How Stonewall is sacrificing gay rights. To do business

Why has Stonewall, the largest gay and lesbian rights organisation, allowed itself to be colonised by the transgender lobby, going so far as to persecute those for whom it was founded? Because it's good business. Follow the money!
Please be aware that the translation of contents, although automatic, has a cost to Feminist Post but is provided to you without any charge. Please consider making a contribution via the "Support us" page if you intend to use our translation service intensively.
The contents of this site are translated using automatic translation systems without the intervention of professional translators.
Translations are provided for the sole purpose of facilitating reading by international visitors.
Share this article

Tumultuous change of wind in UK, cradle of the Lgbtq+ rainbow. After the harsh attack on Stonewall by one of its founders, Matthew Parris, another strongly critical voice, that of the gay journalist and essayist Douglas Murray. He denounced the historical association's persecutory campaign against gays and lesbians, for the protection of whose rights it was founded in 1989. Today, says Murray, Stonewall is a business committee serving the trans lobby to intercept rivers of money and justify its existence. Stonewall, according to Murray, should no longer receive public funding.

There is a law of nature that applies to campaigning groups and charities, according to which aAn organisation set up to tackle a particular problem will always find a way to exist even after the problem has been solved.

The reason is simple: when a problem has been solved, or almost solved, the business is at its peak. Employees' salaries and pensions are at stake, reputations have been built and influence secured. And this is how the great intuition of Eric Hoffer is realised: every great cause starts as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.

Very few causes have degenerated into an absolute racket like the former gay rights group known as Stonewall. When it was founded in 1989 gay rights in Britain, as in the whole of Europe, had a long way to go to achieve equality. At that time there was a different age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, homosexuals did not have the right to marry or have their unions legally recognised and, most importantly, the Conservative government prevented young gays from being informed in schools about their sexuality.

The road ahead was certainly long and Ian McKellen, Matthew Parris, Simon Fanshawe and the rest of the founders of the group faced a tough battle for many years. But the battle has been won.

Once the most of his goals had been achieved, however, what was Stonewall to do? There were several options. The most obvious would have been downsize and remain in office to tackle the problems that remained, such as homophobia in schools and other areas of society.

Instead Stonewall took another route decided to cash in on its victory. This, of course, is not surprising. Because it is when you win that you are most popular, and those who were once not on your side quickly become your allies.

So it was with the corporate world and the government machine. Both the private and public sectors suddenly provided Stonewall with large reserves of money. to keep the organisation's coffers full. Both were interested in inviting Stonewall for advice.

For example, Stonewall produced a list of the best employers for gay people in the UK for a number of years. Even though the battle for equality was almost over in the Blair and Cameron years, big companies decided they desperately wanted to be on the list; having Stonewall's gay stamp of approval became essential. Over time, it became standard procedure for a company to invite Stonewall to evaluate its business operations. Thus was born a relationship that was compromising from the outset and full of vested interests.

Meanwhile, the government has been increasingly obsessed with getting the gold star from Stonewall, asking the group to instruct departments on what to do in their workplaces, as well as on their policies in the rest of the world.

In particular, one of Stonewall's most influential money-making programmes in recent years was its "Diversity Champions scheme", in which members are invited to pay a fee to Stonewall to allow the group to control their internal policies. Among the 850 groups who have registered there are GCHQ, MI5, Ministry of Defence, Cabinet, Department of Education and Ministry of Justice.

Yet Stonewall's degeneration has been evident for years; indeed, you can see it in the calibre of the people involved at the top. When Stonewall began, its leaders were prominent in the British media and in public life. They were known to heterosexual people, and certainly known to gay people.

