Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Stonewall at it again - no legal sense

62 replies

IslandsAround · 02/05/2025 14:32

on LinkedIn Stonewall posted the following nonsense -

The FA and Scottish FA have announced they are banning transgender women from women’s football, following the Supreme Court ruling.

It's important to remember that the ruling hasn’t gone through the parliamentary process yet and organisations should wait to see how statutory guidance is changed before making policy changes.

These announcements will be deeply upsetting for trans people, especially when they’re made with no clear plan for how they’ll still be included, and treated with dignity and respect.

Sport should be a place that is safe for all and where everyone feels welcome. Through our #RainbowLaces campaign, we know just how vital inclusion is.

Their total lack of basic legal comprehension is bonkers

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 02/05/2025 14:53

THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL COUNSEL ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER.

I thought OminousFlute's post needed to be bigger.

SquirrelSoShiny · 02/05/2025 14:51

GCAcademic · 02/05/2025 14:43

I don’t believe it’s stupidity, sorry. This is part of the same pattern of behaviour that they’ve shown for the last 10 years: deceit, obfuscation, deliberate misinformation. Fortunately many more organisations are wise to this now.

I would actually like to see a legal cease and desist heading Stonewall's way now. They don't make the law, they don't understand the law but they continue to muddy the public's understanding of the law because their grift relies on it. I would dig for any legal action on this to force them to comply with the law as it is, not some magical fantasy law in their collective heads.

ThatCyanCat · 02/05/2025 14:49

Anyone still using Stonewall for legal guidance deserves whatever they get.

BundleBoogie · 02/05/2025 14:46

Blackdow · 02/05/2025 14:35

I think they think it’s a new law, or that they need to wait for new guidance before implementing it. Guidance is coming, but it’s clear what it will be and people need to start following the law so the changes are starting. Stonewall don’t understand the law; that’s what caused all this in the first place.

Show quote history

I’m afraid that Stonewall understand the law very well, they campaigned for the removal of single sex exceptions from the Equality Act a few years ago - they are now just barefaced liars.

GCAcademic · 02/05/2025 14:43

I don’t believe it’s stupidity, sorry. This is part of the same pattern of behaviour that they’ve shown for the last 10 years: deceit, obfuscation, deliberate misinformation. Fortunately many more organisations are wise to this now.

DisappearingGirl · 02/05/2025 14:41

I wonder if any Stonewall staff ever have a "Are we the baddies?" moment, if they stop to think that they are campaigning against women being allowed to play football without any males joining in.

transdimensional · 02/05/2025 14:40

The EHRC will shortly open a consultation on a new Code of Practice (based on the SC judgment) and then once they finish work on the Code of Practice, it will be approved by Ministers and published. I'm not sure if there will be a parliamentary vote. But the Code of Practice cannot contradict the SC judgment. The SC judgment is already the law.

Darkgreendarkbark · 02/05/2025 14:38

Blackdow · 02/05/2025 14:35

I think they think it’s a new law, or that they need to wait for new guidance before implementing it. Guidance is coming, but it’s clear what it will be and people need to start following the law so the changes are starting. Stonewall don’t understand the law; that’s what caused all this in the first place.

Show quote history

My mind is just blown at the absolute stupidity. I know, it's Stonewall, but I thought they at least had a firm grasp of the lobbying and law-making process, if not of the actual law itself.

OminousFlute · 02/05/2025 14:37

THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL COUNSEL ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER

Never forget.

Blackdow · 02/05/2025 14:35

Darkgreendarkbark · 02/05/2025 14:32

What parliamentary process? Do they realise this is a clarification of a law that parliament passed 15 years ago?

I think they think it’s a new law, or that they need to wait for new guidance before implementing it. Guidance is coming, but it’s clear what it will be and people need to start following the law so the changes are starting. Stonewall don’t understand the law; that’s what caused all this in the first place.

Blackdow · 02/05/2025 14:34

How can they not see the irony in “safe for all?”

They are bonkers. Luckily, no business, insurance company or legal advisors worth anything are stupid enough to keep listening to stonewall.

Darkgreendarkbark · 02/05/2025 14:32

What parliamentary process? Do they realise this is a clarification of a law that parliament passed 15 years ago?