Both of those are American and carry no direct weight here. It is Stonewall's founder members and their more recent colleagues in celebrity that matter. Unfortunately Sir Ian, the prime instigator, who was happy to break ranks on same-sex marriage (and say we should have that here when BS (acting, as did his predecessor, I believe, purely as a paid-hand) was dissing anyone else who queried the Stonewall/Blairite line) has been in Africa filming for weeks.
Without very clear understandings with the real powers at Stonewall it would be a huge, huge mistake to ask the group to take on T* issues. They have already shown they are fully prepared to simply play the "add a T" game in Scotland, their "Diversity Champions" and schools campaigns invisiblise T*, there are large numbers of fourattist gay men amongst their "friends" (ie non-member subscribers), they are evidentially open to the Bindellists, and they are non-accountable.
Then there are the dreadful lessons from lGb groups in other countries, where they often drown out informed T* communities with misinformation thanks to their established access and preconceptions. Often it rapidly becomes believed that all T* are just a variety of L&G - almost exactly the Blanchard/Bailey and Fouratt lines. The needs and identities of those who don't fit that are then lost.
One has seen huge US groups completely invisibilise the need for SRS or other bodily change, smear "stealth" as "closet", ignore heterosexual T* people, slur their partners as homosexual, or totally not care about usage of titles, pronouns, or even names. Years and years on from starting to claim to represent T*.
We'd need a strong and competent group of our own to truly guard those interests before giving Stonewall, or any other such group here a green light. PFC, GT, PF and TGEU (to only mention four) are not that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 06:03 am (UTC)Without very clear understandings with the real powers at Stonewall it would be a huge, huge mistake to ask the group to take on T* issues. They have already shown they are fully prepared to simply play the "add a T" game in Scotland, their "Diversity Champions" and schools campaigns invisiblise T*, there are large numbers of fourattist gay men amongst their "friends" (ie non-member subscribers), they are evidentially open to the Bindellists, and they are non-accountable.
Then there are the dreadful lessons from lGb groups in other countries, where they often drown out informed T* communities with misinformation thanks to their established access and preconceptions. Often it rapidly becomes believed that all T* are just a variety of L&G - almost exactly the Blanchard/Bailey and Fouratt lines. The needs and identities of those who don't fit that are then lost.
One has seen huge US groups completely invisibilise the need for SRS or other bodily change, smear "stealth" as "closet", ignore heterosexual T* people, slur their partners as homosexual, or totally not care about usage of titles, pronouns, or even names. Years and years on from starting to claim to represent T*.
We'd need a strong and competent group of our own to truly guard those interests before giving Stonewall, or any other such group here a green light. PFC, GT, PF and TGEU (to only mention four) are not that.