If the writer of a long form article over at Legal Feminist is correct then there could be problems for those organisations, both public and private, that allow themselves to be manipulated by Stonewall. These possible legal implications should I believe make companies and other organisations think twice about allowing Stonewall to dictate company or organisational policy to them.
The article at Legal Feminist, Naomi Cunningham, starts out her article by explaining about how two of Stonewall’s key products which they sell to organisations, the Workplace Equality Index and the Diversity Champions scheme work. She goes into great detail about how much these products cost and the way that Stonewall expects Stonewall’s views, especially their views on trans issues, should be embedded in a company from top to bottom.
Ms Cunningham uses as a prime example of how these Stonewall products work by using Edinburgh University where a Freedom of Information Request exposed much about Stonewall’s operating practises that was not known about before. There is certainly a lot in it that I would call coercive and in particular with regards to the trans issue end up being a lot of effort, cost and upheaval on the part of the organisation for what might be for the benefit of maybe less than ten employees who are trans.
Ms Cunningham said:
Edinburgh University’s answers run to more than 15,000 words, excluding the documents they appended. But the work that goes into such a submission is of course much, much more than simply collating the evidence – detailed though it is – that Stonewall asks for. The point of the exercise is to embed Stonewall’s values, and Stonewall’s interpretation of the law, deep into the organisation’s policies and management and workplace culture. So policies must be drafted. Staff must be trained on them. Senior managers must demonstrate buy-in. Junior and academic staff must be shamed or coerced into active “allyship.” Efforts must be made to influence suppliers, customers and service users. Social media accounts must toe the party line.
In effect what we have here is an organisation allowing Stonewall to dictate the organisation’s values to them and to overwrite with Stonewall approved views and practises, the organisations culture and values. It’s easy to see how for example in a university that this could be a problem. A university that has become captured by the values of Stonewall is likely to become a very hostile place for gender critical feminists or anyone else who wants to debate about the issue of trans in an academic environment and by using open and free enquiry. I cannot imagine that a university that has sold itself to Stonewall being an easy place to debate issues of sex or even ask questions about subjects that the trans activists don’t want debated such as looking at the issue of those who choose to detransition.
The author of this piece then went on to list what Stonewall requires of organisations that want to be part of their Workplace Equality Index/Diversity Champions scheme. It’s a list that only seems to include those issues surrounding gender and gender expression.
Ms Cunningham added:
There are two points to note here. The first is that the demands Stonewall makes go beyond what the law requires. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, as is gender reassignment (which doesn’t get a mention in Stonewall’s catechism). But “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not, and it’s far from clear what they mean. If “gender expression” is about performing gender stereotypes – whether of dress, make-up, behaviour, interests, or in any other way – then it is impossible and undesirable to ban all discrimination on grounds of gender expression. Some workplaces will justifiably require long hair to be tied back or covered; high heels will be inappropriate or dangerous in many environments. Interrupting, ignoring and talking over women is a core part of many men’s gender expression, but employers are entitled to – and indeed should – take steps to control it.
The second point is that Edinburgh University publishes all its equality policies, here. What’s striking about that list is that gender reassignment is the only protected characteristic that has its own dedicated policy. There is no “Sex Equality Policy,” no “Disability Equality Policy,” no “Race Equality Policy,” no “Religion or Belief Equality Policy.” There isn’t even a general “LGBT Equality Policy.” But there is a special “Trans Equality Policy.”
The author continued on the subject of rights and said that although rights are not a limited matter like a pie for example, creating rights for some employees does cost the organisation time and money and may take focus away from other areas where an employees rights might be negatively affected. She gave the example of how a concentration on trans rights might mean that in a university setting other matters such as equal pay for female academics doesn’t get the attention that it deserves
It’s quite obvious from reading Ms Cunningham’s article that becoming involved with Stonewall is costly and disruptive and that Stonewall want companies to go way beyond what the law requires with regards to trans issues. But for me the thing that most stood out about Ms Cunningham’s article was the possible negative legal outcomes that could emerge for companies and organisations that follow the ‘Stonewall Way’.
Ms Cunningham said that the current and increasingly critical attitude both by some Ministers and among the public about Stonewall and its activities, poses ‘reputational risks’ to organisations. These reputational risks have been brought about in part by Stonewall’s own activities such as trying to silence a gender critical Black female barrister by complaining to her Chambers. This sort of behaviour will look to many like bullying and few reputable organisations would want to be associated with bullying.
