Stonewall at it again - no legal sense

[IslandsAround]

on LinkedIn Stonewall posted the following nonsense -

The FA and Scottish FA have announced they are banning transgender women from women’s football, following the Supreme Court ruling.

It's important to remember that the ruling hasn’t gone through the parliamentary process yet and organisations should wait to see how statutory guidance is changed before making policy changes.

These announcements will be deeply upsetting for trans people, especially when they’re made with no clear plan for how they’ll still be included, and treated with dignity and respect.

Sport should be a place that is safe for all and where everyone feels welcome. Through our #RainbowLaces campaign, we know just how vital inclusion is.

Their total lack of basic legal comprehension is bonkers

No, Stonewall just don't think they have it wrong and want everyone to do what they tell them.
We will get this from them (and other LGBT organisations) until they go under, which will take years.

Good point. But also in the women's game (I don't know about Ireland specifically) homophobia is very much less of an issue, amongst both fans and players. Because so many of the modern pioneers and current players are lesbians. Most of the players (including the straights) totally accept the T being bolted on. Many of the lesbians struggled to accept their sexual orientation and faced homophobia - while starting out (it's much better now) and they think trans rights is gay rights 2.0. And both groups (fans and players) are outwardly very supportive of GI and males in women's football - very TWAW. Unfortunately. My club is rife with genderwoo.

Edited for clarity

Excellent post, do you have a link please.

Yeah, you're probably right! It would certainly be "on brand"!

I believe you're correct. Also Stonewall appear to rely on their supporters believing everything they say without question or without any independent research of their own.

This doesn't say much for Stonewalls supporters and it's no wonder they are perpetually shocked and disappointed by the real world.

It's important to remember that the ruling hasn’t gone through the parliamentary process yet and organisations should wait to see how statutory guidance is changed before making policy changes.

they're advising them to continue to break the law.

And also saying, we're not lawyers so we don't know what we're talking about.

Surely that goes against umpteen rules you're meant to abide by if you're a charity

It's important to remember that the ruling hasn’t gone through the parliamentary process yet

🤪🤪🤪🤪

In fairness to Stonewall (and I completely disagree with their agenda), some of the original drafters of the bill stated that the Act was indeed intended to include transwomen (whether this is true or not I do not know). Regardless of the court issuing 'clarification', ultimately this should always have been addressed or redressed by Parliament and not the courts. But politicians have been too image conscious and 'politically correct' to legislate on this matter. One could argue therefore that the court has created policy here in 'interpreting' the law here as it was insufficiently clear and robust in the first place. It should have been much more specific. I do believe that this is for Parliament to now legislate on through the use of Statutory Instruments. The guidance will or should not be much more explicit. For reference I come from a legal background and have previously helped draft and interpret statutory instruments for the government.

However, until any statutory instruments are created, we should follow the judgement of the court. That's where Stonewall are wrong to imply otherwise.

No. All wrong.

I could be a lot less charitable. (And frankly this political movement has got as far as it has by relying on other people's good will and tendency to assume there must have been a genuine misunderstanding that needs help).

I agree, the government is now faced with an organisation trying to control the law and the HoC. It's not democratically elected, and it got us into this mess in the first place. But I don't think Starmer could make a decision on what to have for tea tonight, so I guess we'll just wait for Reform. God help us.

It does make me wonder if Stonewall are completely unaware of all the lawsuits rumbling towards them - I don’t understand why they would put new evidence of their misleading people on the law and providing legal advice out into the public domain when their defence will rely so heavily on the fact they ‘don’t provide legal advice’ and companies shouldn’t interpret their advice on the law as legal advice.

Shouldn’t they be trying to delete past tweets like this rather than adding new incriminating evidence to the public domain?

I suppose the other possibility is that the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing, and their legal team are scrambling to make the social media intern delete it.

Or they're working on buying time.

I don’t know if it is stupidity I feel like it’s a deliberate attempt to obfuscate matters. There was so much wide eyed but what does it mean nonsense immediately afterwards.

