Please review my letter

[Jammymare]

Absolutely had enough at work (local authority) and being asked to complete stonewall survey has tipped me over the edge. Please can you wonderful people review my letter before I send it (or talk me down!)?

Dear Sirs,

Having recently been invited as an employee of XX to complete a Stonewall survey about LGBT+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans) equality at XX and particularly by the following statement;

“We are proud to be a Stonewall Diversity Champion and are always looking for ways that we can make our organisation more inclusive for our employees, residents, visitors and partners.”

I felt compelled to write to you to suggest that XX’s membership of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme should be reviewed. I fully support the rights of transgender people, yet being associated with Stonewall lies in tension with one of the Council’s core behaviours of respect, respect for the rights of all employees, residents, visitors and partners, including women.

I believe that sex matters.

I believe that in our patriarchal society it is women’s sexed bodies and their role in sex and reproduction that play a major role in their oppression. Gender identity (the feeling of being a man or a woman regardless of one’s biological sex) can therefore never wholly replace sex as a protected characteristic in equalities law and women have the right to organise on the basis of their sex and to access single-sex spaces.

The belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and that sex is distinct from gender-identity has been established in law as a philosophical belief protected from discrimination under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 via numerous recent legal cases such as those bought by Maya Forestater, Alison Bailey and David Grainger. The case of Forstater v CGD Europe explicitly stated that Ms Forstater’s beliefs did not “seek to destroy the rights of trans persons”.

Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall until Jul 2023, has likened these ‘gender critical’ beliefs to anti-Semitism. The motivation for this comparison is to justify Stonewall’s longstanding policy demanding ‘no debate’ on transgender issues.

In 2017, Stonewall declared a lobbying agenda for a radical change the in law to allow people to change their recognised sex through ‘a simple administrative process’. It has also called for changes to the Equality Act 2010 to remove the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, to replace it with ‘gender identity’ and to remove all instances of permitted discrimination (the ‘exceptions’) against trans-identified people.

Other views that Stonewall appears to regard as hateful include the belief that there should be restrictions on biological males competing in women’s sports, that lesbians can define their attraction as same-sex, not same-gender, and the high court’s view that children cannot meaningfully consent to taking puberty blockers.

The Reindorf Review for the University of Essex (published May 2021) found that policies reflecting Stonewall guidance were not in line with the Equality Act and contributed to an environment of fear for staff holding dissenting views about sex and gender.
In her review, Barrister Akua Reindorf writes “In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is”.

Two cabinet ministers for Woman and Equalities have now called for the withdrawal of government departments from Stonewall’s diversity champions scheme, including the current incumbent Kemi Badenoch.

High-profile public-sector bodies disassociated from Stonewall’s Diversity Champion programme, include the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the House of Commons, UCL, the University of Winchester the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, ACAS (the employment dispute service) and Social Work England.

Stonewall is a lobby group which aims to achieve policy change and it is entitled to campaign towards this end. But it is inappropriate that such a group should be embedded within XX.

If members consider it appropriate to continue the relationship with Stonewall, there must be a strategy developed to counter drawbacks described above and ensure those who hold gender critical beliefs do not feel excluded, and are protected from discrimination or harassment.

That looks absolutely amazing!

Excellent letter!

That looks excellent, I can only add that maybe have a look at the sex matters website as well.
you could maybe add these links in for a bit of additional back up.
https://sex-matters.org/resources/your-rights-at-work/

https://sex-matters.org/where-sex-matters/the-workplace/

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/data-matters/

That's a great letter.

This looks really great, the only change I would suggest is to make it less abstract and more personal in this sentence: "I believe that in our patriarchal society it is women’s sexed bodies and their role in sex and reproduction that play a major role in their oppression."

Maybe something like this so it's clear that it's your rights being undermined: "I believe that in this patriarchal society it is women’s sexed bodies and our role in sex and reproduction that play a major role in our oppression."

The content looks good, but the structure needs some work.

I read the bit before the quote several times trying to work out what text you had missed out. You haven't missed it, but sticking the second half of the clause the far side of a block of text makes it hard to read. Put 'I felt compelled to write' right at the start.

I'd also move 'inappropriate to associate with a lobby group' so it comes before the pile of evidence. Assume people will only read past the first paragraph if you have given them a clear reason why they need to take action. (Can you work in the phrase 'reputational risk'? That tends to make people pay attention.)

And keep it as short as possible - it's good to set out your reasons in detail, but you can assume some basic knowledge - e.g. no need to spell out what LGBT or ACAS stand for.

Fantastic work OP - can I steal this to use please?

