Stonewall loss of jobs and funding after US aid cuts

[Cismyfatarse]

Who knew they were funded via the US government? Not me.

Trump aid freeze ‘may force Stonewall to cut up to half of staff’

www.thetimes.com/article/62cb4fe0-1d91-43f5-a364-bc539eb3234f?shareToken=28cd28f7a1e212f58fca18b4f8ff68b7

maybe the money could be transferred to Sex Matters and others?

I suspect stonewall used their relationship with the government to imply expertise, rather than claim it directly.

Having so many public sector organisations in their inclusive index or whatever its called, ruth hunt given a peerage, the government teasing the idea of increased trans rights, all gave the illusion that stonewall was best placed to help companies comply with the very confusing laws.

Yes I think that it is exactly, and in fact what brings groups that are probably doing good work into disrepute.

Because too many are seen as just being part of a self serving gravy chain.

I think it would be good to be able to get rid of the leeches sucking the blood out of important issue.

But I very much doubt that either Musk (who isn't even an actual official just Trump's pet monkey) or Trump would even know.

Two entrenched MRAs are not fit for purpose.

Although part of me suspects that Trump is wilely enough that if the shit hits the fan he will just dump Musk.

They're not, as such. From what the Times piece says, Stonewall acted as the contractor on various projects in CEE/Caucasus paid from USAID donor funds. I've done work in the aid sector in those countries, and that's a complete ordinary setup. You'll get international donors - World Bank, EU, etc etc - setting up competitions for specific projects and various often international organisations - World Vision, Save the Children and any number of others - bidding for them and implementing them if successful.

Can't say anything about the content of those projects of course, and most definitely don't agree with Stonewall's domestic agenda. That said, I've spent several years in Georgia and the homophobia is truly atrocious, with trans barely on the horizon. To make things worse, homophobia is in turn fostered and augmented by foreign sponsors including the super dubious "World Council of Families." So I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt for those activities until I'm shown otherwise from concrete Terms of References.

There is a debate to be had to what extent donor priorities distort organic civil society development- a controversy that above all has been raging in the women's sector these past two decades at least. E.g. should we be funding anti-traficking programmes and the like when that probably wouldn't be the first item on the agenda for most domestic actors. That's a tricky one though. Imagine the moral relativism if applied to, say, Afghanistan. It also imo overidealises the grassroots character of civil society development in Western societies.

Good questions. Just two points from my own experience in the sector.

One, projects of this sort - womens equality, LGB and T rights, natiknal minorities - are in fact frequently tendered by small-scale domestic organisations. (You'll still get the same debate on whether we as the global North are imposing our priorities - I just commented on that right above.)

Two., the main reason this doesn't happen for all of them is that it's incredibly hard to award and administer (including financial control) large amounts of funding in this fashion. We're also talking about small-scale groups often deficient in specific types of expertise (tendering, accountancy, also specific training content.) So established actors such as Save the Children - for all their problems - do have a role to play.

Thanks @GrumpyPanda detailed and clear

So American taxpayers are paying at least a little bit to spread far-left trans ideology that half of the country will see as dangerous and harmful?

Seems like a corruption of the democratic process to me, with taxpayer money being funneled to the left-wing under the guise of charity.

Also, why isn't the BBC doing more to challenge the Stonewall narrative? Point out their agenda would be considered harmful by many people? That they don't have evidence for their claims about "rights"? That it's arguably not an appropriate use of taxpayer money? Are right-wing NGOs on a similar gravy train, or is it just the left-wing that typically gets this funding?

Are right-wing NGOs on a similar gravy train, or is it just the left-wing that typically gets this funding?

Are there any 'right wing' tax payer funded NGOs?

Strictly speaking, no.

The State department is responsible for administering the fund, but doesn't supply all of the cash.

The grants to Stonewall are restricted, and can only be used for a specific project in Eastern Europe, which for all we know is broadly in line with main stream opinion. I assume that mosts Americans don't think gay people should suffer discrimination, even if there is increasing scepticism about DEI, 'gender affirming medicine' and the claim that trans women are women.

Stonewall gets most of it's revenue from DEI training, which, it has now established. will land their clients in court. That is way they are in trouble.

Stonewall gets most of it's revenue from DEI training,
6.9m total income
2.4m membership fees providing speakers
0.5m from training

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/freedom-of-information/information-we-already-publish/house-of-commons-publication-scheme/governance/stonewall-fees-2021/

Financial year 18/19
Amount (exc VAT)

2018/19
£ 3,000. Diversity Champions programme
£ 2,691 Stonewall Workplace Conference 2018
£ 5,250 Trans Allies Programme
£10,941

So even without the bad advice going forward they woiuld have lost most if not all the public funded organisations as it was deemed a lobby group.

Apart from anything else, there's something to be said for an organisation having a clear mission. The mission getting muddied by lots of other items being bolted on seems to go hand in hand with increased state funding and the organisation ending up mostly existing to perpetuate itself and employ its employees.

Stonewall is one of the most egregious examples because of its bad advice and because Diversity Champions looks too much like a protection racket. But something really has to be done about the feedback loop of government funding NGOs that then tell the government what its policy should be. "We bunged a lot of money to Stonewall to tell us what to do" is not sustainable for a government.

