Thread by @SVPhillimore

I did! Like the introduction - 'you could be forgiven for thinking that all it campaigns about is trans rights' Formed as lobby group in 1989, devasted by infamous section 28 that banned 'promotion' of homosexuality. Stonewall fought for its appeal and equality for gay people.

https://twitter.com/StoatlyL/status/1461303961525362694

now it has begun to campaign on trans rights, gaining both praise and 'strong' criticism for is stance on gender identity. It runs 'work place inclusion schemes' covering 25% of workforce, more than 250 are public bodies. Some have left - the BBC, Ofcom, Channel 4 and the EHRC.

Asked NK why she wanted to do the job - as a lesbian my life absolutely transformed by work of Stonewall. Married and adopted two children, illegal until recently. An amazing opportunity to make things better for LGBTQ+ people.

Emma Barnett - but a lot of the focus has been on the 'T'. Stonewall still campaigns for LGB. for eg. JR on current rules re IVF which are 'incredibly discriminatory'. So important as part of our campaigning for family formation.

EB steers it back to the T and the BBC pulling out of the Stonewall schemes, citing concerns over impartiality over debate about when trans and women's rights clash. Does NK agree BBC needs to be impartial?

NK definitely agrees our national broadcaster must be seen to be impartial but she doesn't agree that being part of a work place inclusion programme was having any real impact on impartiality - and thinks the BBC also agreed!

NK says the Diversity Champion scheme works with Diversity Teams in HR departments to access training, like support from any other charity.
EB - but the BBC pulled out. Is impartiality possible when you are being lobbied and PAID to be lobbied?

NK - did participation in scheme have an actual impact or was it perceived to. We do two different things. We want change and support inclusion, have separate team to engage with media and politicians. Want world to be better for LGBTQ+ people.

EB - but these two separate teams are part of the same organstion, who believe in the same things and abide by the same rules?
NK - we believe in the same thing.
EB - BBC pulled out of 2 things - surely you see a conflict of interest when marking BBC's homework?

NK - difference between workplace inclusion and editorial decision making (in light of the 'pronouns debate'). We encourage all sorts of things, like sharing pronouns and we notice it and say 'that's great!'

EB - but you don't just comment on it! you MARK IT!
NK - absolutely, its a benchmarking tool
EB - and that's way business PAY to be part of it.
NK - absolutely this is all about businesses who want to be more inclusive and we give feedback.

EB - but if this is about perception, by marking homework, you are giving a perception of approval.
NK - i do understand. But what BBC actually DOES in terms of coverage does not indicate any sign of being 'aggressively pro trans'.

NK <chuckles genially> 'I reality I don't think we have had any influence over editorial policy!'

<pause now for hysterical laughter, ahahahha and breath>

NK - we would love to have more influence, on how LGBTQ+ stories are covered by everyone!
EB - <slowly> you would love to have more influence over the BBC
NK Of course!

NK - we would love to have more influence in the world!
EB - we are talking about an employer who has just left your scheme? You are bleeding the boundaries.
NK - regardless of how engaging with employers, always will be interested in progressive changes, job of Stonewall

NK - we give feedback we advise, we don't mandate. People can act or not. That is good practice, it is inherently tolerant
EB would Scottish Gov have moved up or down the index if they hadn't removed the word 'mother'?

NK - I think you are referring to a couple of years ago in FOI request? (yes). We aren't interested in removing or erasing the word mother. When we offer guidance on inclusion we offer 'additive language' - mothers AND pregnant people - gender neutral language or say 'you'

NK - that was a historical document
EB <chuckles contemptuously> it was only two years ago! you are making it sound like 10

NK - it was taken out of context. Conversation was about options.
EB - but in same FOI showed Scottish Gov could have added other words but Stonewall pushed them to remove ALL gender terminology.

NK - we were talking about a range of options in meetings with Scottish Government.
EB - just to be clear, they still use word 'mother' in its maternity policy and could be marked down?
NK - no, scheme will not mark them down.

EB - can you see why some women feel this approach is erasing their identity and rights?
NK - I definitely see and understand that perspective. We want an inclusive outcome.
<pause here for further laughter>

NK - focusing on language is not right way to do that.
EB - with all due respect, your organisation has people focusing on language right now.
NK - of course, I mean focusing on one type of language. Give people choices.

<hahahahahahah>

NK - I would be really upset if my children didn't call me mum. I absolutely understand why word mother is so important to so many of us

<thank you!>

EB - do you believe a person can change their biological sex?
NK - I definitely believe a person can change their sex characteristics, that's the purpose of a medical transition
EB - that wasn't my question. You can of course have surgery and hormones - can you change sex?

NK - I don't believe, no one believes that trans people's bodies are identical to cis people's bodies.
EB - cis is not language lots familiar with.
NK - we only need to use it when talking about differences

EB - so can you change sex?
NK - If that is everything that goes into making a sexed body then no <??????>
EB - you believe that if lesbians do not want to date transwomen they should consider their prejudice and you compared it to anti semitism.

EB - no right to express harmful and damaging belief.
NK - that is a quote from me but not talking about dating as a lesbian. Its a clumsy quote about how rights of free speech can conflict with workplace protections.

