Is that really Stonewall’s view of the world?

The rest of that interview:

20:59:

Robinson: Just one last specific: the other example, about women’s rights, is this yes tabloid story, but with substance behind it, that people who give birth shouldn’t be called mothers, they should be called people who give birth – is that really Stonewall’s view of the world?

Anderson: So, no, this again is what gets mischaracterized. What Stonewall looks to do is to provide organizations with good practice to provide an incluzive place to work. It’s not the law, Nick.

Robinson: But is it good practice to stop calling mothers “mothers”?

Anderson: In some organizations potentially that’s what they might want to do, in terms of the culture that they’re trying to create and in terms of what had actually worked in other organizations. These are suggestions

Had actually worked how? In what sense? For whom? What are we talking about here? Why is it seen as a good thing to “create a culture” that conceals the existence of women?

This is about creating a place, creating a culture, where people really can be themselves.

Not if those people are women it doesn’t. It erases women so that men who pretend to be women can feel more comfy.

After that they move on to party politics so that’s where I cease to transcribe.

2 Responses to “Is that really Stonewall’s view of the world?”