You could also widen the focus so it's not all about gender. They don't really need all the detail about GC beliefs being legally protected. But they do need to think about the problems of prioritising 1 aspect of 'inclusion' to the extent that it actually becomes exclusive for people with several other protected characteristics (edit - including the first 3 groups covered by thr LGBT abbreviation).

Well done OP ! The content is absolutely worth raising.

I agree with PP that you need to do some fixes to the structure overall: I've had a go at rearranging below to explain what I mean.

1. Don't address to Dear Sirs - can you address to a specific named senior executive ?

2. Give context, have a precis / summary at the start of the letter and then the detail to follow. Something like:

Context: As an employee of XX, I have been asked to complete a Stonewall survey about LGBT+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans) equality at XX.

Summary of concerns:
I am concerned about XX employer being a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme. While I fully support the rights of transgender people, I consider that for XX to be associated with Stonewall lies in tension with one of the Council’s core behaviours of respect for the rights of all employees, residents, visitors and partners, including women.

Proposed actions:
I suggest that XX’s membership of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme should be reviewed.
If XX determine it is appropriate to continue the relationship with Stonewall, there must be a strategy developed to counter drawbacks of this relationship and to ensure those who hold gender critical beliefs do not feel excluded, and are protected from discrimination or harassment.

Detail of my concerns about Stonewall:
Stonewall is a lobby group which aims to achieve policy change and it is entitled to campaign towards this end. But it is inappropriate that such a group should be embedded within XXemployer.

Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall until Jul 2023, has likened ‘gender critical’ beliefs to anti-Semitism. The motivation for this comparison is to justify Stonewall’s longstanding policy demanding ‘no debate’ on transgender issues.

In 2017, Stonewall declared a lobbying agenda for a radical change the in law to allow people to change their recognised sex through ‘a simple administrative process’. It has also called for changes to the Equality Act 2010 to remove the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, to replace it with ‘gender identity’ and to remove all instances of permitted discrimination (the ‘exceptions’) against trans-identified people.

Other views that Stonewall appears to regard as hateful include the belief that there should be restrictions on biological males competing in women’s sports, that lesbians can define their attraction as same-sex, not same-gender, and the high court’s view that children cannot meaningfully consent to taking puberty blockers.

The Reindorf Review for the University of Essex (published May 2021) found that policies reflecting Stonewall guidance were not in line with the Equality Act and contributed to an environment of fear for staff holding dissenting views about sex and gender.
In her review, Barrister Akua Reindorf writes “In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is”.

Two cabinet ministers for Woman and Equalities have now called for the withdrawal of government departments from Stonewall’s diversity champions scheme, including the current incumbent Kemi Badenoch.

High-profile public-sector bodies disassociated from Stonewall’s Diversity Champion programme, include the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the House of Commons, UCL, the University of Winchester the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, ACAS (the employment dispute service) and Social Work England.

Detail of my own beliefs:
I believe that sex matters.

I believe that in our patriarchal society it is women’s sexed bodies and their role in sex and reproduction that play a major role in their oppression. Gender identity (the feeling of being a man or a woman regardless of one’s biological sex) can therefore never wholly replace sex as a protected characteristic in equalities law and women have the right to organise on the basis of their sex and to access single-sex spaces.

The belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and that sex is distinct from gender-identity has been established in law as a philosophical belief protected from discrimination under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 via numerous recent legal cases such as those bought by Maya Forestater, Alison Bailey and David Grainger. The case of Forstater v CGD Europe explicitly stated that Ms Forstater’s beliefs did not “seek to destroy the rights of trans persons”.

I think I'd want to provide a reference/source for the statement about Nancy Kelly and the comparison to antisemitism because that could be queried.

I think Bookworm has it. So there's an executive summary ahead of the main body of the text. You could add you'd be happy to explain further should it be necessary. Good luck and please let us all know how it goes.

I like @BookWorm45's revised structure. And it clearly highlights one large section for cutting out - details of own beliefs. That's not relevant.

I'd also severely trim:

In 2017, Stonewall declared a lobbying agenda for a radical change the in law to allow people to change their recognised sex through ‘a simple administrative process’. It has also called for changes to the Equality Act 2010 to remove the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, to replace it with ‘gender identity’ and to remove all instances of permitted discrimination (the ‘exceptions’) against trans-identified people.

Most people not familiar with GC arguments will nod along and think that's all perfectly reasonable - make life easier for people and remove discrimination. That sounds like a good thing.

Cut it down to just explaining that they have a lobbying agenda to change the law on gender recognition and to change the Equality Act in ways that remove protections for women. And I'd attach it to the bit about Reindorf. Explain that they want to change the law, and therefore have a history of giving incorrect advice about the law.

