Stonewall at it again - no legal sense

This story now all over the media.

Stonewall have messed up again.

Either they continue to deny the law, but this time with a real threat of serious trouble.

OR

They admit they were wrong and that law right now says women get single sex spaces which wrecks their status with the TAs.

Stonewall charity status under threat unless it respects trans ruling
Women’s rights activists warn controversial campaign group of Charity Commission move over ‘unlawful’ advice
https://archive.is/MNekG#selection-2119.4-2123.112

Whatever happens the crisis continues and they lose status and money.

Some relevant history, I think:
After the EqA was passed, the EHRC drafted the initial 3 Codes of Practice, giving guidance on applying it (which have some legal weight, as I understand it, though less than the Act itself, so if they conflict, the Act is the ultimate authority): one for employers, one for services, public functions & associations, and one on equal pay.

However the documents they eventually produced in 2011 did NOT just reflect and explain what the Act says, but (esp. the employers' and service providers' Codes) included several simply incorrect/made-up sections claiming e.g. that "transsexual people" should be treated "according to the gender in which they present", allowed to use opposite-sex changing rooms, etc etc. At the time it seems the EHRC was heavily influenced by activists, and it was a Stonewall champion for many years (though not sure exactly when they joined; they also had an ex-Stonewall CEO as Chair for several years, though that was later!). This incorrect guidance was of course very influential on employers and service providers in writing their policies, & was widely quoted by TRAs to "prove" they had a right to use opposite-sex facilities, etc.

By 2022 though, after a number of court cases relating to sex and gender, and the drafting of new EHRC guidance on single-sex provision that ended up conflicting significantly with the CoPs, the EHRC accepted that they were "out of date, confusing, and out of line with the Equality Act and recent case law", as Sex Matters put it, and agreed to review and rewrite them. (The new Employers' one came out a while back, & the new draft Services one just before the FWS verdict, but will now need some more updating).

Presumably, having managed to influence the drafting of the previous Codes to the extent that they ended up not actually reflecting the law at all, the activists are now hoping they can pull off the same trick twice, and generate new guidance that gives them what they want, regardless what the EqA says. So no wonder they're telling everyone to ignore the actual law, & wait for the new guidance!
Luckily though, there is now a lot more scrutiny to ensure the new Codes, & any other new guidance, are 100% in line with the EqA and SC ruling this time. Plus we have the formidable Baroness Faulkner heading the EHRC now. So however much they scream and stamp, they're not likely to get away with that again!

Well done to sex matters. I really like that, despite the ruling, they're firing on all cylinders holding these people accountable

Well done sex matters . I think it’s really important not to let them carry on with the we don’t understand what can this possibly mean bullshit.

To be followed by let’s lobby for new legislation as it’s all so confusing bullshit as surely we didn’t mean to erase the existence of of the most marginalised group ever.

If they hadn’t rinsed the government for so many millions I’d wonder if Stonewall were funded by Russians / Chinese or the hard right looking to create dissent in society.

Amazing.

Have they responded? I’d love to know what they say when they do

Good night Stonewall. Get yourselves to bed. The game is well and truly up.

Brilliant! Well done Sex Matters!

Full letter here;
https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/letter-to-stonewall-ceo-and-chair/

Well done Sex Matters.

I know I shouldn't be, but I am still shocked that:

A. Stonewall is wilfully misstating the law, and
B. That it is complaining about TIM not being treated with dignity and inclusion because they are being excluded from women's football. What about the dignity, fairness and safety of women?

GLP favours that strategy from the most recent blog post. “We have plans for the money. And integral to those plans is that we won’t tell you what they are nor be held accountable for what we spend. Trust our behind closed doors policy.”

Good grief, that’s quite a list! Maybe we do the same as the NHS investigation thread, take a few each and write to them highlighting the illegal nature of Stonewall’s advice (and the ‘pyramid selling’ nature of the Stonewall Champions awards)
Just think how all that money could be being used to make life better for people who really need it :(

Behind-closed-doors shenanigans by the likes of Stonewall in cahoots with politicians and civil servants got us into this mess. May be they have revealed their sleight of hand, for they appear to expect the judgement of the Supreme Court to be overridden, nullified, by parliamentarians. I wonder what they know or have planned. Whatever it is, we can be sure that it will be cloaked in secrecy.

