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
Prof Whittle appears to be arguing individuals shouldn't be able to held liable for sexual harassment if their inappropriate behaviour was sanctioned by their employer.
I gave evidence in the Sandie Peggie case because the hospital board & male Dr refused to accept as findings of fact that that men are more likely to commit violent & sexual crimes, that men are more dangerous to women, so women are more heavily impacted by men in their spaces than vice versa.
You can read my witness statement here.
These are the facts it attests to.
You don't need a degree of any sort to understand these facts.
I've written to @stonewalluk CEO Simon Blake applauding his leadership in discarding Stonewall's previous extreme and divisive definition of "transphobia".
And explaining the damage that it did.
It's not good enough to quietly back away from it after doubling down for so long