..to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools?

[ConcernedMum100]

AIBU to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools...

Historically, Stonewall has done amazing work and led the way for equality. However, over recent years their priority seems to be a different sort of activism, which has caused many of their original supporters to abandon them.

I want to stress that I am very much in favour of primary schools teaching about diversity and different types of families including same sex parents, etc. I believe that's very important. I do however have reservations with Stonewall for various reasons, as follows:

-Its school resources with regards to transgenderism and gender identity, such as An Introduction to Supporting LGBT children, breach the Department of Education’s guidelines in many ways, including the sexist and regressive suggestion that children enjoying clothes or toys typically associated with the opposite sex is a sign they may be transgender. The resources also say that children are given a label at birth (they mean their sex is recorded) and that sometimes this label will have been wrong. They are not referring to the tiny percentage of babies born with a DSD, but children whose gender identity is supposedly different to their sex. Whatever that means. The resources also say that a school should not tell the child’s parents about their gender identity if the child does not want them to. Which means they’re suggesting schools change a child’s name and pronouns without informing the parents. Seeing as they communicate that children with gender dysphoria are often vulnerable and even suicidal, this seems very irresponsible.

-Its stance on child safeguarding. Stonewall have been very clear that they disagree with the High Court’s ruling which concluded that children under the age of 16 are highly unlikely to be able to consent to puberty blockers. They are in favour of medicating children as young as 10 years old, who are experiencing gender dysphoria and say they want to live as the opposite sex. This follows research showing puberty blockers do not have a positive effect on the children’s mental health, but do cause issues with brain development and bone density. Nearly 100% of children who have taken puberty blockers go on to take cross sex hormones which will likely lead to loss of sexual function and infertility. There has been an alarming increase in children identifying as trans over the last few years and the reasons for this is unknown, and there has been no research to understand the apparent strong link between autism and gender dysphoria, nor homosexuality and gender dysphoria.

-Its stance on women’s single sex spaces. Via both Tweeting and their school resources, Stonewall have made clear they believe women and girls do not have the right to single sex spaces at time when they may be vulnerable, because they believe males who identify as women (the prerequisite of which is to declare themselves a woman-no need for any medical treatment or diagnosis) should be treated as females in every aspect of life. This means access to women’s communal changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, toilets, and rape shelters, to name a few examples.

-Its stance on women’s sports. Stonewall disagreed with World Rugby’s decision to prevent transwomen competing in women’s rugby. This decision was reached by World Rugby because they found that to include TW in the women’s teams would be unfair and unsafe (in increased risk to the women on the team by at least 20-30%) Stonewall appear to believe (and say) that inclusion comes above all else, even the safety of women and girls and their right to fair competition.

I don’t feel comfortable that an organisation with these highly controversial and political viewpoints has access to primary school children, whether it’s via face to face sessions, training school staff, or learning resources.

Of course Stonewall are not the only organisation which has these worrying beliefs. However, they are the biggest and most well funded. They are also listed on the Department of Educations “experts” page, despite breaching its own guidelines, which I think is wrong and also makes it very difficult for parents to complain to schools.

What are your thoughts?

Well we are happy to take our chances on that sunlight jj. Totes fine by me.

So how actively are Stonewall campaigning to remove the single sex exemptions? It's something that is often repeated yet I've never seen a poster from Stonewall calling for it, or even a tweet. I've barely even heard them mention it and not for years. They did recommend it in their evidence to the transgender inquiry nearly six years ago now on the basis it is hardly ever used, but I haven't seen any active campaigning on it since then. Is it even still their position? Has anyone ever checked with them?

Well, they said it here. Is there any evidence that this isn't still their position? Maybe you could check with them if you believe it isn't.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

Trans people aren't fighting for access to these spaces, trans people already use these spaces and always have. Trans inclusive laws have been in place since the 70s, were strengthened in 1999, and reinforced in the 2010 Equality Act. Lots of people are fighting to try and overturn those protections and obviously many trans people object to that but most trans people are just living their lives and using spaces inline with their aquired gender as they have done for half a century or more.

Again, the Equality Act set out exemptions in law. You know this. You keep denying this. It is not honest: please desist.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission had to withdraw their misleading advice, which denied the reality that single sex spaces remain lawful where relevant - examples given within the Equality Act include sports, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons etc - because it is WHOLLY lawful to retain single sex provision where women need it. They withdrew that advice, but have refused to contact all those to whom they gave that misleading advice, which is why they are now facing a Judicial Review, to force them to do so. Because that advice was completely unlawful, and has imposed detriment on women on the basis of sex across all manner of businesses and services - which is against the law. Women, as a sex class, are protected by the Equality Act. Allowing males to access services where we need single sex provision is, if we suffer detriment, unlawful.

