Woman's Hour 18/11/2021 Nancy Kelley CEO of Stonewall

[Abitofalark]

From the programme notes:

"Nancy Kelley is CEO of Stonewall, the largest LGBT rights charity in Europe. She speaks to Emma about her organisation’s work and gives her reaction to recent high-profile withdrawals from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions workplace inclusion scheme, including the BBC."

Hmmm...yes, we've heard - and dissected - the previous pronouncement from that quarter about the BBC pulling out of the Stonewall scheme. Let's see what waffle and spin come out in this interview.

@Abitofalark

You’re 100% spot on. It should be referred to as the women’s rights debate. Because that’s what it is. And if journalists termed it that way then there would be no hiding from the reality.

@Abitofalark - because I thought it would be useful to preserve, I've started transcribing the whole interview (at least from the point it turns to trans rights issues) - not realising quite how much there is, but I'll keep going.

It would be a lot of text to post here, but would that be a helpful thing to do on this thread?

As a taster, here's the first bit on BBC and impartiality :

EB: Let’s get, though, to another part of your work and it is the part that, I have to say, that a lot of scrutiny is happening about at the moment, which is the T, and the trans rights side of things. And only last week, the BBC joined the likes of Channel 4, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Cabinet Office, and pulled out of Stonewall’s Diversity Champion Scheme and Workplace Equality Index, citing concerns that the perception of impartiality when it comes to BBC coverage of the debate over whether trans rights impinge on women’s rights in certain circumstances.

EB: Do you agree that the BBC needs to be seen to be impartial on this?

NK: I definitely agree that the BBC needs to be seen to be impartial on kind of all issues, really. It’s the national broadcaster – it’s really important that people can trust particularly news programming, I think. What I don’t agree and I think BBC didn’t agree in its own statement was that being part of a workplace inclusion programme, in this case the Diversity Champion’s programme was having any real effect on impartiality as opposed to any kind of perception. And I think maybe just for listeners it might be helpful to talk about what the Diveristy Champion Scheme is and does, ‘cause it’s quite often talked about in shorthand, but what it is is a scheme that works with the Diversity and Inclusion team or the HR team in an organisation around how the workplace can be more inclusive. So, how you can work with internal staff groups, how you can have more inclusive policies, you can access training, those sorts of things. It’s very similar to other charity schemes like the Mind Index and the support you would get from Mind.

EB: But the sense where you say the BBC doesn’t agree with itself, it obviously did – it pulled out. And I suppose the question here is do you think true impartiality throughout the organisation is possible when you’re being lobbied and paying to be lobbied because, as per our previous part of our discussion, you don’t deny you’re a lobby group?

NK: So, I guess there’s a difference between whether or not participation in the scheme had an impact on impartiality, which as I understand it, the BBC rightly says it didn’t and whether it’s perceived to. So that’s what I was referring to in terms of the statement. And we do two very normal things. We’re an organisation that wants change as other charities do. We support people around inclusion, and then in a completely separate team – our Campaigns and Policy team – we might engage with the media, we might engage with policy officials, we might engage with politicians. And, you know, we want the world to be a better place for LGBTQ+ people to work, we want the world to be a better place for LGBTQ+ people to live – you know, we’re really proud of the work we do to create change but you know we’re—

EB: But the organisation is one. They may be separate teams but they abide by the same rules and the same views and the same beliefs and the same principles, or are you saying that those two bits have different views?

NK: Well, no, we believe in the –

EB: Right

NK: --same thing. We believe in the equality of LGBTQ+ people –

EB: Okay, but you’re making a distinction there between teams, and I mentioned there that the BBC pulled out of two things, the Diversity Champion’s scheme and the Workplace Equality Index.

NK: Mmhm, mmhm

EB: Surely you see a conflict of interest when you’re marking the homework of an employer like the BBC on promoting some of those beliefs and views, for instance – the manifestation of that, for instance, people being encouraged to declare pronouns and then the BBC having to cover the debate over whether people want to do that?

NK: I mean, my understanding [of] the BBC - you’re more of an expert than I am so you can correct me - is that that sort of edit- , that’s a difference between practice in terms of workplace inclusion and editorial decision-making. I mean, it’s absolutely right, Workplace Equality Index, for people who don’t know, is a kind of progressive benchmarking tool that anyone can enter. You don’t have to be a diversity champion to enter it – it’s a way of kind of understanding where you are on an inclusion journey. And we would encourage all sorts of things including inclusive policies, sharing pronouns where people feel comfortable, and we would notice that, if people were doing it and say that’s great, that probably makes colleagues feel more comfortable—

EB: They’re marked on it.

