..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?

@Sulkywoman

Has he, oops they ,gone yet?

What's that in reference to?

As in it is still sexual assault in real terms but possibly not legally.

Agreed. I would like to know the legalities of this. Exhibitionism/voyeurism are forms of sexual assault.

It seems to me that in other words, this is state enabled - mandated, even - sexual assault of women who are already vulnerable, already likely to have a history of abuse.

How many women would find it deeply degrading and distressing to be forced to be naked in the presence of a male person they do not wish to be naked with?

Some will of course say they wouldn’t have a problem with that at all. Many of us would say differently.

And once again, what about girls getting changed for a swimming lesson? Do they have the right to a single sex space for that? Stonewall says no. They don’t. Bearing in mind too that some of these girls will also inevitably already have been sexually abused, because that is the reality of the world we live in.

Consent doesn’t seem to matter after all, despite all the noise about #metoo.

what made me rage was the way it was described by a male prison officer "some of the women found it awkward". How to be dismissive of a truly degrading and humiliating instance of sexual harassment of women.

Yes, Ereshkigal.

And at the opposite end of the spectrum, fantastic, well informed and utterly genuine posts from LangClegsInSpace. I applaud you.

And I love the bullshit asymmetry principle - so fucking true!!

Which means that any organisation that performs a public function must have due regard as to whether they should be using one or more of the EA exceptions in order to meet their PSED.

I'd like to repeat this statement from LangClegsInSpace.

To paraphrase: any public sector organisation has the requirement of Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). If women's rights to equality can only be upheld by implementing one of the single sex exemptions, that is what they are required to do, balancing against the other protected characteristics. So it's different for people with a GRC who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment than it would be for cross dressers for example.

But if women's privacy and dignity is considered, yes they need to use the exemptions.

@IWillSqueakAgain

Surely the only true ‘living as a woman’ trope would be in tw shut up and put other women first automatically.

That’s what women do continually, world over. Put everyone else’s needs ahead of our own. Prioritise others safety before our own. Be quiet about our feelings incase we burden others.

If tw truly had some innate female essence this is the behaviour they’d display while ‘living as a woman’.

Worth repeating.

Even if they get rid of their penises and beards (which 80% of them don't), their socialised masculine entitlement gives them away.

You can to some extent take the man out of the entitlement class, but you can't take the entitled socialisation out of the man.

I would be very interested to see how many schools Stonewall have influenced. They claim to have influenced the employers of 1/4 of the uk working population presumably through having 850 organisations that are ‘Stonewall Champions’.

They seem to have representation in the oddest of places (like the policy making panel of the Royal Obs/Gyn Society where the Stonewall representative was born male and therefore can have no useful input in policy affecting women’s health problems and has taken a place that a woman should have had).

The Nursing and Midwifery Council has a Stonewall representative on their committee. The report on discrimination they published didn’t look at the protected characteristics of either Sex or Maternity/pregnancy and was full of Stonewall Stock phrases like ‘gender assigned at birth’.

For a ‘small charity’ they certainly seem to get around.

I wonder how many other influential unions and organisations have either a Stonewall representative in a position of influence or are just fully signed up to the ideology. Many unions I have come across have shown their commitment by giving evidence to the GRA consultation in support of self id- and as far as I can tell without consulting their members.

I would suggest that any medical or teaching professionals seeing this check their unions stance on this and write to them if you don’t agree with them. I’ll put the link to the GRA evidence submissions in the post below so you can see if your union or employer made a submission on your behalf.

committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/written-evidence/

Link to the written evidence submitted by people and organisations in response to the second GRA consultation. They included a question on whether the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the two year ‘living as’ should be removed as a part of the GRC application, therefore making it on a self id basis.

committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/

Please note there is another oral evidence session with the lawyers coming up.
Mug anyone is interested I would also recommend watching the previous oral submission session with Professors Whittle, Sharp (sorry can’t remember the last name) and Professors Freedman, Stock and Sullivan.

The change in attitude of the committee towards the female Professors is marked.

I watched that gardenbird, it was shocking how the tone was so different to the women on that committee.

Just been looking at the Jackie Weaver thread and as someone over there said, when we've stopped laughing, we really need to have a conversation about how men treat women in the professional sphere - seeing that committee meeting where there was that sudden shift of lack of respect for women, ties directly into it. The reason women are celebrating Jackie Weaver, is because this is the sort of shit we've had to put up with for years (transwomen don't experience it because men don't treat them as women) and it's really startlingly obvious in that committee meeting. I was gobsmacked by it.

@MaudTheInvincible

non trans women

Nice

I agree Maud

Referring to women as non transwomen on Mumsnet of all places!

Brilliant tactic (not)...

@ScreamingBeans

I watched that gardenbird, it was shocking how the tone was so different to the women on that committee.

Just been looking at the Jackie Weaver thread and as someone over there said, when we've stopped laughing, we really need to have a conversation about how men treat women in the professional sphere - seeing that committee meeting where there was that sudden shift of lack of respect for women, ties directly into it. The reason women are celebrating Jackie Weaver, is because this is the sort of shit we've had to put up with for years (transwomen don't experience it because men don't treat them as women) and it's really startlingly obvious in that committee meeting. I was gobsmacked by it.

