Although I'm certain there are Stonewall people who are T* friendly, comments in the last weeks, and on the night of the V&A do, as reported, make clear that key staff members are operating a very T* unfriendly policy. They have slurred T* people disgracefully, and not even behaved as if they were fellow activists for human rights. No one would believe they could represent T* people.
Personally I don't believe that there was simply some carve-up of areas years ago. I think that ignores the situation in England for gay groups in the late '80s, when Stonewall was founded (some while before PFC).
Please recall that most lesbians departed the early Gay Lib for the new Women's Liberation Movement. That the lesbian separatists in the women's movement had been active in London from the early 1970s. Activism in Yorkshire around the Sutcliffe murders produced a very hard-line core that moved to London at about the same time as Raymond's poisonous anti-transsexual writings reached here and gave them a cause which they used as the core of a drive to purge the Women's Liberation Movement there of all who associated with "men", which, for their purposes included M2F transsexual women, and boy children. The movement was decimated. It was also those who didn't like the methods, or the hatred, that departed - including many lesbians.
Then along came the Greater London Council with funding for any groups that might oppose the prevailing Tory attitudes, but with equalities requirements.
Attempts were made to launch inclusive organisations that might take advantage of this. And the gay men found that what lesbian groups remained had a most difficult attitude to "equality". Either the gay men followed the lesbian separatist line or they would boycott. But that line was profoundly discriminatory and would prevent GLC funding. Several attempts crashed.
Then, as the GLC was being abolished and groups grown used to its funding collapsed, the Thatcher government proposed Section 28 and it was too much for certain quite successful gay men. They decided to launch a group initially with private funding - Stonewall. They considered it essential to have lesbian participation, at almost any price. And that still seems how it is.
PFC came along later, to an extent following some of Stonewall's model in that it doesn't have a membership so isn't accountable, and sells out many who think it represents them.
Stonewall's happy acceptance of the Civil Partnerships legislation that will probably forestall any equal marriage, for example. Then there's appalling Gender Recognition Act.
People just haven't noticed Stonewall's hostility to T* because PFC held out promise for T* people, and the Raymondites/Bindelites, although very active, kept out of the headlines. But PFC has turned out to have huge failings, and Bindel got a Guardian slot and other media exposure, which enthused her associates to flex their muscles with Stonewall. And Stonewall has to dance.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Helen says
Date: 2008-11-07 10:19 pm (UTC)Personally I don't believe that there was simply some carve-up of areas years ago. I think that ignores the situation in England for gay groups in the late '80s, when Stonewall was founded (some while before PFC).
Please recall that most lesbians departed the early Gay Lib for the new Women's Liberation Movement. That the lesbian separatists in the women's movement had been active in London from the early 1970s. Activism in Yorkshire around the Sutcliffe murders produced a very hard-line core that moved to London at about the same time as Raymond's poisonous anti-transsexual writings reached here and gave them a cause which they used as the core of a drive to purge the Women's Liberation Movement there of all who associated with "men", which, for their purposes included M2F transsexual women, and boy children. The movement was decimated. It was also those who didn't like the methods, or the hatred, that departed - including many lesbians.
Then along came the Greater London Council with funding for any groups that might oppose the prevailing Tory attitudes, but with equalities requirements.
Attempts were made to launch inclusive organisations that might take advantage of this. And the gay men found that what lesbian groups remained had a most difficult attitude to "equality". Either the gay men followed the lesbian separatist line or they would boycott. But that line was profoundly discriminatory and would prevent GLC funding. Several attempts crashed.
Then, as the GLC was being abolished and groups grown used to its funding collapsed, the Thatcher government proposed Section 28 and it was too much for certain quite successful gay men. They decided to launch a group initially with private funding - Stonewall. They considered it essential to have lesbian participation, at almost any price. And that still seems how it is.
PFC came along later, to an extent following some of Stonewall's model in that it doesn't have a membership so isn't accountable, and sells out many who think it represents them.
Stonewall's happy acceptance of the Civil Partnerships legislation that will probably forestall any equal marriage, for example. Then there's appalling Gender Recognition Act.
People just haven't noticed Stonewall's hostility to T* because PFC held out promise for T* people, and the Raymondites/Bindelites, although very active, kept out of the headlines. But PFC has turned out to have huge failings, and Bindel got a Guardian slot and other media exposure, which enthused her associates to flex their muscles with Stonewall. And Stonewall has to dance.