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. 😁

The Telegraph has been building up its anti-woke agenda over months now. Last Sunday alone it had four or five separate articles on various aspects of woke, including a whole page feature on 'Have we reached peak woke?'

Momentum is gathering: we might even be reaching a point where there will be an outbreak of common sense.

Great article. I appreciate it’s probably the HR department sorting this stuff out and not MI6 in the main, but it’s pretty embarrassing that they haven’t been able to see through this. “Why have you implemented illegal policies?” “Because Stonewall told us to” isn’t exactly an adequate response for an intelligence service (not that it’s a good response for any company though obviously!).

Just to be clear, I meant that changing breastfeeding to nursing is important because, in taking away clarity and using ambiguous terms, it might prevent somebreastfeeding mothers^ who don't happen to be well-educated, neurotypical and with a high level of spoken/written English from accessing services they and their babies need.

Great article. I think it is a sign of the sustained pressure paying off. All the FOI, the HoL inserting mother into the maternity bill, AS forcing the EHRC back from their SW position, letters to MPs, challenging the BBC etc. Plus Keira Bell, the census, Maya, Allison, Keep Prisons Single Sex.

Hitting the issue from so many angles has built up a momentum.

A big thank you to the Spectator for its consistent stance and now to the Telegraph and the DM.

No lobby group should have this much power.

I know of many situations where people have failed to access services they've needed because language and signposting has been unclear

Quite. There has been no joined up thinking at all, anywhere, by people in positions of employed public responsibility who should have had their brains in gear.

VAGW is a huge problem in the UK. Let's get rid of single sex provisions and refuges.

Language is a huge part of accessibility. Let's use this highly inaccessible phrasing to be inclusive.

These groups of female people have very limited access to and uptake of public spaces and resources, let's spend vast amounts of money and time dedicating single sex times and spaces to improve this. And then lets make them all mixed sex.

It's been insane.

However I keep remembering that one well known trainer in all this was questioned in depth through an independent inquiry, and was found to not only be unaware of what data protection really meant, but 'incapable of understanding safeguarding'. Not uninformed, not naiive to, but the inquiry words clearly state a lack of capacity to be able to. While going out advising on highly safeguarding impacting policy.

FOI requests have turned up equality impact assessments (the ones who weren't eaten by the writer's goldfish as with the welsh parliament) where the writers of the assessment believed they only needed to assess the other protected characteristics for trans people. Not for non trans users with those protected characteristics.

Trying to untangle incompetence from confused information and actual intention is going to be one hell of a job for the inquiry when it comes.

This was perhaps all rather predictable. I can remember reading articles 20 years ago as a student that suggested that gay rights were going to be a popular cause because to a larger degree than most lobbies they focused on people who were middle class, university educated, in good jobs, urban.

There needs to be a real reckoning in the role of lobby groups and government advising, including schools, police, etc. And it really is just an MLM scheme for the corporate sector. The fact is that to a large degree, the charities sector has become a part of the corporate sector.

Trying to untangle incompetence from confused information and actual intention is going to be one hell of a job for the inquiry when it comes.

I understand that it's probably very junior people who've been given these tasks. Given the structures of most public bodies, I fail to understand how any of this was signed-off by more senior people (as it must have been).

Stonewall tells employers to not use 'mother'
mol.im/a/9651333

Okay, okay it's The DM picking up on The Telegraph article but it's sunlight right on the biggest U.K. news publication....

You also get a bonus feature in that they've managed to shoe in Dawn Butlers Stonewall/Truss poll...

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

For a time the phrase Equality and Diversity has become synonymous with Stonewall's aims and not a lot else and it's possible SW's policy suggestions have reached into other PC, we know they've overreached with 'sex' they could have done with others for all we know.

I work with a number of public bodies. I'm deaf. Every single time I have a meeting with someone I have to suggest a video when they want a phone call. And then I have to send them a guide on what to do so that I can speech/lip read them (most of them use Zoom rather than Google Meet or MS Teams that can give captions by default but I'd still need to see them because captions can go badly off piste).

I mention this because it tells you that they're not at all used to making accommodations and they have no internal policies to consult. These are vast organisations - and they have no idea what to do when somebody has one of the commonest disabilities.

