The Telegraph - Stonewall advises organisations to use 'parent who has given birth' to help boost ranking

[NonnyMouse1337]

Well done to everyone who helped with the FOIs. Fantastic work, and an impressive article from the Telegraph. It's well worth reading it all. When it's all laid out like that, it's really eye opening.

archive.vn/Rb8AT

Undemocratic, corrupt overreach. What a scandal. If you've ever wondered how an extremely niche ideology like the gender identity stuff spread like wildfire among public and private institutions, this is how it's done.

What makes me laugh is I think the Tories have been desperate to get rid of FOIs but this cluster fuck shows exactly why it's needed. 😁

Nothing short of a tyranny!

That is a bloody great article. Blinding sunlight. Stonewall have lost the plot, not that I didn't know that already! Anyone calls me a "parent who's given birth" at work will get a short shrift from me I'm afraid.

@merrymouse

From the Welsh government:

“It has been revised to use non-gendered language, using the umbrella term ‘nursing’ to cover breastfeeding and chestfeeding.”

‘Nursing’ is a euphemism that isn’t commonly used in the U.K.

I was very confused when somebody asked whether I was ‘nursing’ after DS1 was born. I thought they were talking about first aid or maybe a career change.

I’m very glad that this is all being made public. So many of the policies seem to be designed to obscure sex.

"Nursing" your baby is a very, very old fashioned term. My mum still uses it instead of breastfeeding and it drives me mad.

I've skimmed the article and will read through properly later, but the first thing that stood out to me was the Telegraph referring to SW as The controversial charity early in the article.

I am baffled as to why these organisations are striving to be number one on the list and doing exactly as they are told to get there. What is in it for them?

That is a bloody great article. Blinding sunlight. Stonewall have lost the plot, not that I didn't know that already! Anyone calls me a "parent who's given birth" at work will get a short shrift from me I'm afraid

I'm wondering how it even works in effect. I mean any organisation that profits out of say mothers day and fathers day , are they to give up the profits, what abkut the marketing teams? Do they become unemployed for 2 months of the year ?

Or will it be allowed to fly, like bow supermarkets run both Xmas and eid offers ?

@BaklavaBalaclava

Where does 'parent who has given birth' leave mothers who have adopted? Or indeed a lesbian couples child? Surely stonewall should be aware of the impact of this language on people other than the small number of ' people who have given birth who identify as male

Don't it also function (again) to reduce women to biological function, implying (again) that caregiving is inherently linked to having a womb....

Thats exactly what I was thinking, birth isn't the only way to become a mum.

Employers are also asked to prove how they have utilised social media accounts “with the widest reach” to communicate messages of LGBT, bi, non-binary and trans equality.

I think this explains a lot about corporate twitter accounts.

It is a shame the article didn't include the fact that the common theme running through the FOI responses was that there was either no impact assessment conducted or the information re an IA wasn't held.

I think that would have been a shock for the readers. Eliminate the last of the " it must be ok surely , there are laws etc"

@Nodal

What is/was the FOI campaign? Is it still going?

Details here. There are still places that haven't been contacted yet, if you want to get involved.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4158554--DontSubmitToStonewall-suggested-quick-action-by-Legal-Feminist

What is in it for them?

"Look at us, we support this already-won civil rights battle, despite not doing so at the time. Aren't we lovely and fluffy and progressive? Don't pay attention to what we're actually doing, or indeed do a compare and contrast with our middle-eastern Twitter accounts. xxx, MegaCorp. "

What I still dont get is why Stonewall rather than any other has managed to get so much traction especially in the corporate world. Why bluntly does 'capitalist bastard money making inc' give a shiny shit about whether Stonewall approve of them? they dont care if other charities hate them do they? they dont give a fuck if disability charities complain about their inaccessible buildings or charities for older people complain that have ageist recruitment policies and yet there are way more people with disabilities or workers over 50 than there are (LGB)TQ people so way more consumers in those groups. That's what I really want any enquiry to hone in on; why Stonewall over say Age UK or Scope?

I think because it's something that can appeal to young people/or has broad appeal. It can be made glamorous and 'sexy' and therefore provides a lot of distraction from the less savoury capitalist behaviour of many corporations. Bonus is that it costs very little for the maximum feel good PR they get from it.

Championing disability awareness could be very expensive (if a big business made sure every part of their organisation was accessible not just physically but for all disabilities) and it just wouldn't get you the same amount of likes on Twitter.

I've said for a long time that the corporatisation of Pride has roots in the backlash to the Occupy movement. There was a lot of anger after the market crash and it was revealed what many corporations were up to. Occupy started out of genuine sentiment and a backlash by ordinary people, especially young people who felt they were being fucked over for greed.

They've found a way to bring the younger generation to heel, sell them a load consumable crap and make them think championing capitalist big business is progressive and a solid left wing position.

Someone used the word chilling and it is isn't it? Imagine being so full of hate that you need to remove the words mother and breastfeeding from maternity policies. Or so ignorant of sexual harassment and assault on women that you insist on mixed sex changing rooms, showers and toilets.

This of course is why M & S pissed off their women customers by insisting that they have their bra fittings beside a man in the next changing room. Their desperation for the Stonewall accolades mattered more than the wishes of their women customers.

