July 12, 2023 - 10:00am
Nancy Kelley, head of the divisive charity Stonewall, announced earlier this week on Twitter that she is to step down from the role. Her post on Monday stated that while the job hasn’t “always been a pleasure”, leading Europe’s largest LGBTQIA+ organisation “has surely been a privilege”.
To many, Stonewall has become a toxic brand: a charity representing identity politics over the interests of ordinary people who happen to have partners of the same sex. But Kelley has been publicly impervious to criticism, claiming that her organisation is the victim of a “transphobic moral panic” and an “anti-rights movement” that “is running rampant around the globe”.
Over her three years in the post, Kelley brought a smorgasbord of hitherto unrepresented identities under the organisation’s “trans umbrella”. Perhaps spokespeople from the asexual, pansexual, demisexual and allosexual communities will be sad to see her go. But it’s fair to say that many homosexuals who once turned to Stonewall for guidance are cheered by the news of her departure.
Dennis Kavanagh, a longstanding critic of Kelley and executive director of the Gay Men’s Network, said that she had “promised dialogue and big tent politics” but instead “delivered ideological division and controversy”.
Indeed, Kelley’s tenure has been marked by a growing fracture within what the heterosexual mainstream too often sees as the “LGBT community”. The emergence of organisations like the Gay Men’s Network, lesbian group Get the L Out and charity LGB Alliance are a testament to the fact that increasing numbers of same-sex attracted people feel they are no longer represented by publicly funded groups like Stonewall.
This is because, in a move to include trans identities, sexual orientation itself has been redefined. Stonewall and other “LGBTQIA+” organisations now argue that because “transwomen are women”, some lesbians have penises. And those who disagree, according to a 2020 leaked email from Kelley to the BBC, are guilty of the equivalent of “sexual racism”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeStonewall was formed in 1989 and you can argue that its original aims have been realised – successful campaigns to: repeal Section 28, end the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces, equalise the age of consent, extend adoption and IVF rights to same-sex couples, and introduce civil partnerships.
What’s a charity to do when it has fulfilled its aims? Seek new areas of course – but the new areas do not have the foundation of decades of ‘denied civil rights’ to argue against.
“Extremist trans ideology” is a small victimhood base to maintain a charity on, and people are beginning to think that it disproportionate.
This is a really important point that doesn’t get nearly the attention it should. Many charities (and other organisations) often start with good and right intentions. But what does a campaign do when it has won, or largely won. Of course the sense of civic participation and energy that these organisations can bring about is not an inherently bad thing from the perspective of a thriving civil society.
Not enough charities think long-term or think about their real purpose. On my own church council I am, I suspect, fighting a losing battle to prioritise acts of worship and a framework based on faith and teachings over the idea of an ‘inclusive church.’ It’ll end in tears, but the truth is the church is one of many institutions that doesn’t have the drive any more to live out the cause of its original right, mission.
What seems to have happened in many cases is that charities and campaigns that have lost their drive and direction have latched onto woke causes to give them the vision of their futures – of course diluting their purpose and alienating a non-trivial portion of the ‘originals.’ Indeed where the ‘originals’ are guilty of a non-woke mindset the woke ‘incomers’ may see it as a badge of honour to drive out the originals as a part of the capture process. And of course the weakness and lack of drive means that institutions and charities sitting back on their achievement can’t be bothered to face down social media storms. Why should they really? After all many of these institutions seemed to stupidly think that social media was all positive and big tech was all about happy interests.
We see it too often. I remember many years ago at university that I looked at the question of ‘where next’ for successful civil society groups, but I can only think of a few models.
Sadly it seems that the long march through the institutions led to a road with a rainbow painted on it. Not I would hope a comfortable thought for those whose campus glory days were spent importing the stuff from the US.
Just a question Sam, is there currently an organisation for us despairing members of the Church of England to turn to??
The Ordinariate?
It’s coming soon. Ecumenical too. Watch this space.
