Open letter from FPFW to Execs and CEOs: You’re being taken for a ride

Good letter.

Fabulous letter. I can think of a long list of organisations it should be sent to.

They probably will just think you've lost the plot.

They're doing brilliant work

I actually phrased that badly. Should have said that some of the content of the very powerful letter was perhaps not best suited to the intended audience. Some of it is spot on.
And to repeat, FPFW have been a tour de force and just look at what they've achieved in the last year.

VanGoghsDog
I suppose this emphasises how important all the judicial reviews are. The ONS ended up looking like prats for arguing that sex was vague, undefinable and an umbrella term. Presumably we are going to have to unpick all this one lie after the other. Exhausting.

I work in the civil service and see this stuff creeping in.

I totally agree with comments about the legal advice. I recently questioned why our legally reviewed policy was written to suggest that "reasonable adjustments" applied to all protected characteristics, when it only applies to disability and we got some guff back about this being the way firms were going now, and I did wonder if this was a TRA thing. We took it out.
Sadly I couldn't take out where they claimed gender is a protected characteristic because all our team agreed that was right.
The legal advisors are one of the biggest and best known and advise all of government.
I don't think CEOs getting legal advice is going to make much difference, sadly.

Agree - getting in touch is the best idea. FPFW are doing important and brave work. Honestly in awe.
There's a contact us page on the website: fairplayforwomen.com/contact-us/

Agreed NiceGerbil. FPFW and Nic Williams have been outstanding. There's no shame in missing the mark with a publication - there was nothing wrong with much of the content - just not suitable for the intended audience - but that's easily remedied.

I also don't think that the tone of that will speak to the target audience.

I didn't say anything earlier as at least they're doing something! I don't like to criticise while sitting on my arse iyswim.

If anyone wants to offer to help etc I think getting in touch is a good idea.

Agreed StarintheMorning

We need something specific and clear about the dangers of political lobby groups (Stonewall etc) dabbling in school policy / practice for Heads and Governors. Stonewall are ramping up their champion schemes for schools and (according to their CEO) are desperate to get into primary schools.
Many more parents are now aware of their anti safeguarding / anti girl stance and are starting to object but they need something evidenced and coherent to use.

I am getting to a point at work where I expect to have to cross paths with SMT regarding mixed sex toilets, amongst other issues, and will need evidence to backup my GC views.

I wouldn’t feel comfortable using this, it's is badly written, tacky and with grammatical errors, which is such a shame as I will need all the help I can get!

FPFW have always produced wonderful, professional work, and been prepared to stick their necks out when other organisations have not, which makes me all the more disappointed, as I’m sure they can do better than this.

Hopefully FPFW will take on board the feedback - this is so important to get the message through to companies about the reputational damage that they will eventually face.

I found the informal tone quite jarring in general. FPFW are an absolutely amazing organisation, but I'm not sure who this letter is aimed at. I was hoping it was something I could show my employer, but I don't think it would have the desired effect.

I think this is a good start and a powerful read (for me). But I agree that CEOs need a shorter and more concise version that focusses on the potential legal fall out for ignoring the law about single sex spaces / exemptions.
And sadly we probably have to have some more court cases (like Allison Bailey & the MoJ case) where women who have been harmed by these illegal practices sue the pants off organisations who have knowingly harmed women.
And (while I'm on a roll) we urgently need something like this for schools.
But it's a great idea and yet again, well done Nic Williams and FPFW

I've read the letter now!
Although it's all true, I think this is a wasted opportunity. A serious and soberly worded letter, perhaps with real and hypothetical examples geared to particular types of organisations might indeed make chief execs start to worry. For example, the threat of law suits against health trusts, discrimination action brought by religious women against sports facilities, safeguarding scandal in schools...
As it stands, though, sentences like-
We are the ones who can help you get your policies right from the start.
surely sound like special pleading, the very thing the letter warns against.

there was an interesting programme on R4 this afternoon, repeated from 2019 about gay liberation (history of) they included a Stonewall founder, a lesbian, who explained that when Stonewall was first founded many gay activists were quite hostile, it was seen as selling out to lobby politicians directly, and she said that actually she wasn't so keen on gay marriage even ( a view I've heard myself from gay activists of that vintage)...anyway, my point is it seems Stonewall from the beginning saw it's job as speaking directly to those in positions of power and influence. I also discovered that the son of John Wolfenden (of the Wolfenden report was gay.

The ONS is looking pretty stupid right now.

I agree for those of us who understand the gravity of the mis-step and capture both for this specific issue and in the context of wider implications. Sadly, I think that's a comparatively small number of people.

I do note the disparity of the implication that one side is a hate group but no offer of support for the toll of that misrepresentation and the way in which it may well prejudice the chairing and tone of the meeting even before it convenes.

The lack of due diligence is consistent and deplorable. The cost of the unexamined cognitive biases and deference to eminence-based assumed excellence (deferring to an organisations's reputation) is huge and extends far beyond the financial. - Can any of these govt. or companies or VCS organisations assess the reputational harm and the enhanced burdens and harms for wider groups in society that flow from: dismantling safeguarding frameworks;
damaging democracy at a time of political and social destabilisation?

I'd be interested in a FOI request. But I will be asking all the above points of my MP.

Fully agree Michelle

Considering all the momentum we have at the moment around women’s safety and consent in school age teenagers I think laying out the facts about self identity at the start would have helped. We’re listening to women on one issue and immediately silencing them on another.

The ONS need to account for how they reached the radical decision of just not following process or democracy out of regard for extremity of vulnerability of one of the stakeholders.

On what grounds was this made? What process was followed? Where is this process in the Equality Act? If this was an attempt to make reasonable adjustments then the balancing/impact on all for this needs to be assessed and accounted for to demonstrate its reasonability. Not to mention this implies that all of those who were regarded as too vulnerable to cope with democracy and due process were all viewed as having a legal disability- this also needs to be unpacked. Did they all? Did some? Or was the transgender identity by itself the part that created this exceptional need, in which case on what evidence?

Again remember, the bloody cabinet representative sat in this meeting supporting the highly biased situation. The government can't just twist around and skip the bits of accountability and process that get in the way of personal hobby horses, they have a thing called public duty.