I still don't understand why this group became so important? Unless it's the fear of threats and intimidation if they didn't comply? A bit like paying off the local gang running a protection racket so your windows don't get smashed during the night

I read that article thinking it held back considerably. It is very cautious.

Excellent article. I particularly like the comment from FPFW about Stonewall having been allowed to become a kind of govt department and the govt oursourcing their thinking equality.

Few points for any journos lurking today:

• How many employees are we talking about that all this time, expense, focus, policy writing, making multiple ID cards and changing all the language has been dedicated to?

• Where are the equality impact assessments for these actions taken? What effort was made to hear views and look for any potential issues from groups oh say like women for example, who these policies radically affect, and their choice on language changes to describe them?

• What proportion and percentage of the workforce were affected by this in comparison to the percentage it was done for?

• What similarity of expenditure, time, publicity, dramatic changes for the purpose of better inclusion, has been dedicated to the other eight protected characteristics that form Equality, it not being one thing but nine?

• Has HMG slightly lost the plot in all this in permitting law to be adjusted and rewritten outside of democracy, against democratically passed law from elected and accountable MPs? How did this abject mess happen on their watch?

I'll wait. The coffee's on.

BOOM! What an article!

Can Stonewall recover this?

Oooh a couple more.

• In permitting a lobby group to redefine and be outsourced to on providing Equality work - what qualifications were held by those so advising, in particular with regard to Equality and Inclusion in proper terms rather than LGBT+ only?

• Who was, when issuing all this impacting advice and legal interpretation, qualified in disability advice and law? Women's law and equality? Race and faith? Maternity? Safeguarding? You know, the absolute basics that would be required of a lower than middle management LA public facing employee in this field?

Great article!

the first thing that stood out to me was the Telegraph referring to SW as The controversial charity early in the article

That jumped out at me too NancyDrawed. A small but significant sign of the turning tide. It wasn't very long ago that Nicola Williams was on Woman's Hour (I think) and FPFW was described in similar terms, and the point was made that Stonewall was never framed like that. I'm so glad that the truth is emerging.

(Looking forward to the day when they're called 'anti-woman organisation, Stonewall' in the same way that FPFW, WomansPlaceUK etc are called 'anti-trans'.)

Great questions Artichokeleaves
It's such a relief to see these questions finally being asked openly (rather than just on here and between women).

Especially liking Stonewall being described as 'controversial'. Not even 3 months ago, it would be FPFW or Sex Matters described that way, never Stonewall.

"Nursing" your baby is a very, very old fashioned term. My mum still uses it instead of breastfeeding and it drives me mad.

I found out when I had DD that my grandma uses “nursing” to just mean holding/rocking/cuddling a baby. So it’s clearly an ambiguous term.

I think because it's something that can appeal to young people/or has broad appeal. It can be made glamorous and 'sexy' and therefore provides a lot of distraction from the less savoury capitalist behaviour of many corporations

If you look at the Oxford Uni submission to Stonewall, a lot of it is about generalised acceptance of difference. I think that is very positive in many ways, but they have replaced analysis of inequality with a general feel good message about inclusivity.

They deliberately silence difficult discussions about safe guarding, and offer cheap solutions like posters and signs. Stonewall membership may seem expensive, but submissions for industry awards are also sometimes laborious and time consuming. The pay off is the advertising and publicity opportunities.

It is a good article. @OvaHere - I was about to repeat @Kit19s question and just read your reply. Ive long thought that the quest for the youth vote explains the capitulation of the left/liberal political parties, but if you "follow the money", is it really Generation Z who have the purchase power which would explain the doglike following of SW by the corporations? The why and wherefore of where Stonewall gets its power is really important I think.

Especially liking Stonewall being described as 'controversial'. Not even 3 months ago, it would be FPFW or Sex Matters described that way, never Stonewall

I actually thought that it was an attempt to be a bit sarcastic tbh. To invoke a kinda " why is a gay rights group controversial " I thought it was designed to almost gain some sympathy for stonewall. I was half asleep and not had any coffee wheb I read it though so could he wrong

That's an amazing article. Full of detail, and really showing that these organisations have had to jump through some ridiculous hoops to be patted on the head and given a gold star "boost their ranking on an equality leaderboard".

I particularly liked these two quotes, both from barristers:

Naomi Cunningham, a barrister specialising in discrimination, warned: “They are misrepresenting the contents of the Equality Act… But public authorities are believing it and because of that they're finding themselves in breach of the law. So it's a real trap.

“The obsessive focus on this tiny, tiny proportion of any given workforce is unbalancing, and it does mean that there is a strong likelihood that as employers sign up to Stonewall programmes, there will be equality impacts for other protected groups, particularly women but also religious groups.”

And

However, Amanda Jones, a barrister at Great Street Chambers specialising in equality laws, said that its training was “misleading”, particularly around the law on the provision of single-sex spaces. Stonewall is currently lobbying for the removal of the single-sex exemption from the law.

“What stands out in general is the extraordinary willingness of many organisations to pay through the nose to be lectured and condescended to. Paying people to lobby you is a new and impressive development,” Ms Jones told The Telegraph.

"extraordinary willingness of many organisations "
Ir is indeed absolutely extraordinary.