If you were Stonewall WWYD?

I think I'd blame it all on Ruth Hunt (now a member of the Lords) who was CEO when the majority of this happened. I'd do like others suggested and get a report done up but one that laid the blame at her feet. I don't think the current CEO has been in the job long enough to be a scapegoat.

I think settling with Alison Bailey would be an excellent strategy although who knows if Alison would be amenable to settling, I would imagine it would take a lot for her to give up her case

And even if they could, I don't think they have anyone capable and/or willing to do it.

If I worked for them, I'd be brushing up my CV & I reckon I'd have a couple of months to exit with credibility.

If I were on the board - I'd be issuing a 'mea culpa' & agreeing that we'd got some shit wrong, & wanted to discuss that. Nancy Kelley would be under the bus, & to be cynical about it, she'd be carrying the can whilst everyone else rhubarbed about lessons learned, etc, etc.

If I'm predicting: doubling down followed by full on Kids Company wipeout, but it'll take a couple of years - it'll happen slowly, then fast.

If I were Stonewall and truly wanted transgender and gay people to be treated well, to be considered equal and to be free from harassment and violence, I’d be campaigning to address male violence towards men who do not conform to traditional male stereotypes.

I’d be saying trans women are men who choose, or who need, to live their lives outside of male norms and who should be free to so within men’s spaces, protected from assault and abuse.

I believe it is men that need to change and encompass diversity rather than compromising women.

The LGB and the T are diametrically opposed.

At best, the T has nothing to do with same sex-sex attraction so why on earth is this a cause Stonewall is spending resources on? At worst the T is actively homophobic (e.g. insisting lesbians should consent to sex with male-bodied people and gay men should consent to sex with female-bodied people as though same-sex attraction is a preference rather than innate.)

So I cannot see there's any way forward for Stonewall without the, dropping the T entirely.

But they can't do that because the insane atmosphere they've created that means even asking questions is met with threats and intimidation. They've checkmated themselves.

Fortunately LGB Alliance will be there to step into their shoes and ensure there is a charitable body continuing to look out for and campaign on behalf of gay men, lesbians and bisexual people.

To pick up a point earlier in the thread - I don't think Stonewall can/should assume that Barclays etc will continue to throw money at it. I think that the latest issues and departures of public bodies/a few companies have given the opportunity to a lot of women to get in touch with their diversity leads to question ongoing membership of Stonewall (and ensure they are aware of the current issues).

the only thing Stonewall can do to save itself is forget the bullshit and learn the law

It won't happen. I think it is one of those organizations where everyone just bullshits each other.

I was at one point quite closely involved and trusted it to do right by me.

This.

It's like the whole 'no, female people aren't having to self exclude and lose access to x y and z - because no one has any way to find them and produce statistics on this'. If I mention Pride now, to the same gay and lesbian friends I used to go every year with, eyes all roll. None of us have been in years, and are clear. Like Stonewall, it isn't for us any more.

I agree Shedbuilder; as a lesbian I will never forget nor trust them again. But sadly my experience is the same as ValancyRedfern’s: every gay and lesbian person I know personally, other than lesbian met through GC circles, supports Stonewall.

Sorry to reiterate, but a lot of LGB people hate Stonewall. I don't just dislike it or distrust it. I was at one point quite closely involved and trusted it to do right by me. Instead it's tried to erase me as a lesbian. It's ignored everything I've tried to raise with it. It's insulted and demeaned me. It wants me to accept that a person with a penis is a lesbian. It isn't just indifferent to me, it's my sworn enemy.

I don't suppose Bi and Gay people feel quite that strongly, but us lesbians will never, ever forget.

Every gay and lesbian person I know from outside of feminism still very much support Stonewall. As do most school leaders and pshe teachers. To us it's become a toxic brand, but there's no guarantee that will filter into the wider consciousness. I think they will double down, sit tight and hope this all blows over, while smearing all criticism as transphobia. It's worked for them so far.

Ucl gone , swim England gone

I wouldn't trust any research commissioned by stonewall into autism. They'd have to go a long way now to win back my trust.

I’m not sure anyone knows if ‘the majority’ of LGB people have abandoned Stonewall (though I wish it were true). There are certainly plenty online who are still dancing to Stonewall’s tune.

I think they should have supported the T from a position of reality. Acceptance of gender non conformity would have been something that everyone could have got behind. All this TWAW crap is what has caused so many issues. They will never gain acceptance the whole time they attempt to force people into believing something that isn’t real. Not sure the damage is fixable really.

Not a lawyer, so don't know what's possible, but I've certainly heard it mooted that Stonewall could be part of group of orgs sued in a class action by detransitioners.

I notice that they're recruiting a new head of media and a comms expert. www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/work-us
Wonder how that's going?

I suspect it won't be long now before there's a Public Inquiry and everything we already know, and more, will be spread out for public delectation. I don't see any way Stonewall can survive. There is no halfway elegant exit.

It's a toxic brand and will remain so for years.

There are three options that I can see:

Rebrand as a TQ+ organisation and carry on, much reduced and with beady eyes watching every move. Graciously hand the LGB baton to LGB Alliance, acknowledging that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between LGB and TQ+

Commission an independent investigation, get all the dirty laundry out in public so that it isn't revealed in a Public Inquiry or the Allison Bailey case. Apologise for destroying one of the most well-regarded LGB orgs the world has seen and go quiet for a couple of years.

Carry on regardless and go out in flames.

My money's on option 3.

(That's ceiling-plaster in the Brown Windsor...which isn't a bad allegory for what's happening to the Wall).

They've just appointed a senior marketer as vice chair of the board of trustees so I think they are thinking ahead to the brand impact.

Successful enough marketing has never been a problem for them. The problem is having reached the point of being openly called controversial in newspapers, and being noted as having given advice incompatible with law and equality for all nine protected groups under government funding.

Can you imagine the workplace ethos? Anyone not fully committed to the beliefs their work is based on would not have survived there. The proportionally low numbers of female people, in particular lesbians who are female within their staff has also long been commented on. No one not wholeheartedly believing that they are right and justified would not have survived for long in post. A change of CEO will not fix that. The issues being noted by their customers are not bugs, they are features, if not the main body of the hard drive.

Could they not just decide to shrink? Surely many of the staff will just jump ship with this going on, and they just become a smaller charity with a more limited advocacy scope?

I'd look to find a way to not abandon trans rights without it involving loss of rights for the others though. I'm sure many trans people are just as bewildered by the recent nonsense as the rest of us.

For people to be able to be out and proud about both their sex and their gender;

I don't know about this @JuneJustRains. This idea is built on a regressive gender ideology. Anything that regressive is usually unhelpful for LGB people as it is old-fashioned and small c conservative. If they want to protect people's rights they would be better of challenging the regressive concepts rather than trying to find a way around the damage they do (as that's not possible). How about "for people to be comfortable to be whatever they want to be regardless of outdated gender stereotypes"

They've just appointed a senior marketer as vice chair of the board of trustees so I think they are thinking ahead to the brand impact.

And Mitch Oliver (the marketer I'm meaning) is very smart and I've always respected her. Not sure if she's down the rabbit hole on gender though.