Organisations Leaving Stonewall: The List

[quote Helen8220]@ArabellaScott I wasn’t aware of this incident, I’ve just been looking into it. It seems the basis of the criticism related to the following:
“The policy said it was unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity or trans status. But Reindorf’s report said this did not accurately state the law, since “gender identity or trans status” were not protected characteristics; rather, the protected characteristic was gender reassignment.”

This feels like a fairly minor semantic issue. Given that a court recently held that a non-binary person was protected from discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, surely anyone whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth must share this protected characteristic, so the policy statement doesn’t sound that misleading to me.[/quote]
It's not a minor semantic issue, it's literally what the debate is about. What is a gender identity? What is sex? What is a woman? The wording of the act was clearly written to protect what we traditionally used to understand as transexuals - people who genuinely wanted to pass as the other sex and were taking or were planning to take steps to transition. When society is organised using categories those categories need to be defined and the definitions have actual real world consequences because they determine who is allowed into the categories and who is excluded.
Being included may bring important legal protections and being excluded may mean losing rights, as in this case. Part of the problem is that one side of the debate seem to think that they can change the categories as they please without any debate or consideration of other stakeholders in the debate around those categories. And then they deny and minimise the importance of that and aggressively accuse any other attempt to discuss the categories as transphobic. It's all classic abusive tactics:. define the terms yourself, attack anyone who disagrees, deny you are doing it, minimise it's importance, deny the impact on the other, accuse the other of abusing you and position yourself as victim, get others to support you in your victim status and get them to attack the 'abuser'. Stonewall refuse to even have the debate, and anything that 'can't be discussed' is a red flag that somebody's rights are being bulldozed. When someone refuses to have the debate it means they aren't interested in how their stance impacts others, they just want to get their own way.

any more names?

Haha Dorset Police. I’d leave that one out it looks a bit pathetic tbh.

I’m still not sure what the big deal is with all this Stonewall stuff. I’ve missed a step obviously. Does it really mean anything?

Twitter is suddenly full of various GC types claiming (as usual I guess) that the tide is/has turning/turned but I’m a big baffled tbh. Some kind of ‘win’? Shrug.

The Trans/NB kids you come across on TikTok and Instagram don’t give a f/ck. There’s thousands of them and I’d be astonished if even one of them had heard of Stonewall.

[quote Helen8220]@ArabellaScott I wasn’t aware of this incident, I’ve just been looking into it. It seems the basis of the criticism related to the following:
“The policy said it was unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity or trans status. But Reindorf’s report said this did not accurately state the law, since “gender identity or trans status” were not protected characteristics; rather, the protected characteristic was gender reassignment.”

This feels like a fairly minor semantic issue. Given that a court recently held that a non-binary person was protected from discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, surely anyone whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth must share this protected characteristic, so the policy statement doesn’t sound that misleading to me.[/quote]
But someone who has a gender identity which is congruent with their birth sex does not have a pc of gender identity, because the pc is gender reassignment. So, I think the clarity is important.

they’ve undertaken a fair bit of research and published guidance on issues that affect gay and bisexual women over the years

Are the lesbians in your workplace allowed to state that a lesbian is a same sex attracted female whose sexual orientation is a protected category, and does not involve or include anyone with a penis regardless of how a male identifies, or would they be called a bigot and phobic for that?

Does your workplace use the exemptions in the Equality Act to provide single sex toilets and/or changing rooms for staff?

I really can't stand the gaslighting training and the whole 'ally' bollocks because it's ONLY ever about the 'T'

I don’t know why any organisation needs to subscribe to a lobbying group? That is bias from the outset. Unless they are completely squeaky clean and absolutely without bias, I think it is quite dangerous for large organisations to hand over their equality legalities to a charity.

@Wandawomble they’ve undertaken a fair bit of research and published guidance on issues that affect gay and bisexual women over the years (as well as their campaigning on issues of more general relevance to all L, G and B people, eg on gay marriage and hate crime). Eg
www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/Double-Glazed_Glass_Ceiling.pdf

www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/pregnant-pause-guide-lesbians-how-get-pregnant

www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/Domestic_Abuse_Stonewall_Health_Briefing__2012_.pdf

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/groundbreaking-research-lesbian-bi-and-trans-exclusion-across-21-countries-out-margins

@TrainedByCats I have expressed my personal views very candidly on various threads here, so I don’t think it would be appropriate to say who my employer is. Particularly given the hostility that some people here seem to have towards Stonewall and anyone who supports them.

