Creating a case to request that my employers status as Stonewall Champion be reviewed

[JustcameoutGC]

I think now might be the time to formally request that my employer reviews our status as a Stonewall Champion.

I need your hive viper mind to help build the case.

So, I think I will start with pointing out recent developments

1. Discrimination lawyer has declared advice given by SW to Essex Uni, to be unlawful, leading to restrictions on freedom of speech on an academic campus.

Question to the vipers, do we have any evidence of the teaching of biology at uni being impacted by gender ideology? That would be handy.

2. SW have hidden the list of champions on their website, should this worry us?

3. The EHRC have severed their links with DW, again, is this cause for concern?

4. SW have released a new strategy which clearly positions them as a campaigning political organisation. Some of their aims have the potential to clash with the rights and protections of other protected groups such as women and vulnerable groups such as children. Is it appropriate to have some of our internal HR policies dictated by an external political organisation?

5. By focusing so much on SW have we lost focus on other groups

Anything else I should add? Anyone else done this successfully?

No experience of this, but you could also point out that Stonewall campaign for the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 to be repealed (they gave written evidence calling for this to the Women and Equalities Select Committee in 2015).

These are the parts of the Act which give providers the right to offer single-sex spaces, and, as such, by actively seeking to abolish this provision, Stonewall are taking a position which is in direct conflict with women's established rights to privacy and dignity. It is not appropriate to have an org which is campaigning against the rights of groups with protected characteristics advising on internal policy.

Good luck. I'm going to be challenging my own org's membership when I get the right moment.

You should include that the EHRC don't think Stonewall are worth the money.
Your company could get advice free from many other organisations, and make up its own 'LGBT friendly' logo. What are they actually getting for their steep fee?

"Stonewall offers dodgy advice, that has been shown to be illegal" - or words to that effect!

Appeal to your company's self interest - they are putting themselves at risk of legal action if they take Stonewall's advice.

You could say that some gay men and lesbians are worried by the Stonewall homophobia as employees in the Stonewall champion scheme.

Jo Bartosch article

archive.is/GCub0

Stonewall is finally paying the price for turning its back on gay men and lesbians
The LGBT charity has strayed far from its core purpose, alienating large numbers of people in the process

Another point is all the work, time and money involved to produce risky unequal policies.

Rights may not be pie, but time, attention, energy and money most definitely are pie. If managers are pouring hours of their time into drafting and implementing Trans Equality Policies that meet with Stonewall’s approval, that’s time they won’t have spent on sex, disability, age, race, religion or belief.

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

A number of champions have no “Sex Equality Policy,” no “Disability Equality Policy,” no “Race Equality Policy,” no “Religion or Belief Equality Policy.” There isn’t even a general “LGBT Equality Policy.” But do have a special “Trans Equality Policy.”

You could mention their questionable definitions, especially trans being an umbrella term that includes cross dressers.

Put with their other guidance, this means that Steve from IT can put on some floaty trousers and blouse and can join you in the ladies toilets.

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms

Another point is that they simply don't need to do it. As Debbie Hayton points out, they don't need outsiders "to tell them to treat LGBT employees and customers no less favourably because of their sexual orientation or gender reassignment status. It really isn’t difficult, as many employers – including my own – have discovered, without handing large sums of money over"

www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-taxpayers-funding-stonewall-diversity-programmes-

I’m waiting for the Alison Bailey ruling. If it’s as critical as I would expect it’s the right moment to challenge our membership.

you could also point out what the key employees in that organisation have done to children. One employee ran a teenage youth group where they actively invited in older males to start 'relationships' underage females, in an environment of coercion and abuse, as described by Benji here:

Allison Bailey case is next year and I agree it'll be pivotal but in the meantime I see no reason to delay pointing out the issues of SW membership.

following as id also like to bring this up to my employer. but mine is a large public sector organisation, also on Stonewalls top 100 employers, so I am a bit worried. also new to taking any action on this, but have been a long time lurker on here.

power to you boydy

Brilliant @boydy99

I do like it when lurkers surface

Another point is that they campaign to remove single sex exemptions from the Equality Act, so they are indirectly funding this... does your employer agree with removing single sex exemptions? (demand an answer to this from HR/Policy)

I simply don't understand why companies would pay lots of money to a lobby group, employ extra staff, buy lots of tat, when we have a perfectly good equality act that everyone can read and follow. It is brainwashing on a massive scale.

survivors of coercion and abuse at the hands of certain SW employees, is a key one for me. Does your employer really want to follow the advice/orders/interpretations of law and policies of SW where people like this had a hand in them? and could even be corresponding with them directly?

@boydy99

following as id also like to bring this up to my employer. but mine is a large public sector organisation, also on Stonewalls top 100 employers, so I am a bit worried. also new to taking any action on this, but have been a long time lurker on here.

In the public sector I would ask about how they implement/uphold their public sector equality duty when following an scheme designed to promote one protected characteristic at the expense of others.

You are genuinely very brave. I wish I could do this

Another point is the conditional funding from the Arcus foundation / US big pharma money. It started in 2014 with £100k, conditional on including their policies (that many trans people don't agree with). A notable feature of the grants illustrates the tactic of forced teaming. This is led to SW campaigning to remove sex exemptions in the equality act. It's not independent. It has received funds from Arcus. Twitter user @StillTish investigated this. Arcus donated more than $10 million to religious organisations, many with explicit anti-LGB policies and practices

gendercriticalwoman.wordpress.com/2021/04/22/arcus-foundation-grants/

I second that you are very brave.

This is a useful thread as I am back tracking to log all the issues too. It will take some digging but if you Google search 'Mumsnet' and 'stonewall' you will not be short of threads to mine!

Was it Nottinghamshire Police who left the champion scheme over the staff hours it takes to make a submission?

Bristol/Somerset/Gloucester CCG (NHS Care Commission Group) left it too.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/why-everyone-is-dropping-stonewall

It is not appropriate to have an org which is campaigning against the rights of groups with protected characteristics advising on internal policy.

good headline for the whole thing

I do need to factor in the resourcing of it as well. We made hundreds of people redundant last year and we were supposed to strip out all unnecessary activity.

I now need to decide how to run this up the flag pole. If I go in via HR I suspect I won't get far, but if I go in via my own leadership structure I might get somewhere.

As I told a colleague, I may have found the hill I am prepared to die on.

Agree that the Allison Bailey case and the findings from the Forstater appeal will be critical. If the ET comes back as it should then I would be much more confident in voicing my concerns.

I don't think I want to wait until the Bailey verdict, they would likely have another lot of our money by then.

Your point 4 "some of their aims have the potential to clash..."
I'd have thought that you could be more positive here!!! "...some of their aims are directly at odds with the legal rights of..."

Good luck

@JustcameoutGC

Agree that the Allison Bailey case and the findings from the Forstater appeal will be critical. If the ET comes back as it should then I would be much more confident in voicing my concerns.

I don't think I want to wait until the Bailey verdict, they would likely have another lot of our money by then.

It would be a difficult point to take up in my organisation without the backing of an independent court/ET ruling. HR would want to avoid an issue they see as political.

EHRC decision does help though.