NK: Yeah. That’s right—

EB: You don’t just notice it. It’s registered in your index.

NK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolutely—

EB: But, Nancy, you are just making it sound like “ah! You did that – cool.” Actually, it’s on an index—

NK: Sure, yeah, it’s a benchmarking tool, absolutely, so the—

EB: And that’s why—

NK: --market can provide feedback

EB: And that’s why businesses have paid to be part of it. They want to look, exactly as you say, like a welcoming and inclusive place.
NK: So, you don’t pay to be part of the Workplace Equality Index. You pay to be part of the separate scheme that is DC. But absolutely, this is all about businesses who want to be more inclusive and when we’re doing benchmarking, we give people feedback about what they’re doing well and where they could improve.

EB: But this comes down to perception, and I will come away from the BBC, but surely you understand that if you are marking the homework of an organisation – down – if they don’t follow what you say is the way to behave, that first of all that can create a perception of being on one side or the other. That’s the perception point of the BBC – I had one of the top executives on the programme only a few days ago – that was his point.

NK: Sure, Rhodri. I do – of course, I understand how that would create the perception, I guess—

EB: Right

NK: I would put on the other side is what the BBC actually does in terms of its coverage, which I don’t think does evidence any sign of being aggressively pro-trans rights and in fact some of the coverage has tilted a bit the other way recently. So, I of course understand why people might have that perception. In reality, I don’t think we’ve had any real influence over editorial policy, it would be lovely to have more, we would love to be able to kind of have a great amount influence over the way that LGBTQ stories are covered by everyone.

EB: You would love to have more influence over—

NK: Yeah, of course

EB: --the BBC and its editorial policy?

NK: We’d love to have more influence in the world. We want the world--

EB: Well, no, we’re talking—

NK: that’s more inclusive.

EB: We’re talking about an employer that just left your scheme because it was concerned about that, but you say that, but you say that two separate teams, so which is it?

NK: So, we as—

EB: You’ve got your HR team--

NK: as Stonewall, we as Stonewall would love—

EB: But you displaying the exact issue here. You’re bleeding the boundaries.

NK: The point that I would make is that whether we are engaging with employers through the Diversity Champion scheme or are engaging with a media company or any other organisation, we’re always going to be interested in progressive changes. That’s what the job of Stonewall is to do.

EB: But that’s been the concern by some.

You're a treasure, @DadDadDad! I for one would very much value a transcript, or even a partial one if it's too much for you to do.

You're too kind, @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g. I'm happy to continue as it's forcing me to pay close attention to what was said.

Here's the deal:

I need to go to sleep.

In a moment, I'll paste what I've got so far. I've gone up to about timestamp 19:51 in the Sounds recording, and I've just realised it goes on for 17 minutes after that!

If anyone wants to take the transcriber's baton from that point, please do so. It's likely I won't get much more done until the weekend.

The next bit is on inclusive language and the Scottish Government :

EB: Just to broaden out, as I said I would, you’re involved with lots and lots of organisations, and lots of campaigns. Again, if you’re marking an organisation down because they don’t follow the way you say is the way to behave with regard to say to – as we are talking about trans rights – do you think that’s tolerant?

NK: So, … I mean, organisations ask us to give them feedback on inclusion of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, and that’s what we do. We don’t have the power to mandate what they do. We’re advising them, and so we give them that feedback, and people can choose to act on it or not. They can act on it in a range of ways. So, I think that’s good practice. I think that’s about inclusion. I think that’s inherently tolerant. We’re not able to control other organisations, what they do. We’re advising as we’ve been asked to.

EB: Would the Scottish Government have moved up or down the index if they hadn’t removed the word “mother” from its maternity policy?

NK: So, I think you’re referring to some documents from a couple of years ago that came out from a Freedom of Information Act request.

EB: I am, yes. I should give it its proper citation from the Stephen Nolan BBC podcast.

NK: Sure, sure. So, the first thing to say is that we’re not interested in removing or erasing the word “mother”. I’m a mum, I’m married to another mum, there’s lot of mums in our house. When we offer guidance on how organisations can make their policies more inclusive we do typically offer three different options to people. We say you can use additive language. So you might say “mothers and other pregnant people”, you might say “mothers, fathers, parents etc”. We say you can use gender-neutral language. So that would be kind of “pregnant people or parents”. Or we say you can address policies using the word “you”. So “when you become a parent” – actually that’s what we use in our own HR policies at Stonewall.

