Department for Education leaves Stonewall

I hope the universities and NHS will follow. Concerns about free speech should be a red flag to all organisations who pay SW. I would imagine all local authorities will be moving to end their agreements. I hope the likes of global butterflies aren't going to be used in the same way though.

I guess if SW is just replaced by another, similar group it just goes to show that the real problem is the underlying problem is how these outside organizations are being set up for this work.

It's crazy when you think about it. Some person or people just set out their shingle to offer training in some area, and organizations hire them. I had training at my work last year, the woman was nice enough, but researching her, she really didn't have any kind of special qualifications or anything. She made a pretense of being evidence based but even minimal digging showed it was pretty contentious evidence.

This article in The Times has a passing mention: This week the Department for Education became the latest public body to disassociate from the charity.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/497f425a-f93a-11ec-84c1-32e852e780b0?shareToken=939740c8ae4f08fcf8342e1e4ca941ce

I want this to be true so much!

Wow! Talk about a gravy train.

I saw some non binary training person going into schools for a day for £300 a pop on twitter.

That's my annual resource budget for two subjects combined.

Christ, this boils my piss.

I know my university - with about 1000 students - added three FT positions in the DEI sphere in the last three years or so.

Still no official confirmation - I'm concerned that this has been a false start, unfortunately. But one day very soon...

We had work training from them recently. I'm hoping the whole thing came across as so emotive and hideous that most people could see it for what it was. Some brave soles in the comments brought up sport and the BBC impartiality thing haha.

What good news.

I haven’t seen this reported anywhere yet - is it definitely confirmed?

Not only left Stonewall but kicked them in the balls on the way out! They could have gone with a mealy mouthed 'value for money' but they didn't.

Under partiality rules teachers aren't even allowed to be critical of Boris or Starmer.

The hyperbole about this being a "disaster" is bollocks.

As a few other posters have asked, has this been officially confirmed yet?

I often appreciate the unintentional hilarity of those obsessed with challenging women and facts on here. It not only keeps interesting threads bumped but it allows so many intelligent and articulate posters to expose the shallowness of those who insights are limited to borrowed political slogans.

Please don't derail the thread, it's against Talk guidelines. This thread is about the DfE and Stonewall.

I do love conspiracy theories, and those who believe in them, it’s fascinating from a psychological perspective.

This silly idea that there’s a cabal who want to take away women’s right to employment; did you come up with it yourself, or is it someone else’s view that you are repeating?

Where? Can you point to any examples of it here?

Are you possibly taking some statements of fact as being abusive, such as when people say that trans women should not be allowed in female spaces?

Exactly. There are huge problems once lobby groups start flexing their muscles and assuming rightly or wrongly that they can exert control over legislative bodies to change peoples mindset about social issues. Stonewall has done it here, the gun lobby has done it in the US. Next thing the tobacco industry will be advising on health issues and telling us to be kind to smokers because they only want to live their authentic lives and allowing them in to share our smoke free indoor spaces is the kind thing to do.

Saw a headline years ago about the First Pregnant Man.
Assumed it was some bizarre and alarming experiment.
But it was just a woman who ID’d as a man.

Completely misleading and making a story out of nothing.

Tim Loughton asked a series of written questions of a lot of (all??) government departments. I think it's Diversity Role Models that there was understandable concern about as regard child safeguarding - because of the "love has no age limit" story:

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2020/06/18/love-has-no-age-a-letter-to-asda/

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/asda-sparks-furious-paedo-backlash-22201608

IIRC, it was just after this that the NAHT chose DRM as their charity:

https://www.naht.org.uk/About-Us/Organisations-we-support/Diversity-Role-Models

But there's no date on that link and my recollection could be incorrect.

Loughton asked a question about the due diligence that DfE carried out before working with DRM:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-01-25/111478

(Not sure the due diligence question was strictly answered...)

You can search all the written questions here and I don't think the DfE had paid Global Butterflies but have a look:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk

This is the Diversity Role Models answer for the DfE:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-12-16/94270/

"£187,530.00 grant funding for the period from 10 August to 31 March 2022 [and] payment of £57,057.45 in April 2016 and were provided with £131,231.25 to as part of... 2019-20"

A really good place to start would be to read through some of the threads on this board.

I was once you, relatively recently infact. You think the obvious ritousness of left wing ideas is enough, and you dont need to bother with details, or even facts that contradict your idology.
As someone who has been where you are, I am telling you, seriously, you really really DO need to SERIOUSLY engage with opposing arguments.
If you have any commitment to the commons in society then you really really need to realise the current 'left' desperatly need to look critically at themselfs and engage with what you call the 'culture war' and LISTEN to what people are desperatly trying to tell you.

The problem is (as we saw in the Bailey case) that decisions about joining HR and EDI initiatives that have massive ramifications on whole institutions are often taken by people of relatively low authority. This shields both the decision from scrutiny (it flies under the radar) and often the most senior people from accountability. They just say they didn’t know (often they didn’t).

Ministers need to start (and they are starting) to issue instructions saying no schemes of this nature without their personal sign off.

If be concerned about Global Butterflies being an alternative

That was just speculation on Twitter wasn’t it? Other orgs that dumped Stonewall went to them, but I’d be surprised if they did here, given the pointed emphasis on free speech.