not always sure that the institutions become not themselves fascist organisations which 'gobble up' dissidence to make it dictatorships, it depends on the people who run them and their own goals
I completely agree. Right/left doesn't help and just excludes. That last sentence isn't unfinished.
I am referring here to the influence of Stonewall and LGBQT (after the nineties), and their role in supporting transgender politics, which has damaged women's situation, since 'women' is no longer just a word for those born female, but is adopted by male born individuals who imagine themselves to be women (apparently suffering from autogynephilia = being in love of himself as a woman!)
Perhaps GCism is better identified as anti-feminism womanhating ideology, since its tactics are defined by a male normative power, which is beyond classes, based on the phallocentricism of human cultures, viz we used to call humankind "mankind" which says it all!
Man - as in German Mann - used to mean “human”. Wer (as in Latin Vir) & wyf (wife) meant man & woman, respectively.
How male people came to co-opt the word for human to mean only them is, um... interesting.
There is classic feminist book called Man-made Language (1979) by Dale Spender
I know it well! Pioneering work.
Thank you Mia, adding to my refresher reading list :-)
And it's from 1979!!!
Times change. Language changes. Buy a more up to date book.
Such as?
Well I don't know. You're the one recommending works on the subject.
Anyhow this site is concerned with the apparent power of sexual inadequates to close down debate.Why aren't we thinking about strategies to oppose this rather than what we all know is a pro male bias in speech and language.
Yes, but the male body stayed the norm of humanity until 15 years ago, the female body was an anomaly, having to be regarded as a deviancy compared to normal bodies should operated.......only the reproductive function of the female body was specially regarded as different
1
And for 'human being' 'he' remained the noun until recently
That is thousands of world old and probably simply meant warriors, but once reproduction became a control of females males became the model of humanity
I'm old and feeble. Easily confused and so forth. Please confirm my understanding of Emma's post of 1st January is that it's alright to make people wear symbols of organisations they disagree with as long as it's an organisation or point of view with which you agree.
This is my second attempt to post so part of this may appear elsewhere.
sincerely don’t understand how you’ve arrived at that assertion
It wasn't an assertion, it was a question. Please may I have a substantive reply. Thanks.
Blatant sealioning.
So Emma, I take it you have no reasonable reply to the question then?
Sea lioning is a course of questions designed to harass. I asked one question.
If I can add something here Margaret and with the intention of helping. I realise this style of online interaction is tricky, and feels like shark-infested waters at times, but people do take against their stated views being 'reframed'. It would help to put a question mark next to any question, to emphasise that it is a question or questioning (rhetorical or not). You asked for a confirmation of something that did not happen. Asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you desire is likely to get a poor response.
It is disingenuous, or appears so, to deny something, when a poster (Emma) has come to an understandable conclusion as laid out above. You dismissed her reply twice. Inferring that you have then 'won' a bit of keyboard swordplay as you have is also likely to rile others. Viewing something as swordplay, when it wasn't is also likely to rile.
When you look at threads as a whole it can feel and appear that it's a 'pile-on', no matter if it's one, or more than one person, responding to a comment you have made/asked. It's a collective sealioning.
Someone may have a reasonable and reasoned reply, but not wish to engage further as trust has been lost. Some like a bit of tit-for-tat back and forth. Or may have moved on to other subjects. People are less likely to reply to months old posts.
People can harass and be very well aware, or less aware and be intransigent by accident or without intention. I take you and this at face value as being like that. When it's suggested that something has fallen flat, or not been understood as intended it's 50/50 whether it's worth responding to clarify online.
You also saw an alternate meaning in something I had written on several other posts, which I thought was obvious from the context. Although understandable, it's a tactic some trolls use to deflect, distract and draw attention and you may be viewed as coming across as such. Having to clarify and reclarify is wearying.
Try not to read too much into what is written. By the way, I do not want to 'cause real XY men problems' or 'invade' their spaces and do not see how you could have read that in to what I wrote on another post as it was a subtext that wasn't there.
