Time to #LeaveStonewall - Sex Matters campaign

[Leafstamp]

Just launched:

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/leave-stonewall/

Get writing! Useful content for anyone wanting to challenge Stonewall or Stonewall-esque influences.

Reindorf recommended that the university consider breaking from Stonewall" is a misrepresentation of Reccomendation 28.
Many other aspects of the letter overstate the case, But go ahead, send it.

Oof - make sure you proof-read for spelling mistakes next time you post, Robin!

Excellent letter, excellent campaign. I already know which my five will be.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

From the Telegraph article:

The House of Commons said it did not renew its membership for 2020. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) said it exited in December, while Acas, the employment dispute service, said it had withdrawn “for cost reasons” last June.
Dorset Police, one of multiple forces previously listed as part of the scheme, said it is now not a member. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government said it left in 2019.

Interesting. I wonder what the normal amount of churn from the scheme is, and if this is less than, same as or more than usual. I have the sense that it’s more, but would like to know.

I was astonished to read the other day that a submission could run to 1600 pages. I work in an industry that runs multi million dollar, international projects with a fraction of that paperwork. We’re not a Stonewall Diversity champion, either, we probably balked at that much paperwork

I have three companies picked for my letters.

Thanks for your advice Robin. Nice to see you make time for Mumsnet away from the Radio 4 group on Facebook. Busy, busy, busy!

I posted this on the other thread but might as well repeat Sarah Vine's succinct message in the Mail on Sunday

"The head of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, has told the BBC that believing in biological sex is the equivalent of antisemitism.

This is the kind of swivel-eyed thinking that cannot and must not be tolerated. Stonewall is a respected, long-standing organisation that receives a good deal of taxpayers’ money from a number of government agencies. Time to sever those ties."

I'm sorry, I don;t think that is a brilliant letter. The opening paragraph doesn;t clearly set out the key concern and could be dismissed easily, without anyone reading on, as anti-trans propaganda.

A good letter has to clearly express in the opening sentences what the key concerns are: that women's rights are being dissolved under the Stonewall directives and that companies should be vigilant against misogyny by stealth and denial of human rights of workers to express fair opinions.

I am sympathetic to both sides and fiercely against any trace of misogyny under the guise of wokery but that opening paragraph didn't make me want to read on.

@Cowbells

I'm sorry, I don;t think that is a brilliant letter. The opening paragraph doesn;t clearly set out the key concern and could be dismissed easily, without anyone reading on, as anti-trans propaganda.

A good letter has to clearly express in the opening sentences what the key concerns are: that women's rights are being dissolved under the Stonewall directives and that companies should be vigilant against misogyny by stealth and denial of human rights of workers to express fair opinions.

I am sympathetic to both sides and fiercely against any trace of misogyny under the guise of wokery but that opening paragraph didn't make me want to read on.

“We are writing to call on you to withdraw from the scheme, both for the sake of your own reputation and as a necessary step to protecting the rights of all your employees, in particular in relation to discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and religion or belief, as established by the Equality Act 2010.”

Sorry, how can the opening paragraph be easily dismissed as transphobic?

Oh sorry @AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken - I was referring to the other piece linked to. I read the wrong piece. That is a strong opening. I agree. Please ignore my post. Thank you for flagging it.

@Cowbells

Oh sorry *@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken* - I was referring to the other piece linked to. I read the wrong piece. That is a strong opening. I agree. Please ignore my post. Thank you for flagging it.

It’s easily done with so many links and articles and statements already in such a short thread!

For all the Tom Hagans

m.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

The thing is, this IS a budget/costs issue for organisations.

It's not the £2,500 membership fee that's the issue, it's also the time staff are spending on submissions and drafting policies for Stonewall approval and, much more significantly, the £100,000 in legal fees that the adherence to Stonewall's demands in their staff policies causes when they then have to defend those unlawful policies in Court. That's the expensive bit, and it's all because Stonewall has demanded that organisations stop following the Equality Act and instead enforce Gender Extremism on its employees instead.

So, yes, any organisation needing to control its budget needs to ditch the huge financial liability that is its Stonewall (anti-)Diversity Scheme membership.

If anyone was in any doubt about whether to write, you may be interested to know that there is not very nice account on Twitter encouraging TRAs to write to 10 organisations with their support for Stonewall (as a way of trying to go one better than the Sex Matters campaign suggesting 5).

I’m away at the moment but will be firing off as many personalised letters as possible to any Stonewall organisation I interact with.

I also got the email on Saturday and contacting my five organisations this week.

It's a brilliant letter and campaign.

Great stuff Sapphos. Nice one.