Then why wouldn’t Stonewall even take a stance in 2010? In any case, the UK has a pretty virulent transphobic contingent that’s strong even on the left, and so their attitudes toward same-sex marriage and attitudes toward trans rights aren’t analogous; I merely brought up Stonewall’s position on the former to show how milquetoast they’ve been in the past, to decline to take a position on something so obviously just.
This is loaded with essentially the same assumption - that women’s rights and trans rights are in some important way in opposition. Again, this is not a view I share.
The broad issue here is the strategic question of how to engage bigotry when we see it. And I think the lessons of history apply equally to all cases - racism, women’s rights, LGBT rights.
And there is not some finite amount of tolerance such that progress for one marginalized group comes at the expense of another, requiring any such “compromise”. Progress may not always proceed at the same pace for all groups, but there is a strong positive correlation. Imagine a hypothetical future society where transphobia is a relic of history, and that advocating anything other than respect, equality and dignity for trans people is viewed in civilized discourse as barbaric, on a par with advocating slavery. Would you predict that in such a society women’s rights have progressed, or regressed?
That very much depends. How are you defining transphobia? Do you agree with Stonewall that the author’s view - that sex matters and cannot be wholy replaced by the idea of gender identity - is transphobia? If so then I can only imagine your future society as a totalitarian one, where people are forced to deny the reality of their own experiences or risk ostracism or worse.
In any case, women’s rights have already regressed in some areas, so I would hardly be optimistic about your future society.
nm, probably drifting too far off topic here
Perhaps. But I would like know what people mean by transphobia.
To all the people in this thread who denounced the author (and the UK) as transphobic, do you consider this view - that sex matters and cannot be wholy replaced by the idea of gender identity - to be transphobic in itself? Or is it other things the author says that you would apply that term to?
Obviously it depends what you mean by “matters”. Skin pigmentation matters for your choice of sunscreen; in most other respects, thinking that it matters is racism. But it seems to me that pursuing this is pretty clearly territory that is out of bounds here, that’s why I deleted my prior response.
Not for lack of trying on the part of most of us. 
I disagree that there’s a pressing need to protect AFAB women from trans women.
Others have said basically the same thing I’m going to say - this is just tone policing, and the (small-c) conservatives are just trying to stand against the tide of progress. It’s what they do. It’s what makes them conservatives. But merely repeating their tired argumenta ad consequentiam doesn’t do anyone any good.
And this argument :
As an antiracist, I see it as my job to explain unintuitive concepts such as structural discrimination to people who haven’t come across them, not damn them as bigots.
is bullshit - not all antiracists actually see that as their job. Some suffer from explanation fatigue. Or don’t think their “job” is to nursemaid people who can do the mental work their own damn selves, in the first place. Here’s some lovely advice from a Last Week Tonight segment on Black hair that has a much broader message, IMO.
You say “overcompensating”, I say “correctly making amends”, potay-to, potah-to
You seem to be taking it as incontrovertible that those disagreeing with Stonewall are transphobic. Would it not be a sound policy to consider if that is actually the case?
If we are agreeing to disagree here (please) you need to accept that most posters in this thread believe it is transphobic to exclude trans women from most places meant for women. And they will, of course, look at the policy from that perspective.
I mean, straight up, if you’re fighting to deny equal rights to a group, I’m going to describe your actions using a word that suggests hostility to that group. This ain’t complicated.
In any case, I’m really struggling to see what people are objecting to
That’s from about a year ago, granted. There’s a new controversy, because (AFAICT):
-Essex University banned a transphobic speaker.
-They explained their reasoning to Stonewall as part of an annual report on support for trans staff/students.
-They said in their report that the law protects gender identity, when really the law protects gender reassignment.
-Stonewall didn’t correct their language choice.
