Ma Vie En Rose: Ruth Hunt’s Rose-Tinted Trans*Goggles and the anti-Woman Politics of Stonewall

I first spoke with Stonewall’s Ruth Hunt just over three years ago when the organisation announced it would be engaging with the transgender community. This resulted in the forming of the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group, you know that motley crew of transgender tyrants, including the self-styled (styled as if it were 1973) answer for any heterosexual woman who wishes to bring out her ‘inner lesbian’, Alex ‘Beardy’ Drummond. *cheeky wink*

Diversity, Stonewall-style.

Ruth, bless her fighting heart, has been defending transgender activists to an extraordinary degree, indeed there appears to be no transgression she cannot overlook with her inbuilt sense of forgiveness which seems divine in breadth and depth. She has embraced the very dogma that makes real life discussion, debate and compromise with transgenderists impossible, dogma which positions the interests of the T in ‘LGBT’ in opposition to anyone who considers biological sex to be important in any material way: trans women are women, no debate, end of.

Quite aside from it being cruel to humour delusional claims of one being something one is not, positioning one’s acceptance of an individual on a lie is outright dishonest. And anyway, what is a lesbian and gay group doing when it considers the thoughts and feelings of personal identity more important than the reality of our sexed bodies?

Dead dogma.

‘Trans women are women’ is a profoundly anti-woman statement, denying any questioning of this or debate is outright the sort of social justice fascism that typifies the regressive left and has led to the ongoing battle of self-identified women with penises against actual women, you know the sort with uteri and ovaries.

If feminism is an ideology that centres the interests of females, you know actual girls and actual women, and Ruth Hunt as leader of Stonewall is aligning with and even promoting dogma such as ‘trans women are women’, then both she and Stonewall are anti-woman and anti-feminist. What a sell-out.

Hunt’s leadership is inept. Having failed spectacularly to take adequate action over the assault of a sixty year old woman by three transgender activists (at least two of whom were male) in September this year, Hunt’s organisation waited three days before limply ejaculating a flaccid statement talking about dehumanising language and how violence is never the solution. Of course, the elephant in the room, being male violence against women, was recklessly ignored in favour of imploring:

We must find a way to achieve and maintain equality for trans communities that does not cause emotional damage and that makes people allies, not enemies.

The diminishing of male violence.

Hunt’s own public tweets go out of their way to accommodate the right of TIMs (trans-identified males) to commit actual bodily harm against women. How would this impotent organisation have fared in the 1970s and 1980s when gay bashing was de rigueur? Imagine: ‘Is this the one where people started hitting each other outside the Admiral Duncan and an innocent man suffered bruising to his fist when a pesky homo got in the way?’ Ruth, this is exactly what you are saying.

It appears to me to be spectacularly hypocritical to preach about dehumanising language when this same language has been used in the context of lesbians’s sexual autonomy; how can you have a conversation about female homosexuality that is not ‘TERFy’ unless you jump through the mental hoop of redefining any useful ‘transgender woman’ with a penis as a bonerfied female?

We are now in ‘lesbian with a penis’ territory.

This week, however, we may have reached #peakRuthHunt. Writing for the Independent in ‘When transphobic people try to pretend they’re defending butch lesbians like me, I see the cynical tactic for what it is‘, Hunt has managed to jump a whole flotilla of sharks, Evel Knieval style, and landed flat on her back in yet another attempt to appease the seething woman-hating of transgender males.

Hunt begins cheerfully enough, sarcastically referring to a hypothetical love-in between the British media and butch lesbians (I’ll explain why later on, dear reader…):

Truly, I am touched and thrilled to have the support of so many sections of the media. If I’m honest, I thought they hated butch lesbians. I’m delighted that they are now passionately championing our right to exist and be proud of who we are

The greater vision in a progressive society is of course we should all support people’s wishes to live their lives the way they want, to look how they want and to love who they love. As long as, of course, there’s no harm caused to others (even in this essay, by referencing the harm principle, I have managed to bring JS Mill into the story).

