stonewall’s u-turn on the definition of transphobia

Widely recognised as  experts on discrimination towards LGBTIQA+ members and leading Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI ) training accreditation body, Stonewall has quietly done a  U-turn in their definition of transphobia.

This is their new version:

Transphobia

Prejudice or negative attitudes or beliefs or views about trans people. This include the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact that are or are perceived  to be trans.

And the old version :

The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it. Transphobia may be targeted at people who are, or who are perceived to be, trans.

As pointed out  by Maya Forstater on X, Stonewall has indeed deleted the sentence ‘denying trans their gender identity or refusing to accept it’ from their original  definition of transphobia.

This means that anyone who shows no prejudice or negative attitudes towards trans people, and is not afraid or dislikes them, but simply denies or reject their gender identity is no  longer deemed to be transphobic after all.

In other words, people from the “cis gender” community  – that is the overwhelming majority of Green Party members who take the view the sex is biological and not to be confused with gender – are no longer those horrible hatemongers whose voices must be shut down and purged.  

To the un-initiated in the cult of gender ideology, this may appear to be a minor amendment. It is anything but.

Whether the GPEW is affiliated to Stonewall or not, the question now is: will elected members from the Disciplinary Committee (DC), the 22 regional representatives serving on the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) and members of the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) – who are tasked with protecting the party’s constitution – pay attention to and reflect on the significance of Stonewall’s ideological shift with their new definition of transphobia ?

(The Green Light has been seeking to clarify  whether the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) remains affiliated to Stonewall. It would seem that the £2500 fee paid since 2016 was left unpaid for a year, but has since been re-instated. This will be confirmed when the all revealing 2023-24  financial report wil be published and presented at the next AGM).

Crucially for the purpose of disciplinary actions taken by the Complaints Referral group ( the triage body for all complaints ), the DC and GPRC against members accused of transphobia with a request for an immediate ‘No Fault Suspension’ or expulsion, the 7 pages long ‘Guidance to identify Queerphobia’ states:

Transphobic behaviour typically includes actions which convey a view that –

1. trans women are not  “ real women” , are men and/or are male people;
2. trans men are not “ real men”, are women and/or female people ; and/or
3. non-binary genders and identities do not exist or are invalid.

In other words, as far as members of the DC and GPRC are concerned, denying a trans person their gender identity or refusing to accept will remain transphobic and justify the systematic application of severe sanctions as per their (unapproved) amended new Code of Conduct.

The timing of Stonewall’s U-turn about its definition of transphobia is not accidental. 2025 is a different world from when the War on Women started some 10 year ago with their mantra of “no debate” and the silencing of feminists written off as “transphobic”.

Given that the GPEW’s narrative and power structure constructed by LGBTIQA+ greens, the Young Greens and Feminist Greens trans activists is so deeply embedded in Stonewall’s gender ideology, a review of GPRC’s ‘Guidance to Identify Queerphobia’ is not likely to ever be considered under the existing authoritarian regime.

This is because any admission that Stonewall’s original position with regards to trans rights which has been so enthusiastically embraced and developped for over a decade by trans extemists within the GPEW would not just be a bigger embarrassment than Juge Hellman’s ruling in favour of Shahrar Ali’s V The GPEW’s court case. It would simply be suicidal for the Leadership Team, our 4 MPs and one Baroness.

Your support and comments are welcome : TheGreenLightBLog@protonmail.com