Oxford Uni told to reveal Stonewall’s LGBT diversity scores

[Imnobody4]

This cheered me up after the Labour Party thread.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/497f425a-f93a-11ec-84c1-32e852e780b0?shareToken=939740c8ae4f08fcf8342e1e4ca941ce

Oxford University will be forced to reveal the scores and feedback it received from the LGBT charity Stonewall as part of its controversial workplace scheme.

In the case of Oxford, the commissioner ruled there was a real risk that the Stonewall scheme could be abused if the scores and recommendations were not made transparent.John Edwards said it was in the public interest to reveal what the charity told public bodies to do to win its stamp of approval as an LGBT-friendly employer.

Almost…

And here I was hoping that some neuro-linguistic programming shortcut was about to reveal itself.

Stonewall only use the term ‘same gender’ and consider the term ‘same sex’ trans exclusionary so I am not sure why they are using it in this statement.

It seems they have mangled language so much that they can’t even use their own preferred terms when they want to try and communicate effectively.

I'm so glad to see that "protection racket" and Stonewall are now turning into a synonym.

The ICO has made some excellent points: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-huge-win-for-sex-matters?s=r&utmcampaign=post&utmm_medium=web

Well done to the Legal Feminist and Sex Matters for pursuing this.

If you go on Sex Matters Twitter feed, they have a link to the ICO decision notice. It's on a pdf in Google so you need to have a Google account to get it. It's the version they got not the public version - the public versions don't have the complainant name.

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1542912863211294723?s=21&t=8MIjYZ7ZLuT656hA3tqvsQ

Same. This is something that occupies my brain lots.

To be fair stonewall didn't get listened to straight away. They had to do decades of effective work first. I suppose our equivalent would be if the fawcett society decided to its its cudos for something useful!

I thought it was interesting that stonewall's position as a very well respected brand counted against them in the foi. The commissioner didn't buy their claim that they were in a competitive marketplace and might give competitors an advantage, because they are the big fish. Organisations want to be associated with the brand, not just buy the service.

As Glinner says, when has any other civil rights movement needed such secrecy?

To be fair stonewall didn't get listened to straight away. They had to do decades of effective work first. I suppose our equivalent would be if the fawcett society decided to its its cudos for something useful!

I'm.sure I read on here akd I'm.happy to be corrected if anyone knows different, but I'm.sure I read that people were actually asked by Sw themselves not to vote fir gay marriage. Presumably as there was not anything else at that time lined up to replace the cause which wouod have had financial implications . After all what happens to an.organisation that achieved its cause.

They chose self ID eventually over fighting fir gay rights in other countries where they are frequently imprisoned or murdered. What does that tell you.

Thanks Clymene for the Glinner link. I'm glad to see the ICO criticising Ofcom for confusing its functions, which should be neutral and independent, with its desire to score highly in the Stonewall index. Ofcom's capture is really concerning given its regulation of broadcasters, newspapers etc. I hope these comments cause some second thoughts (recent Ofcom criticism of the BBC suggests it's still very biased).

"To be fair stonewall didn't get listened to straight away. They had to do decades of effective work first. I suppose our equivalent would be if the fawcett society decided to its its cudos for something useful!"

And, thank goodness, they helped achieve equal marriage. Since 2015 , though, it's all about TQ+

I'm.sure I read on here akd I'm.happy to be corrected if anyone knows different, but I'm.sure I read that people were actually asked by Sw themselves not to vote fir gay marriage

SW opposed same-sex marriage because they viewed marriage itself as an outdated patriarchal institution.

Sex Matters is an organisation you can donate to. It is doing great work in standing up for women’s rights. I’ve joined and I really think that they are trustworthy organisation

Yes, can vouch for Sex Matters, excellent organisation. My mum joined after me and got a free mug so much for being an early adopter! Haha

I'm a member. Very happy to support them while they support us!! (but I want a free mug too)!! They put on some good free online events for members too (not sure if free for non-members). One on education on Monday and there was one on sport recently.

She joined after watching the sports one with me! She was a county level champion sportswoman in her day and is super-competitive still now.

Excellent thread from the Legal Feminist (in which we get a name check) threadreaderapp.com/thread/1543143427692531713.html