Anyway, as this is Ruth writing, this story is of course really about trannies, so moving on we hear:

One particularly strange tactic that anti-trans campaigners use is presenting any move forward for trans rights as being inevitably at the cost of lesbian rights. Specifically the rights of young, butch lesbians. They claim that the identities of young, butch lesbians are being erased, and that instead of being allowed to feel confident in their sexual orientation and as themselves, they are being pushed into believing they are trans men.

This is itself a peculiar observation, because this is exactly what is happening; if Ruth bothered to actually read the stories of some of the young girls who are transitioning into men (something which is now at epidemic proportions) she would see that in the regressive world of the compassionate, loving and accepting left, gender non-confirming behaviour in young children is being interpreted as indicative the child is ‘transgender’. So much for the individual’s agency and freedom, when your personality and preferences are used to imply you are somehow in the wrong body. It’s like we have gone back 200 years.

This piece then burrows itself deep into the transgender cul-de-sac:

Maybe the transphobic sections of the press are simply, cynically, using the oldest tactic in the playbook here – to try to divide and rule… This public bout of transphobia is actually galvanising a whole host of new trans allies, pushed into vocal action. Sure, there has also been a fair amount of bile and vitriol, and abuse across social media directed at trans people and their allies.

But it feels like something has shifted.  You might expect me to be an open and vocal ally to trans people in the media – but who saw Phillip Schofield coming? The sense that those who oppose trans equality are rattled by this reaction is palpable.

It feels to me that the old, homophobic attitudes have simply morphed into new transphobic ones. The same hatred is behind all of it. When those who spread such prejudicial views present themselves as our friends, merely trying to defend us from the malignant danger of trans people, it is completely disingenuous.

Ruth is of course having a mini-moan about recent pieces in the press. For example, Janice Turner writing in The Times about young girls who transition, and some who detransition. Or Lucy Bannerman writing about how awful the culture of girls binding their breasts is. Of course, trans ideology is not a monolith and Hunt really doesn’t give a fuck about those of us who think proposals to change the 2004 Gender Recognition Act adversely affects our rights and credibility as trans individuals: who needs to think with their own mind when you have a whole humming hive to do this effortlessly for you? And anyway, as if a publication like The Sun would give a transsexual free reign in writing an op-ed to explain their own point of view on the real world effect of transgender politics

Britain’s press, silencing trans voices. /sarcasm

Hunt’s complaint isn’t really about ‘divide and rule’. She is in fact doubling down and presuming trans people are an ideological monolith, like she presumes for lesbians and gay men. What Ruth is doing is the fallacy of splitting: ‘you’re either with us or against us’. Such black and white thinking demonstrates an inability to recognise nuance and identify the needs of others. It’s intellectually shallow and demonstrates an inability to think like an adult.

Ruth then implores for:

the whole community, as well as everyone who cares about human rights and basic respect, to come out in support of trans people… They need to know they are not alone.

Use your social media profile. Talk to your friends. Make sure lazy transphobia doesn’t become mainstream. But most of all don’t allow voices of fear to divide us.

If you believe in equality, please join the fight against the huge levels of abuse that trans people face every single day. Join me, take a stand and come out for trans equality.

This is all well and good, but what happened to the butch lesbians Ruth was telling us about? Well, something that Ruth is dishonestly and withholding from her audience is the onslaught on butch lesbians by the transgender community. In the Morning Star yesterday, Wednesday 15 November, is the story ‘Entire CLP Leadership Quits Amid Claims Of Transphobia‘:

The resignation of all six members of the Bexhill & Battle Labour Party executive committee was confirmed in a letter seen by the Star.

It says that the committee took the “unanimous decision to resign” over allegations of “serious abuse and harassment” by a local party member who has attempted to “shut down all discussion of gender issues” by making allegations of “transphobia.”

The executive committee members wrote that they had no choice but to step down as they were unable to protect themselves and other members from abuse.

They said the regional office’s failure to deal with the allegations has damaged the party’s ability to function effectively with officers’ time being tied up with internal disciplinary matters “instead of fighting the Tories.”

A member of Bexhill Labour Party, who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals, told the Star that there were “Machiavellian plots” to smear members and silence debate in the local party.