Alison,
You might check out GAFCON, which the Rev Brett Murphy (no relation) has moved to after quitting the C of E. I am not sure which was the final straw in his case…..
https://youtu.be/IAc16KYy70k
The Ordinariate?
It’s coming soon. Ecumenical too. Watch this space.
Alison,
You might check out GAFCON, which the Rev Brett Murphy (no relation) has moved to after quitting the C of E. I am not sure which was the final straw in his case…..
https://youtu.be/IAc16KYy70k
To me it is almost analagous to what happened to the Labour Party. It lost its way as a party that was founded to represent the interests of the working class and the poor non-working class and ended up a party of the middle classes with a smorgasbord of aims leaving the “originals” nowhere to go. Enter momentum and Corbyn trying to drag it back (though to an unattractive form of faux socialism). Now the smorgasborders under Starmer are cleansing the momentum stables but unclear what they can offer now the original purpose of the party has been achieved (more or less). Meanwhile the institutions from the civil service, the unions, large parts of the legal, private and charity sectors, and now the Conservative Party, have adopted what for shorthand can be called leftist wokism. Leaving, as Alison Wren puts it re the C of E, leaving many centrist voters with nowhere to go.
The same process is going in Education too, which is why many men are leaving. I think what we are starting to see is that without the stabilizing influence of men, many of these organizations succumb to the worst of feminine excesses e.g. an enforced niceness that harshly retaliates against any who question or oppose it, even if it risks mission drift and a loss in organizational performance.
I agree. The more women have achieved power in our institutions the more authoritarian, petty and risk-averse they have become. Women seem to have a genetic pre-disposition to micro-manage organisations to the extent they become hopelessly bogged down in their own bureaucracy, unable to focus on their primary objectives.
I find this so offensive, I’m not sure where to begin
Begin by using evidence and reason to research what mixture of truth and falsehood the assertion contains, and countering the false portion with the same tools (evidence and reason).
One can feel subjectively offended at literally anything and we’ve seen the morass created by treating “I’m offended” as if it were a winning argument and thereby giving the most easily offended more power than the robust.
I would once have reacted just as you did to the assertion. For several years now, I have avoided telling the world that I take offense, and instead looked deeper into why and how. I find value in that, and respect others who focus on the issues rather than their personal reactions to it – within a discussion of ideas.
(In a counseling session or venting to a friend, the aims differ and likewise what’s appropriate. I have a rich emotional life – in chosen contexts).
In me today, Julian’s statement raises curiosity – what causes Julian to think that? My initial impulse is to disagree, but I’m willing to hear his evidence if any. And, just as importantly, to really think how much my own view is based on evidence versus “what I wish were true”.
If Julian had said that the dynamics among people in men’s and women’s prisons had a strong tendency to follow different patterns, would that have seemed incredible on the face of it?
Not to compare prisons with educational organizations, just to note that if there are different tendences for the sexes in one social context, it’s not absurd to hypothesize that there could be differences in another, and then explore it as a hypothesis.
It is a great idea to base discussion on evidence. Personally, I would be very surprised if occupations and organisations dominated by women tended to operate in exactly the same manner as those controlled exclusively by men BUT I have never seen any polling or other systematic research on what the differences tend to be (as opposed to speculation and/or dogmatic assertions). Has anyone seen any insightful research? Maybe there isn’t any.
A recent survey in the US or UK of university professors (can’t remember which) showed men support freedom of speech and academic freedom much more than women. Female professors were much more likely to support suppressing ideas that were factually correct but which upset people. Social Justice is enforced mostly by women and is very much an example of this. Big Mother is not any nicer than Big Brother – just different.
It is a great idea to base discussion on evidence. Personally, I would be very surprised if occupations and organisations dominated by women tended to operate in exactly the same manner as those controlled exclusively by men BUT I have never seen any polling or other systematic research on what the differences tend to be (as opposed to speculation and/or dogmatic assertions). Has anyone seen any insightful research? Maybe there isn’t any.
