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?

@JustcameoutGC SexMatters are writing to all the SW champions, so their letter may contain useful points too

I don't think you need to wait for a court ruling to point out your personal issues with being a SW champion.

Mulling it over in the shower. I will be asked what my motivation is. I am in part motivated by my personal opposition to some of Stonewalls aims, but mostly I am motivated to take this stance in the workplace because I think our association with them is reputationally risky, and I want to make sure leadership are aware of the risks.

OP is your organisation a public body? if so, here's the SexMatters letter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life calling for a public inquiry into “Stonewall Law”

I think our association with them is reputationally risky, and I want to make sure leadership are aware of the risks.

A good lead in as leaders want to be aware of risks, even if they don't share values

My employer had this on an action plan, to join. I've been keeping an eye on it and am pleased to say it's been shelved for now due to SW political lobbying. My employer thinks that is inappropriate and we should not be tying ourselves to that activity.

Yay. For now......

It's RISKY for your employer to be a SW funder, given all the legal cases in the UK and European courts right now. The LEAST RISK approach for your employer is to simply follow the law and advice of the EHRC.

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?

I would focus on this and also include faith groups and gay people.

Stonewall is campaigning for official recognition of a particular concept of gender identity (which is their right). However that conflicts with the rights of groups who are protected in the EA.

This therefore calls into question Stonewall’s ability to correctly present the law or provide diversity training.

The "value for money" aspect that the EHRC cites could be useful. After all, what does Stonewall actually do? Help write policy in one area of employment that is probably unlawful and directly impacts the PCs that Stonewall have no interest in.

Is Stonewall having a glance at your Diversity / Equality policies really worth £2.5k a year when any moderately competent HR person could knock them up?

Just a few thoughts and potential questions - if your employer spends £ and time in becoming a SW champion do they spend equal £ and time in supporting the other Protected Characteristics in the Equality Act? And do they use other external organisations to "assist" them in supporting these other characteristics? Which organisations? Do they spend more on support for LGBT staff than they spend on staff with other Protected Characteristics?

Do they spend more on support for LGBT staff than they spend on staff with other Protected Characteristics?

notwithstanding that many LGB staff will not feel supported, quite the opposite.

@JustcameoutGC

Mulling it over in the shower. I will be asked what my motivation is. I am in part motivated by my personal opposition to some of Stonewalls aims, but mostly I am motivated to take this stance in the workplace because I think our association with them is reputationally risky, and I want to make sure leadership are aware of the risks.

Could you answer that by saying that trans rights are already well-covered by your organisation's policies and that you are increasingly concerned about issues of indirect discrimination. You think it would be possible for LGB or disabled people to argue that because of the organisation's focus on trans rights, their rights and needs are being ignored.

I've already had a conversation with a teacher friend this morning who says that Stonewall's new schools and child-focussed five-year-plan is making her and her GC colleagues feel as if they're going to be at war, fending off the attack for the foreseeable future. She's talking about people breaking down in tears at the sight of material they're expected to teach. Could you say that you're concerned that Stonewall's new focus on children makes you feel more concerned about repetitional damage? Misleading HR departments is one thing, trying to trans a generation of children is another and the backlash will reflect that.

I would remind them of all of the above, but add

The Office of National Statistics were recently subjected to a Judicial Review over the Census because of their following SW advice. This has caused them (the Tax payers!) millions of pounds and lots of embarrassment.

The Allison Bailey case has already been described as having a 'very good chance of success' according to the judge at the pre-lim hearing. The case slot has already been extended (and therefore unfortunately delayed) due to the amount of evidence.

I would stress that as a business and employer wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the curve when the all the dark under belly of SW is laid bare.

Also the recent government ruling in new buildings and renovating buildings need to return to single sex toilets. This will cost companies a HUGE amount of money.

Money and reputation is where to hit them.

FindTheTruth
notwithstanding that many LGB staff will not feel supported, quite the opposite.

Yes of course you are quite correct. And again, I wonder how much £ and time is spent on the LGB rather than the T ....

Sorry to be a cynic but they will take more notice of the bottom line, I only use 'stonewall champion' businesses / services if there is no alternative.

'Stonewall Champion' in light of recent events / legal action is not a positive thing, it will cost business.

I don't know what your business is but having a policy that actively puts people off is bad for business.

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

To highlight this and your employer’s need to support other protected groups I would look up your employer’s sex pay gap. It should all be published. And then use @HerewardTheWoke point

“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.”

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

Plus those women who are from particular religious demographics, their religion forbids them from sharing spaces such as toilets and changing rooms with any male bodied person, to allow this your company would be directly discriminating against someone on who has the protected characteristic of religious belief, do they really want to open themselves up to this?

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, it is not defined anywhere in law, single sex spaces have never been accessed on the basis of gender or gender identity it has always been on the basis of sex, again do your company want to walk into this minefield? There will be more cases, does your company want to be one of them?

All power to you OP, you are inspiring!

Some great points on this thread. Following with interest as I have already raised some issues about a particular policy with HR in my public sector organisation. The policy was released without an updated Equality Impact Assessment and I have challenged this. I've been wondering if I should follow it up based on recent events so will keep an eye on all the comments here and consider my next steps. Thanks all!

What does happen to organisations who pay for training and then opt out? Does the champion status expire?

One question I would love to ask those who sign up these schemes is where do think they are going with it? If it is about training then surely that can be done once and then move on. Why the need to permanently affiliate? Does the training they give have some sort of expiry date? Do the trained staff revert back to their unenlightened selves?

It would be interesting, given what we know of Stonewall's relationship with Garden Court Chambers, to know how much blackmail is exerted on any organisation daring enough to sever ties. The EHRC is one thing, but what if you're a major supermarket or bank?

Follow the money is always good. A cost analysis and how much time it takes

So, it turns out we are no longer SW champions. (glad I checked before going in all guns blazing). Don't know how or when it happened, but saw in another thread that after the EHRC withdrawing and all the FOI requests they are offering champions a no fault divorce. Might be worth just asking the question of whether or not your orgs are in the scheme.

Good news, OP, I wonder how many other organisations are quietly pulling away or are preparing to do so.

@JustcameoutGC

So, it turns out we are no longer SW champions. (glad I checked before going in all guns blazing). Don't know how or when it happened, but saw in another thread that after the EHRC withdrawing and all the FOI requests they are offering champions a no fault divorce. Might be worth just asking the question of whether or not your orgs are in the scheme.

Good.

Is it worth raising the issue anyway? Perhaps explain that you had concerns that you were going to raise, before discovering that the company were ahead of the curve (and for which you are grateful and reassured). Perhaps ask how the decision to join was made, how and why the decision to leave was made, and whether the company has reviewed it's processes with regards joining such schemes in order to see if warning signs were missed? Perhaps explain that you are helping a friend of yours in a similar boat and that your company's experience might benefit others?