Liz Truss urges official withdrawal from Stonewall diversity scheme

[BattyOrange]

Sorry, I don't have a share token but www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-urges-official-withdrawal-from-stonewall-diversity-scheme-9df7pvsrn

Basically, Liz Truss "is pushing for all government departments to withdraw from Stonewall’s employment scheme following a row over transgender rights." because "she shared the concerns raised by the EHRC over the scheme’s value for money, particularly as the civil service has its own in-house workplace diversity programme."

Whether or not the reasons stated are true (I have my doubts) this is a good thing!

@LizzieSiddal

And thank you to Justine for being brave enough to allow these discussions to take place here. I'm sure it didn't come without personal cost.

Yes a huge thank you to Justine and MNHQ for allowing us to debate this issue here.

Absolutely.

And this clearly shows why they didn't want us pesky women talking.

Does anyone know what would happen with Allison Bailey's tribunal if stonewall folds before the hearing date? Presumably she could still take garden court to tribunal?

I don't think Stonewall is likely to fold that easily.

Sorry, I know it's little OJ but can I just rant a bit about his latest tweet? He has smugly proclaimed that "if you oppose trans rights, you are an opponent of LGBTQ equality in general. The end." I just want to scream at his uncompromising, rigid way of looking at this. I'm bisexual. It has taken me a long time to be comfortable with my sexuality. I wholeheartedly supported the campaign for gay marriage. I am entirely against conversion therapy and regressive religious fundamentalism which tells LBG people they are disgusting and wrong.

At the same time, I oppose a lot of the trans doctrine. I'm sorry, but I disagree with self-ID as an ideological position, especially when it is taken to such extremes that I go onto women dating apps and see people with penises demand that I consider them to be in my dating pool. I disagree with the medicalisation of trans children. I think there are real medical ethics concerns there. I am worried about how trans rights interacts with and subverts women's rights, as protected in the Equality Act 2010, and how Stonewall has misinterpreted the law. I feel that all of my concerns are rational and not motivated from a place of bigotry or hate. I certainly don't want trans people's lives to go badly. But that doesn't mean I think they have the right to compete in female sports or have access to female only domestic abuse shelters, or prisons.

But apparently because I question this stuff I'm an opponent of LGBT equality. Just like that, I'm thrown in the 'baddies' corner with the far right Evangelical Christians, with the countries that throw gay people off buildings, with the quack conversion therapists...it's so disheartening to be on the right side, and to be a supporter of LGBT equality for so long only to be told that because I simply disagree I'm a bigot.

it's so disheartening to be on the right side, and to be a supporter of LGBT equality for so long only to be told that because I simply disagree I'm a bigot.

But you know you are not. So as I pointed out on another thread, whenever these ideologues make claims about us that we know not to be true, they weaken the credibility of everything else they claim as well.

"if you oppose trans rights, you are an opponent of LGBTQ equality in general

Well he was never one for critical thought.

Love these replies to the nonsense on twitter

Dr. Jane Clare Jones @janeclarejones:

A lot of us are gay, or lesbian, or bisexual.

We're not 'coming for' anyone.

We're trying to stop sex being erased in law.

That's it.

And you have the fucking brass neck to accuse us of scaremongering.
Quote Tweet

Srsly.

The amount of fear this rhetoric has generated about a bunch of mostly middle-aged mostly left-wing feminists and lesbians is insane.

And its been created for political leverage.

Which makes it also fucking immoral.

How about people with a duty of care for young people told them the truth.

That they are protected in law. That they live in one of the safest places in the world.

And that they have nothing to fear from feminist women just because we refuse to pretend that sex doesn't exist.

I'm pleased that Stonewall's gravy train has taken a hit. It was very clever of them to set up a scheme self described as a benchmark tool for an inclusive workforce. It reminds me of the old Investors in People scheme (which was also a load of bollocks), remember when every organisation was doing that?

When an organisation's reputation is taking a hit is when it is most dangerous. We will need to continue to apply pressure and spread the word.

Still, it's worth taking a moment

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of straight male lobbyists, which is what Stonewall have become.

The politics going forward will be interesting.

Big announcement snuck in over a sunny bank holiday and in the shadow of Boris’ wedding.

The rage will strike next week. The Tories behaving true to form as the ‘nasty party’.

Kier will need to decide how to respond. He is already under pressure from the left wing of his party. They are claiming that his poor election results were because he was not Corbyn enough. His instincts/polling will be telling him that voters, often former Labour supporters, are pleased to see Liz et al, roll back some of the urban wokeness.

So does he please the activists, and lead the charge, or attempt to please potential voters. Or does he remain sitting on his uncomfortable fence.

My own view is that Stonewall is just one lobbing organisation that has set up store in the corridors of power. Keir should question how lobbyists have got so influential, with Stonewall as a concrete example. And ignore the LGBT elements. Why were public bodies paying out so much?

I don’t think it’s a ‘big announcement’. According to the Times article, it’s something she is believed to have told officials. That could mean anything from it’s an edict sent to her department (though in dubious she’d have the authority to do that) through to it’s some musing she did in a meeting with a few of her advisors present. Or it could well be a strategically-placed leak.

Don’t get me wrong, this is excellent news and I really hope it provokes public bodies to #LeaveStonewall and I really think it might, but let’s not get carried away and portray it as a big policy announcement when it isn’t.

The responses on the Mermaids thread are a thing of beauty

@justawoman

The responses on the Mermaids thread are a thing of beauty

They really are.

I agree people on this thread view this as a big announcement, most people don't give a shit, or still assume that Stonewall = good and dont think that much more about it.