A recent survey in the US or UK of university professors (can’t remember which) showed men support freedom of speech and academic freedom much more than women. Female professors were much more likely to support suppressing ideas that were factually correct but which upset people. Social Justice is enforced mostly by women and is very much an example of this. Big Mother is not any nicer than Big Brother – just different.
It would be good if you could explain your thoughts, feelings and disagreements.
I think you should try to articulate what bothers you about his comment. Just saying you are offended is one of the main issues/problems at the heart of this whole issue.
Begin by using evidence and reason to research what mixture of truth and falsehood the assertion contains, and countering the false portion with the same tools (evidence and reason).
One can feel subjectively offended at literally anything and we’ve seen the morass created by treating “I’m offended” as if it were a winning argument and thereby giving the most easily offended more power than the robust.
I would once have reacted just as you did to the assertion. For several years now, I have avoided telling the world that I take offense, and instead looked deeper into why and how. I find value in that, and respect others who focus on the issues rather than their personal reactions to it – within a discussion of ideas.
(In a counseling session or venting to a friend, the aims differ and likewise what’s appropriate. I have a rich emotional life – in chosen contexts).
In me today, Julian’s statement raises curiosity – what causes Julian to think that? My initial impulse is to disagree, but I’m willing to hear his evidence if any. And, just as importantly, to really think how much my own view is based on evidence versus “what I wish were true”.
If Julian had said that the dynamics among people in men’s and women’s prisons had a strong tendency to follow different patterns, would that have seemed incredible on the face of it?
Not to compare prisons with educational organizations, just to note that if there are different tendences for the sexes in one social context, it’s not absurd to hypothesize that there could be differences in another, and then explore it as a hypothesis.
It would be good if you could explain your thoughts, feelings and disagreements.
I think you should try to articulate what bothers you about his comment. Just saying you are offended is one of the main issues/problems at the heart of this whole issue.
I agree. The more women have achieved power in our institutions the more authoritarian, petty and risk-averse they have become. Women seem to have a genetic pre-disposition to micro-manage organisations to the extent they become hopelessly bogged down in their own bureaucracy, unable to focus on their primary objectives.
I find this so offensive, I’m not sure where to begin
The law provides under the cy pres doctrine that where the objects of a trust are fulfilled as far as they may be the trustees can apply the funds to charitable objects of a similar nature.
The problem is that supporting Trans rights is not in fact a similar object given that much of the ideology is in fact inimical to the interests of many gay people, particularly lesbians. The deployment of funds to promote trans could arguably be challenged and I am surprised that this has not yet been attempted.
As a supplementary comment to your post I would add that the trustees of the rather fine 19th century Methodist church I attend feel themselves under siege from those higher in the hierarchy, who are more interested in supporting the bureaucratic functions of the church. They have an active animus against supporting a Grade II building and seem to wish to see it closed as being too expensive to run – despite the fact that they will thereby lose contributing members. Traditional Christianity is being stripped away by bureaucrats.
It’s in the DNA of anything that looks like an organization to survive with or without its original purpose. People have jobs and pensions and mortgages dependent not on the result of campaigning but on the existence of the organization itself.
Just a question Sam, is there currently an organisation for us despairing members of the Church of England to turn to??
To me it is almost analagous to what happened to the Labour Party. It lost its way as a party that was founded to represent the interests of the working class and the poor non-working class and ended up a party of the middle classes with a smorgasbord of aims leaving the “originals” nowhere to go. Enter momentum and Corbyn trying to drag it back (though to an unattractive form of faux socialism). Now the smorgasborders under Starmer are cleansing the momentum stables but unclear what they can offer now the original purpose of the party has been achieved (more or less). Meanwhile the institutions from the civil service, the unions, large parts of the legal, private and charity sectors, and now the Conservative Party, have adopted what for shorthand can be called leftist wokism. Leaving, as Alison Wren puts it re the C of E, leaving many centrist voters with nowhere to go.
