GEO logo used without permission on teaching resource

[TheShoesa]

Liz truss has just stated on Twitter that the GEO logo should NOT be on the front of Equaliteach's resource Free to Be as alerted by Maya Forstater

Twitter thread here

How do these people think they can get away with doing this?

EQIA in the Gender Recognition Reform Bill.

When Scottish Trans say they are working with the Government Equalities Office to defend against any attempts by the UK government to protect single sex spaces, they must mean they are working with the GEO to block Liz Truss.

Is it normal to so blatantly declare antagonism between a government department and its minister?

Morton is at the heart of every single manoeuvre in both Scotland and broader U.K. campaigns. We need to watch them all but Morton especially. Sounds a bit tinfoil hat to type it out but it's true. Huge influence.

In my experience, governments are very sensitive about their logos being used in third-party materials. Not just the use of a logo, but which particular one, the size and placement.

Using one without permission is very unprofessional and speaks to a kind of gung ho naïveté, which is not what you want in people creating learning materials for schools.

It’s not only a foolish thing to do, it exposes the paucity of capacity and responsibility of people who would do it. I’m sure that their funding agreement would have had a lot to say about branding and publishing permissions.

Morton is at the heart of every single manoeuvre in both Scotland and broader U.K. campaigns. We need to watch them all but Morton especially

STILLTish article, Spetember 2019:

'Ministry of Justice: Updated Policy on caring for Transgender Prisoners.'

(extract)
"The policy exposes how far the, legally protected, characteristic of sex has been eroded, by allowing anyone, regardless of biology, to declare they are a woman. The prison system is illustrative of just how far Gender Identity ideology is embedded within our legislature and enshrined in public policy.

Below is a quote 👇 from James Morton, of the Scottish Trans Alliance, which shows that Female prisoners are the subjects of a dangerous laboratory experiment. James is listed as an author of the Scottish Prisons Policy which deals with Transgender Prisoners. As James is a lobbyist for Trans Rights there is only one group at the forefront of the policy. Spoiler. Its not Women.

‘We strategized – we strategized – that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’.

The above quote is illustrative of a complete disregard for the female prison population; one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres and female prisons do seem to figure prominently in the targeted locations. Captive females are being targeted for this new branch of Men’s rights activism." (continues)
gendercriticalwoman.wordpress.com/2019/09/19/ministry-of-justice-new-policy-on-caring-for-transgender-prisoners/

In my experience, governments are very sensitive about their logos being used in third-party materials. Not just the use of a logo, but which particular one, the size and placement.

I think the issue of the logo & of using it in this case isn't as straightforward as I think is suggested. The funding requirements for the money that the GEO awarded to this org (and many others included in the overall award) states (and I'm paraphrasing) the work they've funded must include the logo.

I expect that, rather than the suggestion that the logo hasn't been used appropriately, or that it's use had implied credibility & endorsement where none was sought or given but assumed (from the fact of the award of the funding of the work before it had been completed), Liz Truss & the GEO are about to get a full understanding of what work is being done 'in their name' which falls far short of the standards & accuracy they should expect (and bloody well should be reviewing & checking before that logo gets printed). I think the extent of policy capture is about to be brought into v sharp focus.

This logo use is the same as the situation with the LGBTYS school guide which was funded to the tune of £200k by scotgov, which failed in the same ways re failing to account for the rights of other children (especially female children) when compiling their guide, no EQIA completed, wilfully misrepresenting the legal stance - every org who permitted their logo to be used with implied endorsement failed to do their own due diligence before giving it the stamp of approval, including scotgov.

This gravy train of equalities funding is effectively a license to make up any old shit, drown it in lots of progressive equality word salads, and get it disseminated with virtually no scrutiny or challenge. Until now that is.

It's a huge tangled mess to start dismantling but the number of these orgs funded & pushing the same/very similar 'stonewall law' that are now in existence has to be addressed. Start with why there's an LGBT Advisory Panel set up by the GEO to oversee every aspect of policy, while not giving other PCs that fall under the remit of GEO the same standing.

This is from UKGOV own website:

"Dr Brady and the experts on our new Panel will give LGBT people and those working on their behalf a direct route to speak to government and shape policy on decisions that affect their daily lives."