You know this. Stop pretending that you don't.

In fact, the only people who don't seem to want to have a debate about it are transactivists? Funny

This is an interesting thread, where former Mumsnetter Trousering (who is personally known to me IRL) asked a QC who she was dealing with at work if the presence of cross dressing males in women's changing rooms etc could be considered illegal sexual harassment of women in and of itself. He said yes he thought it could.

Civil Service Trans policy - what can I do? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

Her conversation with the QC:

Clearly saw the problem and thinks it's quite concerning. Seemed alarmed that cross dressing at work for erotic purposes was included in gender reassignment.
Agreed completely that policies were supporting men to claim harassment in a situation where women were experiencing sexual harassment.
Said that there was a way through it by restricting this to genuine cases of transition.
No quick answer, needs more work.

[quote OldCrone]So how actively are Stonewall campaigning to remove the single sex exemptions? It's something that is often repeated yet I've never seen a poster from Stonewall calling for it, or even a tweet. I've barely even heard them mention it and not for years. They did recommend it in their evidence to the transgender inquiry nearly six years ago now on the basis it is hardly ever used, but I haven't seen any active campaigning on it since then. Is it even still their position? Has anyone ever checked with them?

Well, they said it here. Is there any evidence that this isn't still their position? Maybe you could check with them if you believe it isn't.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality[/quote]
I know, I already posted that they said it in a response to an inquiry question nearly 6 years ago. They don't seem to have mentioned it since though. Which strikes me as the very opposite of 'actively' campaigning for it which is what they are constantly accused of.

Brum- I think that’s a very common pattern. I’ve always always thought, and said publicly to anyone, that erasing the legal definition of woman, making it include men, was hugely dangerous. But there’s plenty other parts I wasn’t that fussed about. I’ve used lots various mixed sex parent provision happily, I’ve never gaf about pronouns before, I’d probably been ok with the likes of individual exceptions for non violent tw in prisons or similar. But standing by the need for women’s legal rights protections to be upheld means that over time it becomes very obvious how insanely insidious these little exceptions are, they add up time and time again and just take and take. I was totally fine with the situation 20 years or so ago where the odd tw politely and discreetly went about her life quietly using some women’s spaces at times. But we can’t go back to that. Because of how this has been used to launch such an outright terror attack on women it now needs a clear and resounding line drawn. And the the only possible line there is to draw is sex based.

In fact, the only people who don't seem to want to have a debate about it are transactivists? Funny

It's why they never answer perfectly reasonable questions. Just deflect and accuse.

@IWillSqueakAgain

Women using a women’s rights board to figure out how to bring women’s rights issues to the attention of more women.

It’s just so devious isn’t it!?

That isn't what I see as the nagging issue. Some people have been insistant on throwing Stonewall out all together. It should be addressed.

The pandemic alone has taught us that most humans are decent in abiding by the rules.
Society is largely safe by its own control. Thank goodness.They could have gone full on rebellious otherwise.

I'm not denying there are no issues around safe spaces. However, it's the tabloidesque approach to inflating a problem which so many may fall into the habit of.

I don't want to get into a fight about leftwing or right-wing. But compartmentalising is not beneficial. Maybe in terms of encouraging discussion - but not as a general certified message.

@wellbehavedwomen

Trans people aren't fighting for access to these spaces, trans people already use these spaces and always have. Trans inclusive laws have been in place since the 70s, were strengthened in 1999, and reinforced in the 2010 Equality Act. Lots of people are fighting to try and overturn those protections and obviously many trans people object to that but most trans people are just living their lives and using spaces inline with their aquired gender as they have done for half a century or more.

Again, the Equality Act set out exemptions in law. You know this. You keep denying this. It is not honest: please desist.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission had to withdraw their misleading advice, which denied the reality that single sex spaces remain lawful where relevant - examples given within the Equality Act include sports, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons etc - because it is WHOLLY lawful to retain single sex provision where women need it. They withdrew that advice, but have refused to contact all those to whom they gave that misleading advice, which is why they are now facing a Judicial Review, to force them to do so. Because that advice was completely unlawful, and has imposed detriment on women on the basis of sex across all manner of businesses and services - which is against the law. Women, as a sex class, are protected by the Equality Act. Allowing males to access services where we need single sex provision is, if we suffer detriment, unlawful.