The same process is going in Education too, which is why many men are leaving. I think what we are starting to see is that without the stabilizing influence of men, many of these organizations succumb to the worst of feminine excesses e.g. an enforced niceness that harshly retaliates against any who question or oppose it, even if it risks mission drift and a loss in organizational performance.
The law provides under the cy pres doctrine that where the objects of a trust are fulfilled as far as they may be the trustees can apply the funds to charitable objects of a similar nature.
The problem is that supporting Trans rights is not in fact a similar object given that much of the ideology is in fact inimical to the interests of many gay people, particularly lesbians. The deployment of funds to promote trans could arguably be challenged and I am surprised that this has not yet been attempted.
As a supplementary comment to your post I would add that the trustees of the rather fine 19th century Methodist church I attend feel themselves under siege from those higher in the hierarchy, who are more interested in supporting the bureaucratic functions of the church. They have an active animus against supporting a Grade II building and seem to wish to see it closed as being too expensive to run – despite the fact that they will thereby lose contributing members. Traditional Christianity is being stripped away by bureaucrats.
It’s in the DNA of anything that looks like an organization to survive with or without its original purpose. People have jobs and pensions and mortgages dependent not on the result of campaigning but on the existence of the organization itself.
Grifters need something to grift about … otherwise they may have to add value somewhere to earn a living.
What a charity should do once it has achieved its objectives is shut down, transferring any funds to charities with similar umbrella causes. For some reason, people find it very difficult to do this. Sentimental attachment?
Sentimental attachment to their salary, I should imagine.
Yes. See comment by Samuel Gee, above. Once you sign a mortgage your sense of purpose changes radically. Someone ought to do a study.
Yes. See comment by Samuel Gee, above. Once you sign a mortgage your sense of purpose changes radically. Someone ought to do a study.
Sentimental attachment to their salary, I should imagine.
I’m sure you’re right.
Contrast this with the people who eradicated smallpox. Did they contrive to maintain a population of smallpox sufferers, so they could keep up their living selling medication to them?
Or did they say ‘mission accomplished’, and move on to confer some other benefit to humankind?
I’m sure that in the minds of the leaders of LGB advocacy charities, moving on to trans issues, queer theory, and gender ideology we viewed in the same light.
It also happens to be an issue which demands a quantum leap deeper change in society, and which are not likely to be satiated in our lifetime, so they don’t need to worry about victory depriving them of donors and salaries.
I’m sure that in the minds of the leaders of LGB advocacy charities, moving on to trans issues, queer theory, and gender ideology we viewed in the same light.
It also happens to be an issue which demands a quantum leap deeper change in society, and which are not likely to be satiated in our lifetime, so they don’t need to worry about victory depriving them of donors and salaries.
Very good point. Why are CAMRA still going ferchrissakes?!
It’s called the Iron Law of Oligarchy as stated by Robert Michels also re-stated by John Taylor Gatto : “Nearly a century ago a French sociologist wrote that every institution’s unstated first goal is to survive and grow, not to undertake the mission it has nominally staked out for itself” and restated again by the (Clay) Shirky Principle : “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution”.
There are plenty of places in the world where gay and lesbians are oppressed. I’m thinking Uganda and its dreadful new laws, which involve the death penatly for “aggravated” homosexuality. Or Iran, where they hang gay people. So, even though Stonewall has achieved all of its UK-centred objectives, if it did want to continue campaigning, surely it could turn its attention elsewhere? Arguably, this would be a better use of charity funds than trying to convince a sceptical public that “some lesbians have penïses”.
And who had a speaker from Uganda at their conference in 2022, who spoke eloquently not only about the LGB situation there, but also included the T?
The LGB Alliance.
And who had a speaker from Uganda at their conference in 2022, who spoke eloquently not only about the LGB situation there, but also included the T?
The LGB Alliance.