I guess accommodating people who have disabilities would take time, money and a degree of mental effort to think through the problem. Chucking money at Stonewall so you can flaunt your Diversity Champion badge is much easier.

I didn't know the number of deaf people in the UK so looked it up. Apparently about 900,000 people are severely or profoundly deaf.

Compare that with Stonewall's estimate that there are 600,000 trans people in the UK, and the amount of funding that goes into catering for the needs of this group and you can see a gross disparity in the way the two groups are catered for.

I can remember reading articles 20 years ago as a student that suggested that gay rights were going to be a popular cause because to a larger degree than most lobbies they focused on people who were middle class, university educated, in good jobs, urban.

This is a very good point.

This political lobby has achieved an entry into government and policy in a very short time period. The strength of response from government, the money spent on it, the publicity and demonstrated respect towards it is not in any way matched towards any other protected characteristic, many of whom have been trying to lobby government and be heard and get something achieved for decades. In the case of women, centuries.

What is the difference with this lobby that has got such a different response? The government are going to have to be honest about it. It's driven by leading people who are in the massive majority white, affluent, educated, urban, able bodied, and mostly male, and focused on outcomes for male people, which is seen in how very little of the movement ever mentions TM. Why a movement with this basis has gained such preferential treatment and support from government really needs to be addressed.

@donquixotedelamancha

Would a seat in the HoL be secure if, during an enquiry, the holder was found to have acted unlawfully in a role that lead to said seat?

Sadly yes. Very hard to get someone out of the Lord's.

I think we should try. She needs to go. She does not deserve that honour

@MrsOvertonsWindow

merrymouse
Because they've outsourced most/all of their Equality stuff. I bet very few of these orgs have in house expertise. Why would they? They haven't needed it because Stonewall, who they trusted to be right about everything, took care of it.

Have they though? I know Stonewall talks about 'Diversity Champions', but they don't have any general diversity expertise. Are organisations outsourcing their policies for other protected characteristics, do they not bother with specific policies, or do they just follow the law?
Stonewall also don't have any education experience / knowledge. They have positioned themselves as pastoral care / school systems / curriculum and safeguarding experts for schools. Everything we see in organisations is replicated in schools with catastrophic impacts on children.
The removal of single sex toilets and changing rooms for girls, the illegal removal of parental rights / responsibilities by urging schools to transition children in secret, the safeguarding busting mixed age pupil LGBT groups and the promotion of immediate affirmation / puberty blockers and surgery thus gluing children below the age of consent into an ideology they cannot possibly fully comprehend is causing actual harm to countless children. Not to mention the gaslighting of children into obedience and silence when faced with potential safeguarding issues.

I really hope that journalists are investigating what is happening in schools as this is the scandal (amongst many) that will blow the lid off

^
This

If any journalists do read these threads, I urge you to look at the safeguarding aspect.

Telling young girls that they have to allow boys in their showers and changing rooms is evidently a safeguarding problem. As is telling them they cannot refer to them as males.

And as for transitioning children socially, in school, without the parents knowledge or permission, I wonder how that would go down with any parent in the land who is currently, blissfully unaware.

There was an interesting comment on the Roll On Friday article, which said that there is a push to be a SW champion as it is seen as being a sign of a 'good' company but on the ground there is less support.

Telling young girls that they have to allow boys in their showers and changing rooms is evidently a safeguarding problem. As is telling them they cannot refer to them as males.

The idea that it's illegal to questions somebody's identity and that their feelings should override personal boundaries is completely incompatible with safeguarding.

Safeguarding can often cause offence. That is one of the reasons that social work is such a difficult job.

Omg the comments under that Daily Mail article are superb. A real salve.

Those are some really angry women.

I didn't know the number of deaf people in the UK so looked it up. Apparently about 900,000 people are severely or profoundly deaf.

Compare that with Stonewall's estimate that there are 600,000 trans people in the UK, and the amount of funding that goes into catering for the needs of this group and you can see a gross disparity in the way the two groups are catered for.