NK: I think in that document, which is a historical document, there was a notation—

EB: It’s not that historic. It’s only two years ago. You’re talking as if it’s ten years ago, if it’s historical.

NK: Sure, it was a couple of years ago. But it was indeed taken out of context of the conversation which was about those options. And it’s absolutely the case right now that all of our guidance suggests that those are three ways that people can make sure that everyone knows that policies apply to them and they are included in them.

EB: But in that same Freedom of Information request it showed that the Scottish Government could have added other words, but instead Stonewall, the scheme – you weren’t CEO, but the organisation you are the CEO of now – pushed them to remove all gendered terminology.

NK: Yes, so again, my understanding is that we were talking about a range of options in our meetings with the Scottish Government at the time, but our policy, our guidance, offers all three options and that’s what we promote now.

EB: Just to be clear, the Scottish Government still has the word “mother”--

NK: Mmhm

EB: --within its maternity policy?

NK: Yeah. I think so. I haven’t checked it today, but I believe so, yeah.

EB: But they’re going to be marked down, potentially. Or not?

NK: No, no.

EB: So that’s not part of the marking?

NK: No, the marking scheme this year definitively does not mark anybody down.

EB: But right now, I should stay they are still part of Stonewall, as we are talking to each other now. Can you see why even having those conversations, why it was even suggested, because it was, quote / unquote, in front of me here from that Freedom of Information request, the removing of all gendered terminology, because it was pushed for – can you see why some women feel this approach is erasing their identity and rights as women?

NK: I definitely see and empathise with that. I definitely understand that perspective, which is why my focus really is on trying to say, “well, we want an inclusive outcome.” I think the vast majority of people, and particularly the vast majority of women, want an inclusive outcome. And there’s more than one way of achieving that. And kind of focussing on language is not the right way to do that.

EB: With all due respect, your organisation has people focussing on language right now.

NK: Sure

EB: Hence why it’s on my radar. I wouldn’t be thinking should the word “mother” come out of a policy or not, or should people be added if documents did not show Stonewall was engaged in that very discussion.

NK: Of course. I guess what I’m saying is focussing on one type of language is not the way to achieve an inclusive outcome. I think giving people choices, giving different organisations different ways of talking about inclusion that work for them is right. Of course I understand. It’s a deeply emotive term. I would be upset if my children didn’t call me mum. I absolutely understand why the word “mother” is so important to so many of us.

And now we're into a section on beliefs around sex and gender plus that BBC article on lesbian dating

This contains use of the word 'cis'. I'm merely direct-quoting its use by the speakers on Woman's Hour - please don't condemn me, MNHQ!

EB: Let’s bring it away from human resources, companies, and those sort of terms for a moment and bring it perhaps to the heart of what you believe, as the chief executive of Stonewall. Your guiding it in the latest chapter of its long existence. Do you believe a person can change their biological sex?

NK: Definitely believe that they can change their sex characteristics, some but not all of them. That’s what the purpose of people going through a medical transition, for those who go through a medical transition, is.

EB: That again, wasn’t my question. Yes, you could of course have surgery and hormones, but do you believe a person can change their biological sex?

NK: So, I don’t believe, and I don’t think anybody believes, that trans people’s bodies are identical to cis people’s bodies, no.

EB: When you say “cis”, for our audience, you mean…

NK: People like me that when I was born they said “that’s a girl” and I’ve remained a girl for the rest of my life, I haven’t transitioned.

EB: Because, again, we’re talking about language. That’s not language that lots of people will be familiar with, other people will be.

NK: That’s right, and mostly we don’t need to use it, right? We only use the cis / trans language when we’re talking about differences between cis and trans people. The rest of the time we just get on with people, and men and women.

EB: So when I ask you do you believe a person can change their biological sex, your answer is…

NK: If that is everything that goes into making a sexed body, no.

EB: Because with this part of your belief that you talked about, being able to do part of it as you put it, I don’t wish to misquote you, it is one that has led you to believe that there is such a thing as trans-lesbian and trans-gay men, and if lesbians do not want to date trans-women, that they should consider whether they are prejudiced. And in fact, you compared it to anti-semitism, in an interview with the BBC in May. Quote – you said “with all beliefs, including controversial beliefs, there is a right to express those beliefs publicly, and where they’re harmful or damaging, whether it’s anti-semitic beliefs, gender-critical beliefs” – talking about what we’re talking about – “beliefs about disability, we have legal systems put in place for people who are harmed by that.”

