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?
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.
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. "
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
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?
The phrase “gender identity” appears 36 times in the judgment
Leonardo’s policy is that any member of staff who is proposing to to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process for the purposes of reassigning their gender can use the toilets intended for the opposite sex.
I am hugely grateful to Naomi Cunningham for the work that she has done as the first chair of Sex Matters, and for her equally important role as a barrister representing claimants using the law to fight for justice.
The arguments made on behalf of the Women and Equalities Minister yesterday were a desperate attempt to shoehorn "case-by-case" back into the single sex services following the Supreme Court judgment.
At paragraph 36 she says there are there are no equivalent exceptions to the single sex service exceptions that apply to employers.
She seems to have forgotten the provisions about protection of women in Schedule 22!
She said that the FWS case was principally decided by reference to maternity rights.
It wasn't. The SC concluded "it important that the EA is interpreted in a clear & consistent way so that groups which share a PC can be identified by those on whom the Act imposes obligations so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way"
Ollie was Chair of the Civil Service Rainbow Alliance for 9 years from 2008 -2017, then held a number of roles in the GEO.
So all the time that the government was getting the law wrong and getting Stonewall prizes for he was leading this.
In 2012 he wrote in Civil Service World about his personal opinion that the government shouldn't renege on its commitment to this particular approach to diversity.
Peter Wilkins case exposes another public body (this one part of @DefenceHQ) that lost sight of the Equality Act and of civil service principles of impartiality and objectivity.
One colleague accused him of making a "threatening" FOI request when he tried to draw attention to @dstlmod 's Line Manager’s Guide.
The FOI was turned down but I tried again.
At first DSTL said they couldn't find the document.
I said "have another look, its on your intranet" and they located it.
Then they thought long and hard about whether they could withhold it on security grounds.