If you were Stonewall WWYD?

[GrimDamnFanjo]

My background is in branding, PR etc plus gov policy and comms. From that perspective I've spent the last week or so wondering how Stonewall will manage the situation they're in moving forwards.

Of course the most likely situation is they will push on as before regardless but if Champions starts to crumble they will be facing financial losses over the few years.

I wonder whether the Board of Trustees is sufficiently concerned to be thinking ahead about the direction of their policies?

I can't see them abandoning their gender identity ahead of sex stance.

@MarshaBradyo

Do companies pay to join Stonewall?

How do they make money

Their diversity champions programme brings in about £3.5 million a year

The rest is a mix of grants, contracts, donations and consultancy fees

Total income in the region of £7 million i believe

Repointing is the process of renewing the pointing, which is the external part of mortar joints, in masonry construction. Over time, weathering and decay cause voids in the joints between masonry units,
Before starting any actual work, building owners examine the masonry units, mortar, and the techniques used in the original construction. They try to identify the true problem they are facing and find out what were the causes of the deterioration or cracks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repointing

I'd pack up and go home.

• but I agree with others above that the sunk costs is pretty much keeping them going in the same direction. They've doubled, tripled and quadrupled down. How can they row back?

The bullshit is baked in. It's not even about any particular issue, it's about how they've behaved - the arrogance, vindictiveness, malice and bullying stinks of an organisation that has rotten through and through.

There used to be lots of lobbying to be done regards LGB rights, but since equal marriage etc I think LGB people have all their legal rights protected very well in law, no? So what needs to be done now is combat homophobia, promote diversity and inclusion (in a genuine, constructive way, not in a bullshit way) and social cohesion.

I wonder if the problem is an org set up to 'fight the powers that be' has become the powers that be. They were set up to lobby, and just can't stop fighting, even when they've won all the battles that needed to be won. The victim narrative just doesn't make much sense in 2021 - almost everyone accepts LGB sexualities.

I don't deny homophobia still exists, but I expect tackling it calls for subtlety and working alongside people, rather than standing on a battlement and bellowing 'no debate' through a bullhorn. That looks courageous when you're a wee grassroots organisation fighting the system. When you're Stonewall, it just looks like you're the baddies.

Well, if I put myself in Stonewall's position and mindset:

Throw as much dirt as possible at all detractors. Get some helpful allies to orchestrate smear campaigns (without it being too undeniably obvious that it was me doing it).
Really double down on the idea that any criticism (or even mild reservations) of stonewall and any decisions Stonewall has ever made = homophobia. (And also anti-semitism, racism, disablism, etc etc).
Get the best human shields out in front: children and suicidal teenagers.

Confuse detractors by contradicting myself regularly, hide in the chaos, move onto the next lie while they're still grappling with the last (was effective for Trump!)

Take a draconian stance on staff/members/supporters who don't toe the line. Make it really hard for anyone to speak out, use whatever leverage I have (get creative!) to silence whistleblowers and apostates.

Climb every mountain, jump every shark.

If all else fails, go down in a messy, chaotic, hugely expensive whirlwind of mud slinging, litigation, denials and infighting.

If I have to go down, then I'll take as many others (friends and enemies) down with me as possible.

... I mean that's not what I'd do. But unfortunately it's what I can see happening.

I think I would - in the words of my brother when dad was stoically accepting his terminal diagnosis (of how he would react): “sit curled up in a corner with a blanket over my head, greetin’”

What I would do and what Stonewall will do are I suspect, are actions that are diametrically opposed.

I'd start by admitting and apologising for giving incorrect legal advice and announcing an independent review of the Diversity Champions scheme, undertaking to implement any recommendations and asking current members to "hold the faith" until it's been published because we are 100% committed to ensuring we address any/all issues.

I'd then have a media blackout for a few months. No campaigns, social media etc.

During that time I'd then:

• look to settle the case with Allison Bailey to avoid it going to court and generating more bad press (and it doesn't get any worse press for a supposedly LGBT organisation to have allegedly harassed and bullied a black lesbian).

• recruit a new CEO as NK is a liability after that last disaster of an interview

• come up with a new campaign that's LGB focused and conciliatory as opposed to the "aggressive" tone of recent times

• I wouldn't drop the "T" outright but I would re-position it by moving away from TWAW/TMAM and acknowledging same sex attraction and a clash with women's rights that should be responded to with dialogue and respectful discussion and I'd quietly ensure less time was spent on this issue rather than it being front and centre.

What I think they'll do is double down...

Climb every mountain, jump every shark

With regards to settling with Alison Bailey, she may not agree to settle.

Also, I don't know how it would work with multiple respondents. Would both her chambers and Stonewall have to make a joint offer? Or could one respondent settle whilst the claim proceeded against the other?

@TomatoesAreFruit

With regards to settling with Alison Bailey, she may not agree to settle.

Also, I don't know how it would work with multiple respondents. Would both her chambers and Stonewall have to make a joint offer? Or could one respondent settle whilst the claim proceeded against the other?

Frankly I wouldn't settle in her situation....

All I was suggesting is that if I was SW I'd try too....

The thing though is that all the adults have long left the room.

Even co-founder Simon Fanshawe was shown the door after questioning the trans orthodoxy, so I think it's pretty safe to say everyone else with any clout is as "comfortable" as Nancy Kelly with the direction of travel.

So we might see some "lite" concessions following the bad press (like not joining in with legal action against the Charity Commission over the LBGA) but I doubt there's a massive amount of introspection going on.

If I were stone wall, I would conduct a review and emerge with a focus on being a true diversity champion, giving equal weighting to all the protected characteristics. I would market it as broadening scope to reflect the requirements of our champions. I’d use disabilities as a shield.