Puberty blockers seem unlikely to be within scope of council activities, so drop that as well. Keep focused on what is specifically relevant to your audience.

You could ask why they are allying with a political lobby group that openly campaigns to remove women's sex based rights? Surely signing up to Stonewall compromises the LA which is required to be politically impartial given the requirement on local authorities to adhere to the Nolan principles of public life. Draw their attention to"Integrity" which expects that "holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life

Oh yes - good one, MrsO!

OP, do you live in an area where the rights of Muslim or Jewish women could be compromised by the LA’s adherence to Stonewall? Being able to reference more than one legally protected group may strengthen your argument (women - protected by EA; religious groups, protected by EA; GC views, protected by JKR Case law re Maya Forstater

As pp says, you need to assume a reader might only look at 1st para, so get a strong summary of your issue there

Really well done for taking this on

Aside from what others have mentioned, this jumped out at me on first reading:

and women have the right to organise on the basis of their sex and to access single-sex spaces.

This sounds a bit abstract because the first (irrelevant) clause subsumes the second (important) clause. I would change this to "And women have the right to access single-sex spaces" and cut the bit about organising as it's not relevant and makes it sound like you want to start a women's union or something (which would actually be an amazing concept, but not for this specific letter).

I would say sticking with the point, the problem, and what you want them to do about it that's within their power to do, is the way to get results rather than going into the broader context which is obviously an important base to underpin your viewpoint, but doesn't need to be visible in this letter.

Remember we don't always need to explain ourselves exhaustively (in both meanings of the word) to get what we want/need.

I'd change 'I believe that in our patriarchal society it is women’s sexed bodies and their role in sex and reproduction that play a major role in their oppression' to something more like normal speech:
'I believe that even today, women are still disadvantaged by their female bodies and their role in reproduction'.

People eyeroll at patriarchy and oppression. Even well-meaning people.

..or perhaps don't complete the survey, and have a calming cup of tea instead?

Surveys are optional. Leave it for those who do not have gender critical beliefs and keep your blood pressure at a healthy level.

Your LA employer's membership of the Stonewall scheme is nothing to do with you. You are not a minority needing representation, awareness and understanding. If you feel discriminated against by an organisation committing itself to listen to a minority that does not include you, then perhaps the organisation may not be the one at fault.

Just sayin'.

Your LA employer's membership of the Stonewall scheme is nothing to do with you.

If the OP's employer is wasting money on third party legal advice that has been proven to be inaccurate (University of Essex case), of course she should be concerned. I would have the same concerns if my employer was obtaining dodgy workplace health and safety advice from a third party who didn't understand COSHH regulations.

Agree with the excellent posts upthread. Focus on their failing of public duty to be politically impartial - Stonewall is anything but and is pushing only one agenda which is in conflict to many other protected characteristics. Unless they also ask you to fill in surveys for lobby groups for women, religious groups, disabled people etc they are not being even handed and it could be discrimination surely? As not treating all PCs as the same.

Also, the assumption that Stonewall represents all people within the LGBT+ is flawed. Lots of lesbians think of Stonewall as actively hostile to their right to be same sex attracted.

@OForGoodnessSake could you be any more patronising?

Surveys are to seek the views of everyone. It's not the minority group that the OP has an issue with, it's the specific organisation that is being used to represent them. You have no idea if the OP is included in the LGB or the T minority groups being targeted.

The OP may very well be in a minority group which has not had a survey to fill out about their particular concerns or indeed part of the LGBT. You can't possibly know. Plenty of people in the LGB think Stonewall is working against their interests and rights.

But if you do it your way it’s constant affirmation - it’s not a survey it’s a congratulatory golden handshake.

I agree with the idea that after saying why you are writing you do a brief summary, even a bullet points list. And much as I agree with everything you have said, given that it is an LA maybe start with the facts that they would think worth considering.

eg the number of organisation now dissassociating from Stonewall Diversity hogwash, the number of employment / discrimination cases that have shown gender critical beliefs are a legal right (and Stonewall doesn't support this), and if the purpose is equality training then a group that is committed to equality for all diversity should be employed, not a lobbying group for a single issue.

And then you more detail explanation - which are great.

One problem may be that some assistant or secretary will be the first person to read it and may just go I cant take this all in, what with my work load, and it isn't properly dealt with.

I suppose you could in fact start with an explosive first comment that what they are asking you to do would be to deny your protected beliefs, and as such they are in breach of the law.

But in the end do what is most natural to you because when they do follow up, you will want to feel at ease with going through the points with them.

Good luck.