'Stonewall can no longer play judge and jury'

[MiladyBerserko]

Sarah Ditum in The Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bec8f37c-3111-11ec-afd6-aa3ee2eb8a34?shareToken=be76d3e05816fcaf856b0250ba4fae77

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4378126-Basic-Stonewall-Question

@Andante57
I posed this question yesterday... Also wondered how and why. I'm only one episode into the Nolan podcast but imagine more questions will be answered there.

@Andante57

This is a really important question, because chances are it's not a one-off

I wondered if they’d bribed high ranking employees of institutions but it can’t be that as someone would’ve spilt the beans by now.

No, I think it's a system problem with the way lobbying and NGOs work in relation to the state.

What allowed that to happen needs to be examined and, I think, there need to be protections against it.

At least one factor is the rather widespread views that organisations like SW become the subject matter experts on certain topics, and then they should be allowed to have an incredible amount of influence on policy development.

I find myself wondering, didn't anyone ever ask, does SW really have that expertise? Does it really represent the views of the whole LGB population, or if not, how would we know anyway? How are they accountable to these people they are supposed to be representing? When they say they are subject matter experts, what are they measuring that against?

But it's possible to imagine something similar happening with a lot of other NGOs.

That’s a beautifully written piece.
I’m so grateful to feminist women like Sarah who’ve borne the brunt of so much vile hostility over the past years, all for daring to speak up for our rights.

Imagine if the lobbying group in question were pro euthanasia? Or pro capital punishment.

There's something I'm finding quite difficult to articulate that this thread kind of brings to mind.

Women (like Sarah) have been talking about this issue for years, just like the women here, the Julie Bindel's of this world. We all know who they are.

Now I am extremely grateful to Stephen Nolan and his team for their podcast series it's brilliant, but it cant help grating on me that all the women here who did FOI's, have been discussing the nitty gritty of this for years, have been organising will get overlooked.
I know we need it in the mainstream, I know they've done a great investigation, I know they deserve all the plaudits they will (hopefully) get, but it still grates with me.
It's just patriarchy again isn't in, the men will get all the credit.
I'm not really expecting an answer to this it just irks me. We need to make sure we write the history of this time.

Fantastic article thank you for sharing. Sarah has been very active and consistent about these issues.

Excellent clarity from Sarah as always

Sarah Ditum has been writing about and getting the inevitable abuse about this for years, I'm not sure who the poster above is confusing her with.

@Mollyollydolly, Helen Joyce called it. The tide will only properly turn on this when the men wade in, and the men will only wade in when a) it affects them on a personal level b) the potential benefits outweigh the risks.
I think the Nolan podcasts fulfil both those criteria. The impact on women is not at the core of those podcasts. If they had started out with the task of demonstrating the impact of SW on women i don't think they would have made such a splash.

You know the drill. We don't really matter.

Helen also said what will happen is the men will wade in to sort stuff out, will say exactly what we have been saying for years, and will be listened to. Then we will be told we haven't been feministing properly, and if only we hadn't been so shrill, this would have all been sorted yonks ago.

And we shall have to smile sweetly.

Let’s say there’s a contentious social issue. … Legal changes are mooted. Lobby groups campaign for and against the proposals, … But now let’s say that one (and only one) of the lobby groups is also providing training to public bodies on the issue at hand. …
And behind the scenes, let’s say this lobby group is influencing the policies of the BBC, so that before the debate can ever take place, one side has already written the terms in which it will happen.
If you wanted to complain about that to the ombudsman, don’t bother: the lobby group also has the ear of Ofcom.
It’s fairly obvious that this situation would be disastrous, like one fighter in a boxing match also acting as the referee and taking a spot among the ringside judges.
It’s already happening. The issue is the introduction of gender identity in law; the lobby group is Stonewall, the LGBT rights group; and the consequence has been one of the worst ever interludes for public debate in this country.

This is stupendous. Simple, true and honest. The plain facts, stated clearly. This is what journalism is for.

Well done Sarah Ditum and (gulp) thank-you to The Times for publishing this.

I boycotted the Murdoch press for 40 years. I still detest Rupert Murdoch and his influence on journalism. But The Times and the Sunday Times have rediscovered their way. On women’s rights and freedom of speech, they are now essential reading.

