Thank you stonewall - now I know who to avoid

[Kit19]

136 businesses come together to support corporateWall sorry stonewall on trans ‘rights’

Like everyone on fwr I fully agree trans rights are human rights but what they are not is women’s rights. They are reserved for biological women

Also they must be rattled if they’ve got the city bods on their board to do a ring/email round to do a show of support

[quote EarthSight]@EyesOpening Unless they have detailed documents that only for the eyes of the employers, then what they want can be seen on their website. The first step is that you should educate yourself, so I followed the link and that's what I found. I find the omission of counter arguments to their views to be dishonest. Employers are led to think this is all simple when it's not.[/quote]
not sure what link you clicked on but I guess this answers my question:
Today, Stonewall, Britain’s leading lesbian, gay bi and trans equality charity, announced that 136 major UK companies have come together in a show of support for trans communities.

Aviva, BP, CITI, Disney, Expedia, Microsoft and Sky join 96 other UK employers who have added their names to a public statement to say trans rights are human rights, and highlight their support for trans colleagues, employees and customers. Each of the participating companies will also be posting messages of solidarity with trans people across their social media platforms throughout the day.

so basically that's it

Then also
Many of these organisations (70) have also written to the Prime Minister directly to call on the UK Government to honour its commitment to protect trans people’s rights and reform the Gender Recognition Act.

Trans people can and have been using the toilets that match their gender for years without issue.

This is about the third time today I've seen the 'there is no problem' statement, by which you can only mean 'trans people have had no issue' because here are women telling you about the issues for them. They've been telling anyone they can get to listen for years now. Women are stakeholders in this too, and just blanking them and any issues they raise isn't the same as there actually in reality being no issues.

it’s actually having a negative effect on many cis people too; people whose appearance doesn’t fit the stereotypes of male or female are increasingly being challenged for simply going into a public loo.

Where's the evidence on this please? Non anecdotal, since this is never acceptable when women try to talk about negative effects on them. It's interesting too that the only negative effect being cared about here on women is one that benefits the self ID argument: there's certainly no care or interest for women regarding any of their other raised issues.

And hang on a minute - I thought you just said there were no issues? Which is it?

Having facilities that everyone can use – toilets and changing rooms with private space – is really sensible

God, yes. Wouldn't it be? So in this self ID system where women's single sex facilities have all become mixed sex, what are you going to do with the female people who can't use mixed sex spaces? Where do they go please? Because inclusion, diversity, intersectionality, kindness, having those facilities that everyone can use with that including all females? How does that work?

(Sorry, that was all addressed to Stonewall..... not that I expect any coherent answer!)

If you are on Twitter, (and are anonymous in case of work issues) please get onto that Stonewall tweet and tag some of the companies listed to tell them what they are really supporting. Some great comments on this thread that you can adapt.

Companies that sign up to this nonsense without really looking into it need to be told.
Stonewall want to remove single sex spaces and allow men into women's sport for starters. Is that something you really want to support x company?

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1305408273005375488?s=20

[quote TheFleegleHasLanded]If you are on Twitter, (and are anonymous in case of work issues) please get onto that Stonewall tweet and tag some of the companies listed to tell them what they are really supporting. Some great comments on this thread that you can adapt.

Companies that sign up to this nonsense without really looking into it need to be told.
Stonewall want to remove single sex spaces and allow men into women's sport for starters. Is that something you really want to support x company?

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1305408273005375488?s=20[/quote]
I think they probably will have looked into it. Companies the size of Disney and Google have whole departments dedicated to building social relationships with various causes. They will also have focus grouped it with customers. I imagine what they've found is young people are pretty supportive of trans rights and in the long term that's the way to swing. Just look at JK Rowling, yes she'll survive, she's not over or cancelled, but no major company wants to be her at the moment. She may be able to lose 5-10% of her 'stock' due to her politics, blue chip companies on the verge of a recession really can't. These companies are thinking globally, unless the GC movement takes off in other countries then opposing trans rights is bad for business from an international perspective.

jj1968
What rights do you believe that trans people don't have, which everyone else does?

Save The Children are on there. That’s outrageous. That’s my standing order cancelled.

@ManservantHecubus

Sorry to sound like an idiot, but would somebody more technically minded than me please tell me how I can boycott Google? Is it possible? I use maps/Google play store and Gmail but am I giving them money doing this? They're the only ones on list I use. Thanks x

I switched to Duck Duck Go after it was recommended on here in the wake of the last JKR furore.

It's not as good as Google tbh but at least i now only use it as a last resort.

@OldCrone

jj1968 What rights do you believe that trans people don't have, which everyone else does?

It's not really about that in this case, it's just pragmatisn. Business likes stability, any attempt to for example exclude trans people from toilets/changing rooms will be met with horror internationally in some sectors, notably tech, fashion, entertainment etc. What if SKY want to run a show starring Laverne Cox or something? Do you really think she'd come to to promote it if she had to use the men's toilets? Not only would she refuse, I imagine she'd refuse very noisily. There is a whole list of organisations of organisations who boycotted N Carolina due to the bathroom bill. Deutsch Bank pulled out 300 jobs, major producers and writers refused to have their shows staged there, Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam and many others cancelled shows there, major sporting bodies boycotted the state and huge US corporations including Apple and Nike joined together to fund and fight a legal challenge to the bill which was eventually scrapped largely due to the economic toll on the state.

You think business wants even the slightest possibility of anything like that happening to the UK with Brexit and Coronavirus both causing instability already? It's no surprise to me that they don't, not because they care about trans people, or trans rights, they care about money, and any controversial reforms by Truss perceived to attack trans rights will have international economic consequences for some businesses.

jj1968
Do you believe that women's rights are transphobic?