Labour (and the unions) will not want to open this can of worms, they are up to their neck in shite. They have thrown so many good women under the bus it will probably be harder for them to roll back than stonewall themselves.

If Kier/ Angela issue a statement and double down like Nancy Kelley did, then I suspect it will be the end of him. Although if he says something more sensible then I suspect it could be the end of him also. He would be no loss. I suspect they will say sweet fa and let this one play put a bit longer.

'A symptom of a psychological disorder is the perception that everyone is out to get them. They perceive all events as hostile actions deliberately aimed against them no matter how reasonable those events are. The disorder itself, makes them unable to relate to this delusion.

Applies to so many TRAs who fail to appreciate that standing up for women’s rights and child safeguarding is not in itself anti-trans. When will they realise this?!'

Thing is that the victim complex thing is used all the time.

Loads of groups are told that they are looking to be offended, thin skinned, taking stuff the wrong way, imagining things etc.

Women who talk about issues for women and girls are continually accused of being paranoid and playing the eternal victim. All the time. I've seen it on here a lot.

In the end I think that this whole trans business has been, for me, a really interesting lesson.

Arguments were freely taken from other groups, so many other groups! And often turned against them. Blatantly. And most people didn't notice or care.

Other groups were pushed to centre this issue. Loads of other groups. And they did! No questions asked.

Laws were changed and really bizarre stuff was done without any kind of oversight or transparency. That's an awful lot of people who could make the rules for eg police, prisons etc going along with things that are to the average person completely wrong. Male sex offenders in women's prisons??? I mean. What?!?! But it happened.

Stonewall - the most well known gay rights org in the UK. Redefined gay and lesbian to mean NOT HOMOSEXUAL. The fuck??!!

Sorry went off a bit sideways there!

The point is. That groups who have been discriminated against forever are told they have a victim complex.

There is enough to talk about here without using the arguments that have been used against us. Iyswim.

I love this guy. He's hilarious.

@Blibbyblobby

it's so disheartening to be on the right side, and to be a supporter of LGBT equality for so long only to be told that because I simply disagree I'm a bigot.

But you know you are not. So as I pointed out on another thread, whenever these ideologues make claims about us that we know not to be true, they weaken the credibility of everything else they claim as well.

I don't know I'm not.

I know that 99.999% of the world agrees with me.

These issues are starting to get more attention with the general public. And shocker.

People in general.

Do not think males should be in women's prisons.
Do not think males should be competing against women with their times etc recorded as female
Do not think it's a good idea to allow males to access female only facilities etc
Do not think that lesbian means anything other than adult human females who are attracted exclusively to other adult human females. And that males saying they are lesbians is ridiculous
Etc etc

Because in the general public both men and women know the difference between men and women and who is at risk from who and that way too many men are creepy bastards who would do anything to be in places where women and girls are vulnerable.

No I'm not wrong.

And you know what. All this stuff about. People who don't say yay so brave for these rubgy players to play with the women!
Being
Homophobes
Christian fundamentalists
Russian bots
Puppet accounts
People who love proscribed gender roles
Dim women who are easily manipulated
Etc etc

It doesn't land. It doesn't give me pause.

Or many other women.

Because it's so far off the mark it's just laughable.

The new head of stonewall said that those who think sex is a thing, and the two sexes have different needs etc

Are like anti-Semites.

I mean all the time. Using the experiences of other groups to make an argument. Totally inappropriate. Utterly crass.

I mean for fucks sake.

A new low tbh.

@heathspeedwell

Thank you to all the wonderful women of Mumsnet for getting the ball rolling that made this happen.

Thank you to JK Rowling for shining a light on this issue and getting it talked about by the wider public.

And thank you to Justine for being brave enough to allow these discussions to take place here. I'm sure it didn't come without personal cost.

Echoing all of these thank yous.

@bitheby

I love this guy. He's hilarious.

I'd like to go out on the lash with Dennis. He's a great follow on Twitter.

Not read the whole thread but Jesus Christ never thought I'd see the day I'd be cheering on Liz Truss.

I'm in a public sector comms FB group and today someone posed a question about how to refer to the LGBT community - the advice from all being "check with Stonewall". (Interspersed with 'I don't know anything, I'm cis!!')

Scary, to be honest.

I hadn't realised the chief exec of mental health first aid England is one of the trustees. I'd assumed MHFA would be neutral but presumably that isn't the case.

Justawoman, I think it is a big announcement, given it affects a very large number of public sector organisations. And hopefully a large number of marketing departments.

But it was a big announce that was announced quietly over a bank holiday weekend and in the form of leaks to the Times, and in the shadow of news about Boris’ wedding. Even the Mail response was low key.

There will be backlash. However the Government have delivered their news. The spotlight will be on the Leader of the Opposition.

It wasn’t an announcement at all. It’s a single report in a newspaper (then picked up by others) as to what the Minister is supposed to have possibly said. It’s probably, hopefully, true, but it’s nothing on the level of an actual policy announcement.

When I worked in public sector comms if someone said, “The Minister said...” we’d always ask - where? In the bath?

There’s a big difference between, say, a major policy announcement made in parliament or by publication of a new document signed by the Minister, and an unattributed story in a newspaper about what the Minister has supposedly said at some point.

I don’t want to pour cold water on enthusiasm, but this really, really isn’t any form of ‘announcement’. What I hope is that it’s a strategic and authorised off the record briefing to the Times, but it could also be a leak or simply untrue (though I’d have expected it to be denied by now if untrue).

And hitting the Sunday papers was what we used to plan for strategically for the biggest stories - we always wanted them in the weekend press as this got bigger readership and was more likely to set the news agenda. We certainly weren’t trying to bury stories by putting them out at the weekend.