The Wokies started to take over The National Trust c15yrs back. I was, at that time, working for them in one of their town shops. It was a lovely job, lovely people, lovely principals. Then, The New Guard moved in. Our manager moved out, fast, as she knew what was coming, left a job she absolutely loved. In they swept, wanting to modernise The National Trust up, bigtime, spending fortunes doing just that, changing colours, logos, names, making all staff, even volunteers fill in huge booklets of total drivel, giving us 3 months each to do this, asking stupid question after stupid question, as if none of us knew our jobs...knew nothing about The National Trust or its' history. Ye gods! I left too...If I'd been there a little later in time, when Stonewall moved in, I'd have been sacked, without doubt, because I kicked up a huge fuss as it was, but Stonewalling the NT would have just finished me off and I'd have gone totally doolally in the shop itself...Stonewall, one of the most, if not THE most, putrid, tyrannical organizations ever to have taken over society....They will ruin the National Trust, totally ruin it......and as for forcing anything on their volunteer staff, upon whom they depend enormously, well, they'll find themselves with very, very few volunteers at all soon. Well done to those speaking out, speaking up....let your voices be heard, louder and louder.
At last the time has come that this 'nazist' ideology can be unmasked, which is not 'woke' but woman-hating at the base via individual 'gender identities' policed by the LGBTQ police
The "dissident" movement in the National Trust is called "Restore Trust" (no definite article "the"). Their website is restoretrust.org.uk.
My partner works for the NT. I asked him if he's been told to put pronouns in emails etc. No.
An email with around 100 people in went around back in November in support of trans people. May have been trans remembrance day. He said it seemed to be from a T+ staff member. Only around 4 or 5 people responded to the absolute crap spouted.
Speaks volumes.
Again, trans politics is not a theory of 'living in the wrong body', but the last face of male domination, because 'transmen' do not undo the phallocratic culture we have lived under for aeons, because they remain female born (LACKING THE PENIS), while only 'transwomen' , because they are male-born and recognised as POSSESSING THE PENIS, represent the extending of the phallocratic culture, when men are accepted as 'women'. Thus trans politics is womanhating
say *no* to badges, pronouns and so on plus insist sex not gender in policies. As per our existing laws. I think it is in the hands of ordinary workers - good that there’s help in how to approach these obstacles for normal thinking people who are tired of all this
Some of the stonewall affiliated organisations aren't public entities and aren't listed on UK stock markets and for them I think the only thing they might listen to is bad press or being publicly called out on social media etc. Sex Matters published the known list of Stonewall fans, maybe calling them out on socials and in the media and asking them if they are still linked or why they are still linked might help.
Stonewall should be thrown out of everywhere. Toxic organisation now.
Agreed.
I’m slightly cautious about what will replace them, though. Organisations are in the habit of outsourcing everything...
If organisations want help preparing their HR documents to comply with Equality Law - a basic need for public and private bodies - then they can get proper advice from the independent Authentic Equity Alliance (AEAlliance.co.uk) set up by ex-Cambridge City Councillor Ann Sinnott. Ann resigned from the Council over their policy to allow transwomen into female loos. She also tried to take the Equality and Human Right Commission to court because they were promoting at the time "gender identity" instead of sex as the PC. Of course the EHRC has since acquired a new CEO who takes a very different gender-critical line.
Thanks for this, and good for Ann. I was furious about all that. What a superb resource. I was just filling out a consultation form and my local Borough has just asked me 'Is your present gender the one you were assigned at birth?'.
It stopped me in my tracks but at least it allowed no response and to move to the next question field. I didn't wish to answer 'prefer not to say' or 'yes', as I am happy to tell them it's my sex that remains the one I was born as, we are not 'assigned' at birth, we are, and gender is a ridiculous, meaningless term. I'd prefer it if they stopped asking Stonewalled questions.
If possible I always fill out a text box saying "My sex is female. Sex is real, binary and immutable - impossible to change. Gender is a performance, etc...." Giving them a lesson about the difference between sex and gender. Do I have a life? I am not sure.... But I am sure that we must reclaim single-sex provisions!