[quote Helen8220]@Wandawomble my organisation is about 60% women, and given my active role in the LGBT+ network, I know quite a few gay and bisexual female colleagues. From conversations with a number of them around this it seems that most of them (like me) regard Stonewall as a force for good, and as representing our interests.[/quote]
How do they represent women and lesbian’s interests exactly?
Do you think they represent all women’s interests? What about the women who are saying they don’t represent their interests?

@ArabellaScott I am a lawyer, and I’d say the precise words used are sometimes crucial, but sometimes a distraction from substance and meaning.

It’s particularly difficult to use language clearly and precisely when talking about sex and gender in the context of the law, because the legislation in this area is not entirely consistent or clear in its use of the terms. The Gender Recognition Act mostly talks about gender, and makes clear that a person can change gender, but does also talk about a person changing sex. Similarly the Equality Act, in the context of gender reassignment, talks about a person’s sex being reassigned.

So in that context I’m not sure how much I would criticise Stonewall for using the terms in the way it did.

surely anyone whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth must share this protected characteristic

Well, I'm no lawyer. But I would guess 'semantics' are probably very important when an organisation's raison d'etre is advising on legislation & the law.

If a 'gender identity' is something separate from sex, and something that can be changed, sometimes frequently changed in the case of 'gender fluid' people, then how is gender identity related to sex, at all? Surely everyone's 'gender identity' is different from their sex? (Sex doesn't change; it's not possible to change, so 'at birth' is extraneous).

Is it also a 'fairly minor semantic issue' that an academic was no-platformed from an event about the Holocaust - entirely unrelated to her views on gender?

And that this happened because Stonewall's advice had led many people to think that this type of bullying was acceptable?

@Wandawomble my organisation is about 60% women, and given my active role in the LGBT+ network, I know quite a few gay and bisexual female colleagues. From conversations with a number of them around this it seems that most of them (like me) regard Stonewall as a force for good, and as representing our interests.

Excellent thread. I'll be writing to the university DD is going to in autumn.

@ArabellaScott I wasn’t aware of this incident, I’ve just been looking into it. It seems the basis of the criticism related to the following:
“The policy said it was unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity or trans status. But Reindorf’s report said this did not accurately state the law, since “gender identity or trans status” were not protected characteristics; rather, the protected characteristic was gender reassignment.”

This feels like a fairly minor semantic issue. Given that a court recently held that a non-binary person was protected from discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, surely anyone whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth must share this protected characteristic, so the policy statement doesn’t sound that misleading to me.

“Good Ally”
Except not to women or lesbians.

I don't think it's derailing, to hear from someone who still supports Stonewall. Interesting to hear that there are still people who feel they provide a valuable service.

Helen, you don't find their misrepresentation of the law an issue, at all? I'm being genuine, here, I'd like to know what you think.

.

House of Commons.

no one likes a tourist

Anyone know what reason MHCLG gave for leaving? I work for an arms length body funded by the Department which is all over Stonewall like a cheap suit, and might mention it if I get the opportunity without being sacked...

So we have the following confirmed:

EHRC
ACAS
House of Commons
DVLA
Dorset Police
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire CCG

"On May 18th an independent report into no-platforming at the University of Essex by Akua Reindorf, a highly respected barrister, showed how the charity’s advice to its Diversity Champions contradicts UK equality law. Following this advice puts an employer at risk of committing unlawful discrimination and condoning workplace bullying. Influenced by Stonewall’s elastic definition of “transphobia”—to include, among other things, defending the current wording of the Equality Act, and women’s legal rights to single-sex spaces and sports—Essex University had breached two visiting professors’ freedom of expression. It had also failed to investigate threats of violence against one of them and a tweet by a staff member comparing the views of the other—a Jewish human-rights professor—to Holocaust denial. Reindorf recommended that the university consider breaking from Stonewall “in light of the drawbacks and potential illegalities” that had arisen from the relationship."

My organisation still supports Stonewall as far as I know, going so far as to have gender neutral toilets to move up in their rankings, despite opposition from staff.

Ironically it indirectly discriminates against women on its overtime policy, which has been pointed out to them on several occasions, but I guess women don't matter as much as other groups .