The Left faces throughout the Western world today is victory. The hippies and the counterculture won. But what’s a liberationist ideology to do when it manages to to remove essentially all unchosen constraints from nearly everyone’s lives? The Left must liberate; therefore it must seek out new oppressions and new injustice that no one has ever heard of before.
Patrick Deneen is right: Enlightenment liberalism was always destined to end this way.
Surely its original aims did not include “end the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces” but end the ban on LGB people in the armed forces. The distinction is important as one of the things Kelley has aimed to do is to outlaw the phrase LGB.
This is a really important point that doesn’t get nearly the attention it should. Many charities (and other organisations) often start with good and right intentions. But what does a campaign do when it has won, or largely won. Of course the sense of civic participation and energy that these organisations can bring about is not an inherently bad thing from the perspective of a thriving civil society.
Not enough charities think long-term or think about their real purpose. On my own church council I am, I suspect, fighting a losing battle to prioritise acts of worship and a framework based on faith and teachings over the idea of an ‘inclusive church.’ It’ll end in tears, but the truth is the church is one of many institutions that doesn’t have the drive any more to live out the cause of its original right, mission.
What seems to have happened in many cases is that charities and campaigns that have lost their drive and direction have latched onto woke causes to give them the vision of their futures – of course diluting their purpose and alienating a non-trivial portion of the ‘originals.’ Indeed where the ‘originals’ are guilty of a non-woke mindset the woke ‘incomers’ may see it as a badge of honour to drive out the originals as a part of the capture process. And of course the weakness and lack of drive means that institutions and charities sitting back on their achievement can’t be bothered to face down social media storms. Why should they really? After all many of these institutions seemed to stupidly think that social media was all positive and big tech was all about happy interests.
We see it too often. I remember many years ago at university that I looked at the question of ‘where next’ for successful civil society groups, but I can only think of a few models.
Sadly it seems that the long march through the institutions led to a road with a rainbow painted on it. Not I would hope a comfortable thought for those whose campus glory days were spent importing the stuff from the US.
Grifters need something to grift about … otherwise they may have to add value somewhere to earn a living.
What a charity should do once it has achieved its objectives is shut down, transferring any funds to charities with similar umbrella causes. For some reason, people find it very difficult to do this. Sentimental attachment?
I’m sure you’re right.
Contrast this with the people who eradicated smallpox. Did they contrive to maintain a population of smallpox sufferers, so they could keep up their living selling medication to them?
Or did they say ‘mission accomplished’, and move on to confer some other benefit to humankind?
Very good point. Why are CAMRA still going ferchrissakes?!
It’s called the Iron Law of Oligarchy as stated by Robert Michels also re-stated by John Taylor Gatto : “Nearly a century ago a French sociologist wrote that every institution’s unstated first goal is to survive and grow, not to undertake the mission it has nominally staked out for itself” and restated again by the (Clay) Shirky Principle : “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution”.
There are plenty of places in the world where gay and lesbians are oppressed. I’m thinking Uganda and its dreadful new laws, which involve the death penatly for “aggravated” homosexuality. Or Iran, where they hang gay people. So, even though Stonewall has achieved all of its UK-centred objectives, if it did want to continue campaigning, surely it could turn its attention elsewhere? Arguably, this would be a better use of charity funds than trying to convince a sceptical public that “some lesbians have penïses”.
The Left faces throughout the Western world today is victory. The hippies and the counterculture won. But what’s a liberationist ideology to do when it manages to to remove essentially all unchosen constraints from nearly everyone’s lives? The Left must liberate; therefore it must seek out new oppressions and new injustice that no one has ever heard of before.
Patrick Deneen is right: Enlightenment liberalism was always destined to end this way.
Surely its original aims did not include “end the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces” but end the ban on LGB people in the armed forces. The distinction is important as one of the things Kelley has aimed to do is to outlaw the phrase LGB.
