Stonewall backtrack on removing ‘mother’ from policies

[Leafstamp]

Sorry, I don’t have a share token...

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-agrees-that-mother-knows-best-7jhmfljtf

I guess that is why they stuck to ‘no debate’ wasn’t it. Not only could they have their attempts at being seen as ‘not influential at all ‘ remain hidden, but when the CEO herself says stuff on national radio in an attempt to appear nuanced and not sinister, they will now get held to what she says!

I wonder what snide ‘sorry, not sorry’ tweet will go out today! I mean their form had been ‘we are only interested in protecting the most vulnerable minority’ so we don’t care if others are unhappy. Not going work today.

Popcorn at the ready!!

I raise a glass to Emma Barnett as this is a direct result of her putting Nancy Kelley on the spot. The policy that they have unthinkingly mandated, and organisations have unthinkingly gone along with, proved to be impossible for her to justify in the cold light of day and Emma’s forensic questioning. And to the Nolan podcast as they got the evidence to help direct her questions.

Funny that it’s BBC staff after all who have made such a difference. I know they are building on the shoulders of giants.

They open themselves to abuse, complaints, law suits the lot. And just when they expect the backing of the people who told them to do it, they are long gone, taking no responsibility whatsoever and now are back tracking on the advice.

Yes exactly - and the companies/gov departments are paying for this advice that's apparently out of date as soon as it is given.

It's like the Essex Uni thing where Stonewall advised them to ignore the EA2010 on the basis it's 'not fit for purpose' (the same advice they give to everyone) then when their client gets called out for acting illegally, Stonewall say "well, we're not lawyers, you shouldn't have listened to us, and if you did, that's on you".

And Nancy on Women's Hour - "mm, so...we're just talking, but no-one's really listening to us anyway so it doesn't matter whether we're talking bollocks, you see - I wish people would listen to us, but they don't". Erm, no, Nancy - we've all been listening and companies and public bodies have been falling over themselves to get a coveted place on your index for fear of being labelled transphobic as that's what you're telling the general public and companies' grad recruitment pools of uni students - you've been piling on massive pressure across the country through your private policy work and public nazi comments, so this idea that you're just a little office worker with no real voice is as nonsensical as your stance on gender.

Well, this is embarrassing for stonewall and NK and good news for sanity. But - and it's a big but - many organisations have already made this change. The damage is done.

Leave the sinking ship, Nancy! I really can’t wait till Stonewall falls into oblivion. I supported them for years but they’re a total liability now. Nancy ‘they’re all Nazis’ Kelley has been the finishing touch to their insanity.

So… when Nancy said ‘we are not influential’ she was using their wishful future positioning tactic again. Like they have been using declaring the laws are as they wish them to be in the future not how they actually are now. That pomo tactic.

That and the fact that they don’t seem reliable anymore with their old recommendations (read ‘just a short few months ago) does seem to reflect that their legal advice cannot be relied on at all.

And is shows that those politicians trying to force the language through in legislation such as the politicians maternity leave bill, were apparently already ‘out of touch’. I wonder if the Labour Party is aware of how behind they are.

In my completely wasted mispent youth I worked in crisis comms.

This NEVER works. When you are busted, you are busted. The only thing Stonewall can do now is level with people, apologise and say 'look, we are a sometimes mismanaged, mostly volunteer organisation and we have got things wrong. We're sorry and will change/fix it.' Every time Kelly doubles down, she doesn't just make things worse, she makes change impossible for the next Chief Exec and the next one.

Stonewall are so focused on battling on for Pink News etc they are writing themselves out of existence. Which I'm afraid I no longer think is a bad thing, but is sad when you think about the battles they were set up to fight in the first place.

Why did they recommend erasing mother in the first place?

Whilst they might encourage it for trans families as being helpful, what about the other 99% of us. Being inclusive does not mean ignoring what's in the best interests and preferred by the majority! Being inclusive is purely about adding an 'and x' or adding advise for professionals on how to handle individual cases sensitively. Not getting rid of what is appropriate to most people.

