Not in my name. Part Deux.

Stonewall plumb the depths with a hilarious "clarification" misrepresenting a tweet about trans 2 year olds. It contains 6 falsehoods, 3 borderline falsehoods and two bait and switch paragraphs

Act I - Scene I - Stonewall suggest two years can be trans - hilarity ensues…

The gender wars really do happen all at once sometimes. Remember this?

I wrote about it here, calling for homosexuals to distance ourselves from the mad king Stonewall has now become.

As you can see this tweet can be deconstructed into the following propositions:

(1) There is some research underpinning the main clause of the first sentence (which Stonewall refuses to cite or name)

(2) Said research apparently seriously says toddlers who are unlikely to be potty trained are nonetheless trans

(3) Nurseries are essentially failing such children by not recognising that some two year olds are trans

(4) That failure consists of the nurseries teaching that sex is as per birth

(5) Some drivel about inclusion and affirming and a sad looking conscripted rainbow

Act II- Scene I - Stonewall desperately try to lie about the tweet in question - hilarity ensues

Stonewall have now “clarified” with a statement so comically dishonest it makes Prince Andrew’s “I’m unable to sweat” excuse look a genius work of plausibility.

Let’s look at it:

Let’s examine how many falsehoods are present in this this:

Paragraph 1

(1) “On Friday we put out a tweet that was unclear” (Falsehood #1) - it was perfectly clear and can be parsed as an extreme and eccentric statement that two-year-olds can have trans identities as set out above

(2) “Relating to gender stereotypes and nursery age children” (Falsehood #2) - The tweet nowhere mentions gender stereotypes relating to nursery age children, it is about “research” that toddlers can be trans

(3) “Leading some supporters to ask us what we meant” (Falsehood #3) - No where on social media can I see a supporter saying “I’m confused as to what this tweet means because I find it unclear”. What I can see is the vast majority of the general public asking if Stonewall are mad and a number of gender borg desperately trying to defend the indefensible.

Paragraph 2

(4) “We were commenting on an article written by a parent reflecting on how their child was being cared for at a nursery” (Falsehood #4) - It was not the question of “care” that was in issue, it was the curriculum and specifically whether a nursery was correctly teaching and recognising that toddlers can (apparently) be trans.

(5) “The parent was worried that their child was being pressured in to fit with stereotypes about boys and girls” (Borderline falsehood) - The idea that any teacher is in fact pressuring this child cannot easily be reconciled with the following from the original article (emphasis added): “While my daughter’s identity is still in its early formative stages, it’s hard to know if I should act against the school or teachers, because I can’t fully know what happened in the first place.” In fairness you could say the parent is nonetheless worried, but for a national charity to suggest this is a sound basis for a tweet saying something quite different about the teaching of two year olds is quite something.

(6) “While we don’t actively work on nursery education” (Borderline falsehood where the qualifier “actively” is doing a lot of work) - The original tweet shows that Stonewall campaign on what should and should not be in the nursery curriculum suggesting that they possess research which would support their goal of two year olds being told they have the wrong body.

(7) “we believe that young children should be able to play, explore and learn about who they are, and the world around them, without having adults’ ideas imposed upon them” (Absolute howling utter falsehood #5) - There is no better example of children having adult’s ideas imposed upon them than telling two year old they have the wrong bodies. This is an outrageous and audacious piece of double speak and flat out deception which cannot be reconciled with the first tweet.

Paragraph 3

(8) “We support existing provisions to ensure primary and secondary school pupils learn about LGBTQ+ identities in an age-appropriate and timely manner. Schools in England, Scotland and Wales are all required to provide LGBTQ+ inclusive approach to relationships and sex education. This is vital for making sure that today’s children do not grow up living with the stigma of being LGBTQ+” (Borderline falsehood by irrelevance - telling two year old they have the wrong bodies is not age appropriate and in any event this statement now glides onto primary and secondary school provision - this is a distraction technique because the original tweet was about nurseries).

Paragraph 4

(9) “For primary school aged children, this might mean, for example, learning that some children have two mummies, some have two daddies. It might mean not forcing children to conform to stereotypes, and it might mean challenging bullying that relates to perceived difference.” (More bait and switch dishonesty here with a continued qualification regarding primary schools, complete falsehood (so #6) regarding gender ideology here which is built on gender stereotypes as it regards playing with toys typical of the opposite sex as a diagnostic criteria for life long medicalisation.)

So, that makes 6 outright falsehoods, three borderline ones, two irrelevant paragraphs which are a dishonest example of bait and switch. At no point does this clarification (i) identify the research the tweet spoke about (2) make the case that toddlers should be told they have the wrong body or (3) speak about why reflecting that in the curriculum is appropriate.

If yesterday was the day Stonewall should have sacked their social media borg, today is the day to do the same for the crisis management team