Haha I’m going to have to watch the Jackie Weaver video - it sounds great. And yes, I think this need to be addressed across the board.

The recent hard push to promote regressive sex stereotypes and reducing women to a feeling in a mans head that is indicated to the world by some lipstick (Eddie Izzard) and the demand for use of incorrect pronouns when the person isn’t even present is contributing to this.

Stonewalls obsession with promoting this in schools and to ever younger children (their latest campaign targets primary school children) is a tactic designed to embed this in the impressionable minds before they are old enough or develop the critical thinking to question it.

Stonewall is a political organisation- it had a manifesto relating to the last election. It should be nowhere near schools, the police, the CPS etc with its political and damaging ideology. And we the taxpayers are paying them to try and change the law against the interests of women and children!!

Back in the days of the so called 'real life test' when trans people were forced to 'live in' their aquired gender for two years before being able to access any treatment it meant dressing in clothes designed for women and using women's spaces.

jj Raises an important point, the doctors who offered 'transition' to sex-dysphoric men required them to use female spaces & services for two years as part of their 'test'.

Gender doctors provided letters of authorisation for males during this time in case they were questioned.

Whilst many saw the doctors role as 'gatekeepers' of desired surgery/medical intervention, the doctors also acted unilaterally as gatekeepers to women's spaces & services. They opened the gate without women's consent. The impact on girls and women was not considered.

Transactivists have since lobbied to enshrine in policy and law the right for males on the basis of their self-identifying as 'trans' to access women's and girls spaces, disregarding and undermining sex based Safeguarding.

From 2015 Stonewall (with others) lobbied to remove the possibilty of women's spaces being permitted under the Equality Act and was very close to success.

7th June 2018 James Kirkup provided the timeline, see link for embedded sources:

(extract)
"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

Any lobbying organisation which has campaigned to remove from the Equality Act the legal protection for female only spaces, services and appointments has no place in schools.

YANBU

ROwantrees great post as usual.

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

How any parent/carer of a girl or female teaching staff supports a lobby group with this explicit intention having any influence in schools is quite beyond me.

Thanks for giving a good example of the kind of misinformation I was talking about though.

I will try once again with this. The post that jj was referring to here as being misinformation has been deleted.

I reported the post at the time, and received a reply from MN saying that this poster had deregged and it was fairly likely they weren’t posting in good faith. I just want to point this out.

The blatant lie was not allowed to stand, which should be reassuring for everybody.

prisencolinensinainciusol2 thank you for your comment upthread, I have been enjoying your posts too

Stonewalls obsession with promoting this in schools and to ever younger children (their latest campaign targets primary school children) is a tactic designed to embed this in the impressionable minds before they are old enough or develop the critical thinking to question it.

Stonewall is a political organisation- it had a manifesto relating to the last election. It should be nowhere near schools, the police, the CPS etc with its political and damaging ideology. And we the taxpayers are paying them to try and change the law against the interests of women and children!!

Hear hear, gardenbird

If they keep denying women their rights then they will stick together.

Women are abused massively.
Sometimes in what are deemed ' healthy' relationships.

Women need to think twice about being in relationships that aren't equal - especially in the bedroom.

Otherwise it just becomes another chore.

I have read the thread, so apologies if I've missed someone posting this. This is from a leaked transcript between the ex Chair of Stonewall and an unnamed bank - it's pretty clear that they intend to use the usual 'operate in the shadows' tactics to infiltrate schools.

“In primary schools we’ve just started to do it now, so again it’s education packs and materials to get them into the hands of teachers and staff so they feel able with their governing bodies to formulate the relevant policies…”

“A couple of years ago we were given a grant by the government to do work in 250 Faith schools which was incredibly important….we can make the mistake of thinking of, you know,faith schools, absolutely hopeless. They vary enormously.So we’re not so much targeting parents, we’re really trying to influence school governors, the headteachers and staff themselves, who want to champion it…..that’s who we really want to educate andmake them feel empowered so they’re not fearful of, you know, gender neutral toilets or whatever it is.”
Full text here:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/leaked-transcript-confirms-stonewalls

@jeaux90

This is what they lobbied for. The removal of single sex spaces

I have very deep concerns that Stonewall have captured many influencers and lawmakers in the UK. Some Labour politicians have swallowed the line and are being very bullish about it, in spite of it being contrary to their 2019 manifesto pledge to respect single-sex places. Stonewall’s funding is opaque and I suspect many avenues of their funding have links with Pharmaceutical companies and those who provide surgical reassignment. “ Follow the money” is always a good recommendation.

Thanks for that, and I think that was where the representative was very critical of Liz Truss and which was hugely inappropriate given the situation of the meeting.

How much is it going to cost the taxpayers to rewrite all the wrong policies in schools and reverse all the unlawful changes encouraged by Stonewall’s lies, like mixed sex toilets etc. After the taxpayer pays for a direct government grant to Stonewall and pays again through training and membership fees for schools, police etc.

Is their funding opaque? Shouldn't charities be pretty open about their finances?