Actually I think there might be a lot new.
I am no Rowantrees, but a while back I tried to pull together various links suggesting connections between a Los Angeles paediatrician, Olsen-Kennedy, WPATH/USPATH, and various UK figures/organisations such as Susie Green, Minnymum, Mermaids and Bristol University
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4124821-Abnormal-structures-of-the-body-caused-by-congenital-defects?msgid=103273216
My best guess on reading the WP article, which includes specific criticism of Olsen-Kennedy, is that there has been a rethink. Perhaps motivated by fear of legal actions, but if added to Nancy Kelly's recent roll-backs, I wonder if it is more general.
For the last couple of decades the LGB(QTIA+++) ladder has been a fast way to the top of City and Government organisations. These D&I roles don't go to any old boring "cishet" so competition is limited, and exposure, with organisations keen to show their rainbow credentials, has been large. Also an easier way to demonstrate "success" than toiling away on a trading floor or having the technical knowhow to be a quant.
The rainbow flag is now starting to look tattered. Young people are bored with their peers who claim to be trans in order to be different, and have moved onto other TicToc themes. Women, including many lesbians, are alienated and increasingly angry. Men who were happy to dismiss it as irrelevant culture wars, now recognise some significant and dangerous attacks on free speech, that could potentially affect them. When populists like Nigel Farage take up the banner, politicians quake. He may be many things, but no one doubts his ability to read public mood.
I suspect the real players, those sitting on boards of major organisations will have been thinking. Perhaps Dentons or the "Where are we now" people, or the funding astroturf.
They may have decided that what they really want to protect is their cosy D&I industry. (And the parallel medical industry.)
What is causing the biggest societal irritant and opposition, and is this important to those who matter?
- the medicalisation of teenage girls
- the strictures on language. Mother, breast-feeding etc.
- high level womens' sport: Olympics, and top level tennis and football.
Yes we will get these crumbs. We might even get some protection of debate on campuses, as employers will have noticed the inflexibility of some recent hires, and post-Brexit we have a tight labour market.
This is not good enough. We, as voters, should set the agenda, not outsource it to some unaccountable lobbying organisation. D&I needs to go back to meaning exactly that: and give equal weight to the other protected categories such as disability, race, sex and religion. not just Stonewall's made up category of "gender identity".
It's not alright to say "sorry" and move on. What about those teenage victims alluded to in the WP report. What about women pushed out of community sport or off competitive sport pathways, what about the woman who did not win an award because Pips Bunce did, and the women who have been silenced or lost their jobs or faced harassment and abuse.
No. we need a public inquiry to look into how it managed to happen.