There's a disproportionate focus on one small part of the GEO remit & they've got free reign to spout anything with access to funding & use of government endorsement via that funding being awarded without any due diligence, EQIA, PSED oversight process scrutiny. They have influence over all aspects of policy while others under the GEO remit can't even get a reply to an email, never mind have the GEO on speed dial. There's years of this shit to unravel but the genie can't be put back in the lamp. Too late to walk on by & pretend there's nothing to see.

I think the extent of policy capture is about to be brought into v sharp focus.

OP LangCleg wrote Sun 24-Mar-19
"Regulatory capture

We've had two (well, one still standing) threads on Accenture and its inclusive LGBT event excluding lesbians by power of the state over the last couple of days.

We've also discussed the way in which the policy-setting leadership of other companies, state institutions (for example the police and the NHS), charities (for example NSPCC) and third sector orgs (for example Girl Guides) have enforced the top-down imposition of Gender Identity ideology despite obvious practical and ethical issues and conflicts of rights.

I came across someone remarking about the concept of regulatory capture on Twitter in relation to all this and, since we've also been discussing the actual power relations behind various oppression narratives, I wonder what everyone thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

There are two basic types of regulatory capture and the second rings a few bells:

Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry.

What do we think? Are there parallels?"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3733240-Regulatory-Capture

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3652832-Our-article-on-gender-self-ID-and-policy-capture-in-Scottish-public-policy

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3679784-Trevor-Phillips-on-bullying-activists-and-policy-capture-in-the-Times

The stark one for me was the NSPCC, the charity designed to protect children, telling people off for pointing out Munroe Bergdorf should not have been suggesting private chats with children, appearing to side with Bergdorf, despite firing them, and then going off alarming at people objecting to wanking gimp man uploading film of himself masturbating in their toilets.

All their sympathies were with gimp man and Bergdorf.

The stark one for me was the NSPCC, the charity designed to protect children

NSPCC was one of the partners (advisors?) for the recently withdrawn CPS school toolkit:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3897095-Times-article-on-the-CPS-guidance-withdrawl

I have a feeling the NSPCC needs an investigation. No body with that amount of power and reach should be publically defending an employee who filmed himself masturbating at work. Or employing someone like Munroe Bergdorf to inspire children. To me, that smacks of something gone very deeply wrong.

In fact, I feel that an investigation into the extent of GRA, self ID and TRA input into legislation and practise is needed. All bodies that are involved should be scrutinised, their safeguarding procedures should be checked.

Never going to happen, but just imagine. A sweeping programme to examine, test and if necessary, adjust policy across all areas. Then we repeal the GRA, set police to tackle domestic violence instead of 'hate incidents' and start to centre women in women's rights.

I feel a bit dizzy.

One of the most depressing things about this is the realisation that where there is a vacuum of information, any organisation who sets out to fill it gains financially from the lack of government issued guidance.

Organisations buy in an external package of guidelines and training because it is convenient.

Guidelines, toolkits, training get a free pass, gain traction, credibility and there seems to be no process required to validate their output for legal compliance before they receive money from schools, NHS, police and private workplaces.

How can this be? Here you go, have state funding for your organisation to produce content that is misinterpreting the law, and here have some more state money to train our staff on using it in government funded organisations.

All of us are indirectly funding this. Twice.

Great post WTFSeriously

I totally agree that a lot of this stuff is now going to be under scrutiny and the government (or at the very least some of the higher ups) are starting to realise it's a huge mess, partly of their own making due to a total lack of oversight of what it is they fund.

So many important posts. Like 2ndStar I am concerned about all the organisations that have 'self identified' as appropriate groups to advise schools. When this government was first elected they literally binned all the advice / guidance for schools about most things. Exclusions, behaviour, anti bullying, aspects of the curriculum etc. They boasted of 'tearing up red tape' and freeing schools from the hand of the state and replaced all the extensive nuanced guidance with brief statements.

Of course it didn't take long before they had to revise and extend all of it as many schools promptly fell foul of statutory issues like exclusions and behaviour without comprehensive guidance. But this was a sign of things to come. This absence of central guidance allowed political lobby groups like Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall, GIRES & Mermaids to make claims that nobody evaluated. And now they have self defined themselves as sex educators and experts in child psychological, social and sexual development - despite being nothing of the sort - and are driving a coach and horses through safeguarding, child / parent relationships, children's emotional well being and the rights of girls and women. They are dangerous.