The member said that local branches and CLPs have faced emergency motions branding those who wish to debate the controversial Gender Reassignment Bill as “transphobes,” which has created a climate of fear in the party.

“We are living with the constant threat of accusations of transphobia. This is a silencing tactic being used to shut down debate,” the member added. “But we need to be able to talk about it: that’s democracy.”

Further investigation into this story reveals more detail. The Times reports on this in ‘Labour officials quit in transgender dispute‘, and well and truly names the problem:

Anne Ruzylo, 52, claims that a fellow party member in Bexhill and Battle, East Sussex, orchestrated a smear campaign against her because she did not share his views on gender identity.

Anne Ruzylo is a butch lesbian, who has suffered a smear campaign run by or at least on behalf of transgender activists, in particular one Liam ‘Lily’ Madigan.

Our press standing for lesbians against a boy called Liam.

So much for compassion and understanding for transgender males, what about the lesbian at the centre of this story, and the lesbians at the centre of Ruth’s piece and her employer, there is, after all, a capital ‘L’ in LGBT. Ruth of course is exercising no community leadership over this situation which as The Daily Mail report:

(an) unidentified activist, who is not transgender but is a passionate supporter of those who are, allegedly tried to prevent Miss Ruzylo, from Bexhill-on-Sea, from voicing her concerns at meetings. He supports Government plans to reform the legal definition of man and woman, but Miss Ruzylo believes critics’ fears of appearing politically incorrect could prevent proper scrutiny of the legislation.

He also described her as a ‘Terf’, a derogatory term that stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, on social media. Miss Ruzylo was also accused of ‘transphobia’ in three formal complaints – one reportedly from Lily Madigan, 19, formerly a boy called Liam who identifies as female.

Of course, at the centre of this, is the usual reframing of disagreement as hate and the silencing of dissent and debate:

Former prison officer Miss Ruzylo, who is a lesbian, told The Times she felt ‘violated’, adding that the way she had been silenced was ‘disgusting’.

She added: ‘Debate is not hate. If we can’t talk about gender laws and get shut down on that, what’s next? We’re going back to the days of McCarthyism. It is disgraceful.’

The same media which in Hunt’s words are guilty of ‘concentrated attacks by such powerful voices’ are here, plugging the gap and making up for the woefully inadequate leadership shown by Ruth Hunt at Stonewall; the bullying, the silencing and the dehumanisation were there before Hunt got involved and in the meantime she has done absolutely fuck-all to address these problems.

And playing out in the background we have a couple of blokes using the cause of transgenderism to fracture the local CLP and get away with a sustained campaign of harassment and bullying against an actual lesbian. This is the story that Ruth buries with such chutzpah. You could not make this up.

Liam and a chum show their contempt for women.

Madigan and his associates are no friend to butch lesbians, or women: they share a particularly dim view of women who do not conform to their own idea of what a woman should be (likely informed, I’d hazard, by their own consumption of pornography). These sort of invective comments are nothing new in transgender culture, and are indicative of the misogyny and homophobia that rots away at the centre of transgender dogma.

Of course, Ruth Hunt has fallen for this hook, line and sinker, and is unlikely to engage with anyone who holds a different opinion never mind confront the damaging structural problems she has welcomed into the very organisation she is supposed to be leading. It is of course incredibly important that our national lesbian and gay rights organisation is being run by a lesbian, but this really has begun to look indecent when you diminish rhetorical and physical violence against women, and cannot address the systematic bullying of lesbians by straight and transgender men acting in the name of ‘transgender equality’.

Running an LGBT organisation isn’t just about hitting up big companies for money; it has a mission in the real world. And when you accept this mission, you accept accountability.

On 11 November in The Times, Janice Turner contributed ‘Meet Alex Bertie, the transgender poster boy’ and wrote:

More girls are changing their gender from female to male than ever before. And it’s YouTube star Alex Bertie’s example that they’re following. What’s behind the surge in numbers?

In the process of researching this piece, Turner contacted Ruth Hunt asking for comment, and was literally stonewalled with silence:

‘No debate’ usually means ‘I’m hiding something’.