Stonewall clearly didn't even consult their own staff and head when they dreamed up this bullshit over mother because having Kelley openly say the the word mother is important to lesbians like her reveals the true extent of how lesbians are 2nd class within the organisation. Think about it - the head of Stonewall couldn't get this message across internally first. She had to do a national radio interview and kick up a storm before Stonewall decided to review this and how they rate workplaces.

This is Stonewall who apparently don't influence organisations like the BBC being told how places like Durham University changed language on the basis of a Stonewall review.

Stonewall isn't for lesbians. It does not listen to whats important to lesbians. Even their head has to take to the media to get the point across about what is important to lesbians.

I hope people are fully paying attention to the capture within Stonewall itself. Who is running Stonewall, because its certainly not Nancy Kelley.

[quote Leafstamp]From David Thomson, of Nolan Investigates Podcast fame - Stonewall telling Scottish Government to remove ‘mother’

mobile.twitter.com/dt_ni/status/1461311137107136517[/quote]
David Thompson strikes me as a bloke who will not stand to be made to look a fool. I imagine he will have receipts for absolutely everything in that podcast and will bring them out whenever necessary.

I wonder what snide ‘sorry, not sorry’ tweet will go out today! I mean their form had been ‘we are only interested in protecting the most vulnerable minority’ so we don’t care if others are unhappy. Not going work today.

The pressure on her from the inside will be immense, though. It's impossible to keep the transactivists happy while taking a moderate/sensible stance on trans rights in public.

She will have to balance the strong views from within (and without) against the survival of Stonewall as a organisation (financial and otherwise), and I think the main question is whether the Stonewall board will be able to keep their focus on the bigger picture and support her or whether they're actually prepared to sacrifice the charity for the cause of extreme transactivism.

Also, Nancy obviously came into this role last year on the basis there was #NoDebate, so it's going be a very different role from the one she actually signed up for.

There will be debate and scrutiny, and she will have to explain some pretty untenable stuff (including many of her own quotes, which she was already distancing herself from on Woman's Hour).

So query how long she'll actually want to stick at this now it's clear that she'll be publicly clearing up the mess that was made long before she came along while attracting vitriol directed at her from the extremists in addition to having to explain her own extremist comments ('taken out of context', of course..) to sensible adults.

Funny that it’s BBC staff after all who have made such a difference. I know they are building on the shoulders of giants.

Wholeheartedly agree. I’d LOVE to know how the BBC went from having Ben Hunte as their LGBTetcetc spokesperson to Nolan and Woman's hour/Emma Barnett.

I wonder now if there will be some kind of signal to soften the approach to women’s refuges too. Because she admitted that it is quite ok for women to want to have that.

Was that signaling another change because they could not hold the line that women had to accept males into refuges and shelters. …

in addition to having to explain her own extremist comments ('taken out of context', of course..) to sensible adults.

Her credibility is completely at an all time low though on those comments. She is lying when she is saying they are misinterpreted because she would’ve issued an immediate clarification. She will continue to twist it but her silence on clearing up these was telling.

I think Helleofabore she said it was ok for us to want our words and want our single sex spaces but we haven't got to talk about it - that was the gist anyway

I’d LOVE to know how the BBC went from having Ben Hunte as their LGBTetcetc spokesperson to Nolan and Woman's hour/Emma Barnett

It's the fact the BBC worked so hard to decentralise itself - Nolan was in NI so away from the main LGBTQ hub in London, and the cotton ceiling article came from a regional office too where people outside of both London and LGBTQ circles had less of a sense of the silencing and intimidation going on within those circles.

I never thought I'd say this given the BBC can be so misogynistic at times, but the regional thing is what's enabled it to remain impartial on this. Brilliant.

I wonder how big the gap will now between the public message (we don't say that, we never said that, we're changing our advice) and the actual message given in direct work, which, from bitter experience I suspect may be in the realm of 'we say that in public because nasty people, but you need to do this, and the law really means this, and here's your policy all written for you by us, and would you just sign this non disclosure agreement?'