Stonewall was formed in 1989 and you can argue that its original aims have been realised – successful campaigns to: repeal Section 28, end the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces, equalise the age of consent, extend adoption and IVF rights to same-sex couples, and introduce civil partnerships.
What’s a charity to do when it has fulfilled its aims? Seek new areas of course – but the new areas do not have the foundation of decades of ‘denied civil rights’ to argue against.
“Extremist trans ideology” is a small victimhood base to maintain a charity on, and people are beginning to think that it disproportionate.
“But the mad ideas incubated by Stonewall have now spread across the third sector and civil society. A slew of local organisations, educational charities and consultancies are still busy embedding its vision across British institutions.”
I’ve yet to hear a good explanation as to why this has occurred, on the basis of a belief by one relatively small organisation. The article doesn’t help. I’ve read references to Stonewall being given some kind of authoritative status to proselytise on behalf of its members – but who granted this status, and what were the terms of reference? These are wider questions that need answering before we even begin to rein back the damage, and the departure of Kelley (who’ll surely be remembered only with infamy) is as good a time as any to start.
Stonewall, because it was previously on the side of the rational angels, was embedded everywhere. It was the lymphatic system silently metastasising a cancerous lie.
Good analogy.
Good analogy.
As the HR departments in both pubic and private sector organisations grappled with their new responsibilities under the Equality Act they sought help. Stonewall gave it. Now we are seeing the consequences.
I’ve witnessed a similar transformation in a small charity which felt too white and straight and wanted to invite more diverse participation. So they asked activists and diversity trainers how to do that, implemented what they were told, and then wound up hiring a critical social justice ideologue as executive director. The org is barely holding on today (to be fair there were other challenges too, including the pandemic). It felt like a virus infecting a cell and taking over its functions, starting with asking the wrong people how to attract more diverse participants (breaching the cell wall) and winding up as just another organization aimed at reproducing and spreading the ideology.
I’ve witnessed a similar transformation in a small charity which felt too white and straight and wanted to invite more diverse participation. So they asked activists and diversity trainers how to do that, implemented what they were told, and then wound up hiring a critical social justice ideologue as executive director. The org is barely holding on today (to be fair there were other challenges too, including the pandemic). It felt like a virus infecting a cell and taking over its functions, starting with asking the wrong people how to attract more diverse participants (breaching the cell wall) and winding up as just another organization aimed at reproducing and spreading the ideology.
Stonewall, because it was previously on the side of the rational angels, was embedded everywhere. It was the lymphatic system silently metastasising a cancerous lie.
As the HR departments in both pubic and private sector organisations grappled with their new responsibilities under the Equality Act they sought help. Stonewall gave it. Now we are seeing the consequences.
“But the mad ideas incubated by Stonewall have now spread across the third sector and civil society. A slew of local organisations, educational charities and consultancies are still busy embedding its vision across British institutions.”
I’ve yet to hear a good explanation as to why this has occurred, on the basis of a belief by one relatively small organisation. The article doesn’t help. I’ve read references to Stonewall being given some kind of authoritative status to proselytise on behalf of its members – but who granted this status, and what were the terms of reference? These are wider questions that need answering before we even begin to rein back the damage, and the departure of Kelley (who’ll surely be remembered only with infamy) is as good a time as any to start.
What is the point of this organization? Homosexuality is largely accepted in Western societies; even religious institutions have homosexual leadership and rainbow representation. Its mission is completed, so what’s it carrying on for? I once asked a friend who was in social work what would happen if her agency was successful at its goal (her area pertained to government-sponsored preschool). She laughed and said she’d be out of a job. Not long after, “free” (tax-payer forced-funded) preschool, otherwise known as babysitting, was delivered to all and sundry in our region. She wasn’t out of a job; she was promoted to manage a new “crisis”.
Really, it’s no wonder these frauds had to invent “trans” and all the other phony sexual “identities”. Honestly, no one wants to know about your kinks, let alone pay for them.
“Homosexuality is largely accepted in Western societies”.
