Here you go, it's formatted across a bit funny so sorry about that. It's a bit 'I'm not a meany I promise' but tbf, I did need to drive that home due to the nature of my job. It's not perfect by any means but sometimes I think it's helpful for us to be sharing these things, if only to support with having the confidence to actually do it!
Dear,
(Starts with some identifying stuff). I am an employee of (), having worked as a Social Worker for the last years. I have been debating whether to contact you as I do not wish to jeopardise my employment but recent events have convinced me that it is the right thing to do. I have also been in correspondence with my MP, (), and he advised that it would be appropriate to contact you directly.
I will start by stating that I am passionate about social justice and do not condone any form of discrimination, this is part and parcel of my everyday work. I am however, becoming increasingly concerned about () relationship with Stonewall and the impact this is having on policy and by consequence staff. I am unsure whether you are aware of the recent report commissioned by The University of Essex which explored two occasions of the ‘deplatforming’ of women guest speakers because of allegations of ‘transphobia’. The report, written by Akua Reindorf (Barrister, specialising in Discrimination Law), concluded that the University was unlawful in its approach and they issued a public apology to the two women who were involved. Akua also identified various areas in which Stonewall were potentially misrepresenting the law to the University and urged the University to reconsider their relationship with Stonewall. The University is, as is (), part of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme, which involves paying Stonewall a yearly membership fee. In return they will check the members policies, training and other documents and offer guidance as to how they can make sure their wording is inclusive and ‘anti discriminatory’ in terms of LBGT+. They do this based on their understanding of the law, and as Akua astutely advises ‘the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than what it is’. She also advises that there may be a case for indirect sex discrimination due to more women being disproportionately affected by the issues. Interestingly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission have recently announced their withdrawal from the scheme (amongst many others at the time of writing). The EHRC have also recently intervened in an employment tribunal to state that ‘gender critical beliefs’ should be considered to be a protected belief under the Equality Act. In short, someone who holds gender critical beliefs is someone who believes that there are only two sexes and that sex is immutable. The judgment for this case has now been published and the Judge also agreed that belief in the immutability of sex should be considered a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010.
In terms of (), I am concerned about the legal consequences of continuing with Stonewall and the impact they may be having. Recently I have completed my mandatory training provided by () with regards to discrimination. This came in two sections and was an online training session. The first section covered the majority of the protected characteristics, the second solely concentrated on transgender issues. I found this second section particularly problematic due to its content. Again I must stress that I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect; no one should be discriminated against due to any protected characteristic. The training however, was inaccurate in its representation of the law, including citing ‘gender identity’ as the protected characteristic (it’s gender reassignment). I wrote a list of the various inaccuracies and problems with the training and have fed this back to (*). Whilst I am well read on this topic, I am aware that the vast majority of staff will not be and will take the training at face value.
() job adverts also incorrectly cite the protected characteristic of sex, stating instead ‘gender’, and ‘gender identity’ instead of gender reassignment. Whilst this may appear like semantics, the law is very clear and institutions cannot change the wording of legislation. Again I am concerned as to just how far () has been permeated by Stonewall and their understanding of the law.
It has taken a lot of courage (and failed attempts!) to write this email due to the number of women who have experienced negative consequences for speaking out about these issues. I am more than happy to discuss my concerns further with you and hope that you take my concerns in the spirit that they are intended: to ensure that (*) is following legislation as it should be, and not as Stonewall would like it to be.
Yours Sincerely,