Evidence to convince employer NOT to become a Stonewall "Diversity Champion"

[SybillTrelawney]

The "LGBTQ+" network at my company has, as part of its strategy for this year, a plan to get the company to become a Stonewall Diversity Champion. I am already feeling suffocated at the way gender ideology has permeated everything diversity-related, and I want to avoid this at all costs.

I'd be very grateful if you could help me compile evidence that I can use to convince my employer not to engage with Stonewall. The more factual and concrete the evidence the better, so that I can't be fobbed off or dismissed as being "not inclusive". I'm hoping that at the point my employer starts looking into this, I will have a really strong case all ready to send that will make them think twice.

'SUBMISSION AND COMPLIANCE: risks for Stonewall Champions'
Stonewall have signed up more than 850 companies, charities, government departments and public authorities to be “Stonewall Diversity Champions.” Naomi Cunningham examines the risks for participating bodies.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/

Stonewall want to remove women’s right to access single sex spaces - they included it in their 2015 submission to the government enquiry
womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

For that reason, I’m out

From the Allison Bailey case it appears that being a Stonewall champion gives Stonewall a say on internal aspects of the company such as who should be employed there and whether an employee, partner or contractor should be subject to disciplinary procedures. Does your company really want this sort of outside interference in the way the company is run?

Stonewall membership is expensive. Figures seem to be between £3000 and £6000 pa.. Companies seem to get very little in return (apart from giving Stonewall a say in the running of the company), and some organisations have left the scheme due to the enormous amount of paperwork involved, so in addition to money, they are using one or more of the people employed by the company to complete the paperwork, which equates to even more expense.

Go through the FOI discussed in the blog mentioned above. Take all the questions out, and check how following them would / would not be a good thing / lawful thing to do:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/674096/response/1667284/attach/3/ReviewResponseAndEnclosure20201030.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Eg
"7.2 Before awarding a contract, does the organisation scrutinise the following in the tender process? Tick all that apply.
A. Whether the potential supplier has a policy which explicitly bans discrimination/bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity
B. Whether the potential supplier has equality training which is explicitly inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity
C. None of the above”"

If you look at that one, you might observe:

"Gender identity” is not a legal requirement (it's "gender reassignment"). Implementation of the Stonewall version of what they would like in law, in your workplace could make a procurement process unlawful if this were to be required.
This would be expensive to make right – an expense that can be avoided by following the law and established procurement rules and procedures.

Another one might be:

"1.5 Does the organisation have a policy (or policies) in place to support all trans employees, including people with non-binary identities?
Does the policy (or policies) in place to support all trans employees, including people with non- binary identities cover the following? Tick all that apply.
A. A clear commitment to supporting all trans people, including those with non-binary identities B. Information on language, terminology and different trans identities
C. Guidance on facilities and dress code for people
D. None of the above
Upload the selected policies.
Provide a brief description of the policy/policies you have uploaded (Max 150 words).”

Non-binary identities are not a legal requirement but this is written in the same breath as policies to support “all trans employees”, which, legally, would be “undergoing, or proposing to undergo gender reassignment”. I think elsewhere, they want organisations to expand what they capture in diversity questionnaires. This might be an example of them holding data that they have no legal basis for holding, and so on.

The Alison Bailey case appears to show that being a Stonewall Diversity Champion means agreeing to a series of onerous responsibilities that could be challenged in court. The fact that a Barrister's chambers' got caught up in this should give them pause for thought.

They should also think about the fact that Stonewall were not objecting to the employment of a right wing Christian who objected to homosexuality, but a lesbian equalities campaigner.

Sorry, not enough 'l's. 'Allison'.

While I am at it, Barristers' chambers.

Article about Nottinghamshire police which left the Stonewall scheme due to the time it took to fill in all the paperwork.

www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/nottinghamshire-police-end-participation-stonewalls-3289244

Notts chief constable Craig Guildford said compiling the information to send to the charity took considerable time, which he feels will be better spent tackling other areas of workplace diversity.

When asked by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, a spokesman for Notts Police said: "The force can't confirm the exact time it took for staff to compile the information to submit a Stonewall application, however, we can say it took the equality and diversity officer at least three months to input the relevant data.

He said time which had been spent submitting information to Stonewall would now be spent looking at improving ‘other areas of diversity’ within the force.

@OldCrone

Stonewall membership is expensive. Figures seem to be between £3000 and £6000 pa.. Companies seem to get very little in return (apart from giving Stonewall a say in the running of the company), and some organisations have left the scheme due to the enormous amount of paperwork involved, so in addition to money, they are using one or more of the people employed by the company to complete the paperwork, which equates to even more expense.

Awful.

