My response to Virgin Money:
"Thank you for your prompt reply.
I would first like to correct an inaccuracy. Stonewall was established to campaign for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual rights, albeit often working alongside transgender charities. Only in 2015 did Stonewall announce a plan to campaign for trans-equality despite having previously maintained "a strict distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity." This has caused a profound change in the organisation which has seemed to move rapidly from the positivity and the openness that the rainbow flag symbolises, to a "Transwomen are Women" #no debate. I think it is reasonable to suggest that not all members of the Stonewall trans-advisory board are people whose personal or Twitter histories would withstand much scrutiny, one example being Aimee Challenor who, until she resigned a month or two ago, was under investigation by the Green Party.
As you acknowledge, a conflict exists between transgenderism and sex-based women’s rights, and it is right for these issues to be debated respectfully. The rapid change in Stonewall's policy and approach is attracting criticism from both inside and out, this petition being one example: www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach There is a genuine concern that Stonewall, through its training, advice services and Workplace Equality Index, wields significant power across both in the public and corporate sectors, without the organisation itself being subject to any effective checks and balances.
I also think you are being disingenuous. You say that you are not partisan on specific recommendations that Stonewall have made - you are passionate about fairness, equality and inclusion for everyone. Yet you allowed your corporate logo to be used on a high profile National advertisement which linked directly to obviously partisan advice. If you have a genuinely neutral stance, and given your expertise is in providing banking services, I can't see why you should not, you could have withheld your support, insisted that the link was to the Government's consultation, or insisted that a balancing second link was made perhaps to Fair Play for Women.
This matters. My mother, your customer is vulnerable. You know this because you allowed me to be registered as her Attorney. As someone with dementia it is important that my mother is able to access intimate care form people she believes are women, rather than people who self-identify as women, so that she can retain her trust and dignity. Equally people with dementia lose their filters, and one not-uncommon sign of this is sexual dis-inhibition. Those working in elderly care are used to f ensuring that vulnerable people are protected, at times by taking steps to ensure that sleeping accommodation for male bodied people is separate from that for female bodied people.
I hope you can understand why I am so disappointed by your organisation's public endorsement of the link to the Stonewall GRA consultation guidance. Inter alia I hope you will be able to consider ways in which your passion for fairness, equality and inclusion can be applied to considering how to help older people overcome barriers to accessing secure banking services in the internet age.
I look forward to a reply,"
Lets see if I get one. I did get a few of my favourite rants in. Not least access to banking services for the elderly are shite...
And though I have got cross about a lot of stuff recently this one has made me particularly cross. Transgender seems a so much more fashionable cause than the elderly. Pips Bunce in a frock etc. Inclusiveness in the financial sector needs to go a lot further.