Maybe that’s the way forward for Stonewall? Time to head to the Muslim theocracies and do their thing there!
It has nothing to do with being gay anymore – the article covered this.
I’d argue that not only is homosexuality accepted, but so is transsexualism. Stonewall didn’t invent trans, they colonised it and broadened it to include anyone they want.
You’re right though, Stonewall no longer has a point. Apart from defrauding the taxpayer.
“Homosexuality is largely accepted in Western societies”.
Maybe that’s the way forward for Stonewall? Time to head to the Muslim theocracies and do their thing there!
It has nothing to do with being gay anymore – the article covered this.
I’d argue that not only is homosexuality accepted, but so is transsexualism. Stonewall didn’t invent trans, they colonised it and broadened it to include anyone they want.
You’re right though, Stonewall no longer has a point. Apart from defrauding the taxpayer.
What is the point of this organization? Homosexuality is largely accepted in Western societies; even religious institutions have homosexual leadership and rainbow representation. Its mission is completed, so what’s it carrying on for? I once asked a friend who was in social work what would happen if her agency was successful at its goal (her area pertained to government-sponsored preschool). She laughed and said she’d be out of a job. Not long after, “free” (tax-payer forced-funded) preschool, otherwise known as babysitting, was delivered to all and sundry in our region. She wasn’t out of a job; she was promoted to manage a new “crisis”.
Really, it’s no wonder these frauds had to invent “trans” and all the other phony sexual “identities”. Honestly, no one wants to know about your kinks, let alone pay for them.
The big mistake Stonewall and other “progressive” groups make is trying to use the #nodebate approach. It is the denial of free speech more than its attempt to be the go to representative for an eclectic mix of minority groups (Alphabet soup approach) that will lead to its ultimate demise.
Stonewall did a really good job in a consensus building way up until 2014 and then not only needed to find a new set of causes, but changed its fundamental approach to campaigning. As I don’t see anyone replacing Kelly who can turn back the clock on the campaign approach, it is time for the organisation to wither on the vine and die.
But who wants to give up the money that is flowing in?
But who wants to give up the money that is flowing in?
The big mistake Stonewall and other “progressive” groups make is trying to use the #nodebate approach. It is the denial of free speech more than its attempt to be the go to representative for an eclectic mix of minority groups (Alphabet soup approach) that will lead to its ultimate demise.
Stonewall did a really good job in a consensus building way up until 2014 and then not only needed to find a new set of causes, but changed its fundamental approach to campaigning. As I don’t see anyone replacing Kelly who can turn back the clock on the campaign approach, it is time for the organisation to wither on the vine and die.
The UK ranks as one of the most tolerant countries regarding colour, race, religion and sexual preference. Sadly, Stonewall (under RK’s leadership) is now doing more harm than good. To be eligible for charitable status, a charity must benefit the general public. Stonewall certainly no longer fulfils this criterion, and – having successfully achieved its original aims – it should disband and or have its charitable status removed.
The UK ranks as one of the most tolerant countries regarding colour, race, religion and sexual preference. Sadly, Stonewall (under RK’s leadership) is now doing more harm than good. To be eligible for charitable status, a charity must benefit the general public. Stonewall certainly no longer fulfils this criterion, and – having successfully achieved its original aims – it should disband and or have its charitable status removed.
This may be pedantic, but apparently it’s “2SLGBTQIA+” now.
I know I’ve made the joke on here before, but that thing looks more like a regular expression every day.
.*LGBT.*
No, LGB.
No, LGB.
Why not just go straight to the the 36 characters that would include all numbers and letters ? This would surely mean that all available permutations of sexuality/gender are “included”.
The standard alpha-numeric set is so colonialist.
{sarcasm}
But then they would have to specifically exclude white, hetrosexual (& proud of it) men & women (& proud of that too) oh, & Jews or committed Christians too.
!H
Took me a sec to realize that was the simplifed regex for not het.