Good idea , really annoying that massive companies are still members through laziness/ cowardliness. Shining a light on their membership would be good. Can we take a billboard out with their names on - plus what they are meant to believe eg some women have willies
Please support the new organisation sex-matters.org. They are addressing all the harms of "gender". Their current campaign is against the proposed "conversion therapy ban", with a deadline of 4th February. Please go to Sex Matters website and follow their clear instructions. They are working hand-in-hand with Transgender Trend and Genspect.org, (Stella O'Malley).
Good idea, I would like the idea of the billboard or an Australian campaign
Wonderful idea!
Sex-Matters are pursuing them with letters and follow-ups. This is a very sustained campaign.
That’s good to hear. I know they wrote to stonewall champions early last year. I’m surprised though that so many large companies are still sitting on the fence. CEOs need to find their backbones fast -they deserve to be ridiculed at this late stage.
Look forward to supporting further Sex Matters initiatives. Hoping for more Nolan podcasts too
With some of the stonewall affiliated organisations I am familiar with I feel like they are doubling down on it. Certainly I know Mermaids were invited in to give a presentation to staff at one only a couple of months ago and this isn’t a firm that works with kids, so it’s just talking to staff as parents.
I am hoping that Safe Schools Alliance are going to find a cause of action against a school and local authority following Mermaids' advice. This means finding a child who has been harmed.
Alternatively the Dept for Education has left Stonewall. Parents should prod and follow up to ensure that DfE weeds out any and all "guidance" in the past which wrongly supported the ideology of "born in the wrong body".
Preferably both!
And DfE should instruct schools to disaffiliate from the Stonewall "Schools Champions" scheme. This is (1) another protection racket and (2) wrongly promotes "gender identity" instead of sex. And of course the mental harm to a child who would not have thought of "changing gender" if he had not had this suggested to him either by an RSE teacher (teaching this material far too early) or by a social media/porn site which he or his peer group stumbled on and gossiped about. Kids actually deserve far BETTER safeguarding from sites which promote mental disorders (of which GD is a very serious one). I wonder whether schools could be ordered to confiscate all smart phones from kids in school below the age of 14 when they might begin to need them for their studies. I think kids only need "dumb" phones before that age.
Why not use for your kid as an example a girl instead of a boy.......(viz. Man-made Language by Dale Spender is a good text about language as never being innocent
But that is equally ridiculous and actually an attempt to make parents feel guilty if they do not take the Mermaids serious when talking with their kids, and support the stupid idea that 'gender' is 'sex, ie. just assigned or adopted and alway open to change!
Where is the known list of Stonewall? Could you provide it to me, I have been trying to make a list, but it is a bit of a secret how far the tentacles of Stonewall reached.....so please give some info about this. Thanks!
It is here https://sex-matters.org/stonewall-champions-list/
There’s an enormous problem with the concept of ‘woke’ - it force teams support for gender ideology with acknowledgement of the pernicious legacy of slavery.
The optics of allying with a group whose main concern appears to be refusal to acknowledge slavery’s role in the building of many of the NT’s properties are not good.
Yes I agree, - it makes me feel very uncomfortable at the thought of being associated with the whole 'anti-woke' package, just because I believe in biology.
That is your last chance to be a self-thinking human being: be anti-woke, because there are oppressive systems and males who hate females, none of that should be just woke, ie. just individuals with different meanings and beliefs
The "gender-critical" campaign is very specific: it is in the name, and in these terms only. Dissociate yourselves from any idea of being "woke" or "anti-woke".
Gender-critical feminism is pro-single-sex provisions and for the reality of sex (important, binary, immutable). There are more than enough practical issues to fight for in this manifesto. And we have allies in many political parties and non-political organisations like "Restore Trust".
Can I suggest that some left wingers regard themselves as anti-woke, but they support the idea of transgenderism as an individual right, without realising that its political support is based on woman-hating, so perhaps we should include sexism and female abuse and killing as part of 'the sexual side' of socialism? Remember deBeauvoir wrote (in 1949!) that women have a problem about not easily seeing themselves as a class "oppressed/silenced and even violated by men (as a 'class'), because women are always already directly connected to (and care for) men, as mothers, sisters, daughters, partners, wives......which is not like workers, who know their class and their enemies!