You know this. Stop pretending that you don't.

But these exemptions apply to all the protected characteristics in the act. So if it could be shown to be a proportionate means of meetings a legitimate aim it would be legal to discriminate against lesbians and gays - and some religious employers do, often quite dubiously under the genuine occupational requirement exemption. Is this a sexuality based right? Is it a 'straight' right?

(My bold)

The Stonewall Definition of Trans

TRANS
An umbrella term to describe people whose gender isn't the same as, or doesn't sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gendervariant, cross- dresser, genderless, agender, non-gendered, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

The Stonewall Definition of Transphobia

TRANSPHOBIA
The fear or dislike of someone based on their being trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity

Is there a secret handshake I need to learn? Should I bump into a GC person in real life. Or most of the population as I like to call them.

Society is largely safe by its own control.

If you truly believe this is the case for girls and women, you are completely deluded I'm afraid.

I'm not denying there are no issues around safe spaces

It's not just safe spaces. It's many spaces that belong to women, hard fought for in sports, education, the workplace.....

So if it could be shown to be a proportionate means of meetings a legitimate aim it would be legal to discriminate against lesbians and gays - and some religious employers do, often quite dubiously under the genuine occupational requirement exemption. Is this a sexuality based right? Is it a 'straight' right?

It's a religion-based right, I guess. If it wasn't they wouldn't have put it in there? It's immaterial whether it's moral or not. And it's pure disingenuous whataboutery comparing this to the sex based rights to offer women a female only space or service. There are many occasions when that is a legitimate aim.

Trans people aren't fighting for access to these spaces, trans people already use these spaces and always have. Trans inclusive laws have been in place since the 70s, were strengthened in 1999, and reinforced in the 2010 Equality Act. Lots of people are fighting to try and overturn those protections and obviously many trans people object to that but most trans people are just living their lives and using spaces inline with their aquired gender as they have done for half a century or more.

Wrong. The pc of Gender Reassignment protects against discrimination on the grounds of being in the transition journey. It prevents employers sacking a person or bullying them because they are in that category.

It absolutely does not entitle anyone to access the spaces and facilities of the opposite sex in situations where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. So ALL female hospital wards, ALL rape shelters, ALL lesbian groups ALL endometriosis groups ALL breast feeding groups (you get the picture). The EA 2010 make it clear that it is lawful to discriminate and exclude people if the opposite sex (however they identify). Part of the confusion that Stonewall, EHRC et al have managed to create is based on the fact that the people who drafted the law didn’t anticipate that organisations would be persuaded to act AGAINST the best interests of the people the law was designed to protect ie. women. That is why it is not drafted to present it as compulsory to exclude (either that or they had this planned all along, it wouldn’t surprise me any more) but I think they assumed that any sane person would want to exclude people of the opposite sex.

The pc of Gender Reassignment does NOT confer the right to access spaces reserved for the opposite sex. When assessing a claim of discrimination against a male born trans person has the comparator will be a male who is not undergoing (or has undergone) and form of transition.

It is slightly different for people with a GRC but it is still lawful to exclude them from many single sex spaces.

Stonewall have been and continue to make false statements about the law in the same way as you jj. They have a very clearly stated mission to remove single sex exemptions- I saw it in their website recently- they may have hidden it because there is more heat but they are actively pushing through many channels including through Baroness Ruth Hunt (former ceo) in the House of Lords.

They are also very keen for male bodied rugby players (even the large one that was a youth player for East Wales) to play in women’s teams. It is all part of their narrative because if they concede that tw are not w for the purpose of sport it will call the whole concept into question so they are going all out on this regardless of the injuries or death (in rugby) this could cause.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

So if it could be shown to be a proportionate means of meetings a legitimate aim it would be legal to discriminate against lesbians and gays - and some religious employers do, often quite dubiously under the genuine occupational requirement exemption. Is this a sexuality based right? Is it a 'straight' right?

It's a religion-based right, I guess. If it wasn't they wouldn't have put it in there? It's immaterial whether it's moral or not. And it's pure disingenuous whataboutery comparing this to the sex based rights to offer women a female only space or service. There are many occasions when that is a legitimate aim.

It's not a religous based right because it's not dependent on religion. Any organisation could legally discriminate against gays and lesbians if they could show it was a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim - they don't have to be religious.

