From the outside, I cannot see that Ruth Hunt is more than a figurehead. The token lesbian, on an attractive salary, whose strings are pulled by others.
Again due diligence and governance. Who appointed, say, Aimee Challenor to their Trans-advisory group? What about the others, given their reach in terms of advice and training cuts across society from schools to banks?
Their website says "MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WERE APPOINTED FOLLOWING AN EXTENSIVE APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS. PLEASE NOTE, SOME MEMBERS OF THE GROUP HAVE ELECTED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS, SO HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED ON THIS LIST."
Were vacancies advertised, what selection processes were used, what checks: DBS, qualifications etc, were made. Who is salaried, or what commercial benefits such as consultancy on behalf of Stonewall are given.
What sort of Governance is there. Internally, what happens if someone breaches, or stretches, current organisational policy. How is that policy set. What happens if someone could be considered as bringing the organisation into disrepute. (AC and Terfblocker might be an example, not least because a good proportion of those blocked were lesbian.)
What research and fact checking is done before policy is decided? Is any research commissioned, and how? Peer review processes? How are partner organisations (Mermaids) decided?
And externally, beyond the Charities Commission, where is the Governance. Stonewall is busy sticking its logo on the letterhead of its "Global Diversity Champions" and on its "Education Champions", but what quality mark, in terms of organisation, governance and financial integrity, do they aim for.
And its clients and donors. Does anyone check that this is a reputable organisation, capable of delivering their training and advice needs in a reasonable and acceptable manner. When I worked in a Civil Service role, we had to follow Government Procurement Guidelines, and had a list of pre-approved specialist contractors our area could use. Stonewall, are to a large extent a training and advice consultancy. Is anyone in the Public Sector looking at the value for money (including the appropriateness) of the services they provide. Or is it simply have an unregulated, ungoverned monopoly.
A quick look at Ruth's background and I wonder if she is really qualified for the job, if the job means running a far-reaching consultancy aimed at reducing barriers in the workplace and supporting LGBT+ people in society. The Trans-advisory group was only set up in 2015. If Ruth does not get a grip, I think it will go on to destroy the organisation. A good campaigner seeking societal change needs to understand the concerns of wider society, and accept that they exist. And have an understanding that societal change takes time. You don't simply respond with accusations of Hate, or demands for re-education. You don't expect granny with a weak bladder to be nonchalant when faced with a bloke in the loo at the theatre, or at least you give her some time to get used to it and throw in a few design and management suggestions.
Ofr is it just easier to take the salary and repeat Transwomen are Women like a mantra, hoping if you say it enough, it will be true.