Can the same be said today? I doubt it. In fact, I suspect that if you were to visit all gay clubs, you would find that less than one in a hundred people would be able to name Nancy Kelley as the current leader of Stonewall. They wouldn't know who she is or what she does. This is because Stonewall is neither in the front line nor in any barricade. Rather, it is a company that functions largely for the comfort of its employees.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that Stonewall is simply rich. Because it is right now, when the coffers are full and the beneficiaries are happy, that an organisation can take a wrong turn. And that's what Stonewall has done in recent years. It argues that its job is to defend LGBTQ+ rights, but in fact the first three letters of that acronym slipped Stonewall's radar at least six years ago. It was then that Stonewall decided to push for a new campaign. No gay person will be free until all T and Q + -trans, queer and +- have the same rights as everyone else.

Many problems arise here. Firstly, it is not clear whether transgender rights have any intersection (to borrow a popular term) with gay rights. In fact, it is quite the opposite. For example, it is perfectly possible for boys and girls who do not conform to gender stereotypes to grow up happily heterosexual or gay.

Shouldn't a group that protects gay people recognise the need for nuance? Surely it wouldn't jump on the increasingly dogmatic bandwagon that claims - against all the progress made by the gay rights movement - that those children are most likely of the opposite sex.

What's worse, Instead of opening up to discussion with gays who see it differently, Stonewall decided to undermine them, and in some cases even persecute them.

The recent case by Allison Bailey is instructive. Bailey is a criminal lawyer, a feminist and a lesbian who, in response to the " trans programme "of Stonewall, contributed to the creation of theLGB Alliance. Stonewall, accordingly, tried to cause Bailey serious problems at work, contributing to her being put under investigation because of her views on sex and gender. This and much more reveals the despicable bullying tactics used by Stonewall. To put it simply, it has become aorganisation that persecutes gays and lesbians who dare to disagree.

This week the association celebrates its 32° anniversarywhich no one except its employees would have any reason to celebrate. Yet they themselves will probably do so with a sense of deep unease; in recent days one of its founders, Matthew Parris, has publicly urged Stonewall to stay out of trans wars -see here- while the Equality and Human Rights Commission has announced that it will not renew the convention.

That's right. No taxpayer-funded entity should financially support Stonewall. And the private companies that continue to do so should be informed that are supporting a group that stopped caring about homosexuals and started persecuting them instead in their workplaces.

Happy 32 ° birthday, Stonewall. And no offense, I hope you don't make it to 33.

Douglas Murray, journalist, essayist, gay.

translation by Marina Terragni, original article here

Much of the news published by Feminist Post you will not read elsewhere. That is why it is important to support us, even with a small contribution: Feminist Post is produced solely by the voluntary work of many people and has no funding. If you think our work can be useful for your life, we would be grateful for even the smallest contribution.  



IBAN: IT80C0200812914000104838541

Much of the news published by Feminist Post you will not read elsewhere. That is why it is important to support us, even with a small contribution: Feminist Post is produced solely by the voluntary work of many people and has no funding.
If you think our work can be useful for your life, we will be grateful for even the smallest contribution.