Took me a sec to realize that was the simplifed regex for not het.
!H
The standard alpha-numeric set is so colonialist.
{sarcasm}
But then they would have to specifically exclude white, hetrosexual (& proud of it) men & women (& proud of that too) oh, & Jews or committed Christians too.
.*LGBT.*
Why not just go straight to the the 36 characters that would include all numbers and letters ? This would surely mean that all available permutations of sexuality/gender are “included”.
This may be pedantic, but apparently it’s “2SLGBTQIA+” now.
I know I’ve made the joke on here before, but that thing looks more like a regular expression every day.
A number of extremist groups promoting victimhood of one sort or another, have sprung up as charities over the last few years. As such, they and their executives enjoy considerable financial and media support. Their actions do not always serve the general public however, and one wonders who at the Charities Commission monitors and approves applications and ongoing charitable status.
A number of extremist groups promoting victimhood of one sort or another, have sprung up as charities over the last few years. As such, they and their executives enjoy considerable financial and media support. Their actions do not always serve the general public however, and one wonders who at the Charities Commission monitors and approves applications and ongoing charitable status.
“The damage will take decades to repair and thousands of pounds in legal fees to challenge.”
The billions in potential fees must be making medical negligence lawyers salivate with glee when they see all of this.
“The damage will take decades to repair and thousands of pounds in legal fees to challenge.”
The billions in potential fees must be making medical negligence lawyers salivate with glee when they see all of this.
Lack of ability may not be a barrier to getting a job, but perhaps it’s an obstacle to keeping it: Nancy is leaving at very short notice after only three years. It will be interesting to see what she does next.
Not very interesting though.
Not very interesting though.
Lack of ability may not be a barrier to getting a job, but perhaps it’s an obstacle to keeping it: Nancy is leaving at very short notice after only three years. It will be interesting to see what she does next.
I recommend Simon Edge’s satirical novels The End of the World is Flat and In The Beginning to shed light on where it all went so wrong with Stonewall and what happens with other organisations get infected with their rigid dogmas.
Every Charity, every third sector organisation has a Constitution with a ‘wind up’ clause detailing how to abolish themselves. Are they ever used?
I recommend Simon Edge’s satirical novels The End of the World is Flat and In The Beginning to shed light on where it all went so wrong with Stonewall and what happens with other organisations get infected with their rigid dogmas.
Every Charity, every third sector organisation has a Constitution with a ‘wind up’ clause detailing how to abolish themselves. Are they ever used?
Never heard of him!
Indeed – Nancy is not exclusively a female means of identification….
But if you’d said twenty years ago that Stonewall would have a Nancy at the helm, would anyone have believed you?
But if you’d said twenty years ago that Stonewall would have a Nancy at the helm, would anyone have believed you?
Indeed – Nancy is not exclusively a female means of identification….
Never heard of him!
I assumed that an “allosexual” was somebody who took their pleasures from watching repeats of ‘Allo ‘Allo, so I looked it up. I’m none the wiser.
It basically means not asexual. Like demisexual essentially means not promiscuous, want to get to know and have some feeling for somebody before getting into sex. Most of the world would qualify for both labels.
Today’s kids don’t have personalities or individual characteristics, they belong to intersecting groups, so they need group labels before something exists. I feel sorry for them.
It basically means not asexual. Like demisexual essentially means not promiscuous, want to get to know and have some feeling for somebody before getting into sex. Most of the world would qualify for both labels.
Today’s kids don’t have personalities or individual characteristics, they belong to intersecting groups, so they need group labels before something exists. I feel sorry for them.
I assumed that an “allosexual” was somebody who took their pleasures from watching repeats of ‘Allo ‘Allo, so I looked it up. I’m none the wiser.
It may be “hard not to feel a sliver of sympathy for Kelley,” but as a gender-critical lesbian sick and tired of seeing my community hijacked and trespassed by the insanity of gender ideologues, I’m somehow managing.