Great article.

A really important point that Nolan highlighted was that Stonewall got organisations to set up internal staff networks to promote Stonewall’s cause.

The senior management at my Stonewall workplace have belatedly woken up to the issue and realised that Stonewall are not ‘the experts’ but a lobby group advocating extreme positions that if followed would lead to them breaking the law. They want to distance themselves.

However, any attempt to do this is met with hysterical howls of transphobia by the networks and their performative allies.

Meanwhile, most staff members keep their heads down, ignore the pronouns requests and mutter about being on the terfy-side while attending Stonewall workshops.

This article has made me so happy. I really hope this means that the tide is turning, even if just to get a debate going where we're not shot down immediately as bigots would be a start.

Fantastically well written article. Bravo.

Thank you for explaining to internal networks connection. I noted that on the BBC article but didn’t twig the consequence of it - it’s like having a little sleeper cell in each organisation. The organisation has paid for the training, set up the internal network as directed and encouraged its network to contact other networks - and is now stuck with it.

Mollyollydolly surely it matters more that we get the result we want? All GC allies will help with that and the more men who help us the less it will be seen as shrill harpies lecturing everyone else and more about the quality of our arguments shared by all right minded people.

The end result does absolutely matter more. But it's still OK to be pissed off that society only listens when men talk.

A superb article, right on point, very clear. We do need more like this though.

And it's well explained and in the mainstream national press.

Here we go. At last.

Re the podcast, it’s worth noting that BBCSounds have refused to publicise this podcast. I wonder why?

There's one thing that's puzzled me for years about the unthinking acceptance of training and advice given by Stonewall and similar organisations. Many large organisations have legal departments staffed by people with law degrees and professional qualifications. Now, I accept that these people are often snowed under with work and maybe policies were never run past them. But didn't they, or for that matter other senior employees, consider that if they were introducing a policy based on legislation, e.g. the Equality Act, it might not be a bad idea to go back to the legislation itself just to check they'd got the essential details right?

UK laws have been freely available online for anyone to read for a long time now. Anybody googling the Equality Act can find the list of protected characteristics and see contrary to what they were told on their compulsory equality and diversity training, that gender identity isn't there. Sex is, along with gender reassignment.

So why have so many organisations accepted unthinkingly the Stonewall/Mermaids/GIRES version of the Equality Act, which often drops 'sex' and replaces 'gender reassignment' with 'gender' or 'gender identity'?

I know for a long time activists pushing for reform of the Gender Recognition Act took it as read that they would win and the Equality Act would change as a consequence, but how did we get to the point where large organisations across the UK changed policy on the strength of an assurance that the law was about to change, without grasping that it actually hadn't and therefore they were in breach of the law?

Thank you for the share token.

That is the very best explanation I have read as to what the depth abd breadth of the issue is.

How far it affects democracy.

And how cult like are Stonewall’s tactics.

Insidious and powerful

Well, that's what stonewall offer, isn't it? "Nah, mate, you don't need to read the equality act, you're a busy man, we know exactly what's in it and if you do what we say, you'll be golden, no embarrassing tribunals or fines for you. That's got to be worth a few quid?"

'Many large organisations have legal departments staffed by people with law degrees and professional qualifications. Now, I accept that these people are often snowed under with work and maybe policies were never run past them. But didn't they, or for that matter other senior employees, consider that if they were introducing a policy based on legislation, e.g. the Equality Act, it might not be a bad idea to go back to the legislation itself just to check they'd got the essential details right? '

I work for an organisation like that. They would not have checked with legal because they 'know what it says' and they're just trying to protect the most marginalised at risk groups and any people shouting about it are hateful transphobes who want trans people to die.

And I don't think anyone would have believed that Stone wall were misrepresenting the law, particularly when they were using lots of words like 'best practice' and 'bringing the UK into line with the rest of the world' etc.

That's why the Reindorf report was so good.

Remember this Friday there are Stonewall Out demos in London, Belfast & Edinburgh at various times. The more the merrier! 💚🤍💜

An aside to Sarah’s article and a trigger warning.

The radio presenter mentioned was Stephen Clements at BBC Radio Ulster. He was hounded after his remark, he already suffered with depression, and subsequently killed himself leaving a wife and two children.