Ms Cunningham said:
Stonewall constantly pushes the idea that self-identification already has legal consequences, and self-identifying trans women (without a GRC) are automatically entitled to access women-only spaces. Employers that accept this and permit self-identifying trans women to use women’s toilets, locker rooms, or changing or washing facilities, etc may face indirect discrimination claims. This is a provision, criterion or practice that is applied to the whole workforce, but which is likely to put women at a particular disadvantage compared to men: the employer will be required to show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
If women suffer sexual harassment as a result of these policies, employers are likely to be vicariously liable for that.
But because Stonewall goes way beyond what the law requires with regards trans issues and which has a definition of ‘transphobia’ that places trans people above everyone else with regards to rights and says that transphobia ie: “The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it”, then it could put natal women in a difficult position.
Ms Cunningham said:
Employers that adopt a definition along these lines are threatening to police their employees’ thoughts and speech to an unacceptable degree. One would hope that most employees would refrain from bullying or harassing any of their colleagues on any grounds, including gender reassignment; and most employees will be content to use their trans colleagues’ pronouns of choice. But it is also to be expected that employees will remain aware of their colleagues’ biological sex. Much of the time this need not arise: in most workplace contexts, sex is irrelevant and can (and should) simply be ignored.
But there are times when sex does matter. If a female employee goes to HR with a complaint that she feels embarrassed to use the ladies’ toilets when she has her period, because a colleague who is a trans woman has taken to using the same facilities, what is to be done? If she is told that the problem is with her, and her “transphobic” attitude to her colleague, she would seem to have grounds for a complaint of sex discrimination and/or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. If she walks into the toilet, but turns around and leaves on seeing her trans colleague there, will she be disciplined for “transphobic bullying”? If so, again, she is likely to have grounds for a claim.
If employers try to insist that employees either internally or outwardly accept that “trans women are women” in every possible sense, and there are no circumstances in which biological sex matters, they are imposing not merely a behavioural code on their employees, but a positive belief system. They are not entitled to do that: disciplining employees for politely expressing their dissent from the Stonewall creed is likely to be unlawful discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.
I agree with Ms Cunningham in that following Stonewall’s rules could end up with natal women being discriminated against. The court cases that could and are emerging about this issue will indeed be interesting. I also agree that Stonewall aligned organisations are impinging on their employees right to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience to an unacceptable degree.
One thing that I particularly agree with Ms Cunningham on is the issue of occupational requirements. For decades it’s been the case that some jobs, due to the nature of them, need to be single sex. Ms Cunningham gives the example of a bra fitter in a shop. This is a job that by its nature needs to be reserved for women as the vast majority of women would be unhappy at removing their bra in the presence of a man. The problem is that the religious mantra that ‘trans women are women’ that gets chanted and the issue of self ID, undermines occupational requirement laws. It would be quite possible for example for a natal male who claims to be female to get a job where there is a necessary legal occupational requirement for a woman in that post. This doesn’t only apply to bra fitting but also in matters such as personal care. There could be cases where a disabled woman who makes the legally permissible request for a female carer is palmed off by the local authority with a man who claims to be a woman but only for part of the week.
Then there is the clash between cultures between, for example Orthodox Jews,where there is a modesty culture and the trans cult. A council that had women only swimming sessions, something an Orthodox Jewish woman would be comfortable with and accepting of, might suddenly decide to accept anyone who ‘identifies’ as a woman. The result of this would be that the Orthodox Jewish woman would no longer feel comfortable at going swimming and would no longer attend the swimming pool.
Accepting the demands of the trans cult and in particular the values of Stonewall opens up a whole world of potential claims that could be made against organisations that align with Stonewall. These claims could be in the medical field, under employment rights, and regarding matters surrounding prisons, policing justice, sport and a whole host of other areas where promoting the rights of trans people impinges on the rights of others. There are indeed risks for organisations in becoming associated with Stonewall, the problem is as I see it is that these organisations have self blinded themselves to these legal, ethical and reputational risks.
I would most strongly advise readers to examine the entirety of Ms Cunningham’s article as it is written from a strong legal position. It’s also written from the perspective of a person that wants to see everyone’s rights respected and not just those of a group that consists of less than 1% of the country’s population.
You can read the whole of Ms Cunningham’s article via the link below:
https://legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/
