Musings on Stonewall after listening to Nolan Report.

[ellyoctober]

I'm nowhere near as articulate and educated as most on this board but I follow and lurk with great interest.

After listening to the Nolan Report, binged it nonstop from when alerted to it on here, it started me thinking about Stonewall.

Their ponzi-like behaviour is appalling and they seem to be accountable to no one.

But they're a charity, correct?

The Charity Commission oversees all charities - are they interested in investigating Stonewall's behaviour?

I guess if Stonewall are working outwith their stated goals, ultimately their charitable status could be removed?

As I say, inarticulate and just musing, but it's food for thought isn't it?

Kids Company lost its status, I think?

Yes, bit so far, it seems, those of us who are 'the opposition' haven't stooped to the same low levels as those who tried to have the LGBAs charitable status removed.

Some things are just too low...

I think the bigger problem isn't stonewall's lobbying, but the behaviour of organisations which they have lobbied.

Said organisations have outsourced their thinking to an unaccountable group to the detriment of their service users/customers/citizens. It is the organisations that have been following stonewall guidance which need investigating and overhauling, and that will lead to change or closure for stonewall.

Stonewall are operating within their remit, as far as I can see. Their "champion" schemes are a clear grift, but organisations don't have to fall for it.

The strongest thing I think you can say about them is their misrepresentation of the law - inaccurate training. But again, I don't think charities have to tell the truth - who would monitor/judge that? I don't think we want to be in a world where charity status involves having your speech policed.

Best thing we can do is keep pointing out everything they're doing wrong, and make sure they keep getting deserved reputation hits.

We're approaching the point they're routinely referred to as "controversial LGBT charity Stonewall"...

The more I think about it the more it seems that Stonewall’s actions are directly responsible for many recent cases of bullying and harassment against women, especially but not only those working in academia and politics.

I believe the language Stonewall uses against women, comparing them to anti semites and dehumanising them by encouraging organisations to remove the word woman wherever possible and replace it with body parts emboldens and even encourages others to bully women. In a climate where violence against women is finally being talked about more, how can this be allowed?

Their refusal to engage in any discussion with people who are worried about women’s rights or to tone down the toxicity of the language they use, smearing the LGB Alliance as anti-trans when it blatantly isn’t, and misrepresenting the law to the organisations paying them as part of their ponzi scheme not only results in the loss of women’s rights but encourages others to see us as somehow subhuman.

If any other organisation was engaging in these tactics against any other group with a protected characteristic surely they would be deemed a hate group?

Perhaps once universities and other Stonewalled organisations start being sued by their staff they might start fighting back.

The influence of the lobbying and the lack of transparency by the affected organisations is deeply troubling.

Equally disturbing is the general funders' redistribution of funding away from LGB and it's disproportionate emphasis on the TQ+. E.g., from CIN and the Lottery. It would be interesting to know how Stonewall disburses its funds.

Stonewall are operating within their remit, as far as I can see. That's what I meant. We can see that they are. We can see that the LGBA are. So we don't take up a position that we know is false and report either of them to the charity commission.

Unlike many self professed Twitter Heroes who have reported LGBA and remain angry that they retain their charitable status.

We have a couple of regular posters here who declaim and denounce the LGBA at every opportunity. They don't seem to have any sense of shame about the inconsistency, illogic and lies in they inevitably have to rely upon!

@GoodieMoomin

I think the bigger problem isn't stonewall's lobbying, but the behaviour of organisations which they have lobbied.

Said organisations have outsourced their thinking to an unaccountable group to the detriment of their service users/customers/citizens. It is the organisations that have been following stonewall guidance which need investigating and overhauling, and that will lead to change or closure for stonewall.

I agree with this - as much as I abhor what Stonewall is doing, it is the public organisations which need to have boundaries about undue influence, bias etc. and maintain them.

