Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is now a "Stonewall free zone"

[Fenlandia]

According to a tweet today from Martin Callanan, who is a minister in BEIS, they have stopped funding Stonewall for any of their arm's length bodies (ALBs - a bit like quangos but a slightly wider definition):

mobile.twitter.com/MartinCallanan/status/1550825874622414850

"Delighted to announce that all BEIS ALB’s have now followed Department’s lead and stopped funding stonewall. BEIS is now a Stonewall free zone."

It's not gone down well with Jamie Wallis, the trans MP
mobile.twitter.com/JamieWallisMP/status/1550868555285118976

EDI - which should mean Equality, Diversity and Inclusion across the board, just seems to always focus on trans.

If it was true Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, we'd all be having training on disability inclusion and all the varieties of disabilities; and needs, requirements and helpful adjustments.

And diversity regarding age, and suitable needs, requirements and helpful adjustments pertaining to ages

And the implications of pregnancy and maternity, etc, you get my drift.

And we would have skilled women's training groups invited into companies to explain why sex is a protected characteristic. And a particularly important one for the female sex.

But no.

EDI, currently, is all "trans" and "gender" and "pronouns". And no heed to all the other protected characteristics.

Never mind that "trans" is not even one of the Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics - its official name in the Act is "gender reassignment", not "trans", or "gender".

Pisses me off.

What is called "EDI" - "Equality, Diversity and Inclusion" - has effectively become a monoculture, ignoring all the other legal protected characteristics. Just enabling and soothing and facilitating mediocre men with a grievance. By whatever means.

Inclusive Employers charge £4,500 (+vat) annually for a large organisation.

If I found out my workplace was paying that amount for that shite I'd be looking for a new job tomorrow.

Back to Sheldon, I have never understood why a senior public sector employee was allowed to simultaneously Chair a high profile lobbying organisation. The public sector is supposed to be impartial. The FCA is responsible for regulating our important financial sector. It has to scream “conflict of interest”, even if Stonewall was not problematic.

Add the fact that Sheldon has been Chair during a period where Stonewall has lost a lot of respect and credibility, and it is astonishing that he could be seen as in the running for such an important and sensitive public sector role.

Years ago a friend agreed to be a candidate for a no hope constituency where she was almost certain to lose her deposit. She did not expect much in the way of support from the local party so in order to show some efforts she invited friends for a campaigning cum social weekend. I thought it would be fun, but HE in my unimportant and junior bit of the public sector reminded me that my role precluded me from engagement in active politics. I could not go. I don’t understand why those associated with Stonewall, whose remit includes direct lobbying of Government and (up to now at least) extensive work as a Government contractor, are given a pass on normal rules.

Yes, totally deserved though.

As a civil servant (not BEIS) this reply to that tweet rung true: It's more than that, although that is important. There is a culture problem too. Gender Critical people in the BEIS family need to feel free to speak openly and be their authentic selves at work without risk to their careers. This needs civil service leadership

I agree completely and find the culture in my organisation depressing and demoralising. I’ve been asking in baby steps for our views to be recognised (like please can we have a “none” option in the survey about gender identity) but even that was deleted for transphobia. The organisation can’t even acknowledge that not all of us have a gender identity.

Ditto I've made requests for a none and that they respect sex and gender identity as two categories rather than mixing them. I'm pleased to say one of the last surveys I filled in did ask for sex registered at birth or birth certificate. I know that includes GRCs but I saw it as a small step. I now need to ensure that my organisation and those above are aware of gender critical views. I'm too one who has been accused of transphobia.

BEIS need to ensure this is filtered down quick and get to grips with the lower level organisations.

I was note-taking at our board meeting (an ALB) and I think my organisation are going to de-Stonewall too. I had to sit on my hands to stop clapping with glee.

@Legospider

I’m sorry you’re having such a grim time of it. Leaving aside the fact it’s arrant nonsense that “transphobia” gets squawked as if by a chorus of demented parrots to the point it is now meaningless, refusing the “none” box is a refusal to recognise agender people (& all the other genderless identities). Which is essentially a form of transphobia according to Gender GP. There’s a flag & a day & everything.

If Stonewall include agender under their trans umbrella; it not only cannot be transphobic to offer a “none” option for gender, it is transphobic to fail to do so.

Absolutely understand pushing back is difficult; & also understand not wanting to use “transphobia!” right back. But when the moves you can make are limited, there is no shame in defeating people by playing by their rules.

Thanks Nitro. Good insight.
I have zero compunction about crying transphobia to support genuine inclusion. Plus I understand that gender identity really matters to some people and if we’re recording man/woman/NB, we should record everyone.
I would not want to identify myself as agender though. I think that’s a trans identity and I wouldn’t want to be counted as a trans employee. I face different challenges and barriers to a trans person. But I will start making the case for a “None” option to cover all those identities and those with none.