There's a few things here for me.
The first is how there is suddenly this desire to throw others under the bus to avoid accountability and to provide others as targets.
That suggests both fear of liability and reputational damage are real.
I'm curious as to where that heads and whether Stonewall has breeched charity law in terms of it's liabilities along the way. I don't quite know how that works in terms of trustees and CEOs on individual levels. Certainly if you had paid a pile of money for training only to be seeing a whole load of this, would you be minded to challenge and whether there is legal recourse. If you have spent a fortune on this only to realise at this point you could put yourself at risk of you continue with current practice and have to restrain staff there's a few question marks for me. Did Stonewall act negligently or fraudulently? I dunno. But there's certainly question marks for me.
So my second point is about where this is headed and could it head? Who could take action?
I think that's the significance of the reverse ferret. The sheer nervousness of it and the backside covering.
There is an acknowledgement that something gross happened on her watch despite her protests.
In answer to whether it was on Ruth Hunt's watch that Stonewall changed their definition of homosexual to replace sex with gender, the answer is yes. I've been banging on about it since 2018/19. A very quick search of MN and can find at least one post of mine that is dated April 2019 which touches on it (theres another from 2018 which appears to do the same. I would have to do a bit of hunting to find the best /earliest example, but certainly we were discussing here from then).
They were legitimising this behaviour and outright attacks on lesbians in their policy because it's totally marginalised those who were making a point about being same sex attracted - which Ruth Hunt was responsible for by doing this.
She really can't pretend she wasn't a crucial actor in the mess of at least the last 6/7 years.