I think by keeping pushing this line it keeps the debate live and encourages people / businesses to wait before implementing changes.

Of course if someone sues them in the meantime then stonewall will scamper off. I think it’d best to remember that Stonewall are a lobby group they state the way they wish the world to be and encourage others to agree regardless of the law or facts.

In hindsight the workplace equality index surely qualifies as a work of evil genius. Government departments falling over themselves to implement stonewall “law” to inch up the rankings.

I would love to know what is being put in place to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Here's a helpful visual aid for Stonewall lawyers

In fairness to Stonewall (and I completely disagree with their agenda), some of the original drafters of the bill stated that the Act was indeed intended to include transwomen (whether this is true or not I do not know).
What you mean is that Melanie Fields says that woman was intended to include males with a GCR.
The Supreme Court was asked to interpret the meaning of the words woman, man and sex in the Equality Act 2010 as passed. What happened before that stage is irrelevant.
Melanie Fields was not part of the drafting group of lawyers in any case.

Regardless of the court issuing 'clarification', ultimately this should always have been addressed or redressed by Parliament and not the courts.
The court decides whether or not the wording is unclear and Parliament needs to legislate again. The Supreme Court decided that the Act was clear and coherent when the words woman, man and sex were given their natural meaning, and not when not.

But politicians have been too image conscious and 'politically correct' to legislate on this matter. One could argue therefore that the court has created policy here in 'interpreting' the law here as it was insufficiently clear and robust in the first place.
The law is actually very clear and robust. Misrepresentation by bad faith actors over 15 years had created an impression that it is not. The court does not and has not created policy.

It should have been much more specific. I do believe that this is for Parliament to now legislate on through the use of Statutory Instruments. The guidance will or should not be much more explicit. For reference I come from a legal background and have previously helped draft and interpret statutory instruments for the government.

However, until any statutory instruments are created, we should follow the judgement of the court. That's where Stonewall are wrong to imply otherwise.
If you mean that unless and until parliament or a minister with the competence to do so legislates differently, we should all follow the current law, I agree.

Edited for typos

In fairness to Stonewall (and I completely disagree with their agenda), some of the original drafters of the bill stated that the Act was indeed intended to include transwomen (whether this is true or not I do not know).

Fortunately, I can help here.

No it is absolutely not true that some of the original drafters stated the act was intended to include TW.

Evidence: the recent SC decision stating 'women' referred to in the Equality Act are biological women and do not include TW.

I've said it before - Stonewall position themselves as some sort of alternative government.

Good luck to any government that tries to argue that a piece of paper can influence another person’s sexual preferences.

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1918001205466300834

Is there any list of who Stonewall’s major clients are?

If so - the utter lunacy needs to be brought to their attention.

There are some words in the English language that I'm familiar with because I've seen them written down, I have an idea of what they mean from context, but I've never found out what they really mean. 'Hubris' is one of those words, and I looked it up recently.

Wikipedia defines it as
In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride combined with arrogance. Hubris is also referred to as "pride that blinds" because it often causes a committer of hubris to act in foolish ways that belie common sense.

In future dictionaries, they can save space and just write
'Hubris - noun: see Stonewall'

Breathtaking.

Sex Matters has a handy list here.

This is what persuaded them, and this is what will persuade everybody else.

TRAs have absolutely no chance of getting any government to rip up the definition of homosexuality, because men want into women's toilets and to play women's sports.

The irony of it being stonewall who is advocating for it is breathtaking.

And I still want to see the accountability. I want them and all their allies, including politicians, to be asked whether they believe in homosexuality.

I want to see the mental implosion of being asked that question whilst trying to maintain the image that you're progressive.

It's vastly frustrating that people have managed to evade it.

Behind-closed-doors shenanigans by the likes of Stonewall in cahoots with politicians and civil servants got us into this mess. May be they have revealed their sleight of hand, for they appear to expect the judgement of the Supreme Court to be overridden, nullified, by parliamentarians. I wonder what they know or have planned. Whatever it is, we can be sure that it will be cloaked in secrecy.