I don't know if piecemeal reform of the charity-government feedback loop is possible, but nobody seems to want to attempt it. And the longer it isn't attempted, the more it makes the case for a UK DOGE.

They are a busted flush.

They focused on the trans issue because they recognised it was the right trend at the right time which gave them a good income stream.

They neglected grassroots activism - which clearly pissed off the founders as that's where they came from and why the LGBTQ Alliance came from. This is a group of people who KNOW how to engage with the public and can read the public mood and are in touch with their membership. They walked the walk rather than being full of hot air. They know that meaningful changes come from engagement and slow efforts rather than trying to bully and silence.

They forgot lesbians. And by redefining homosexual as gender not sex based, they threw them under the bus and actively set themselves up to meet the criteria of institutionalised homophobia. That turned them into the abuser not protector.

Stonewall's early work should not be underestimated. Today the majority of Brits are overwhelming supportive of gay rights by a considerable majority. That's a major shift from just a generation and a half ago. But this has been achieved by public consent.

Stonewall's work in recent years couldn't look any more different. It wasn't persuasive. It was authoritarian and anti science. It told a lie that is obvious to all. Yet these modern activists don't understand why it's so abrasive and upset even their own - the lesbian core are the big tell. Lesbian history is extremely left wing by any standard. The fact no one in Stonewall was willing to listen or see it never mind acknowledge it even when explicitly spelt out by prominent lesbian voices says everything about what happened.

They were chasing the money because they sold out to corporate opportunities. It's extreme neo-liberalism. That's about as far removed from left wing socialist ideals as you can care to imagine.

It's absolutely the perfect example of the organisation running away from its own core ideals. And then blaming everyone else for its own mistake.

That's before considering the appalling misrepresentation of the law. Which harms lesbians particularly badly.

Stonewall totally betrayed lesbians. Plenty of women (including straight women) can see this because they women have been impacted across the board by it. Unlike men, for whom, nothing has noticeably changed particularly.

That's the danger isn't it. And a wholesale look at this isn't likely to come from established parties.

The charity sector as self serving lobbyists has been quietly on the political radar for a while for anyone paying attention. We also have a number of scandals involving international charities.

Recent government could and should have looked at it. It's not something totally out there.

Unfortunately a failure of Starmer to see it coming will lead to predictable cries of 'we couldn't possibly have predicted this' as it's ripe for the picking for a third party to capitalise on. You can see it coming a mile off. It snacks of self interest unfortunately.

Dont think it fair to say nothing has changed for men. Homosexual men are told they should have sex with trans men, although not with the same force that lesbians are told to accept men. It's also a form of homosexual conversion therapy, trying to tell some men they are women really.

True but a lot of gay men supported TWAW but not TMAM and were happy to throw Lesbian women out of Prides etc as well as TM out of "their" spaces.
It was the whole allie on the street but not in the sheets. Or men except for dating purposes.

Not if it bankrupts them and puts them out of business forever

Thanks. Is there a source that the cash was definitely limited to their Eastern European work and specifically for that?

Also, it seems with the Eastern European work they were logging hate crimes and wanting to lobby governments for changes to the law.

Now obviously, some of that would involve crimes and harassment genuinely motivated by hate; but I'm wondering if it might also include logging incidents like refusing to let someone use the changing room of their choice...

The most sexist men I know are gay men. They don't believe they are, often they say they're feminist allies, but they are. They've got a social life where women barely appear, so women's concerns simply aren't on their radar.

Don't get me wrong, some gay men have a wonderful affinity for women, but the sexist dudebro element definitely exists and it isn't small.

The Times says

"The GEF funds Stonewall’s Alliance Against Hate Crime project in Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria, which the charity said worked to “improve support for victims of hate crime, and to advance dialogue with police and law enforcement stakeholders on adapting their systems and victim support to be more sensitive to the needs of the LGBTQ+ community”. "

And we know that the entire amount is listed in their accounts as restricted, which means it can only be used for a specific project.

I think a PP said that this is work that they will have pitched for and the GEF could just as easily have chosen somebody else to do it.

No I tend to agree
Lots of factors, they never had to modify their behaviour to attract female life partners or pass the women friend 'test', their adult friend groups may have men with 2.5 children but seeing is not doing and the gay friends who do have children may be excluded from the mum circle. Family and old friends dont expect change.
And politics of womens rights is not the average conversation in work or when out socialising as a group

Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria

£100k+ is not a lot of money to work with 3 languages need translation services and 3 legal systems too.

But there is a history of cooperation and support from the international police so I suppose they are pitching the changes they lobbied for with the UK forces

https://www.sepcaregion.eu/

@RedToothBrush
'They neglected grassroots activism - which clearly pissed off the founders as that's where they came from and why the LGBTQ Alliance came from.'

LGB Alliance surely?!

Edited to say but otherwise I agree 💯

Bloody autocorrect that!

Even the autocarrot has been Stonewalled! 🌈🥕

LGB alliance has piped the model train to the top google spot!

And the State department is giving LGB travel advice