NK: So, just to be really clear, that is a quote from me, but I wasn’t talking about dating as a lesbian. That was a quote from an interview, as you say, quite a while back and it’s quite a clumsy quote, where I was talking about quite a complicated issue, which is how rights to free speech and rights around academic debate can come into conflict with workplace protections, and how you deal with that. So I was talking about people have a right to free speech and that is incredilbly important in democratic society. Where they’re expressing their beliefs in a way that is harmful and they’re doing in, say in a workplace, the Equality Act protects workers against racism or anti-semitism, against homophobia or transphobia. So I did say it, but I wasn’t talking about dating.

EB: Well, specifically, I think it can be applied, that was my point, but I take the point about the context within which you’re saying it because I was trying to get a flavour for our listeners of your tolerance, and what is considered okay and what isn’t, as the Chief Executive of Stonewall. I’ll give you some more words very recently of yours, back to yourself, if I may, in response to a BBC article specifically about lesbians, who say they’ve been pressured into having sex with trans-women. You said, quote, “nobody should ever be pressured into dating or pressured into dating people they aren’t attracted to, but if you find that when dating you are writing off entire groups of people like people of colour, fat people, disable people or trans people then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions. We know prejudice is still common in the LGBTQ+ community and it’s important that we can talk about that openly and honestly.”

NK: Mmhm

EB: Well, there is a huge issue there for some women – lesbians – who have spoken out about this, who believe calling them prejudiced for this is wrong.

Goodnight!

Thank you DadDadDad!

yes, thank you DDD much appreciated

Thanks DDD

[quote DadDadDad]@Abitofalark - because I thought it would be useful to preserve, I've started transcribing the whole interview (at least from the point it turns to trans rights issues) - not realising quite how much there is, but I'll keep going.

It would be a lot of text to post here, but would that be a helpful thing to do on this thread?[/quote]
That would be an extremely useful thing to do from my point of view. I like to have a text I can view. Perhaps post it in 3 or 4 separate sections so there isn't too big a block of text? There is some kind of app or service where you can get transcripts of TV programmes. I'm not sure how it works but I've seen bloggers post transcripts, citing it. Maybe it's a paid for service. I don't know if there's anything equivalent for radio.

@Datun: “Because it's a central strand to the argument - that you're not allowed to say that men are a statistical risk.”

my husband, who is gentle and kind and truly believes women are excellent in all capacities, gets his hackles up if I state that males perpetuate violence against women more than the other way round.

Thank you DadDadDad

@Manderleyagain

Wow Emma. That's such brilliant interviewing technique. At one point I said out loud 'my god you are so good'. Luckily only me & dogs in the house! She picked up on things and pushed them just enough.

Some important things that came out if this:

Stonewall would like to have had more influence on BBC editorial policy. The official line is that they don't influence that type of thing, but her answers showed she is disappointed they haven't influenced more.

Stonewall ceo says it's possible to hold gender critical views and express them in a way that is not transphobic. Its the type of expression that's the problem (tho her answer to jkr question showed she doesn't really think this in practice).

Nk thinks trans ppl can change some sex characteristics but not everything, so if changing biological sex means changing everything about sex, then it can't be done. But trans women are women literally not metaphorically.

She couldn't give a proper account of how jkr's views are transphobic or harmful.

NK acknowledges that some women say they need a refuge to exclude transwomen, that's their need and they should have that service. She said many refuges exclude trans women currently, and many include them.

She couldn't really speak on k stock at all, which was weird.

The interview was shaped by the issues that have been raised by gender criticals and the noland podcast. It wasn't shaped at all by what Stonewall would like to talk about. They are having to respond on the back foot to a news agenda which was shaped while they were saying #nodebate. So stupid. I'm not sure listeners got a good idea of what the Equality index and diversity champions schemes actually are even.

Thanks for a really great summary.

I have just listened - what an appalling speaker this Nancy whatever was. Does she really think that someone with a penis is a woman? Does that not then follow that any man could call himself a woman?

I take it we are not talking about intersex people, which I think is a different issue.

Interesting. This is a fascinating read.

When EB asked her what JKR said was problematic, she couldn't answer. "State the words of JKR you're objecting to", it shows she either hasn't read and cannot quote JKR or she knows that JKR is deliberately being smeared.

EB then follows it up with "Is JK Rowling transphobic?"

Thus laying a trap.

Nancy Kelley can't say yes to this question without being liablious.

And interestingly her response is "I have no idea" so she notices the trap and side skips it.

She then says "Well I'm not sure if she intends to cause harm". This isn't libelous because it doesn't directly attack the character of JKR. It merely deliberately sows a seed of doubt in a listeners ear without treading into a legal minefield.

