It still goes on!
Dear [Man]
I have still not received a response from you regarding my query below.
I understand that the institution is a Stonewall Diversity Champions and this year will be entering the UK Workplace Equality Index, at a time when many institutions are leaving the scheme following criticism that the organisation’s
advice undermines compliance with the Equality Act 2010.
A report by barrister Akua Reindorf for the University of Essex found that its policy on “Supporting Trans and Non Binary Staff”, reflecting Stonewall guidance, was not in line with the Equality Act and contributed to an environment of fear for staff holding dissenting views about sex and gender.
I am attaching a publication from Sex Matters “Understanding the risk of following Stonewall guidance – briefing for employers” which draws attention to the mismatches between current legislation and Stonewall’s guidance on ‘trans inclusion’. This notes that:
Stonewall is committed to the political project of “gender self-identification”. Across all of its guidance and training it advises employers to ignore the legally protected characteristic of sex and to treat self-identified gender as if this was the legally protected characteristic. The charity explicitly argues against taking a compliance approach and opposes using language in line with the Equality Act 2010. It says that the language of the law might be offensive. It calls for organisations to go “above and beyond the law”, and in the process induces them to misinterpret their legal freedom and capacity to act.
This ignores the potential for conflicts of rights with those who have other protected characteristics such as sex, sexual orientation and religion or belief.
Pages 26-30 specifically look at the Code of Practice guidance for toilets, showers and changing rooms and how Stonewall guidance reflects neither the law nor the Code of Practice.
You stated that you “do not feel the need to continue communicating further on this matter via email” and have not acknowledged receipt of any further correspondence from me regarding this matter, although I have repeatedly said I would welcome a meeting to discuss these concerns.
I would like to reiterate my concerns that that the institution risks reputational damage if this is not addressed prior to an incident of student complaint due to the lack of single-sex facilities, and that we are not compliant with workplace legislation for provision of the same. In the absence of a response from you to discuss this I will instead be approaching the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Health and Safety Executive on this matter.