These are the sorts of statistics that need to be more widely circulated. And also collated at more local levels (eg within companies and organisations). Crucial for challenging why £x is spent with Stonewall or generally on LGBT stuff instead of other protected characteristics.

Also substitute those who are deaf for other groups - blind, autistic, having cancer treatment etc etc.

Diversity is a loaded idea right from the get-go.

There are all kinds of diversity, but only some are valued. And OTOH, diversity in itself is not necessarily something in and of itself good. This is evident when you see complaints that an organisation only has, say, under 10% of their employees non-white. Well, in lots of areas of the country, that reflects the demographics. Is the point supposed to be that a population has to be racially mixed to be good? f you dig down it seems to have actual racist implications, but it's not an uncommon sentiment.

@Nodal

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

Yup

@Wanttocry

"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.

That's how my mum used it (well, for young children too). She was from the NE, don't know if it's a regional term?

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?

Rainbow marketing is cheap. Young and sexy sells. Charities for old and disabled not so much.

Although marketing departments don't seem to be buying into pronouns. I've had plenty of "Hi Purple" messages targeted at me. Strangely none to Mx WhiteGreen.

On another note, I remember an HR Director once introducing herself as the person who kept the CEO out of court. I would suggest not by following made-up laws.

The Mail is now reporting the same.

mol.im/a/9651333

A good article and usefully not behind a paywall. 2.4k comments so far.

I agree that the Telegraph was late to the GC party but making up for lost ground. The message seems to br getting across. Indeed the dominant question now seems to be "how did it all happen?"

I teally hope we are seeing the beginning of the end.

A young person I know, who was full-on 'TWAW,' now works with someone who changes gender every few days. This male (bearded, of course) was previously a troublemaking employee and now has found the ultimate way to cause disruption. Everyone knows it's a power-trip but nobody dares say anything. My friend at least is no longer a believer.

Men can get breast cancer too. Chest cancer would suggest lung cancer. A 'chest infection' refers to the respiratory system - I have never heard it used to refer to mastitis. But I am sure it would be helpful if we started muddling these terms

Exactly - telling the dr you have breast pain is very different to saying you have chest pain.

Seems to me that Stonewall at some point realised that campaigning for gay rights has mostly been won in this country - it's no longer unlawful, we now have gay marriage, hate crime laws etc - so the only thing left to keep them existing is trans rights.

(I appreciate stigma & violence still exists towards gay people, which is awful and must be tackled. I'm thinking here primarily in terms of policy campaign wins).

Except that trans rights already exist I.e gender reassignment under the Equality Act. Trans people can marry etc.

The ONLY barrier to so-called 'trans rights' is when they conflict with women's rights.

This is the policy barrier, perhaps THE only barrier, that Stonewall can campaign against in order to stay in existence and keep the money rolling in.

Thus it's become:
the right to gender neutral loos
the right to be on women's shortlist
the right to compete in women's sports
the right to request only the use of gender neutral language
the right to access women's changing rooms
the right to be recorded by the police as female
the right to be placed in the female prison estate
the right to apply for jobs advertised as 'female applicants only

And of course, they can only campaign for trans people provided the number of this once tiny minority keeps growing.

By adding T to LGBT, their policy capture includes an implicit threat to organisations that if they dont fully promote Stonewalls notion of trans rights, then that organisation will be seen as anti-LGBT and it will damage their reputation.

Fascinating and sinister.

Thank you Datun. To be fair, some of the most appalling trans training in schools comes from organisations other than Stonewall.
There's a self indulgent model of training (speaking as a trainer) where adults (usually men who self identify as women) present self centred presentations using emotive personal experiences in order to gain a sympathetic audience. Once the audience (children or adults) is on side and the possibility of any open / critical questioning is positioned as unkind or bigoted, the trainer then has a captive audience to promote the wonders of breast binders, puberty blockers, pronouns, mixed sex changing, woman erasing language etc to a passive captured audience. I've seen this used in schools and at major professional conferences (including the police).

To use this type of training with children is unforgivable, as is using it to silence teachers and other professionals who are normally used to being sceptical. But even the sceptics on the back row will keep quiet as they fear for their careers. Therefore none of this anti-fact, anti-safeguarding ideology is ever challenged.