Also I do understand their rationale for wanting to support an organisation which on the surface represents LGBT people - especially as the profession is aiming to open up in diversity along many axes (including race and class also).
I understand the rationale, and given that recent past presidents of the RCVS have included a man who uses a wheelchair and a black woman, I suspect they actually have a much wider interest in diversity than Stonewall, which I find ironic.
Also, I don’t feel stonewall policy affects our patients/service users in the same way as medics and generally practices are smaller so staff changing areas/toilets are rarely shared in the same way.
I expect if you asked them, they would tell you the only people affected are the RCVS staff. However the social media policy has Stonewall’s fingerprints all over it and that does affect us. As well as the usual of missing out the protected characteristic of sex, they cover transgender identity instead of gender reassignment (there’s even a little reminder that transgender identity has to be taken more seriously as it’s covered by hate crime legislation). More seriously, I consider the remit is so broad that it is likely to have a chilling effect on free speech:
”veterinary surgeons should avoid making, posting or facilitating statements, images or videos that:
b. cause undue distress”
My guess is that lots of vets will be blissfully unaware of the policy, but I can imagine that if a complaint was received by the disciplinary committee, they might easily react in a kneejerk manner and tell the vet to stop posting. It’s not beyond the imagination that they would consult Stonewall either. Given what happened to Alison Bailey, I have no faith that any process would be fair and reasonable. I doubt they’d strike anyone off, but any vet told to shut up by the RCVS would be faced with a difficult choice as you can’t practice as a vet in the UK unless you’re a member.
Could you join forces with Hortensia and/or others and write a joint letter?
I did consider this, however such actions require contacts and as anyone following all this probably knows, one thing transactivists do very well is collective action. Given that I already know a few vets who are for women’s rights and recognize that Stonewall are actively campaigning to erode them, but who feel unable to reveal their names for fear of reprisals, I think any letter we sent would same met with a counter letter with more signatures.
I think what really needs to happen is that we need to raise awareness. Most vets at the moment are probably unaware that the RCVS is linked to Stonewall, and even if they know, most probably aren’t aware of how much their remit has changed and how damaging their policies are now.
Perhaps a very carefully worded letter to Kate Richards pointing out that big organisations, particularly government departments, are leaving stonewall might have an effect.
Having worked at a small charity I’d guess your letter has just reached someone’s Admin Assistant or middle manager.
I sent emails addressed to the president and the CEO and also to the general email address. It was carefully constructed and reasonable as I am aware that sometimes it would be easy to look overinvested or paranoid. I mentioned that other organisations were leaving and why.
I'm not a vet but I do use veterinary services. Is there anything we can do as customers that might help force change here?
It’s quite difficult, because there’s probably very little direct effect on clients. I guess if you’re a valuable client with close links, it’s a topic you might raise as something you’ve read about on the internet, but other than that, I don’t have anything at the moment.
I don’t have a network, so perhaps that’s something I need to think about as a first line. There’s no clear way forward at present, but I have felt quite cheered to know I’m certainly not the only person who cares about this.
I require my MRCVS to practice, I am required to pay the RCVS money to achieve this, RCVS funds Stonewall.
With my money. That I can't not give them.
This is what’s so galling. I hate the idea that I am supporting such a group, even if indirectly and even if it’s only a small part of the fees. It’s money that could be directed to something that was less damaging.
I feel there must be some sort of precedent for this - can professional bodies act in a political manner?
This might be something to look at. Given that government departments, the civil service and the police have all been signed up to Stonewall at some points, I doubt professional bodies are any different. I will try to look at whether there’s anything that might prevent them, however.