As a representative of this country’s leading LGBT organisation, which is part publicly-funded, wouldn’t we expect the leader of this organisation to have ready answers to questions posed by journalists? Unless of course the journalist was asking leading, unreasonable questions that may self-incriminate? Well, here they are, you can make your own mind up:

It’s Ruth Hunt’s job to answer questions like these.

These issues are exactly the sort of issues Hunt is PAID to have an opinion on; furthermore they are questions about the social acceptance and support of female sexuality and sexual orientation, which is exactly what Stonewall is funded to address. Hunt’s silence on this is thoroughly incriminating and typifies her stewardship of Stonewall.

Of course, Hunt is a great advocate for transgenderists. Only in the strange alternate reality of transgenderism could this country’s population of transgender males, so conservative in their pornified idea of what a woman is and is for and with their ‘shut the fuck up, evil witch TERF’ attitude, have such a staunch ally in the form of a butch lesbian who is also a devout catholic. An ally who, in spite of supposedly representing all four letters of LGB and T spends much of her time sugar-coating the realities of what causes most males to be transgender, and providing a divinely sanctioned forgiveness for the systematic dehumanisation of women and all the other shit that transgender males throw at lesbians and other women.

These almost weekly pieces telling everyone how nice they should be to woman-hating blokes who think their personal pornified identity is equivalent to the material lives lives of the 51% of the population who gestate and give birth to 100% of the world’s population are an insult to women, homosexuals and anyone else out there who can think for themselves.

Ruth Hunt is a politician. Her organisation is partly publicly funded and solicits and receives donations from large businesses. And like most single-issue politicians, Hunt is failing most of her constituents; when your message is about diversity and acceptance yet you can’t speak against the sterilisation of gender non-conforming children, you have lost your moral mandate to speak for or represent lesbians and gay men, as well as the transsexuals who oppose your single sided interpretation of our lives.

  • Where are Hunt’s public pleas for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals to be supported and treated equitably as equal members of society?
  • Where is her presence in the media calling for support of the very butch lesbians she leverages in this piece?
  • Why is Hunt not addressing the sexism and homophobia that underpins transgender culture, and the vectors which are presently leading to more girls deciding to become men?
  • Why is Hunt so focussed on a subset of her constituents which is predominantly comprised of heterosexual males?
  • Why is Hunt incapable even of recognising there is a rights and ideals conflict; guaranteed this is only going to be exacerbated and lead to further conflict?
  • Why does Hunt refuse to answer simple questions about the ideology dogma she supports, in particular those about lesbian community and the transition of gender nonconforming children?

Ruth Hunt desperately needs to show some leadership, stand up for homosexuals and gender nonconforming children, and purge transgender culture of its misogyny and homophobia. Unless she is willing to do this, she must hand over the reins to someone who will champion the majority of her constituents, the lesbians and gay men she has thrown under the bus in the inequitable name of equality. Until this happens, Stonewall will be a Trojan horse, publicly and privately funded yet working against the interests of the very people it currently pretends to champion yet so viciously stabs in the back. This needs to stop.

Woman-Erasing Postscript that shows Ruth Hunt Prioritises Trans Males Over Lesbians and Women #1

Liam Madagan has been elected Women’s Officer at Rochester and Strood Labour Party. As Ella Whelan at Spiked points out, at nineteen he’s barely a man. And definitely not a woman.

Woman-Erasing Postscript that shows Ruth Hunt Prioritises Trans Males Over Lesbians and Women #2

Black lesbian Labour Party activist Linda Bellos is subject to complaint from Labour LGBT, motivated it seems by Heather Peto, another man who identifies as a woman, where Bellos is being accused of inciting violence against transgender people. (Daily Mail).

Woman-Erasing Postscript that shows Ruth Hunt Prioritises Trans Males Over Lesbians and Women #3

Heather Brunskell-Evans is being investigated by the Women’s Equality Party after appearing on ‘The Moral Maze’ on Radio 4, she was asked why the trans lobby called her a “trans exclusionary radical feminist” (Terf) and why it did not like her. She said she was “not singled out for this pejorative term. Anybody who critiques transgender doctrine tends to be called a Terf.” She said she was “happy for people to decide they are transgender if that is their identity”. (The Times)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.