This is why the courts have maintained a high threshold of what counts as proportionate and legitimate - because otherwise the Equality Act would be meaningless.

[quote BrumBoo]@redpencil77 I have an non-sleeping 3 year old, so I'm sorry if I misread anything through sleep deprivation! It's amazing my fried brain can actually keep up with any of this 'confusing' GC jargon to start with .[/quote]
Thus is the poibt - you're frazzled yet here because you know it's important to have the conversation. I feel the same, or I did until recently - TW who genuinely want to be TW just going about their business. Now it's "xx-chromosomed humans aren't giving up more of their rights for us - we are going to heap back on them" - heaping back onto people doing the lion's share of society's tasks while defending themselves amd pointing out the inconvenient truths along the way, none of the recent trans arguments making much sense to begin with and a demand for logic to be suspended lest the xx-ers be accused of bigotry

@Ereshkigalangcleg

(My bold)

The Stonewall Definition of Trans

TRANS
An umbrella term to describe people whose gender isn't the same as, or doesn't sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gendervariant, cross- dresser, genderless, agender, non-gendered, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

The Stonewall Definition of Transphobia

TRANSPHOBIA
The fear or dislike of someone based on their being trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity

So by their own definition, Stonewall are not identifying Trabs as females, but as gender variant?

Stonewall have been and continue to make false statements about the law in the same way as you jj.

False statements that are agreed with by the Government Equalities Office, The EHRC, The Law Society, the MOJ, the CPS and pretty much every other legal body and government department. And which have been backed by court decisions. But I know lot's of people on the internet think they are all wrong and that a handful of unqualified gender critical bloggers are the best place to go for legal information.

[quote OldCrone]So how actively are Stonewall campaigning to remove the single sex exemptions? It's something that is often repeated yet I've never seen a poster from Stonewall calling for it, or even a tweet. I've barely even heard them mention it and not for years. They did recommend it in their evidence to the transgender inquiry nearly six years ago now on the basis it is hardly ever used, but I haven't seen any active campaigning on it since then. Is it even still their position? Has anyone ever checked with them?

Well, they said it here. Is there any evidence that this isn't still their position? Maybe you could check with them if you believe it isn't.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality[/quote]
In fairness to Stonewall, I think they've moved on from trying to get the exemptions removed. These days, I think they are far more focused on pretending that they don't exist - and then advising everyone they can that their preference that they didn't exist is already the law.

So they are arguing that exemptions never existed that they very recently wanted removed, and that rights always existed but also must be created, because at the moment the people who have always had these legal rights don't have any legal rights and this must change. And that it's all been fine for fifty years and nobody cared or made any sort of fuss, but there's also a long history of terrible legal and social oppression. It's... not the most coherent of arguments, is it?

The bottom line: we need to find a way to continue to protect women's rights on the basis of sex, while ensuring that trans people are protected on the basis of gender identity. Those things are separate. Biology is immutable, and women need provision accordingly, which is not accessible to male people. But we need to ensure trans people don't suffer discrimination or harm, too. And with goodwill, both of those could be reconciled. Because there is no sane reason that they shouldn't be - the one is biology, and the other personality. The provision should be different accordingly, but both should be there. Everyone should feel, and be, safe.

Of course, organisations whose relevance and survival rely on conflict and advocacy for change may not have the biggest incentive to advocate that path.

False statements that are agreed with by the Government Equalities Office, The EHRC, The Law Society, the MOJ, the CPS and pretty much every other legal body and government department. And which have been backed by court decisions. But I know lot's of people on the internet think they are all wrong and that a handful of unqualified gender critical bloggers are the best place to go for legal information.

And how many of these are Stonewall Champions?? The EHRC got called out and withdrew their advice. The court case is to force them to actually tell people about it.

Is there a secret handshake I need to learn? Should I bump into a GC person in real life

We have badges DialSquare

That's handy Whatsnewpussyhat. What with social distancing etc. And we mustn't forget the T-shirts!

@wellbehavedwomen those were fascinating posts! Via Transgender Trends I found this article: quillette.com/2021/02/04/first-do-no-harm-a-new-model-for-treating-trans-identified-children/.

I think it would not be unreasonable if there were financial and lifestyle audits conducted of the GIDS director Polly Carmichael and other senior management and connected interests. Their blanket refusal to listen to reasonable concerns of their staff, and willingness to act in violation of already lax protocols, looks like the behaviour of corrupt actors. It's easy to imagine them receiving kickbacks from the medical entities profiting from the referrals.