My fear is that government will take the easy route and change legislation to reflect the extent of policy capture - ie ratify Stonewall law into actual law. Easier than undoing years of capture by lobbying.

It really is frightening.

It is absolutely incredible to realise that we are indirectly funding these groups to produce guidance and training which are now being legally challenged with help from our direct funding.

Depressingly it is still a minority of Tory women MPs speaking out about this with all the men whimpering to journalists like James Kirkup that they're too scared to speak out.

June 4th 2018
Westminster Social Policy forum 'Next steps for transgender Equality'

Background:
"This timely seminar will consider policy priorities for transgender equality.

In the context of Brexit and uncertainty around the future of current equality legislation such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, delegates will discuss the current landscape of transgender equality.

Attendees will also discuss priorities for transgender physical and mental health, in the context of Government proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender, the NHS England consultation on how Gender Identity Clinics will deliver specialised outpatient services and how surgical units will deliver surgical interventions, and reports that some transgender people are waiting over two years for an initial consultation with an NHS Gender Identity Clinic.

Further sessions focus on key issues for transgender equality in the workplace and how employers can support transition, tackling issues in the criminal justice system and how schools and universities can create inclusive environments, as well as transgender coverage and representation in the media."

www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/conference/transgender-equality-2018

Speakers included:
Dr Polly Carmichael (GIDs Tavistock), Bex Stimpson (Head of Trans Inclusion Stonewall), Liz Barker (Lords), Helen Belcher (Trans Media Watch, James Palmer (Medical Director Specialised Services, NHS England), Sean Dellenty (Dept education), Ollie Entwistle (Head of LGBT policy, Govt. Women & Equalities), Megan Key (probation), Tunge Ogungbesan (Head of Diversity, Inclusion and Succession BBC), Julia Neal (Head: The Education Union)...

Pratchet (in attendence) wrote Fri 29-Jun-18 09:42:31

"Well they'll know it's over. Bex Stinson was asked how they got Scotland to cave so quickly and said it was because they had private conversation in private rooms with the people who provide services, not people who use them. I mean, that's how brazen and confident they were, to come out and say that and not think there's anything bad about it. That is over. Women are watching."

** Bex Stinson was Head of Stonewall's Trans Inclusion Nov 2016 – Apr 2019

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents

I have a feeling the NSPCC needs an investigation. No body with that amount of power and reach should be publically defending an employee who filmed himself masturbating at work. Or employing someone like Munroe Bergdorf to inspire children. To me, that smacks of something gone very deeply wrong.

Yes, systemic Safeguarding framework failure is demonstrated by these events. There will of course be other consequences.

NSPCC was one of the partners (advisors?) for the recently withdrawn CPS school toolkit

NASUWT (teaching union) was another of the partners.

It published guidance in 2017:

'Trans Equality in Schools and Colleges
Advice and Guidance for Teachers and Leaders'

(extracts)
"Pronouns and titles. The trans person should be referred to by their preferred pronouns (e.g. he, she, they, zie) and title (e.g. Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mx) and the employer has a duty to ensure that this is understood by everyone. Mistakes are to be expected in the weeks after transition but, when this happens, a quick apology and correction should suffice.

Trans teachers should be free to use toilets appropriate to their acquired gender from the date they transition. Where a teacher is intending to transition, the employer and teacher should discuss and
agree the timescale within which the teacher will start to use the facilities for the gender to which they are transitioning.

it is not acceptable in the longer term for an employer to insist that
a teacher who is transitioning must use separate toilet facilities, such as a unisex disabled toilet, and such conduct is likely to constitute unlawful discrimination

When a family informs the school or college that their child is transitioning, the school has a duty to support the student, protect them from discrimination and harassment, and provide appropriate
training for teachers, support staff and governors. Specialist organisations such as Gendered Intelligence and GIRES can help with staff training and provide educational resources for students

Equalities should be embedded in the curriculum, and gender should be covered along with other protected characteristics. Staff may need specific training to deliver lessons effectively

School uniform should not present a problem for transitioning students, and they should expect to follow the dress code for their acquired gender. Issues may arise with sports kit, especially for swimming. Schools may wish to review their arrangements and allow all pupils to wear skirted swimsuits, long shorts or short wetsuits as alternatives to traditional costumes.

