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.

I don't know Leafstamp but just saw this on twitter which suggests we must get those letters out without delay.

twitter.com/mynamesnotliz/status/1398659867494256642?s=21

"Stonewall's approval'.

I honestly don't think they see it.

Stonewall seems to have appointed themselves as a form of diversity Ofsted.

'Stonewall's Approval' is the new kissing of the ring.

@CardinalLolzy

This is from another thread but wasn't answered, so I'd be interested in your interpretation - if your gender identity is 'woman' and your sex is 'female' is your gender identity 'the same as' or 'different from' your sex? (Assuming here that 'sex' refers to biological sex and is fixed).

I don’t think any of these terms are being (or can be) used in very precise concrete way; as commented above, the Equality Act defines the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the following terms: “the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”

The language is clearly being used by different people (and in different contexts) in very different ways.

But broadly it seems to me that if your birth certificate says female and you identify as a woman/female you can’t reasonably be said to be transgender or to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Well well. Will you look at this. Pink News obviously thought they could save the money and go one better than stonewall.

https://twitter.com/atraschel/status/1399301702621220865?s=21

Does no one realise all this " ahead if the law" stuff makes it sound like they already know its not law. Won't serve them well if any law suits arise.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Does no one realise all this " ahead if the law" stuff makes it sound like they already know its not law. Won't serve them well if any law suits arise.

Totally. Good to have a screen shot of that tweet.

Clicking round from the Cohen thread above, I saw this in response to a post from Martin Bright of Index on Censorship.

Does anybody vaguely know what Katie Montgomerie is on about here or is it not worth damaging my mind with such flagrant nonsense? The 'they' in question are gender-critical feminists.

They are campaigning to take away my healthcare and freedom. They have no rational arguments that justify that. It's extreme prejudice

In the WHRC submission to the GRA Inquiry they literally said they want to "eliminate" trans people

Does none of that mean anything to you? [cont. in screenshot]

twitter.com/martinbright/status/1398601311306801152

I looked at this WHRC submission and saw nothing like that. (I searched on the stem elim - healthcare, freedom etc.)

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/

I dont understand why eveeyone is so threatened by everyone else's beliefs. I mean don't people just have their own then either belive in some all or non.of someone else's but then just get on with their day?

I've worked with people who have all sorts of beliefs.. we do sometimes discuss them and have a healthy debate/discussion. We don't always agree , when we do we have git there from opposite ends of the discussion but none if us are upset offended or threatened in anyway. It doesn't threaten me in any way

Thank you for providing the list of who is still a member. Pleased that my energy supplier is not, my bank is not, my employer is not, and I cannot find any retailer I spend money with is a member.

Just need to think what to say to the Premier League, as fair competitive sport is something that should be fundamental to them.

My employer is Stonewall top 100. The other day my boss was taking to someone about a woman about to return from mar leave. He said “we will have to find out how she is intending to manage childcare”. I wonder if anyone ever says that about a man who has had a baby? ( I don’t really wonder, I know!)
Same employer has a very active LGBTQ+ network(run as far as I can see by men and straight women) but no women’s network. There’s a Gender Equality network (open to all genders) that talks about menopause and equal pay, but never, ever, allows the idea that there is any structural inequality involved in being female. It’s just “don’t generalise about gender and don’t be sexist to either sex”. During the pandemic I emailed them to ask if they were going to open a discussion on the impact of COVID on women’s lives. I got a polite reply but then tumbleweed. And what I see very clearly is that the people who do the pronouns thing, and volunteer for the D& I stuff, they get the promotions and the exposure. It’s a fucking racket.

@Whatwouldscullydo

I dont understand why eveeyone is so threatened by everyone else's beliefs. I mean don't people just have their own then either belive in some all or non.of someone else's but then just get on with their day?

I've worked with people who have all sorts of beliefs.. we do sometimes discuss them and have a healthy debate/discussion. We don't always agree , when we do we have git there from opposite ends of the discussion but none if us are upset offended or threatened in anyway. It doesn't threaten me in any way

Many (most) people do “get on with their day” but some people (the canaries in the coal mine if you like) can see the dangers of allowing certain aspects of trans ideologies when it comes to women’s right and child safeguarding.

Without those who are campaigning to stop thirst dangers the world would be a worse place.

I for one am eternally grateful to those doing more than I ever will in terms of protecting women and children.

So I’m very glad those people don’t just “get on with their day”.

“we will have to find out how she is intending to manage childcare”.

That’s really bad.

It’s none of an employer’s business really. It’s not just men who wouldn’t be asked this question, but if the question is asked to mothers then a similar one should be asked to all employers : eg: “please tell us about your personal life in terms of its impact on you working overtime. For example, do you go to a gym class on a Tuesday at 6pm? A shopping delivery at 8am on a Monday?”

Oh no leaf I more meant that the activists who spend their time on twitter cursing everyone who doesn't believe in gender etc and generally being hateful and nasty. Not the women fighting back over trying to maintain rights. I mean I too am grateful for everything that's being done. That goes without saying. I just don't get why it's so important to the people involved to organise pile ons ahd get anyone with a different opinion cancelled and fired etc I mean we all have different opinions about alot of things its no big deal. Why is a woman saying they don't believe in gender so threatening . If you believe in something they surely that's enough for you to get on with whatever you are doing. Why so fragile? Why so angry when someone doesn't?

