The RCVS has renewed its Stonewall contract

[TheCurrywurstPrion]

Sadly, despite the efforts of myself and a few other vets, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has renewed its contract with Stonewall until March 2023.

This is particularly galling as I had paid my fees for the next year only a day or two earlier. I have a choice, but vets working within the profession or in related work in the UK have no choice, but to be members, which costs £364.

So far those I’ve been in contact with, who got in touch with the RCVS, have received no reply whatsoever from the Royal College. They haven’t sent so much as an acknowledgment that we wrote.

There were a few others I spoke to here a few weeks back. If anyone here contacted the RCVS about this, I would be interested to hear.

Trying to work out now what steps to take now. Feel free to contact me in a private message if you don’t want to do so on the thread.

I think it’s guaranteed they won’t respond. I only learned the contract had been renewed through a third party.

You could send an FOI request to ask some awkward questions. Then they are obliged to respond.

www.rcvs.org.uk/accessing-information-policy/

My partner and I know someone who runs a very successful livestock veterinary practice that specialises in super dairy herds. She's incredibly highly-qualified, has a PhD, is interviewed and quoted as an expert in her field — and she's criticised us for being Hateful Bigots and said she believes people can be born in the wrong body. We've asked her whether she's ever encountered a cow that's been born in the wrong body and she's talked about some cows being particularly aggressive and some bulls being particularly passive and has suggested that perhaps this is evidence. She sees it in terms of hormones and sexual stereotypes among cattle.

She's yet another example of an incredibly clever, science-based individual who can be talked into anything. I think the gullibility of 'experts' is one of the most frightening aspects of this situation.

My dog is currently identifying as sleepy, though I expect he could very quickly convert to identifying as hungry if I stood up, went to the kitchen and opened the fridge. His d’gender is very fluid like that.

My cat is currently identifying as magnificent

That’s bizarre Pluvia. The idea that quiet bulls are transcows is possibly the most insane thing I’ve heard. There are some lovely, quiet, calm men, so that’s obviously not an indicator of womanhood. And there are many rampant men who claim they are women, who are about as aggressive as it’s possible to be.

You could send an FOI request to ask some awkward questions. Then they are obliged to respond.

You'd think vets would know the difference between the sexes...

I still laugh when I remember the plopper who posted on here that sheep have gender identities.
Being a sheep farmer,I was obviously VERY interested in this assertion and asked for evidence.But you will be shocked to learn,that none there came.
That little pearl of wisdom still makes me laugh, especially now,in the middle of lambing.

It seems they did respond in part to an earlier FOI request.

Despite sending an HR person to a one day conference that cost more than £400 in 2019, the RCVS still only scored 28,5 out of a possible 200 points and were ranked 430 out of 503, and 51st out of 54 in the esucation sector.

So good to know that our money is being well spent.

I expect, with all the efficient companies and groups leaving, we could possibly jump right up into the low 300s this year.

🍾

It is vital they withdraw from Stonewall because obviously THEN my [half-]kneazles’ vet will stop mis-speciesing them. They are being OPPRESSED by this insistence they are cats. It’s literal violence at every turn & the RCVS should be setting an example/doing better/Being Kind.

#FantasticBeastsAreBeasts

We've asked her whether she's ever encountered a cow that's been born in the wrong body

You know I have always seen veterinary science as unrelentingly heteronormative and I don’t see why it should escape being queered.

Seahorses, clownfish and reptiles who’s eggs’ sex are determined by temperature

From my pov it is the bias in taking advice from an interest group rather than a neutral source which represents the law in the spirit it was written. A group which advises erasing female specific language from maternity policies then lies about that on radio 4 (see Emma Barnet’s interview with Nancy Kelly - sure there are threads somewhere). As I see it, it’s akin to getting employment advice purely from “pregnant then screwed” rather than ACAS. Do they sign up to schemes for all the protected categories, or is it just super-special stonewall?

Bovine reproductive specialists are quite entitled to believe in gender woo as long as the rest of us are entitled to believe in biological facts without prejudice or disciplinary bias. A large majority of veterinary graduates are female these days, and some of these are bound to be transmen so it is important that they feel cared for and represented, but that shouldn’t be at the expense of issues regarding women working around anaesthetics and ionising radiation in pregnancy, menopause policy etc.

To be fair, the low score in the stonewall league table is probably a good thing (presumably they haven’t gone all-out with the erasure of women).

To be fair, the low score in the stonewall league table is probably a good thing (presumably they haven’t gone all-out with the erasure of women).

Yes, I confess I was pleased by the pathetic showing. Given the genuine diversity on the council (disability, sex, race) I think paying Stonewall for something obviously not needed, and so obviously biased in favour of two protected characteristics at the expense of all others, is what is truly outrageous.

@Hortensiateapot @TheCurrywurstPrion

I think your stance about equality of all the protected characteristics is a good one.

I'd perhaps frame it as undue influence of one philosophical belief/pressure group. So you could also FOI the Equalities Impact Assessment of being part of Stonewall, and then ask some really difficult questions around how they've considered impact on other protected characteristics e.g. freedom of belief, making the links and stating your concerns as articulated here. Making explicit how it is curtailing your philosophical freedom in your personal life.

Then if any of these awful things come to pass, you can point out that they were warned they were potentially breaking the law, or likely to. With paper trail. It will certainly help the legal case if that's what it going to take for them to take the cotton wool out if their brains on this one.