I agree. I am a left wing socialist not a stalinist .This trans wokery is stalinist to the JamesMax--oh, my god, that man is infiltrating my brain!!
I would be really keen to know if there are similar voices in the SNP and green parties in Scotland. The local elections are coming up in May, and as things stand, I feel politically homeless. These are the parties I would naturally support, but I cannot while they maintain their current positions on self ID.
Attend the hustings, tweet the candidates, write in local micro-news sites: ask the candidates: "What is a woman?" Any hesitation in the answer, then come in with the Staniland Question. Do this a few times to get the timing with the audience response. You are aiming for either a straightforward supportive answer "I would never affirm an anorexic saying I'm fat" OR embarassment and anger. With the anger you can point out that truth should not cause the candidate any difficulty. End of!
You will get no response from any MSP in either party on this subject. They are either totally cowed or trans captured. I have given up on both and told them so.
Yup. Me too. I have nobody to vote for in Scotland now.
I am a gender critical feminist and no longer support Stonewall. However, just because NT subscribe to them, is not necessarily a reason to rubbish any efforts by NT to be be inclusive. In one of the NT owned mansions where I live in Norfolk, there was an attempt to diss a real effort to re visit the history of a gay ex lord of the manor. This prompted right wing criticism of which I do not agree. Similarly , efforts to tell a more balanced history which includes English involvement in the slave trade opposed by conservative elements with a small and a large "c" within and outside NT, have my support. I really do think that, while opposing trans ideology and organisations like Stonewall that propagate it, we should be wary of sensationalising and polarising every debate and becoming too close bed fellows of the right wing.
This /\. Thank you, Kay.
There’s a weird misapprehension that history is all about making us feel good (or bad) about ourselves today.
Information is judged not on “Did this happen? What’s the evidence? Is this a reasonable interpretation?” but “does this show my ancestors / people like me in a good light or a bad light?”
And (as with the almost certainly gay) lord of the manor, what some people think of as “in a bad light” can be very questionable.
Straightening the dead is as silly & as reactionary as transing the dead.
Like others I think Gender Critical people should work with others on that issue. If individuals want to deny that British colonialism had no malign impact let them go so separately. While some NT campaigners may have good intentions many are rapidly on the far right, that is clear in their comments.
Pardon? Your comment is highly insulting to the very many good and caring people who are NT members, and to the staff who work very hard to protect history, to preserve thousands and thousands of acres of countryside, woods, farms, wildlife, coastal paths, etc....
This sounds like a good move. A similar group called something like 'early-career academics' has been set up to counter the onslaught in universities, and I believe there's parallel group in nursing and midwifery. At a recent GC pub gathering I was encouraged to join Liberty for the same reason, which I'm considering. This could be a goer!
I saw a UK list of Stonewall members organisations and since it looked like the whole of Britain was affiliated, it reminded me of the national so-called popular push by the Nazi party ! Apparently no-one could object to the membership, because of the slogan "diversity and inclusivenesss"
Something like 25% of the workforce were employed by a Stonewall-affiliated entity, as of last year. That’s a horrifying figure, but I think it’s diminishing.
Which means there are openings for other groups, not necessarily any better, to step in.
live long and prosper Graham. I hope you win the lottery. You deserve it. Collecting information on social media like you do about this topic (women, trans, etc) surely takes a toll on you mental health. I myself could not do it bc i get triggered when reading about men in female prisons and condom being distributed to prisoners
I hope it’s ok to post this link here to a reddit thread that (as yet) hasn’t been deleted.
If transing is about becoming closer to one's true self, how come they’re such irritating ‘actors’ all of the same mould huh…it seem pennies really are dropping widely
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/rthgts/i_find_my_transgender_friends_tiring_to_be_around/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I've read Charles Moore in The Spectator about this for a while now. There are presumably other such organisations- within-an-organisation. Be good to know about them.
What article(s), please?
I can't remember exactly. I know there was one, certainly not the first either, nor long before Christmas. I'll have a hunt through the ones I have - not sure if you can do an online search?