This is what persuaded them, and this is what will persuade everybody else.

TRAs have absolutely no chance of getting any government to rip up the definition of homosexuality, because men want into women's toilets and to play women's sports.

The irony of it being stonewall who is advocating for it is breathtaking.

And I still want to see the accountability. I want them and all their allies, including politicians, to be asked whether they believe in homosexuality.

I want to see the mental implosion of being asked that question whilst trying to maintain the image that you're progressive.

It's vastly frustrating that people have managed to evade it.

Sex Matters has a handy list here.

Breathtaking.

There are some words in the English language that I'm familiar with because I've seen them written down, I have an idea of what they mean from context, but I've never found out what they really mean. 'Hubris' is one of those words, and I looked it up recently.

Wikipedia defines it as
In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride combined with arrogance. Hubris is also referred to as "pride that blinds" because it often causes a committer of hubris to act in foolish ways that belie common sense.

In future dictionaries, they can save space and just write
'Hubris - noun: see Stonewall'

Is there any list of who Stonewall’s major clients are?

If so - the utter lunacy needs to be brought to their attention.

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1918001205466300834

Good luck to any government that tries to argue that a piece of paper can influence another person’s sexual preferences.

I've said it before - Stonewall position themselves as some sort of alternative government.

In fairness to Stonewall (and I completely disagree with their agenda), some of the original drafters of the bill stated that the Act was indeed intended to include transwomen (whether this is true or not I do not know).

Fortunately, I can help here.

No it is absolutely not true that some of the original drafters stated the act was intended to include TW.

Evidence: the recent SC decision stating 'women' referred to in the Equality Act are biological women and do not include TW.

In fairness to Stonewall (and I completely disagree with their agenda), some of the original drafters of the bill stated that the Act was indeed intended to include transwomen (whether this is true or not I do not know).
What you mean is that Melanie Fields says that woman was intended to include males with a GCR.
The Supreme Court was asked to interpret the meaning of the words woman, man and sex in the Equality Act 2010 as passed. What happened before that stage is irrelevant.
Melanie Fields was not part of the drafting group of lawyers in any case.

Regardless of the court issuing 'clarification', ultimately this should always have been addressed or redressed by Parliament and not the courts.
The court decides whether or not the wording is unclear and Parliament needs to legislate again. The Supreme Court decided that the Act was clear and coherent when the words woman, man and sex were given their natural meaning, and not when not.

But politicians have been too image conscious and 'politically correct' to legislate on this matter. One could argue therefore that the court has created policy here in 'interpreting' the law here as it was insufficiently clear and robust in the first place.
The law is actually very clear and robust. Misrepresentation by bad faith actors over 15 years had created an impression that it is not. The court does not and has not created policy.

It should have been much more specific. I do believe that this is for Parliament to now legislate on through the use of Statutory Instruments. The guidance will or should not be much more explicit. For reference I come from a legal background and have previously helped draft and interpret statutory instruments for the government.

However, until any statutory instruments are created, we should follow the judgement of the court. That's where Stonewall are wrong to imply otherwise.
If you mean that unless and until parliament or a minister with the competence to do so legislates differently, we should all follow the current law, I agree.

Edited for typos

Here's a helpful visual aid for Stonewall lawyers

I don’t know if it is stupidity I feel like it’s a deliberate attempt to obfuscate matters. There was so much wide eyed but what does it mean nonsense immediately afterwards.

I think by keeping pushing this line it keeps the debate live and encourages people / businesses to wait before implementing changes.

Of course if someone sues them in the meantime then stonewall will scamper off. I think it’d best to remember that Stonewall are a lobby group they state the way they wish the world to be and encourage others to agree regardless of the law or facts.

In hindsight the workplace equality index surely qualifies as a work of evil genius. Government departments falling over themselves to implement stonewall “law” to inch up the rankings.

I would love to know what is being put in place to make sure that doesn’t happen again.