Children with a trans parent may be happy to talk about it, but they may fear the news becoming public. Barney’s primary school was proactive when his father transitioned.
Barney’s Story
My dad transitioned when I was ten. My school was very supportive during this time. They provided counselling on what would change and what would stay the same. It was reassuring to know that it was completely normal and almost everything would stay the same within the family or in my dad.

Supporting Dual-role People
Some people manage their gender dysphoria by living as a man or a woman in different aspects of their lives. For example, they may work in a male role but socialise in a female role.

Although the protected characteristic under the Equality Act is gender reassignment, it is best to assume that dual-role people are covered by perception that they might transition.

Like everyone else they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. In practical terms, there should be no issues unless the different aspects of their lives overlap in some way. For example, a male teacher might want to attend a staff party as a woman. In that case they would probably prefer to use a female name and feminine pronouns, and they should be allowed to use the toilets appropriate to the gender in which they are presenting.

The NASUWT is very grateful to Dr Debbie Hayton (Teacher) for
assisting in the development of this guidance. "

www.nasuwt.org.uk/uploads/assets/uploaded/085066bb-c224-40de-b79e2a1358801ee9.pdf

It's all circular.

Organisation sets itself up as 'experts' > provides training > gets government grant> provides training > sets up awards > provides more training > encourages organisations to apply for awards > gets more grants > publishes materials. And round and round it goes.

Every step growing its own credibility and networks. And no one is doing any due diligence because schools are so desperate for resources, they will grab free ready made materials with both hands.

The woman responsible for education within Stonewall is late 20s with an undergrad psychology degree. And yet she is leading a £1m+ education programme to schools, a quarter of which is funded directly by the DoE.

I don't blame the schools but I do blame government agencies.

The woman responsible for education within Stonewall is late 20s with an undergrad psychology degree. And yet she is leading a £1m+ education programme to schools, a quarter of which is funded directly by the DoE.

Its unclear what James Morton's qualifications are to have played such a key role in shaping Scottish schools' (withdrawn) policy.

Herald 30th January 2019
'Trans guidance for Scottish schools breaches 11 children's rights, campaigners warn'

(extract)
The advice to schools, written by LGBT Youth and the Scottish Trans Alliance, states that trans pupils should share overnight accommodation on school trips with pupils based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex, and should be allowed to take part in sports, and use changing rooms and toilets based on the gender they identify as.

Any pupils who have concerns about this should be asked to wait and use facilities after a trans pupil has done so and "they should be reminded of the school's ethos of inclusion, equality and respect". There is no need to tell parents if their child is to share accommodation with a trans peer of the opposite sex, the guidance states." (continues)
www.heraldscotland.com/news/17393697.trans-guidance-for-scottish-schools-breaches-11-childrens-rights-campaigners-warn/

TransgenderTrend July 13th 2019
'What does Scotland’s U-Turn on Transgender Schools Guidance Mean for England and Wales?'

(extract)
"The Scottish government has taken the welcome step of having a rethink on many areas concerning changes to the GRA. The LGBT Youth transgender schools guidance has now been withdrawn in Scotland due to concerns about girls being excluded from their own toilets and changing-rooms. The Scottish government will produce their own guidance following consultation and a full Equalities Impact Assessment. Scotland is leading the way on action which must now also be taken by Westminster on the schools guidance used throughout England and Wales.

We analysed the LGBT Youth Scotland transgender schools guidance when it was first published in 2017 and compared its advice with a selection of transgender schools toolkits used across England and Wales, including guidance from Stonewall, Allsorts and GIRES. Our report can be seen here. Our analysis shows that authorities in England and Wales are recommending that schools follow exactly the same advice as in the guidance recently withdrawn in Scotland, which has been shown to have a negative impact on the rights of girls. Equalities Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville made this announcement to the Scottish Parliament:

“However the complexity of these issues mean valid concerns have been raised. The Scottish Government recognises that in taking the unarguably good general principle of inclusivity, and developing specific recommendations, the approach risks potentially excluding other girls from female-only spaces. That cannot be right.”

