Organisations Leaving Stonewall: The List

Can anybody explain this paragraph or give an example of cases being thrown out as unarguable, please?

I think there are only two, both about guidance documents. Ann Sinnott, and a 14 year old girl bringing a judicial review against the CPS for Stonewall's influence in their school hate crime guidance. These were hypothetical harms, and it was acknowledged that in cases where am actual person had been harmed it might have been different. "Case after case", while technically applicable to two cases, is arguably a tad misleading.

Note that the CPS had already withdrawn their contested guidance (and haven't reinstated it) and the EHRC has also changed theirs. So arguably no need for court intervention, from the perspective of the judge.

Exceptions - exemptions would suggest a need to apply for them.

I note that Stonewall's reciting of the equality act somehow missed out the bit about single sex exemptions...

Go and read the Equality Act 2010.

'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic.

Despite Stonewall’s insinuations today.

For employers who wish to go above and beyond the law in creating inclusive workplaces, we suggest that internal policies could refer to ‘gender identity’ as a term that more clearly includes all trans, non-binary and gender diverse people.

Yeah, let’s just encourage employers to misrepresent the actual law.

*Yes this was the Anne Siddot case - it's against the EA 2010 to exclude trans people from toilets, as gender identity is a protected characteristic.

*Sinnott

And everything else you've said is completely wrong:

The EA makes provision for single sex exemptions - the Sinnott case clarified that a GRC makes no difference here. Services can exclude people on the basis of sex when it's 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

'The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010'

'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

'Gender reassignment' is a protected characteristic.

'Sex' is a protected characteristic.

HTH.

Eyes opening That sounds just like a pyramid scheme....

Oh, and it's Sinnott, I believe.

1. No, it isn't.
2. No, it isn't.

Stonewall Law in action...

Yes this was the Anne Siddot case - it's against the EA 2010 to exclude trans people from toilets, as gender identity is a protected characteristic.

Sarah Phillimore has, erm, demolished this statement.

twitter.com/svphillimore/status/1401980812111798286?s=21

If you’re not on Twitter:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1401980812111798286.html

It is a thing of beauty.

[quote WarriorN]Btw, slightly off tangent, I've just come across this very useful collation of info on stonewall in recent years via various articles and situations

www.peaktrans.org/stonewall/?fbclid=IwAR0F7f5aXE-tmw1QZUZYcUN1R-vnsT74QR5XosRrgoHHw-0hzRqwQeE6u5c[/quote]
It’s June 2021 – Pride month – and how better to mark it than with a new page celebrating Stonewall UK?

"This page is for links to stories about the once great UK charity for gay men and lesbians, which is now set on a kamikaze mission to alienate as many as possible. There seems to be rather a lot of such stories at the moment, for some reason.

Dawn Butler’s Twitter poll didn’t quite produce the result she expected either. Oh dear, how sad, never mind"

Kamikaze mission really does sum up Stonewall's stance on the current situation

The appalling evidence of oppression... Nearly 900 FOI letters sent to organisations.

Or, two or three each for all the alleged (by Stonewall) diversity scheme public sector members.

None of which Stonewall should have been involved in answering.

O, the humanity.

Sloppy of Stonewall, if true. Misleading their customers, one might say.

I wondered if they were adding new sign ups but not removing those who left

My guess is that Stonewall have been adding members but not taking them off for years.

When the FOI campaign got going they suddenly realised that a lot of organisations were going to be saying that they had left, while the website would still show them as members. So they panicked and hid the list behind a login.

Content aside, that reads like it was written by someone unfamiliar with writing statements/reports. Quite clunky in its attempt to be conversational and slightly informal but not quite pulling it off. I wonder if their ‘u OK hun?’ person was involved?

North Lanarkshire Council’s removal is rather marvellous as they are one of the 16 Scottish Council’s that endorse the current LGBT Youth Scotland guidance to schools. Perhaps they will now review that endorsement...

And their statements are easy to check. They insist they haven't suggested removing 'mother' as a term. So if anyone has that noted in their feedback from stonewall that shows they are lying

Thanks @Mollyollydolly I see they are encouraging organisations to go 'above and beyond' the law again.

Rattled?

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-misinformation-about-diversity-champions-programme

Can anybody explain this paragraph or give an example of cases being thrown out as unarguable, please?

A number of groups have launched legal challenges to public sector organisations regarding their work with Stonewall, with case after case being thrown out as ‘unarguable

Stonewall have released a statement. Basically, .. those pesky women.
www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-misinformation-about-diversity-champions-programme