The BBC announces it is leaving Stonewall

[AlwaysTawnyOwl]

www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/stonewall-diversity-champions-programme?at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom4=8686C1E8-4222-11EC-AA97-45113A982C1E&at_custom3=%40bbcpress&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_campaign=64

This news comes in the wake of organised attacks on workplace inclusion that extend far beyond the Diversity Champions programme. It is shocking that organisations are being pressured into rolling back support for LGBTQ+ employees.

It is not 'pressure' you absolute muppets, its the sharing of evidence and facts that is making multiple big players flee realising what they're about to be held accountable for having done under your lead.

And no, facts do not make LGBT+ people suffer.

Inclusion matters.

Then stop actively removing inclusion from women and girls by excluding and marginalising the ones who for multiple reasons of diversity cannot access mixed sex provisions . See 'absolute muppets'.

At Stonewall, we stand for LGBTQ+ people everywhere.

Except all the female homosexual ones, the male homosexual ones, all the ones who won't do what we say, and all those who see LGB as a sexual orientation instead of a political position. So no. You don't stand for LGBT+ people everywhere. You stand solely as a political lobby group with a very particular political agenda that excludes others with other views and beliefs and attempts to remove their rights, the LGBT ones included.

We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces. That wasn’t true of lesbians, bi and gay people then, and it isn’t true of trans people now.

Absolute bollocks that just avoids the reality. Single sex spaces cannot exist if people of the other sex use them. The risks of mixed sex spaces to females is fact, not just some random prejudice, and this again just totally excludes and discriminates against females who require single sex spaces or can't access any spaces at all.

We imagine a world where all of us are free to be ourselves and can live our lives to the full.

Again, 'all of us' not including females or homosexuals, who are definitely not free to be themselves or live their lives to the full, but to hand their own rights and access to society over to others.

They should be done under the trades discrimination act for that lot of hogwash. The game's up Stonewall.

About time schools withdrew from Stonewall too.

The Media Show just started on Radio 4. This is a big breaking story, it's smack bang in the middle of their brief, they've had time to line it up over the past few hours, and they seem to be averting their gaze. Perhaps they might find some time to discuss it later on.

At Stonewall, we stand for LGBTQ+ people everywhere.

Except all the female homosexual ones, the male homosexual ones, all the ones who won't do what we say, and all those who see LGB as a sexual orientation instead of a political position. So no. You don't stand for LGBT+ people everywhere. You stand solely as a political lobby group with a very particular political agenda that excludes others with other views and beliefs and attempts to remove their rights, the LGBT ones included.

We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces. That wasn’t true of lesbians, bi and gay people then, and it isn’t true of trans people now.

Absolute bollocks that just avoids the reality. Single sex spaces cannot exist if people of the other sex use them. The risks of mixed sex spaces to females is fact, not just some random prejudice, and this again just totally excludes and discriminates against females who require single sex spaces or can't access any spaces at all.

Hear hear

@SirSamuelVimes

Holy shit!!

However, over time our participation in the Programme has led some to question whether the BBC can be impartial when reporting on public policy debates where Stonewall is taking an active role.

After careful consideration, we believe it is time to step back from the Diversity Champions Programme and will also no longer participate in Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index.

How can any Government Department or Public institution funded by taxpayers continue in the Stonewall scheme now, it is clear it impacts impartiality. Private organisations can do what they like as their customers and profit will ultimately be the deciding factors, but arms of Government and publicly funded institutions cannot justify continuing their membership, they need to remember it is not their money they are spending.

Yay!! 🥳

Predictable strop from the organisation themselves, not coughing up the cash for a racket who misrepresent the law now equals an attack on the LGBTQ+ community apparently 🤨

And of course the most important letter got a special point made just for them.....

But we all know who they mostly mean when they talk about 'organised attacks', it's those pesky women talking (how dare they!), standing together (fetch the smelling salts!) and saying NO.

Interesting statement from Stonewall.

"Many of the arguments against trans people today are simply recycled homophobia from the 80s and 90s. We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces."

This approach is highlighted perfectly in the Nolan podcast. Stonewall has deliberately played on society's collective guilt about decades of homophobia, liberally sprinkling it all over the trans rights issue. Anyone who had looked at what gender critical belief means would know it has absolutely fuck all to do with homophobia or transphobia.

Also I personally was never, ever told anything about gay people being a threat growing up in the 80's/90's so "we all remember" is a bit rich.

The BBC finally dumps Stonewall
No other lobbying organisation, particularly ones that refuses to even discuss differences of opinion on matters of public importance, should ever get that close again.
unherd.com/thepost/the-bbc-finally-dumps-stonewall/

🍾 🍾🍾🍾

@SirVixofVixHall

About time schools withdrew from Stonewall too.

D of e need to first. Then pressure will be on for schools to withdraw.

Email d of e. Put pressure on.

