Some thoughts on Stonewall's rebrand and strategy.
Erm.... does anyone else think that the rebrand is an 'up yours' to EHRC??
They went from LGB to LGBT in 2015 .... now adding "queer, questioning and ace" (asexual .... a spectrum which includes "demisexual", which means heterosexual who experiences sexual attraction based on emotional connection with a person...)
This is likely to mean that lesbian and gay men are a minority in the LGBTQ+ movement.
The government's LGBT survey (not a representative survey, but still interesting) suggests this is already the case amongst 16-24 year olds
Stonewall's charitable objects concern human rights and in particular sexual orientation
The word "women" appears twice, both times prefaced by LBTQ+
There can be no category of women that does not include males who identify as women
Their vision is that "LGBTQ+ people should have the same rights as everybody else"
What rights do "LGBTQ+" people lack in the UK?...
Hmm... 1. A legally enforceable ban on conversion therapy
(there is no evidence of a trend of actual abusive conversion therapy going on in the UK. This is clearly intended to outlaw 'watchful waiting' of children w gender issues) & medical assessment in general
Hate crime and hate speech laws
(this is deeply illiberal and worrying - anonymous hate crime reporting?? 😬)
Legal gender self-ID - including for people who identify as non-binary
They are expanding the Diversity Champions workplace scheme, work in schools, and sports.
And with faith communities and "elders" (the photographs are all of youngers though...)
They lobby governments across he UK to "protect and extend LGBTQ+ rights"
LGBTQ+ is not a category recognised in the Equality Act 2010 - public and private bodies would be wise not to delegate decision making to this lobby group.
It feels like a protection scheme.
Everyone can join.
And anyone who doesn't Stand With Stonewall will be fair game to be reported to their school, university or employer.
You are "Free to Be" what we tell you to be...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just taking a look back at what Amnesty International said very confidently to the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation in 2018 (they were advocating for removing all safeguards and controls from getting a GRC)
Giving out more GRCs will not affect anyone else they said.
It would have no effect on the operation of the single and separate sex exceptions in the Equality Act.
None on the occupational requirements exceptions in the Equality Act.
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.
It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.
It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.
And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed
Minister @RhonddaBryant says “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.”
Let’s look at the knots he ties himself in
He says “data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service.”
OK so your new law will enable people to prove their sex accurately then? 🤔
Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”
This is distraction.
Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:
- For their own healthcare
- For social care
- For a job where sex matters
- For sport
- For safeguarding
- For use of single sex services
“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”
“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.”
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against?
Men directly.
What all of them?
Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.