It's expensive, time consuming, seems inaccurate, only really makes you a champion in comparison to the other people paying for the advice. The Allison Bailey case is very worrying in terms of their alleged influence.
None of the requirements of including diversity and fairness in the workplace should be beyond a capable HR team/professional.
If you weren't sure you were doing it correctly, you could pay an HR person (there are some very good freelancers) to just come in and advise you. Few hundred quid. Job done.

The school where I work is heavy into Stonewall and diversity. No one and I mean no one, from the (female) head down seems to be at all bothered or even aware about feminist concerns. I really need a better understanding in order to put any sort of case. ATM if you express any concerns you're a bigot.

No one and I mean no one, from the (female) head down seems to be at all bothered or even aware about feminist concerns.

Would they be more bothered about legal concerns?

The deal they are making is "We will pay you money, and in return you can come into our organisation and threaten us, even if the standards you expect us to meet don't comply with the law".

Wow. Urgent question asked and immediately competently answered. I really am in awe of Mumsnetters’ expertise and readiness to support other women.
to you all.
And best of luck, OP. I hope your employers are sensible enough to listen to you.

Also bear in mind that Equality and Diversity training Stonewall style seems to ignore any E/D for the other protected characteristics such as Disability and Religious beliefs and actually acts to their detriment in many ways.

Anyone with autism for eg may be disadvantaged by being forced to use pronouns that don’t match someone’s sex and there are the obvious Religious issues. If women who won’t share with the people self identifying into the single sex facilities they may end up using the disabled provision for privacy.

Op you could ask your employer what equivalent money/resources they will be putting in to improve the situation for the other protected characteristics- improved maternity provision (segregated nap space?) for eg?

How will they be making an equivalent investment into other protected characteristics?

Also bear in mind that Equality and Diversity training Stonewall style seems to ignore any E/D for the other protected characteristics such as Disability and Religious beliefs and actually acts to their detriment in many ways.

Yes, this^
Stonewall has a very narrow focus on replacing sex with gender identity. They are not an equality partner, they are a lobby group.

Thanks everyone, this is all very useful!

The main motivation cited by the group who are planning to push for this is that it will make the company seem more welcoming and inclusive to "LGBTQ+" applicants. Perhaps when I make my case I should also point out that this group are already well-represented (possibly over-represented) at our (tech) company, whereas women are extremely under-represented, and that there will likely be women who are put off by the Stonewall stamp of approval.

Worth finding out what percentage of employees belong to any of the protected groups under EA and also do they do equal wage reporting - I refuse to use gender pay gap - and then look at where they fall below in percentages of employment ie do they have representative no per percentage of population. Argue for equal resources for all and parity of esteem. You can be and publish on company website your figures and policies to promote and support employees without belonging to any scheme (or pay for it)

@SybillTrelawney

Thanks everyone, this is all very useful!

The main motivation cited by the group who are planning to push for this is that it will make the company seem more welcoming and inclusive to "LGBTQ+" applicants. Perhaps when I make my case I should also point out that this group are already well-represented (possibly over-represented) at our (tech) company, whereas women are extremely under-represented, and that there will likely be women who are put off by the Stonewall stamp of approval.

Being a Stonewall Diversity Champion won't make them seem more welcoming and inclusive to "LGBTQ+" applicants because:

1. Stonewall lobby to remove sex based rights from the Equality Act , namely 'SEX' and 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' and replace it with gender. Without SEX there is no same sex attraction. It's not attractive to join an employer thats paying Stonewall who want to remove your rights as a same-sex attracted person from the law.

Have a look at Safe Schools Alliance. There is a brilliant template letter on why a school should not become a Stonewall Champion that can easily be slightly re-jigged to present to your workplace.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/resources-2/letter-templates/

@lanadelgrey Unfortunately it might be difficult to find out how many employees belong to each of the protected groups, because the way information is currently collected is via a "self-id" form, where it doesn't ask for sex — it asks for "gender/sex (select all that apply)". It really is disgraceful. I've raised concerns about this, but I think I need to make a more formal complaint, or raise it higher. The problem is that it takes so me much time and energy (that I don't have) to formulate letters that make all the relevant points clearly, while avoiding any wording that could get me into trouble.

Whoops, "takes me so much time", not "takes so me much time"!

@GrimSisters Thanks for that link — it really is an excellent letter. It's very school-focused, though. Obviously those points should still be relevant, because (hopefully) my company doesn't want to associate itself with a lobby group that puts children at risk, but do you think there are other aspects I should concentrate on more? I feel a bit out of my depth here, so any help with the angle I should be taking is appreciated! (Maybe keeping the focus on children is right, but I don't feel confident in my own judgement here.)

2. Stonewall represent homogenderals not homesexuals

3. homesexuals are being discriminated against for being same-sex attracted

4. Lesbians are being told that they're no longer allowed to say they only want to date females article