Of course that will help drag all this out in the open and sort it out in the end, but I suspect it's going to be a while.

RedToothBrush no sorry I don't buy that theory. Stonewall is run by a lesbian and previously it was run by another lesbian. Both women might not give a fuck about lesbians other than themselves but I don't doubt that what they are doing/have done is intentional.

@LonginesPrime

They open themselves to abuse, complaints, law suits the lot. And just when they expect the backing of the people who told them to do it, they are long gone, taking no responsibility whatsoever and now are back tracking on the advice.

Yes exactly - and the companies/gov departments are paying for this advice that's apparently out of date as soon as it is given.

It's like the Essex Uni thing where Stonewall advised them to ignore the EA2010 on the basis it's 'not fit for purpose' (the same advice they give to everyone) then when their client gets called out for acting illegally, Stonewall say "well, we're not lawyers, you shouldn't have listened to us, and if you did, that's on you".

And Nancy on Women's Hour - "mm, so...we're just talking, but no-one's really listening to us anyway so it doesn't matter whether we're talking bollocks, you see - I wish people would listen to us, but they don't". Erm, no, Nancy - we've all been listening and companies and public bodies have been falling over themselves to get a coveted place on your index for fear of being labelled transphobic as that's what you're telling the general public and companies' grad recruitment pools of uni students - you've been piling on massive pressure across the country through your private policy work and public nazi comments, so this idea that you're just a little office worker with no real voice is as nonsensical as your stance on gender.

Now is a great time to drive a wedge between Stonewall and their paying clients.

Now is a great time to complain about whatever Kelley has suddenly decided isn't necessary any more. That way the organisations that have just rewritten everything get the blame and therefore lose confidence in Stonewall completely.

Can we get Nancy Kelley a weekly interview spot please?

I’d LOVE to know how the BBC went from having Ben Hunte as their LGBTetcetc spokesperson to Nolan and Woman's hour/Emma Barnett.

Catastrophe Theory in action

www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/catastrophe.html

@Artichokeleaves

I wonder how big the gap will now between the public message (we don't say that, we never said that, we're changing our advice) and the actual message given in direct work, which, from bitter experience I suspect may be in the realm of 'we say that in public because nasty people, but you need to do this, and the law really means this, and here's your policy all written for you by us, and would you just sign this non disclosure agreement?'

Of course that will help drag all this out in the open and sort it out in the end, but I suspect it's going to be a while.

Yep. I think the public message will double down on ‘most oppressed’ and ‘horrible trfs’ while the secret back room chats will become more secret.

How do all those organisations feel now, having worked their arse off to go up the index possibly in the teeth of internal opposition, only to find that stuff they've been doing is now no longer part of the criteria and won't advance them?

And not only that, that when the general public get wind of the current criteria and think it's ridiculous, that it will suddenly change again.

There's a little thing called credibility, isn't there?

Yep. I think the public message will double down on ‘most oppressed’ and ‘horrible trfs’ while the secret back room chats will become more secret.

That's quite a dangerous route though. It only takes one person to blab and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

How do all those organisations feel now, having worked their arse off to go up the index possibly in the teeth of internal opposition, only to find that stuff they've been doing is now no longer part of the criteria and won't advance them?

My biggest questions are i think ,that given the MOJ sticks male rapists in.womens prisons and still only made it to number five. Just what is expected to make it to the top 4 and would u even want to?

That should be enough to scrap the whole thing tbh

@FlyingOink

RedToothBrush no sorry I don't buy that theory. Stonewall is run by a lesbian and previously it was run by another lesbian. Both women might not give a fuck about lesbians other than themselves but I don't doubt that what they are doing/have done is intentional.

I do.

If mother was so important to her as a word, why didn't she push back and say so internally rather than just going along with its erasure?

She is weak as a head of the organisation who has been afraid to state this sooner on her own terms rather than doing so because EB called her out on her lack of backbone.