This is a major victory for grass-roots feminist campaign groups such as For Women Scotland, Women and Girls in Scotland and Scottish Women and the courageous politicians who have spoken out, notably Joan McAlpine who said in a statement:

“I also welcome the government’s decision to replace the LGBT Youth Scotland transgender guidance for schools, which was shown to have a negative impact on the privacy and dignity of girls, as well as the government’s recognition that statistics on sex matters. For too long public authorities have failed to distinguish between sex and gender and this must change.”

We recently wrote again to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ask the following questions:

Following the Scottish example will the EHRC now take similar steps and rethink its transgender guidance for England and Wales? This would be a good opportunity for the EHRC to start again with the national guidance, this time involving and consulting widely with all stakeholders and conducting a rigorous EIA.

And like the Scottish government and the action it took on LGBT Youth, will you take steps to stop the use of the Allsorts toolkit in schools? Our own impact assessment of the Allsorts pack highlighted many of the same concerns that led the Scottish government to take the action it took.

We ask because parents were unaware that the EHRC was consulting on national guidance for schools and we receive an increasing number of queries from parents who are angry that they were not consulted on guidelines which will affect their own children. You may be aware of the UK-wide group Safe Schools Alliance, under the banner of which parents are calling for the withdrawal of transgender guidance, predominantly the Allsorts toolkit which is essentially the same as the LGBT Youth Scotland guidance which the Scottish government is to replace.

We speak on behalf of the parents we represent, who feel there should have been a full and open consultation before national guidelines are drawn up on policy which will affect all schoolchildren in England and Wales. These parents feel very much that their views have not been taken into account and they were given no opportunity to participate as important stakeholders.
www.transgendertrend.com/scotland-u-turn-transgender-schools-guidance-england-and-wales/

The woman responsible for education within Stonewall is late 20s with an undergrad psychology degree. And yet she is leading a £1m+ education programme to schools, a quarter of which is funded directly by the DoE.

Whilst other Stonewall employees shape sporting policies, despite little apparent relevent experience or qualification.

Male Sports Performance Advantage
Dr Tony Lycholat

(extract)
"What does this mean, practically? I’m increasingly of the opinion that those who argue for self-identifying, male-to-female transgender participation in the female sex category have never competed in sport. They certainly can never have coached or set foot on an athletics track. "
medium.com/@drtonylycholat/male-sports-performance-advantage-f00e1a334e1f

James Makings - celeb booker at the NSPCC. Previous work - shop assistant at Ann Summers. Plus some very low key charity roles. Most odd isn’t it.

It's a huge tangled mess to start dismantling but the number of these orgs funded & pushing the same/very similar 'stonewall law' that are now in existence has to be addressed. Start with why there's an LGBT Advisory Panel set up by the GEO to oversee every aspect of policy, while not giving other PCs that fall under the remit of GEO the same standing.

This is from UKGOV own website:

Dr Brady and the experts on our new Panel will give LGBT people and those working on their behalf a direct route to speak to government and shape policy on decisions that affect their daily lives.

There's a disproportionate focus on one small part of the GEO remit & they've got free reign to spout anything with access to funding & use of government endorsement via that funding being awarded without any due diligence, EQIA, PSED oversight process scrutiny. They have influence over all aspects of policy while others under the GEO remit can't even get a reply to an email, never mind have the GEO on speed dial. There's years of this shit to unravel but the genie can't be put back in the lamp. Too late to walk on by & pretend there's nothing to see.

You've nailed it again WTFSeriously, hard hitting questions need to be asked as to why this particular PC has been made into a sacred caste and the parameters of this sacred caste allowed to expand and make up their own version of the protected characteristics that are covered in the EQA and enforce them into every organisation to the detriment of the other PCs.

Disabled people face the most hideous prejudices and difficulties every day and have to fight long and hard for the merest crumb to drop from the table for them and then are expected to be eternally grateful for being given so little, where is their advisory panel with full unfettered access to Government Policy?

Over to you Liz Truss, are all the protected characteristics in the EQA equal or are some, as is blatantly obvious, more equal than others and why?