Oh sorry scully, I misunderstood. I agree there is no place for nastiness, and tbh those activists also just look plain foolish as well - you can’t change biology and the law is the law!

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]Clicking round from the Cohen thread above, I saw this in response to a post from Martin Bright of Index on Censorship.

Does anybody vaguely know what Katie Montgomerie is on about here or is it not worth damaging my mind with such flagrant nonsense? The 'they' in question are gender-critical feminists.

They are campaigning to take away my healthcare and freedom. They have no rational arguments that justify that. It's extreme prejudice

In the WHRC submission to the GRA Inquiry they literally said they want to "eliminate" trans people

Does none of that mean anything to you? [cont. in screenshot]

twitter.com/martinbright/status/1398601311306801152

I looked at this WHRC submission and saw nothing like that. (I searched on the stem elim - healthcare, freedom etc.)

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/[/quote]
Could this be what they are referring to? (2nd para of the introduction).

The Convention calls for the ‘elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (Article 5). We consider that the practice of transgenderism clearly falls under this article because it is based on stereotyped roles for men and women.

The WHRC want to eliminate prejudices and practices which are based on stereotypes. Transgenderism is based on stereotypes. Therefore (according to the TRA) they want to 'eliminate' trans people.

If this is the TRA argument, I'd like them to explain for once why they think stereotypes are such a wonderful thing. And if the TRAs argue that transgenderism isn't based on stereotypes, I'd like them to explain exactly what it is based on and why they haven't just said that transgenderism isn't about stereotypes, therefore the arguments about eliminating stereotypes don't apply to transgenderism. (But of course it's easier to shout about women wanting to 'eliminate' trans people than actually engage with the debate.)

Philip Morris International on the list of Stonewall Champions is perfection as an example of wokewashed capitalism.

@Leafstamp

“we will have to find out how she is intending to manage childcare”.

That’s really bad.

It’s none of an employer’s business really. It’s not just men who wouldn’t be asked this question, but if the question is asked to mothers then a similar one should be asked to all employers : eg: “please tell us about your personal life in terms of its impact on you working overtime. For example, do you go to a gym class on a Tuesday at 6pm? A shopping delivery at 8am on a Monday?”

Exactly! They shouldn't be asking this of anyone should they? It's not your employees business how you organise your personal life. Maybe this woman's husband was staying at home, maybe her mother was coming to live with her, maybe a combo of nursery/ nanny who the fuck knows. My boss was couching it in " helping her" to return, but we all know this stuff holds women back.

But broadly it seems to me that if your birth certificate says female and you identify as a woman/female you can’t reasonably be said to be transgender or to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

@Helen8220 but that rests on the notion that "woman" and "female" are interchangeable, which is transphobic. Many males are also women.

Ifnot, Christ, that's awful.

One thing I was very grateful for HR for doing (council, teaching) was sending out an email that acknowledged that many parents had small children at home were carers and so employers needed to be mindful of the pressures of home working in that situation. The second email was supportively all about stress and mental health.

Given the vast majority of primary and secondary teachers are women, I'm not surprised though.

Afaik they're not stonewall members.

Bloody hell, just looking at that long, long list finally makes me realise why Stonewall is doubling down. I knew they had (sadly) transformed into grifters, but I had not quite realised the scale of the grift. They must be raking it in.

My local council, and two local transport hubs, are listed. I will write to them this week.

@CardinalLolzy
but that rests on the notion that "woman" and "female" are interchangeable, which is transphobic. Many males are also women.

I don’t think it rests on the terms being interchangeable- they’re clearly not interchangeable, given that ‘woman’ is generally only used of human beings, and adults, whereas ‘female’ isn’t limited in either of those ways.

That aside, even if you believe that ‘female’, when used in relation to humans, means all and only people who have XX chromosomes (plus some people with intersex variations who don’t have XX chromosomes but are identified as female on another biological basis) - or people who were born with ovaries (ditto re intersex variations), it still makes sense to say that if you are female and identify as a man you’re transgender, and if you’re female and identify as a woman then you’re not transgender.

I knew they had (sadly) transformed into grifters, but I had not quite realised the scale of the grift. They must be raking it in.

I was writing my SexMatters letters yesterday and checking the FOIs of my target organisations. I believe the annual Stonewall Champions fee is £2500 although that seemed to vary slightly. But the question on the FOI is for total money paid to Stonewall. And this does vary a lot. I hadn't realised, so looked through a few of the other FOIs. Ministry of Justice for instance paid £10126.80 for two years 2018/2019. Another organisation paid £6000. The Post office paid £9400 in 2019.

They really are raking it in! Organisations pulling out will represent a huge financial loss. Not before time.

It's the paying every year that looks so dodgy.

A one off fee to get all the info is one thing. But every year in order to maintain membership of the sucker club?

Doesn't look good.