@OldCrone

jj1968 Do you believe that women's rights are transphobic?

I'm not really sure why you're asking me questions which have nothing to do with what I've posted. No offence but this is a thread about businesses supporting for trans rights, I'd rather discuss that here and maybe your other points on another thread sometime.

They will also have focus grouped it with customers

How many customers are women?

Depends on the business I guess, they would usually try and ensure focus groups are as close to their customer base as possible.

OK, I'll spell it out for you jj1968.

Business likes stability, any attempt to for example exclude trans people from toilets/changing rooms will be met with horror internationally in some sectors, notably tech, fashion, entertainment etc. What if SKY want to run a show starring Laverne Cox or something? Do you really think she'd come to to promote it if she had to use the men's toilets? Not only would she refuse, I imagine she'd refuse very noisily.

There is a clear conflict here between the rights of women to have female only spaces and the rights of 'transwomen' to be validated as women by being permitted to use these women's spaces.

You keep going on about 'trans rights'. If this is the sort of thing that you mean when you talk about 'trans rights, then these 'rights' are in conflict with women's rights. Do you believe that women's rights can co-exist with trans rights? If so, how do you propose to solve this problem? Allowing men to choose to use women-only spaces if they 'identify as women' excludes some women. Do you think that might be a problem, or do you think that such women should just be excluded from public life so that men can have all the choices they want?

There is no other civil rights movement that has been able to erase the rights and language of another group this way.
It should be a wake up call for trans rights supporters to see how easily a group with a protected characteristic can be ignored and their rights removed, even when it is illegal.

If you tolerate this, you pave the way for your own eradication in the future, and we wont be around to stand up for you.

@OldCrone

OK, I'll spell it out for you jj1968.

Business likes stability, any attempt to for example exclude trans people from toilets/changing rooms will be met with horror internationally in some sectors, notably tech, fashion, entertainment etc. What if SKY want to run a show starring Laverne Cox or something? Do you really think she'd come to to promote it if she had to use the men's toilets? Not only would she refuse, I imagine she'd refuse very noisily.

There is a clear conflict here between the rights of women to have female only spaces and the rights of 'transwomen' to be validated as women by being permitted to use these women's spaces.

You keep going on about 'trans rights'. If this is the sort of thing that you mean when you talk about 'trans rights, then these 'rights' are in conflict with women's rights. Do you believe that women's rights can co-exist with trans rights? If so, how do you propose to solve this problem? Allowing men to choose to use women-only spaces if they 'identify as women' excludes some women. Do you think that might be a problem, or do you think that such women should just be excluded from public life so that men can have all the choices they want?

As I said, would rather discuss the topic of the thread than the broader issues, seems a bit disrespectful of the op to go on a big derail.

Why do you think the corporate sector has swung so vocally behind trans inclusion?

jj1968
I was replying to this post of yours.

These companies are thinking globally, unless the GC movement takes off in other countries then opposing trans rights is bad for business from an international perspective.

Who is opposing trans rights? In the UK, trans people are protected under the Equality Act. It's illegal to discriminate against trans people and there is no indication that the government intends to remove any existing rights from trans people. Nobody has to do anything to support trans rights other than uphold the Equality Act, and if they don't do that, they are breaking the law. What point were you trying to make about 'opposing trans rights'?

Why do you think the corporate sector has swung so vocally behind trans inclusion?

They haven't. Trans people are already 'included' and protected. The corporate sector is just indulging in mindless virtue signalling because it seems to be the 'in' thing to do. I doubt they've given it even a second's thought (and they definitely haven't considered the effect on women - or they just don't care about women).

There was an interesting article shared recently about corporate virtue signalling, about how shallow and empty it is. Hopefully someone will know which one I mean and post a link.

Why do you think the corporate sector has swung so vocally behind trans inclusion?

Well they haven't really. The diversity and inclusion teams might have done but in reality they're pretty vacuous and useless and quite dispensible people that organisations pay lip service to. It's all background noise. There might have been some rage in Carolina but that's simply generated more opposition.

@Thelnebriati

There was an interesting article shared recently about corporate virtue signalling, about how shallow and empty it is. Hopefully someone will know which one I mean and post a link.

I don't disagree with that, it's utterly hollow and done for one reason only, profit. So I guess the question is why is trans inclusion deemed profitable to corporations like Google and Sky?

It isn't profitable, it just doesnt cost them anything. Its empty virtue signalling so they can 'prove' how diverse they are without having to change the actual structure.
As another Mumsnetter posted;

''companies bag on about how 'inclusive' they are cos Pride but are strangely silent about inclusivity when it involves doing things that might cost them money such as adapting buildings and business practices to accommodate people with disabilities''.

This, however, would break the iron law of woke capitalism—better to have something you can point to and say “Aren’t we progressive?” than to think about the real problem. Diversity training offers the minimum possible disruption to your power structures: Don’t change the board; just get your existing employees to sit through a seminar.''
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/cancel-culture-and-problem-woke-capitalism/614086/

If it doesn't cost them anything and brings a perceived advantage then that is the definition of profit surely.

I guess to cut to the chase why would Google and Sky lobby in favour of Self ID as opposed to lobbying for a more gender critical approach?

@jj1968

If it doesn't cost them anything and brings a perceived advantage then that is the definition of profit surely.

Yes of course, try getting a business loan on that profit definition. Hilarious.

"They" are not lobbying. A few people are lobbying.