Maya Forstater Profile picture
Jul 26, 2022 30 tweets 13 min read Read on X
Stonewall's defensive briefing about its Diversity Champions scheme just keeps getting longer

#StonewallLies

stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/…
Stonewall provides advice to *employers* ... they are referring to the wrong Code of Practice here.

Their guidance differs markedly from the Code of Practice

They've got unpublished legal advice? 🤷‍♀️ Great. "Trust us!"

sex-matters.org/wp-content/upl…
For example the Code of Practice says that where an employee is transitioning the employer should talk to them about using *different* facilities.

Stonewall say that all facilities are provided based on gender-self identity
"gender identity" they say can be used interchangeably with "gender reassignment"
The impact of this is that they tell employers *not* to monitor the protected characteristic of sex, but only "gender identity"

.... trans women are women you see.
What they subtly misstate here is that the protection against discrimination in the Equality Act does not mean that a person has changed sex
Here they say they don't want to ban the word "mother" they just want to redefine it, and make it impossible to use to describe the rights of actual mothers.

In their view a man who has fathered a child can be a "mother"
Does Stonewall see a conflict between employers obligations to protect "LGBTQ+" (that's not a protected characteristic!) and gender critical employees.

No they say...
Why then did they lead this open letter condemning the EHRC for intervening in my case?

consortium.lgbt/ehrc-open-lett…
Why did their Head of Trans Inclusion email Garden Court Chambers to complain about Allison Bailey express gender critical views on the internet and chairing a WPUK meeting?
With one breath they say protection for GC beliefs are "very narrow", and with the next they tell employers to go above and beyond the law.

In fact protection against harassment & discrimination is the same for any PCs. That's why its called the *Equality* Act
Its normal to use everyday language to describe the law they say ....

... but also the Equality Act doesn't use the term "biological sex" 🙄
The EHRC's new guidance on single-sex services is confusing therefore.

(everyone knows "sex" means what Judith Butler says, its not confusing at all... )
This is what the Equality Act says.

Sex discrimination includes discrimination related to pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding.

(But its nothing to do with biological sex says Stonewall)
This is nonsense.

There is an *exception* which allows the provision of single-sex services.

The Equality Act sets out a list of circumstances where these exceptions can be applied. It does not mention "gender identity"
Being a Stonewall Diversity Champion or Workplace Equality member does not affect impartiality they say
They email Diversity Champions members and encourage them to tweet in support of Stonewall's preferred legal changes.

And then award them Workplace Equality Index points for doing so.
Are we campaigning to amend the Equality Act. No they. say.

Meanwhile what they told the Women and Equality Select Committee was yes.
And here again in their vision for change.

2 - reform to Equality Act

(also 4. judicial clarity on "sex by discrimination" - that means removing protection from rape victims)
"many of these cases"

This was a single case
Will this judgment stand the test of time?

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/01/12/cps…
This is what Nancy Kelley said about Stonewall's desire to influence the BBC
This is what the Information Commissioner's Office says

"Such is the potential for a scheme to be misused as a campaigning tool, the Commissioner considers that there is an unusually strong public interest in transparency. "
The Stonewall Workplace Equality Index is quite clearly a tool for ideological enforcement sex-matters.org/posts/updates/…
Stonewall complain about FOI requests.

What they don't say is that the advice they have been giving to members to claim "commercial interests" and "confidentiality" is not in line with the law, according to the ICO

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/…
Yesterday they added this shocking barefaced lie, trying to distance themself from the previous day's tweet about 2 year olds being trans

(can you see why they don't want to use the terms "sex" and "transsexual" which are in the Equality Act?)

Organisations that are concerned: This is bad advice.

Don't look to Stonewall's FAQ or unpublished legal advice to get the facts or the law straight.

Ask your general counsel, not the LGBTQ+ team or your social media colleagues.
Promote real inclusion, which recognises that everyone has equal human rights.

Everyone has a sex, and there are important legal protections against sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, belief discrimination and for "gender reassignment".

[ENDS]
And the thread keeps going....

Are they or aren't they involved with nursery schools?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Maya Forstater

Maya Forstater Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MForstater

May 11
This, by one of the Darlington nurses is heartbreaking (CW: CSA)

Women should not have to tell these stories to get the basic dignity that is their right under workplace health and safety law.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
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.Image
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 Image
Read 7 tweets
May 7
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.”
Read 10 tweets
May 4
A 🧵about signs.

What do I mean by this sign excludes all men?

I mean the sign itself is discriminatory. Image
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.
Read 31 tweets
May 1
Here we are at @LSELaw for a legal panel discussion on the FWS case. Video will be available later. Image
Naomi Cunningham says the ruling changes very little .. and it changes everything. Image
Under the old understanding there was a route to exclude men with GRCs from women only services but it was unclear and uncertain. It sounded difficult to operate. And the @EHRC statutory code said case by case.
Read 21 tweets
Apr 28
Wow...

So the lineage of that policy that Sussex University has just been fined £0.5m for goes back via Advance HE and the Equality Challenge Unit to the SWP! 🤯
The Sussex policy comes almost word for word from the ECU policy which is based on the Association of Colleges Policy 2005 Image
Which Dave Renton said he drafted with SWP Laura Miles (author of Transgender Resistance: socialism and the fight for trans liberation) Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Apr 18
I have seen quite a lot of this question going around.

Its called the "transman gotcha" and it is addressed in the Supreme Court judgment. Image
It goes like this: If you exclude "trans women" from women's spaces then you must include burly, bearded "trans men" Image
The answer in the judgment is that the Equality Act exceptions mean that both sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination prohibitions are disapplied so a service provider can lawfully exclude both ways. Image
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(