Stonewall hide organisations signed up as Diversity Champions

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

This morning Stonewall have hidden the list of all the organisations signed up to their diversity champions award behind a member's log in. Could this be connected to the Essex University report confirming that they have been offering wrong advice about the law to organisations? Are companies getting cold feet about being openly connected to them?

Recommendation from the Essex Uni report:
The University should give careful and thorough consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall, bearing in mind the issues raised in this report. In particular, it should consider that this relationship appears to have given University members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution.

Let’s hope they’re shitting themselves. The LGB Alliance wrote to them ages ago asking for sensible talks about a way forward and was ignored. Stonewall chose this path, they can reap what they sowed.

That is very interesting - I wonder how the orgs signed up feel about this - usually one of the perks for paying for this sort of scheme is that you are listed on the providers website for people to admire.

Surely if it has got to the stage that Stonewall needs to hide this, this system of extorting money from companies so they don't appear bigoted is doomed to fail?

From reading Twitter, I'm guessing it might be because nasty women have been bullying poor ickle Stonewall even causing one of their staff members to take a years sabbatical.

Does anyone have an archived list?

A school I'm interested in has it written on their board but it's been there for years. I'm hoping the school is no longer actively involved.

Now isn’t that interesting!! Last week I think it was The Times said 25% of all large companies in the UK are signed up as Stonewall champions

I wonder if they will still publish the Stonewall top 100 list this year - or will that be hidden too

I’m baffled as to how the Stonewall Trustees aren’t seeing the alarm sirens going off here

@PaleGreenGhost

Does anyone have an archived list?

A school I'm interested in has it written on their board but it's been there for years. I'm hoping the school is no longer actively involved.

Latest from 8th April this year

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.li/www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">archive.li/www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members

@Thingybob

From reading Twitter, I'm guessing it might be because nasty women have been bullying poor ickle Stonewall even causing one of their staff members to take a years sabbatical.

Did we? Ah bless!

Thanks itsallgoingtobefine

I think schools must be on a separate list as there's a school I know is super active with this and they're not mentioned either. So many universities though.

The legal feminist has an interesting blog about potential risks for organisations signing up to be champions. Recent events suggest that this is pertinent advice. If organisations have illegal policies based on "Stonewall law" then those discriminated against can sue, especially if an organisation uses advice from them rather than comply with the actual law.

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

Wayback machine, May 14 2021: <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210514165034/www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210514165034/www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members

I'm confused. How are they selling the virtues of signing up when it's apparently so shameful that your participation has to be hidden from public view?
How are companies not seeing the entire mess for what it is?

Well, this is very interesting.

I too hope Stonewall are shitting themselves. They should be.

itsallgoingtobe that is one hell of a list. It would be easier to say who isn’t signed up to them.They must earn a fortune. What a fantastic business model though? Pay us and we’ll give you a certificate to ‘prove’ you’re not homophobic. What an easy, virtual signalling option for a company or institution. Cake sales, some rainbow stationery and decorations. Stick it all up on Twitter - job done. But does it make a difference in the workplace? And does it make a difference to gay men or gay women or non-binary people beyond an annual or bi-annual corporate ‘event’ or awareness-raising’? Can institutions not do the hard work of making their work-spaces/environments LGBT friendly without these tokenistic and very easily-earned ‘badges’?

I hope this nonsense stops - people are starting to see right through it. Everyone should be able to bring their true self to work without having to festoon themselves in rainbows.

But does it make a difference in the workplace?

Yes. It does. Stonewall disapproves of single sex toilets. Stonewall encourages companies to remember transwomen in international women's days. Stonewall encourages companies to use pronouns in emails etc etc.

By embedding themselves like this they have made many organisations, including governmental ones, follow Stonewall law rather than the actual law, which is part of what is pushing this erosion of women's boundaries overall.

If you have spare time Edinburgh University's submission for the Workplace Equality Index is worth a read. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/674096/response/1667284/attach/html/3/ReviewResponseAndEnclosure20201030.pdf.html

Lovetomato
I don't understand how an organisation that wants to remove women's rights is even acceptable in companies? Stonewall openly argued against World rugby that their in depth process of assessing the risk to women from trans women playing rugby against women was not acceptable. How can companies sign up to values like that yet persuade their female staff and customers that they value them?

[quote MrsOvertonsWindow]The legal feminist has an interesting blog about potential risks for organisations signing up to be champions. Recent events suggest that this is pertinent advice. If organisations have illegal policies based on "Stonewall law" then those discriminated against can sue, especially if an organisation uses advice from them rather than comply with the actual law.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/[/quote]
What a brilliant piece that is, exposing the unlawful stupidity of it all and the indignities these organisations heaped upon themselves. It also shows very succinctly how it happened and the damage done.

Thanks to other posters also for the archived list of Stonewall 'champions'. Champions my arse. Money wasting bullying charlatans, more like.

Thank goodness for the Essex University report, and its authors. (Finally.)

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Lovetomato I don't understand how an organisation that wants to remove women's rights is even acceptable in companies? Stonewall openly argued against World rugby that their in depth process of assessing the risk to women from trans women playing rugby against women was not acceptable. How can companies sign up to values like that yet persuade their female staff and customers that they value them?

They also wish to remove the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act....

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

"A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces"

I think companies are blinded by the fact that Stonewall use to be a genuinely excellent LGB campaigning organisation that achieved good things. No company wants to be seen as homophobic/transphobic so here's this nice charity with a good reputation who, for a price, will help you with policies and the law. Because this is outsourced no-one has properly looked at what Stonewall is doing, and besides Stonewalls own policies which are introduced into the workplace effectively silence any dissent.

How odd and interesting at the same time. What have they got to hide? If their advice/influence was legally sound then they would have nothing to worry about.

Oh, that's interesting. Let's hope all this shit is washed cleanly away on a tide of lawsuits.

@PronounssheRa

How odd and interesting at the same time. What have they got to hide? If their advice/influence was legally sound then they would have nothing to worry about.

My guess is that they are worried nasty women will go through the list (in a similar way to the crowdsourced Stonewall FOIs) and show relevant people in the organisation the Essex University report and other evidence that shows Stonewall is encouraging companies to break the law.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I'm thinking the same

Stonewall must be hoping no one contacts their champions list and makes sure they know about the Reindorf Report from Essex University and related news stories and feminist commentary on this.

It would be deeply ironic if the act of them hiding the list, meant lots of people were inspired to do just that, wouldn't it? ...

Stonewall also demands organisations submit to their language:

Remove the terms "mother" and "father", to ensure that everyone within your organisation is covered by your policies. We"d recommend using gender neutral language, e.g. "pregnant
employee"; "birth parent" and then "second parent"; "parent who has given birth" or "new mothers and other pregnant employees". See Stonewall"s inclusive policy toolkit.

Quote from this feedback to this Council: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_your_dealings_47#incoming-1734120

Are they allowed to do that, as a registered charity?

Which is the best article on the Reindorf Report for someone new to this, do you think?

It's a shame the Times is paywalled :(