@CruellaDeVilla

And unintentional irony here:

“Our work continues until the world we imagine is the world we live in”

That struck me, too, Cruella. I shuddered. But of course, VR is available for those wishing to live in imaginary worlds, as is literary fiction. People can imagine all they like, and lots do like, but what we can't do is force others in the real world to validate our imaginings.

In my head sometimes, I'm a Jane Austen heroine in a sprigged muslin gown, but nobody is obliged to throw a ball for me. Pity ...

@ArabellaScott

Media watchdog Ofcom, the Equality Human Rights Commission and the government's Equalities Office and Ministry of Justice are among the other bodies to have pulled out.

That is a pretty impressive group of heavy hitters, there, who have withdrawn from the scheme. And increasingly, citing issues to do with impartiality and dubious legal advice, rather than the first few orgs to leave, who muttered something about cost savings.

And department of health and ofsted, both this year.

As far as I remember the only people we worried about back in the day were PIE, and they are still around, still wearing their colourful disguise.

Boo! No Evan Davis on the PM programme. The story did make it into the headlines at the start of the programme but I don't think it will be mentioned again.

I'm a Jane Austen heroine in a sprigged muslin gown, but nobody is obliged to throw a ball for me

I was picturing a Jane Austen heroine hurrying after a tennis ball, skirts daintily held up, for a moment there.

Personally I always imagined myself as a keen-eyed adventurous type (either sex, not fussed), striding on long, lean legs over craggy mountains. Pity about the reality (wipes glasses with stubby fist).

BBC News - BBC pulls out of Stonewall diversity scheme
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59232736

We all remember being told gay people were predators and lesbians were a threat in single-sex spaces.

Do we? I wonder how old that person is? I'm 64 and I don't remember lesbians ever being called a threat in single sex spaces.

Though I suppose it is possible that mean girls in school may at one time or another have used accusations of lesbianism as another stick to beat their victims with, especially in school changing rooms. It didn't happen at my school - our P.E mistress was formidable - but it might have happened elsewhere. Some of those teenage bullies were as vicious as the worst transgenderists. In fact, come to think of it, nowadays they probably are transgenderists, since it allows so much scope for their favourite pastime of hurting others, while pretending to be virtuous.

Actually, when I started seeking out single sex social spaces, the no nonsense lesbians who stood at the door and kept out the riff raff were considered a blessing, not a threat. That was the general consensus - even among straight women who wanted to be able to speak freely without being influenced by men.

But what do I know? I only came out in the early 1970s, perhaps the person who made the claim is over 80 and harking back to a time when people believed all sorts of rubbish about lesbians?

Though I still think it rather peculiar in that case, that they claim "We all remember". I can't help wondering if they are getting their history information from the same people who insist that transwomen led the Stonewall riots and were the driving force behind the gay rights movement?

This is such good news, we might actually see some half decent coverage of these issues now instead of the usual pandering. Just for them to acknowledge that there is a debate here feels like a ste forward

This surely has to make a lot of other organisations think hard about their relationship with Stonewall?

Especially govt department like the DoE?

When you've got the BBC saying membership of Stonewalls Program/Index is a threat to peoples perception of impartiality that's a big deal.

You combine that with the fact GC views are now protected (thanks Maya) then this is very significant in the private sector also.

Allying yourself with a organisation that's totally at odds with a protected belief must put companies in a very precarious position when they are forcing staff to obey polices that are not compliant with the law.

Having the BBC admit there is an issue of impartiality means other organisations cannot pretend they were not aware of this conflict of interest.

Phew. Finally. I'm honestly delighted, but too many good women have been harmed to get us to here.

This one is for them.

Excellent news.

Can I encourage everyone to provide feedback to the BBC?
I will be thanking them and also mentioning Children In Need, Mermaids and the need for programming to investigate the wholesale institutional capture of organisations by this deeply dodgy ideology.

About time. I'm truly appalled that a supposedly impartial institution funded by licence-payers' money would ever be associated with any organisation run by activists with a specific agenda.

@MistandMud

I'm a Jane Austen heroine in a sprigged muslin gown, but nobody is obliged to throw a ball for me

I was picturing a Jane Austen heroine hurrying after a tennis ball, skirts daintily held up, for a moment there.

Yes! Ditto. Comes of having dogs, possibly.

But great news. Maybe the great oil tanker that is the Beeb is slowly changing course towards something like impartiality. A few other areas need work too, IMHO.

@BoreOfWhabylon

Excellent news.

Can I encourage everyone to provide feedback to the BBC?
I will be thanking them and also mentioning Children In Need, Mermaids and the need for programming to investigate the wholesale institutional capture of organisations by this deeply dodgy ideology.

I was actually wondering how much, not just the Nolan investigation was responsible for this decision but the feedback to it.

Nolan has stated his surprise at just how positive the response was to the investigation,

Given the delay between the release of the Podcasts (and remember this wasn't a high profile investigation on R4/Newsnight/Panorama or similar) and this announcement would it be far fetched to think that the BBC might have been dipping it's toe in the water to test the temperature of the general public?

Either way I think keeping the feedback going is well worth the effort for the few minutes it takes - PULLLLLL