The fact that they have just caved to nonsense and then tried to cover up their crappy behaviour shows up their weaknesses rather than Stonewall's strength.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Yes, bit so far, it seems, those of us who are 'the opposition' haven't stooped to the same low levels as those who tried to have the LGBAs charitable status removed.

Some things are just too low...

And this is such an important point. We are operating from a position of rationality and fairness, but unfortunately, the TRAs come from a position of wanting to win at all costs.

This is also why it bugs me when I hear how it's such a 'toxic debate', the toxicity (in terms of abuse and harassment) is really only coming from one side. But we are seen as just as bad for some stating the truth and saying no I don't agree.

It's like asking two opposing people to come to the mediation table, it only works if both sides have an agenda to listen and understand the others' point of view.

It is difficult to remain balanced and not want to give them a taste of their own medicine, but I think we need to keep the to the high road, even though it will be a long old fight.

I don't know, I would have thought that while the enmeshing of Stonewall with public bodies etc. is in large part the fault of those bodies for signing up to it (and in a way, you can't really blame SW for trying, in pursuit of their aims), the fact that they were lobbying to REMOVE the right to create single-sex spaces and services, as set out in the Equality Act, seems way out of their remit and a pretty outrageous thing for a charity to be campaigning for (essentially, to remove rights from women and girls in particular, as the main beneficiaries of those spaces and services - though men/boys also stand to lose by it), particularly when much of their charitable objects (see below) are about promoting and educating people/organisations on human rights.

Similarly I would think it could be argued that deliberately misrepresenting the law to public bodies and companies so that they erase or change the meaning of certain protected characteristics is effectively removing protections from those groups - again, especially when their charitable objects are all about education on human rights, legal advice and intervention, and "CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW", so it seems reasonable to expect them to get these right.

These are their charitable objects, apparently. Interesting that they include no references at all to "trans", "gender" or anything even remotely related, and for that matter there is only one mention of sexual orientation - the rest is about general human rights, equality and diversity. None of it seems to fit well with attacking women's rights, promoting experimental medical treatment for children, or trying to redefine sexual orientation (a protected characteristic) as "gender"-based:

Charitable objects
TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS (AS SET OUT IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENT UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND DECLARATIONS) THROUGHOUT THE WORLD BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS (A) MONITORING ABUSES OF HUMAN RIGHTS (B) RESEARCH INTO HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES (C) EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS (D) PROVIDING ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS ON HUMAN RIGHTS MATTERS (E) CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (F) COMMENTING ON PROPOSED HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION (G) RAISING AWARENESS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES (H) PROMOTING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (I) PROMOTING RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS (J) INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY OF HUMAN RIGHTS (K) ELIMINATING INFRINGEMENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT OBJECT, BUT NOT OTHERWISE, THE TRUSTEES SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY PROVIDE THAT THE TRUSTEES ARE SATISFIED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES WILL FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF THE CHARITY TO AN EXTENT JUSTIFIED BY THE RESOURCES COMMITTED AND THE ACTIVITY IS NOT THE DOMINANT MEANS BY WHICH THE CHARITY CARRIES OUT ITS OBJECTS. TO PROMOTE EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IN PARTICULAR THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC BY; A) RAISING AWARENESS OF ALL ASPECTS OF DISCRIMINATION IN SOCIETY BY PUBLICATIONS, LECTURES, USE OF THE MEDIA, PUBLIC ADVOCACY AND OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION; B) CONDUCTING OR COMMISSIONING RESEARCH ON EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY AND PUBLISHING THE RESULTS OF THE SAME TO THE PUBLIC; C) ADVANCING EDUCATION IN EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY WHETHER BY TEACHING OR PRODUCING MATERIALS; D) CULTIVATING A SENTIMENT IN FAVOUR OF EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY BY THE USE OF PUBLICATIONS, CODES OF PRACTICE, SCHEMES FOR EMPLOYERS, AWARD SCHEMES, THE MEDIA AND PUBLIC ADVOCACY; E) PROMOTING THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW RELATING TO EQUALITY ISSUES BY; I) THE PROVISION OF SPECIALIST LEGAL ADVICE, ASSISTANCE AND REPRESENTATION TO PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN SUCH LEGAL ADVICE, ASSISTANCE AND REPRESENTATION AS A RESULT OF THEIR LACK OF RESOURCE; II) THE PROVISION OF SPECIALIST LEGAL INTERVENTION TO ASSIST THE COURTS; AND III) THE PROVISION OF ADVICE ON THE INSTITUTIONS, STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS BY WHICH SUCH LAW IS ENFORCED; TO RELIEVE POVERTY; AND TO PROMOTE ANY OTHER PURPOSE WHICH IS CHARITABLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES.