Stonewall are currently advertising for a head of comms AND a comms planning lead (www.stonewall.org.uk/jobs/associate-director-communications-and-campaigns). That's probably why they don't have a PR strategy at all at the moment - they're completely clueless.

If I was them I'd offer a public apology and promise to do better in future. And settle the Allison Bailey case. And write to all the diversity champions correcting the misleading legal advice.

They could easily become an excellent trans charity. There is stuff to be done.

I would campaign for:
Acceptance of transwomen as transwomen, and transmen as transmen;
For people to be able to be out and proud about both their sex and their gender;
For widespread provision of third spaces, mixed as well as single-sex facilities, third/fourth sports categories;
For open recognition of sex on medical documents and in research;
For better help for mental health where that is an issue;
For careful, well-researched evidence for different treatment pathways, their risks and benefits;
For autism-specific research;
For genuine fairness to male and female people however they present;
For acceptance that some people do fall for those of certain gendered characteristics others exclusively for those of a certain sex;
For honesty and openness...

Just for starters.

Seems like they're taking this approach atm;

I am curious to see how they will acknowledge what is happening.

SquishySquirmy

Good post
Pretty much my thoughts also

@aliasundercover

Go back to my roots, drop the T, and support LGB rights.

There's no reason that Stonewall shouldn't support trans rights - I'd hope we all do.
What they shouldn't do, and should never have done, is push trans rights at the expense of other protected groups.

Campaign for trans spaces. Get rid of bearded 'lesbians' with penises. Stop redefining words and concepts. Sack pretty much everyone who works there at the moment and beg Ben Summerskill to come back for a fixed period to sort things out.

This is the option I’d go for. Reestablish sex as the basis of reality and campaign for additional spaces that are unisex so everyone can have somewhere they can feel ok. They have the power to really stand for a move away from stereotypes rather than the direction they’ve chosen at the moment. I bet they don’t though.

They've just appointed a senior marketer as vice chair of the board of trustees so I think they are thinking ahead to the brand impact.

And Mitch Oliver (the marketer I'm meaning) is very smart and I've always respected her. Not sure if she's down the rabbit hole on gender though.

For people to be able to be out and proud about both their sex and their gender;

I don't know about this @JuneJustRains. This idea is built on a regressive gender ideology. Anything that regressive is usually unhelpful for LGB people as it is old-fashioned and small c conservative. If they want to protect people's rights they would be better of challenging the regressive concepts rather than trying to find a way around the damage they do (as that's not possible). How about "for people to be comfortable to be whatever they want to be regardless of outdated gender stereotypes"

I'd look to find a way to not abandon trans rights without it involving loss of rights for the others though. I'm sure many trans people are just as bewildered by the recent nonsense as the rest of us.

Could they not just decide to shrink? Surely many of the staff will just jump ship with this going on, and they just become a smaller charity with a more limited advocacy scope?

They've just appointed a senior marketer as vice chair of the board of trustees so I think they are thinking ahead to the brand impact.

Successful enough marketing has never been a problem for them. The problem is having reached the point of being openly called controversial in newspapers, and being noted as having given advice incompatible with law and equality for all nine protected groups under government funding.

Can you imagine the workplace ethos? Anyone not fully committed to the beliefs their work is based on would not have survived there. The proportionally low numbers of female people, in particular lesbians who are female within their staff has also long been commented on. No one not wholeheartedly believing that they are right and justified would not have survived for long in post. A change of CEO will not fix that. The issues being noted by their customers are not bugs, they are features, if not the main body of the hard drive.

@dyslek

Seems like they're taking this approach atm;

I am curious to see how they will acknowledge what is happening.

Are you telling me that the Devils in Kilts wear silk underwear?

(That's ceiling-plaster in the Brown Windsor...which isn't a bad allegory for what's happening to the Wall).

@AgentProvocateur

If I was Stonewall, I’d announce an investigation by independent consultants and have a media blackout for a month or three. Then I’d make a big mea culpa announcement, admit we’d lost our way, get rid of NK, and say that we would be regrouping as an organisation that supports LBG rights, and is quietly drop the T.

Except that a huge majority of LGB people wouldn't touch Stonewall with a bargepole. They've lost all credibility.

Not a lawyer, so don't know what's possible, but I've certainly heard it mooted that Stonewall could be part of group of orgs sued in a class action by detransitioners.

I notice that they're recruiting a new head of media and a comms expert. www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/work-us
Wonder how that's going?

I suspect it won't be long now before there's a Public Inquiry and everything we already know, and more, will be spread out for public delectation. I don't see any way Stonewall can survive. There is no halfway elegant exit.

It's a toxic brand and will remain so for years.

There are three options that I can see:

Rebrand as a TQ+ organisation and carry on, much reduced and with beady eyes watching every move. Graciously hand the LGB baton to LGB Alliance, acknowledging that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between LGB and TQ+

Commission an independent investigation, get all the dirty laundry out in public so that it isn't revealed in a Public Inquiry or the Allison Bailey case. Apologise for destroying one of the most well-regarded LGB orgs the world has seen and go quiet for a couple of years.

Carry on regardless and go out in flames.

My money's on option 3.

I think they should have supported the T from a position of reality. Acceptance of gender non conformity would have been something that everyone could have got behind. All this TWAW crap is what has caused so many issues. They will never gain acceptance the whole time they attempt to force people into believing something that isn’t real. Not sure the damage is fixable really.

I’m not sure anyone knows if ‘the majority’ of LGB people have abandoned Stonewall (though I wish it were true). There are certainly plenty online who are still dancing to Stonewall’s tune.