#DontSubmitToStonewall - suggested quick action by Legal Feminist

ah just seen it is. Is there something similar for private sector?

Is this campaign for public sector only?

Hello @allmywhat - thank you so much for your brilliant work on the #DontSubmitToStonewall campaign.

Gay/lesbian should be included as a single option, rather than having separate options for gay man and gay woman/lesbian.

Aaaahhhh .....so THAT's where the census question came from! it came from Stonewall. verbatim from Stonewall.

I'm getting so furious about all this. I hope someone has/does re-submit the FoI request in smaller chunks. I would but am wary of my name and details being put out there.

[quote Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud]I've just seen on twitter that the MOJ have said that it would be too costly to list all their interactions with stonewall over the last year- so have refused to answer the FOI request. Given their policy on prisons it seems more important for the public to know how much they have paid to and how many man hours they have spent with the SW lobby group
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1366815772144787457?s=19[/quote]
Wow. That's almost an answer in itself, isn't it? "Too many to mention, my dear!"

I've just seen on twitter that the MOJ have said that it would be too costly to list all their interactions with stonewall over the last year- so have refused to answer the FOI request. Given their policy on prisons it seems more important for the public to know how much they have paid to and how many man hours they have spent with the SW lobby group
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1366815772144787457?s=19

I also wondered how it fits in with the requirement for public bodies to balance the rights of each protected characteristic.
As I said previously, my Council is not woke which is why Stonewall have recommended changes to their thinking/brainwashing. They’ve recommended they speak to Leeds Council for ideas to improve their position on the Index.
Hopefully Calderdale will be far too busy dealing with the impact of flooding, Covid and a drop of £100 million in their budget to pay much attention to Stonewalls demands.

Actually actually. Sorry. I’m actually

(this is stonewall comments upon the council’s monitoring of employees, scrutinising “data collection methods, analysis and outcomes.”): (bolding to highlight the )

Have awarded for sexual orientation monitoring questions, however, best practice to keep gender and sexuality questions completely separate; e.g. not 'gay man' or 'gay woman/lesbian'. Gay/lesbian should be included as a single option, rather than having separate options for gay man and gay woman/lesbian. This means that people of all gender identities can choose the option that best suits them. You can cross-reference gender identity and sexual orientation data to break down responses from different groups e.g. responses from gay men and responses from gay women/lesbians. Stonewall also advises using the umbrella term 'bi' as opposed to 'bisexual'.
Some good work monitoring recruitment and appointment and pay of LGB employees. Next steps are to do the same for trans colleagues, starting with updating monitoring questions to make sure accurate data is gathered around trans status of staff.
Unfortunately could not award for some of the data analysis, for reasons including erasure of non-binary identities in pay analysis, and also inclusion of 'prefer not to state' in total of disclosure rates.

By doing this, transwomen ticking the ‘gay/lesbian’ option - right - are indistinguishable from adult human female lesbians in the data. Same for gay men. There is no way to actually assess how many gay and lesbian staff you actually have as sex is being erased completely and replaced with self-identifed gender.

How does that fit with responsibilities under the Equality Act to not discriminate by sex?

I have to say I did spend some time thinking how that employees name could be pronounced.
It reminded me of a certain Brass Eye episode

On the Calderdale emails disclosed, they’ve redacted some info on the HTML version that is not redacted on the downloadable version. Tsk tsk tsk. Although that particular SW employees first name is so...unusual, it’s not difficult to work out who they/them is anyway!

That’s appalling Quadzilla. Who the hell do Stonewall think they are waving away terms used in the Equality Act and why are organisations meekly going along with it? It is gobsmacking.

It totally is!

"Feedback from your marker"!!! Who do they think they are?! What a racket.

Thanks Quad.

The Opportunities' sections on each page of the 'feedback' report; like buying £360 conference tickets' and 'Workplace Trans Allies and Workplace Role Models are empowerment programmes which can be booked to be run in-house for up to 36 delegates from Calderdale Council'

illuminating

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_your_dealings_47#incoming-1734120

I’m furious. Like Find I’m all for adding to language to make it more inclusive but Stonewall are actively promoting removing our language without our permission.
And worse of all, we’re paying for this!
I’ll post a link to the whole document as I think you’ll find it interesting. They point out the flaws in your organisation then encourage you to buy a loads of their in-house training at a zillion bucks to make amends.

😡Remove the terms "mother" and "father", to ensure that everyone within your organisation is covered by your policies. 😡

🤬We"d recommend using gender neutral language, e.g. "pregnant employee"; "birth parent" and then "second parent"; "parent who has given birth" or "new mothers and other pregnant employees".🤬

🤮 See Stonewall"s inclusive policy toolkit.🤮

The DfE banned toolkits harming children.

Now it's time for the government to ban toolkits harming women, girls and same-sex attracted men and women, across the public sector.

By all means add more protections for transgender people, that's a good thing, but it makes my blood boil that they are being told to remove the words describing protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, and to pay for it with taxpayers money and go along with it to get a rating on the Equality Index of an organisation that has lobbied to remove sex based rights for 6 years.

@Quadzilla

I’m so cross reading that!

I did one am not going to let this shit carry on.

I’ve already sent off several email to different places this week, including my MP. There’ll be more to come!

The FOI for my quite unwoke council is back. My jaw has dropped already and I'm only on page 3 of the written feedback they received from Stonewall last year. This is unbelieveble - there is clear language in the Equality Act yet here they are handwaving it away as well as the terms mother and father. The bastards.

Feedback from your marker
1.2.Clearer zero tolerance to discrimination on basis of sexual orientation and gender identity required and needed explicit mention of biphobic bullying and harrassment.
"Gender reassignment" is the legal term used in equalities legislation. However, it's a contentious term that Stonewall's Trans Advisory Group feels should be reviewed - it's advisable to use other terms, e.g.
"transition".
We recommend using the term "bi" rather than "bisexual". Bi is an umbrella term used to describe an emotional, romantic and/or sexual orientation towards more than one gender.
1.3.Some good use of gender-neutral language, particularly in adoption policy. However, these policies needed better clarity of access for same-sex couples and explicitly trans-inclusive language when referring to parents. Remove the terms "mother" and "father", to ensure that everyone within your organisation is covered by your policies. We"d recommend using gender neutral language, e.g. "pregnant employee"; "birth parent" and then "second parent"; "parent who has given birth" or "new mothers and
other pregnant employees". See Stonewall"s inclusive policy toolkit.
1.4. Whilst 'transexual' is still used by some members of the trans community, it's considered outdated and should never be used in place of "trans" or to refer to individuals/communities that do not explicitly self-determine as "transexual".

Most of the time the person dealing with the foi query knows the tricks, they know where they can use an exemption or not. So you’d have to really change the request, also you don’t want things to be reported to the ICO as vexatious. What I’d be interested in seeing is the percentage of public bodies who are signed up but can’t be arsed to jump through the hoops