EB - Take point about context. Trying to get a flavour of your tolerance. More words of yours back to yourself about lesbians - no one should be pressured into dating but if you are writing off entire groups, worth considering how societal prejudices shape your attractions

EB - huge issue for some women. they say calling them prejudiced is wrong.
NK - want emphasise, completely core to my belief that no one should EVER be pressured into dating or sex. difference between saying 'you might want to think about something' and 'you are prejudiced'.

NK - it is possible to have dating preferences which are about prejudice.
EB - but you are not just random person, you are CEO of Stonewall and have influence. Floating word prejudice, is a powerful statement.

NK <unhappily> I am really happy with what I said. Didn't intend to label dating choices right or wrong. Thinking how we choose to date as lesbians, I do believe TWAW so wouldn't make that exclusion.
EB <incredulous> Do you believe that literally or metaphorically?

NK- literally (!!!!!!)
EB - I ask because belief is not the same as fact and gender critical views qualify for protection. has this changed Stonewall's approach?
NK - many beliefs protected. Can hold GC belief without expressing them in way that harms trans people.

NK - its about how we express views.
EB - its about how people can talk in the current climate as they wish to. Is JKR transphobic?
NK - I have no idea! I have never met her
EB - you don't have to meet her. She expressed her views.

EB - is she a transphobe for saying it the way she has said it
NK - I have read things JKR says which are harmful in terms of impact on trans community.
EB - our listeners need to know what CEO of Stonewall thinks about one of the most famous and succesful women in this country

EB - is she a transphobe or not?
NK - she has expressed views that can cause real harm
EB - what has she said? This strikes to the heart of it. What she said causes harm.
NK - when we talk about ideas based on concept that trans people are a risk - JKR points as this.

NK - whether that is her intention I don't know. Sure it isn't.
EB - but what if assertions are based on actual cases. Concern about having people who are not biological females in refuges.

NK - <blusters> - important that everyone is offered a service. JKR would want to be in a refuge that excludes transwomen and those services exist.... wrong to say this as when not about our own feelings but the risk posed by another
EB But those two things are the same!

NK - a world of difference between a woman seeking accommodation in a refuge and saying I don't feel safe around transwomen - she should get support.
EB - she was imagining that situation.
NK - but to extrapolate when you have such big reach... reinforces stereotypes

EB - we haven't been able to distill what IS transphobic. You are saying woman at refuge, that is ok. But she can't say the same thing if she has millions of followers?
NK - haven't said people can't say things <???> they can believe and say what they choose.

NK - but this is the balance between our right to free speech and the protection of those with protected characteristics. At the workplace, interact closely, but other contexts like public debate, must less tight coupling.

NK <chuckles> - no one is going to bring an Equality Act case on anything I have said, I hope! but are some of views JKR express, do they echo common forms of transphobia - yes!

EB - Prof K Stock who resigned after 18 years after sustained campaign over her view that TWANW - should she have been fired?
NK - I don't want to comment about the case because I don't know anything other than has been reported <???>

EB - you must have been familiar with it
NK - i don't know anything more than in press. Critical thing here is that everyone should be able to work in environment free from abuse. Universities must balance with legal requirements about free speech. When in tension, complicated.

EB - Universities who have subscribed to Stonewall, which contributes to this climate.
NK - I don't think we have anything to do with the specific circumstances in Sussex. Staff and students raise concern over KS over long time.

NK - their perceptions about whether it felt safe to work or learn in that environment. Difficult to balance their perceptions and KS.
EB - you are a leader of an organisation hoping to guide policy. Did she do anything that meant she should have been fired? Is KS a transphobe?

NK - I understand why you want me to answer the question but I simply don't know the answer to the question

< o yes you do Nancy. You just know how it will sound>

EB - Other trans students and trans people stood up for her and said all she had done was express her views.
NK - we don't comment and don't get involved in that kind of HR decision making <the @BluskyeAllison tribunal next year is going to be SO interesting>

EB - posters on the wall, Stock out - not saying you are responsible but this is real and this is happening. What do you attribute it to?
NK - I have a lot of empathy for Prof Stock. I experience similar things... people violently disagree and do many of the things ...

EB - like what?
NK - on line abuse, hate mail, protest. As a human I would never want to deny these are really distressing experiences. But I don't know what the content of any of the complaints were so I don't want to stray into talking about things I don't know about.

NK - it is important that we protect free speech and everyone's right to safe workspaces. Decision making about that balance is for individual employers.
EB - its anti bullying week. Anything you want to say to a listener having a hard time at the moment?

NK - we know that 50% of LGBTQ+ children are bullied because of who they are or have LBBTQ+parents. Everyone is doing everything they can to change that and make it better - so important for children to reach out and speak.

EB - finally. Is it something that you are enjoying or enduring, being in the public eye?
NK - most days its a job I enjoy and some days its a job I endure. None of us should have to put up with online abuse. Have stable, cosy house with loving wife and take comfort from home.

EB - thanks for having the discussion. a lot of very important ground covered.
NK -<chuckling> thank you

So. they managed it. Well bloody done. No one died. No one was 'harmed'. Difficult questions asked and - somewhat - answered.

Let's hope we don't waste anymore time. Let's keep on discussing how we square this circle; the right to speak against the need to protect people from harm in the workplace. @threadreaderapp please unroll.