There are a couple of other things. The Equality and Human Rights Commission declared that transphobic “gender critical” beliefs are protected, and Stonewall and a bunch of other organizations said, “Christ almighty, y’all, please step up with the protecting trans folks!” (only said it more British). And that ex-member, the Conservative wealthy parliamentary asshole I referenced earlier, said, “Fuck you, buddies, I got mine! Gay rights are now protected, why would I want to be part of an organization protecting the rights of a group I’m not a member of! TOO EXTREME!” (only more British).
Again, classic rearguard action. When someone is agitating for the rights of a group that you want to oppress, wring your hands and offer them your friendly advice: “Just stop being so MEEEEAAAAAN to me, stop calling me NAAAAAMES, and your fight will be much more successful!”
Never in history has that been true.
Am I allowed to reply to LHoD’s post, or is that too off-topic?
Depends on the response. Parts of that post are on topic.
But that is not a view that all those disagreeing with Stonewall actually have. There is a world of difference between “most” places and “some specific” places but the accusations of hate speech and transphobia seem to be levelled in a blanket way to people holding both the former position (which I think is not a reasonable position) and the latter (which can be).
If this discussion is about Stonewall’s approach to those who disagree with it then it seems entirely appropriate to understand whether that approach is taking into consideration the nature of the disagreement.
Accusations of hate speech against reasonable views are likely to bring about a different end result to accusations of hate speech against obvious transphobia.
If that conversation cannot be had within this thread then OK, I’ll refrain from posting, but I don’t think much productive discussion can be had.
If we really want to look at that, let’s look at the OP’s link:
Characterizing transwomen as “men who self-identify as women” would, I think, be moddable on this board as transphobic, under the “do not deliberately misgender another” rule. Given very little specifics, I think you should either concede this or let it drop, unless you really want to point out a specific case where they’re calling a specific view “transphobic” or hate speech.
Stonewall’s condemnation has not just been for the author or the content of the article (which I neither support nor even reference). This was a wider discussion about the tactic of asserting “hate speech” at anyone who disagrees with them, the guardian article is merely one such data point.
Okay, but you’ve (and Demontree’s) offered zero specific cases in which they’re criticizing someone inappropriately–nor has the author, who as I pointed out is using some pretty transphobic language herself. Of course it’s appropriate to call someone bigoted when they’re being bigoted–do you agree? If so, I’m not sure what point you’re making.
This is really the crux of the issue. Stonewall accuses anyone who disagrees with them in any way of transphobia, regardless how big or small, reasonable or not their objections are. This is what risks their reputation, not opposing obvious transphobia.
This is meaningless. The people they so frequency accuse of bigotry don’t see themselves as transphobic or as agreeing with transphobia either. And the majority opinion depends greatly on what questions you ask. Most people have very little idea what organisations like Stonewall are advocating for and what the implications are, and that is why one of the main aims of their opponents is simply to draw attention to it.
It’s strange then, that they spend so much time and energy policing the definition of womanhood. But it’s disingenuous also; their aim is to substitute their definition for the one currently enshrined in equality law, and unless and until they succeed in that, they attempt to persuade organisations to ‘go beyond the law’ and act as if this has already happened. But this is only possible by ignoring and in some cases breaking equality law as it stands: this is the point made in the report for Essex University.
Is encouraging charities, businesses, and government departments to break equality law also something you consider helpful to Stonewall’s cause?
As I say, it is my opinion and impression from Stonewall recently (I’m in the UK and they pass through my sphere on a regular enough basis) that they are indeed moving towards the position that the article author suggests.
That is my impression without a hard cite to back it up and it is open to change.
I do agree in general, the problem is when you get to define “bigotry” in your own way as “that which isn’t in perfect agreement with us”. regardless of any reasonable argument that may sit behind such a position.
It is a no true Scotsman scenario.
“we won’t engage with bigots”
***“OK, lets hear your proposals”
“here are our proposals”
***“I have some reservations about your proposals”
“Only a bigot would refuse to agree with us fully”
***“But I disagree with some aspects of your proposals and I’m not a bigot”
“bigot! we will not engage with your hate speech”
And racists don’t think they’re racist. So what? Again, I think you’re getting off-track.