Organisations Leaving Stonewall: The List

[Barracker]

Thought it would be handy to keep a running list here of organisations who have done 'budget reviews' or similar and have subsequently decided that Stonewall are 'not value for money'.

EHRC
ACAS
House of Commons
DVLA
Dorset Police
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Do feel free to update the thread as more join the exodus.

@Helen8220

Stonewall help us make sure our policies are as LGBT+ inclusive as possible and prepare staff training (eg on being a good ally), puts us in touch with other organisations to share best practice, offers discounts on training and conferences.

My organisation generally puts quite a lot of time and effort into D&I on all fronts.

Does your employer have an excellent and public record on race, disability, and for other protected characteristics?

What inclusivity for LGBT+ has Stonewall nudged your employer to put in place that didn't exist previously? Similarly, what best practice has been introduced?

Sounds like your employer has it covered already Helen and they could save a few bob by not renewing. The going rate appears to be around the £2,500 mark I think.

But I'm sure they are truly and fully inclusive and spend the exact same amounts with those advising them in other marginalised groups like those with physical and mental disabilities for example.

I'm sure your employer must rely on Stonewall in order to connect with other orgs for best practise, it's not like you can make an approach by phone or email without them.

Shame to see this informative, on point thread being sent off course by Helen’s post.

Sorry for derailing, I’ll make this my last post. Just wanted to express support for the stonewall scheme. For the handful of organisations that have left the scheme (and in the case the public sector, I suspect in most cases genuinely due to budget pressures) there are many more that still value it.

@BettyFilous

Shame to see this informative, on point thread being sent off course by Helen’s post.

You’re absolutely right, Betty.

Shamelessly placemarking
Excellent news 😁

@Helen8220

Stonewall help us make sure our policies are as LGBT+ inclusive as possible and prepare staff training (eg on being a good ally), puts us in touch with other organisations to share best practice, offers discounts on training and conferences.

My organisation generally puts quite a lot of time and effort into D&I on all fronts.

Except they aren't L inclusive, are they? And inclusion of T involves exclusion of women. When inclusion involves exclusion, it isn't actually inclusion, it's just political lobbying for one group over another.

She said Stonewall does not represent everyone in the LGBTQ community

only those who give them money

My organisation still supports Stonewall as far as I know, going so far as to have gender neutral toilets to move up in their rankings, despite opposition from staff.

Ironically it indirectly discriminates against women on its overtime policy, which has been pointed out to them on several occasions, but I guess women don't matter as much as other groups .

@Helen8220

Sorry for derailing, I’ll make this my last post. Just wanted to express support for the stonewall scheme. For the handful of organisations that have left the scheme (and in the case the public sector, I suspect in most cases genuinely due to budget pressures) there are many more that still value it.

I think there's a huge amount of jeopardy in your organisation remaining a member of the Stonewall scheme, since they have been deliberately misrepresenting the law. From Sex Matters letter:

"On May 18th an independent report into no-platforming at the University of Essex by Akua Reindorf, a highly respected barrister, showed how the charity’s advice to its Diversity Champions contradicts UK equality law. Following this advice puts an employer at risk of committing unlawful discrimination and condoning workplace bullying. Influenced by Stonewall’s elastic definition of “transphobia”—to include, among other things, defending the current wording of the Equality Act, and women’s legal rights to single-sex spaces and sports—Essex University had breached two visiting professors’ freedom of expression. It had also failed to investigate threats of violence against one of them and a tweet by a staff member comparing the views of the other—a Jewish human-rights professor—to Holocaust denial. Reindorf recommended that the university consider breaking from Stonewall “in light of the drawbacks and potential illegalities” that had arisen from the relationship."

So we have the following confirmed:

EHRC
ACAS
House of Commons
DVLA
Dorset Police
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire CCG

Anyone know what reason MHCLG gave for leaving? I work for an arms length body funded by the Department which is all over Stonewall like a cheap suit, and might mention it if I get the opportunity without being sacked...

House of Commons.

no one likes a tourist

.

I don't think it's derailing, to hear from someone who still supports Stonewall. Interesting to hear that there are still people who feel they provide a valuable service.

Helen, you don't find their misrepresentation of the law an issue, at all? I'm being genuine, here, I'd like to know what you think.

@Leafstamp

So we have the following confirmed:

EHRC
ACAS
House of Commons
DVLA
Dorset Police
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire CCG

Thrilled to see my employer on this list

“Good Ally”
Except not to women or lesbians.

@ArabellaScott I wasn’t aware of this incident, I’ve just been looking into it. It seems the basis of the criticism related to the following:
“The policy said it was unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity or trans status. But Reindorf’s report said this did not accurately state the law, since “gender identity or trans status” were not protected characteristics; rather, the protected characteristic was gender reassignment.”

This feels like a fairly minor semantic issue. Given that a court recently held that a non-binary person was protected from discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, surely anyone whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth must share this protected characteristic, so the policy statement doesn’t sound that misleading to me.

Excellent thread. I'll be writing to the university DD is going to in autumn.

@Wandawomble my organisation is about 60% women, and given my active role in the LGBT+ network, I know quite a few gay and bisexual female colleagues. From conversations with a number of them around this it seems that most of them (like me) regard Stonewall as a force for good, and as representing our interests.

Is it also a 'fairly minor semantic issue' that an academic was no-platformed from an event about the Holocaust - entirely unrelated to her views on gender?

And that this happened because Stonewall's advice had led many people to think that this type of bullying was acceptable?

surely anyone whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth must share this protected characteristic

Well, I'm no lawyer. But I would guess 'semantics' are probably very important when an organisation's raison d'etre is advising on legislation & the law.

If a 'gender identity' is something separate from sex, and something that can be changed, sometimes frequently changed in the case of 'gender fluid' people, then how is gender identity related to sex, at all? Surely everyone's 'gender identity' is different from their sex? (Sex doesn't change; it's not possible to change, so 'at birth' is extraneous).

@Helen8220

I’m pleased to say that my employer is renewing its membership for another year. I’d be concerned what it would say about their commitment to LGBT+ inclusion if they didn’t.

Who’s your employer? I assume you’re not uncomfortable being public about their membership

@ArabellaScott I am a lawyer, and I’d say the precise words used are sometimes crucial, but sometimes a distraction from substance and meaning.

It’s particularly difficult to use language clearly and precisely when talking about sex and gender in the context of the law, because the legislation in this area is not entirely consistent or clear in its use of the terms. The Gender Recognition Act mostly talks about gender, and makes clear that a person can change gender, but does also talk about a person changing sex. Similarly the Equality Act, in the context of gender reassignment, talks about a person’s sex being reassigned.

So in that context I’m not sure how much I would criticise Stonewall for using the terms in the way it did.

[quote Helen8220]@Wandawomble my organisation is about 60% women, and given my active role in the LGBT+ network, I know quite a few gay and bisexual female colleagues. From conversations with a number of them around this it seems that most of them (like me) regard Stonewall as a force for good, and as representing our interests.[/quote]
How do they represent women and lesbian’s interests exactly?
Do you think they represent all women’s interests? What about the women who are saying they don’t represent their interests?