You can give us your contribution by clicking here: Patreon - Feminist Post
You might also be interested in
25 February 2024
The 'milk' of men
The English National Health Service ensures that the milk produced by a male body -stimulated with ad hoc drug therapy- is as good for the newborn as that of its mother, who is wiped out. Minimising the risks to the child's health largely offset by the ideological and symbolic benefits. It is the transhuman, my beauties!
Men's 'milk' is a perfect example of what we call transhuman. Women's milk, on the other hand, is human, all too human, it is the perfect model of the enduring human, and therefore natural breastfeeding should be degraded, mocked, stigmatised as something to be ashamed of and kept hidden. In fact, it is even a useless and unethical act. On the contrary, promoting and magnifying male 'breastfeeding' shows plastically the way forward. According to the prestigious journal Pediatrics, organ of the American Academy of Pediatrics, it is 'risky' to define [...]
Read now
15 February 2024
How to convince progressives to give up gender
Terrified of transactivists and worried about sounding 'right-wing', left-wingers support the transition of minors even in the absence of studies showing that 'affirmative therapy' works and promotes the well-being of gender non-conforming girls and boys. "But everyone has a right to evidence-based medicine," argue some liberals determined to "break the spell". And they start DIAG -Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender- to convince democrats in the US and around the world that continuing on this path is wrong and dangerous. For children and for the left. An article by Bernard Lane
A new movement of US Democrats wants to find out how to break the spell of gender ideology and bring the party back to the liberal values of science and reason. Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG) launched a project yesterday on X Space (Twitter) to commission research on how to more effectively reach out to left-wing voters who believe that science is now in favour of 'gender-affirming' medicalisation of gender non-conforming youth. "The only way to end this [...]
Read now
6 February 2024
New York Times: Strong doubts about hormones for children with gender dysphoria
The world's leading woke newspaper has always unhesitatingly supported transactivist demands, starting with the indecent treatment of JK Rowling. Today the paper changes course and in a very long article criticises the 'affirmative therapy' (puberty blockers, hormones and surgery) for trans minors, giving a voice to some hitherto censored and ostracised detransitioners. Because by now even many Democratic voters have strong doubts. And there is a risk of losing many readers: "get woke, go broke".
For years, the New York Times has been the world's leading woke newspaper and has always unhesitatingly supported transactivist demands, jubilating critical voices. The treatment of JK Rowling is exemplary. In 2022 a very violent subscription campaign invited people to imagine Harry Potter without its creator: the ultimate in cancel culture (see here) A misogynistic and aggressive gesture - the initiative turned out to be a boomerang and many female subscribers threatened to cancel -. A few months ago The Daily published [...].
Read now
22 January 2024
Men IntintA and other wonders
The health of 'Marco', a trans FtM who is five months pregnant with testosterone, and that of her baby are the least of the problems. What matters to the liberal press talking about an 'anthropological revolution' is whether 'Marco' is to be called mother or father. But only a woman can give birth even if at the registry office her name is male. In this nothing has changed since the dawn of time. In the meantime, the trans front is losing ground: in one year, the number of members of WPATH, the largest transgender health organisation, has fallen by 60 per cent.
La Repubblica online headlines with a triple somersault about the 'young man who got pregnant': pregnant is not dared even at the transphilic GEDI group. The story is that of 'Marco', a girl undergoing testosterone therapy to look more like a man: beard, graver voice -not to 'become male' because sex cannot be changed and every single cell will remain damned XX-. 'Marco' had retained his uterus and ovaries and following a hetero sexual relationship (a [...]
Read now
7 January 2024
New Hampshire: No more 'sex change' surgery on minors
The US state has passed a bill banning surgeons from performing operations on under-18 year olds such as the removal of ovaries and breasts for females and penises and testicles for males. The bill states that these operations violate the patient's 'informed consent' and points out that studies have not shown a decrease in the suicide risk of minors after the operations. On the contrary: the danger increases
New Hampshire is preparing to ban under-18s from undergoing sex-change operations. Last Thursday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill to this effect, also with the help of some Democratic members. House Bill 619 prohibits doctors from performing 'any genital gender reassignment surgery', i.e. the removal of the uterus, ovaries and breasts in the case of women; testicles and penis for men, to anyone in the [...]
Read now
31 December 2023
Puberty should perhaps be stopped at ALL: Transhuman drift of the World Health Organisation
In a veritable Christmas blitz, the WHO announces that it wants to draw up new gender-affirming guidelines and sets up a panel made up of three-quarters transactivists in favour of medicalising children. Preferably all of them, even those who do not suffer from dysphoria. Because choosing what sex you are must become a universal right. An international petition calls for a halt to the initiative
A few days before Christmas, the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that it will develop new guidelines on the 'health of trans and gender diverse people', with a focus on access to hormones and surgery (what it calls 'gender-inclusive care.) ') and legal recognition of gender self-identification (self id). The WHO also announced that it has formed a group to develop the guidelines. This expert group includes many World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) apparatchiks, including [...]
Read now
1 2 3 46