From register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/3992465/governing-document

Thank you all for such considered responses, I appreciate the thoughts.

The more I think about it the more it seems that Stonewall’s actions are directly responsible for many recent cases of bullying and harassment against women, especially but not only those working in academia and politics.

Good point. Allison Bailey is directly suing Stonewall for discrimination and harassment.

That's a sensible line of attack - seek legal redress for specific harms they have caused.

Obviously, most are far less direct than that, but when they've clearly overstepped like her case, it's another chance to shine sunlight on them.

Good point. Allison Bailey is directly suing Stonewall for discrimination and harassment.

I wonder if SW's guidance will feature when Maya Forstater's case goes ahead in front of the Employment Tribunal next year.

I've listened to the whole thing now and I deeply suspect that the only reason organisations have recently distanced themselves from Stonewall is that they were terrified of the fallout after receiving all the FOI requests and questions from proper investigative journalists. It took this to make them remember professional standards.

It also struck me how performative this all is. Pronouns and rainbow badges and dodgy training sessions instead of actual workers' rights.

EsmaCannonball
It also struck me how performative this all is. Pronouns and rainbow badges and dodgy training sessions instead of actual workers' rights.

Yes, I feel the same when the big companies jump on the latest social justice bandwagon. It's empty gesturing which costs them little. A box to tick.

If they really wanted to do better, they could ensure that they pay a living wage, having proper working conditions for their employees, and an ethical supply chain etc.

Nut unfortunately, those things cost the company actual money, and are not cool or sexy enough, and of course don't have a funky flag or lanyard .

I don’t think an expectation that any organisation, charitable or otherwise, correctly represent the law is a negative form of policing their language.

If it was a genuine mistake that’s different.

Or what seems like very malicious misrepresentation of the law perhaps can be argued to be ‘allowed’ (I don’t know enough about case law to know either way).

They can say this is the law & we think it’s utter crap.

But it isn’t difficult to copy and paste the equality act. Deliberately lying about what the law says is something they should be accountable for. Otherwise any charity can lie about any law and there’s no way of stopping them.

I think that’s a very valid point op.

I don't really understand the anti LGBA argument. Why can't the LGB organise without the T if they want? I just can't imagine any reasonable argument to stop them. If their view is that, the LGB community is better served without also including the T, let them crack on. It all just serves to make Stonewall look even more like a protection racket.

But without the lgb as a shield to hide behind the t will be seen for what they are. Men, mostly the white middle class very privileged variety. How else do the most privileged act as the most oppressed if not by piggybacking on other marginalised groups?

I have only got to the Dr David Bell episode. His interview was incredible. How anyone can ignore him is beyond me
I was disappointed with the non-binary Welsh mayor (is it Owen Hercum?) episode and how there was no challenge at all to a person changing the meaning of words such as male or female and the outcomes of doing that. They got an easier ride than Dr Bell

The forced teaming of the LGB with the T is necessary to lend legitimacy and avoid scrutiny, as BulletandtheBullseye says.

In reality, it's very much to the detriment of LGB people, whose needs are overlooked and whose identities are redefined at best with this association.

thecritic.co.uk/where-lgb-fear-to-tread/