In doing so Kelley unwittingly reveals that she actually must know that what JKR said isn't transphobic. The logic follows that she knows she hasn't the evidence to defend herself in a libel trial if she had accused her outright of being transphobic.

Its a very well briefed response both in terms of understanding what JKR said and what the legal position is over what JKR said.

It also would explain why she said she 'didn't know the details of the Kathleen Stock story". Either her general knowledge on her specialist subject is fucked, or she knows damn well theres a legal issue with Stonewall making certain comments over the subject. Its a deflect answer technique. And suggests that she cannot legally be seen as Stonewall having an official opinion on this. Saying she doesn't know 'Any of the details doesn't mean she isn't unaware of the subject - just' the details' could mean simply 'i haven't had a legal briefing to give a proper answer here' it shows how fucked this situation is.

When pushed on changing sex, again there is a moment where she acknowledges men can not change sex. She therefore admits there are lots of legal bombshells she needs to avoid.

She knows exactly where Stonewall need to be careful because of a legal minefield.

Cos she's been briefed about it.

Make of it what you will. But to me, it smacks highly that Stonewall know there is an issue with the law in the uk on this.

It goes beyond ignorance and into wilful and deliberate misleading from the very top down.

EB knows this. The BBC know this.

Its a dance. For now. One that Stonewall know they very easily could trip up on, and that if they do, someone is waiting for that moment.

It also strikes me that its a matter of time.

Remind me why Ruth Hunt quit when she did?

@Peregrina

I have just listened - what an appalling speaker this Nancy whatever was. Does she really think that someone with a penis is a woman? Does that not then follow that any man could call himself a woman?

I take it we are not talking about intersex people, which I think is a different issue.

Of course she thinks that, she's head of a transgender charity. I suggest she would say that any natal male could call themselves a woman and that would be what they have always been, because being a woman is a mental state/innate soul/ something.

@Peregrina

I have just listened - what an appalling speaker this Nancy whatever was. Does she really think that someone with a penis is a woman? Does that not then follow that any man could call himself a woman?

I take it we are not talking about intersex people, which I think is a different issue.

No.

Its a dance. A legal dance.

Stonewall ceo says it's possible to hold gender critical views and express them in a way that is not transphobic.

I really wish she'd been asked for an example of what you can say that is gender critical but isn't transphobic. For the record.

[quote ilovegreen]@Datun: “Because it's a central strand to the argument - that you're not allowed to say that men are a statistical risk.”

my husband, who is gentle and kind and truly believes women are excellent in all capacities, gets his hackles up if I state that males perpetuate violence against women more than the other way round.[/quote]
Yes, a lot of men seem to think it is a personal slight against them. As opposed to just a fact about men as a population.

It's simply a statistical reality that men commit almost all sex offences, and most violent offences. In fact men are responsible for the vast majority of crime in general.

I'll attach a breakdown.

Keep Prisons Single Sex and Fairplay for Women will also have similar statistics if he wants to check. They are not in dispute anywhere.

I think it does come as a shock to some people. And they will often cite women like Myra Hindley or Rose West. Well, Hindley operated 60 years ago! It's telling that these two stand out, because actually, it's very rare.

And interestingly her response is "I have no idea" so she notices the trap and side skips it.

YY

"We want the world" is extremely chilling in the context of getting everyone using pronouns and all that entails with that belief. (Men in women's spaces, kids on hormones.)

You'd not have a religious leader getting everyone to believe in their way of thinking.

Thanks DDD not listened yet and helpful to get an idea of key points.

Totally agree with this from pp:

It's a classic tactic - bring out women who enforce the male dominance because they get personal benefit/reward from doing so, and you undermine the women speaking up for women who are harmed.

Every single communication at work about inclusion/trans issues/changes in policy wordings comes from the only woman on our senior leadership team. Anything about anything else comes from one of the men. Eg, she sent the email about our "progessive" new inclusive maternity policy, but that's against the last 10-12 policy/comms emails coming from men. I don't believe that's a coincidence.

@Datun @ilovegreen

Not to be all NAMALT but my dh def isn’t offended by talk of male violence, without the NAMALT disclaimer.

I’m not sure what’s the difference between him & other men in that respect. He knows the abuse I was victim of as a child and we have daughters, even more vulnerable because of disabilities, so maybe that’s the difference. But that’s not exactly uncommon either.

But it’s definitely possible for men not to be offended by the use of male violence to refer to the sex class of men/stats on this etc.

So maybe when they are uppity about this we need to be asking why?