Recently there has been a raft of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to ascertain the extent of the policy capture by Stonewall; a controversial lobby group. The intention was to discover how organisations demonstrate compliance with Workplace Equality Index, run by Stonewall, and how participants game the ranking system. {In an interesting aside the BBC refused to disclose the information requested. They claimed an exemption due to commercial sensitivity. I anticipate this refusal will be challenged but why are the BBC so reticent?}

The House of Commons did reveal the information requested and this may shed some light on the situation. Their response was in two documents which are reproduced, in full, below. 👇

HOC response to FOI Part 1HOC stonewall part 2

Subscribers to Stonewall schemes are subject to an annual audit and their submission is monitored for compliance and ranked accordingly. Stonewall are embedded across government, the public and private sector and allies, until recently, were keen to promote their score across Social media. I predict that will change as more public scrutiny takes place.

The House of Commons obtained 23rd place in the 2020 rankings. The Ministry of Justice ranks higher. I would love to see if the MOJ leverage their role in locating female prisoners in with transgender rapists. 😳

The process of allocating rankings is accompanied by lengthy guidance and examples members could use to demonstrate subservience to their Rainbow clad overlords. Naturally Stonewall play fast and lose with pesky details, like the actual law of the land. Below is a classic of the genre. Stonewall lists a legally protected, characteristic; sexual orientation followed by two that are not; gender identity and trans identity. They then proceed to talk about other protected characteristics which neatly obscures the fact that they are mixing fact with fiction. They also ask for explicit bans on discrimination in which they throw in another characteristic; gender expression. 👇. Stonewall is a master (mistress) of these linguistic sleights of hand.

So how does the House of Commons respond?  Credit where credit is due they lead  with a legally accurate list.  Whether this is a sign of resistance or naïveté about Stonewall’s agenda is not for me to determine. 

Alas this is not consistently applied. Later in the House of Commons pivots to accede to Stonewall Law.  Here sex is omitted and replaced with gender. 👇

We then come to the thorny question of gender neutral language. Feminists long campaigned for the language to recognise that we, the female people, could chair meetings and fight fires. The fight to make language less reliant on the default use of men; when describing roles, or occupations, is now relatively uncontentious. However  women were not campaigning to make ourselves invisible! The intent was to lay claim to professional and leadership roles hitherto solely occupied, or dominated, by men. Using gender neutral language was to foster that aim. It was never intended to deny our bodily existence, as a sex class. 

Stonewall have a rather different agenda.  Their aim is to eradicate sex based language especially when it pertains to biological women in favour of the inclusion of ideological women (a.k.a males).  Women did not campaign to ignore the reproductive labour of pregnancy and childbirth or deny the role of the female sex.  Most theories of why women are subject to discrimination locate the explanation in our reproductive functions. We are subject to sex discrimination because we are, or are perceived to be, able to carry and bear children.  Here 👇 the House of Commons talks of “pregnant employees”  and the “person giving birth”.   This is Stonewall speak. 

The induction process takes the re-education agenda one step further by using an example of a “transwomen” as part of employee training. This scenario 👇posits women, asking for sex segregated toilets, as problematic. Women are, effectively, shamed for a perfectly legitimate need. They are so proud of this example they use it twice labelling it “bullying” and “harassment”.

The  indoctrination continues with lunchtime seminars led by a Trans activist. Helen Belcher is a Transgender Lobbyist most notable for being involved in Trans Media Watch. This organisation seeks to change the way the media covers trans issues. This is one of the organisations responsible for the press regulator (IPSO) mandating use of preferred pronouns for trans identified males. This is now normalised, even when they have committed sex offences against women!

Helen Belcher is a Liberal democrat councillor and former parliamentary candidate. Layla Moran explicitly thanked Belcher for providing guidance on how to answer questions about the proposal to allow males to “self-identify” as women. Predictably pansexual Layla was all in favour of the proposition and provided one of the more memorable statements recorded in Hansard.

Layla dismissed women’s concerns and claimed to have a sixth sense in sniffing out predatory males. After some nonsense about women with beards she exposed her naïveté (complicity?) with this response.

Another invited guest to showcase the House of Commons willingness to subvert their public purpose to this lobby group was an invited artist, Dusty “O” who has a nice sideline in bepenised “women” in his oeuvre. 

There are also invitations to drag artists and lots of talk of rainbow lanyards. They do note one concession to women’s demands, for a female only space, but why does the HOC feel the need for the word female to be placed in inverted commas?

Another astonishing admission the House of Commons raising funds to one of the more controversial charities working with children; Mermaids. A charity led by a woman who took her own child, aged sixteen. for sexual reassignment surgery in Thailand. Surgery which would be illegal in the U.K and is now illegal in Thailand (until aged 18).

The document is littered with positive references to Pink News. A comic which vigorously opposes women raising issues of concern about sex based rights. The editors also continue to conduct a campaign of vilification against author JK Rowling who, they claim, is “transphobic”. She is not but why let truth get in the way of a good story. 

The HOC also boast about  changing parliamentary identification to facilitate pronoun changes  and recognise anyone changing their “gender expression”. Furthermore they promote a member of staff who pushed for mixed sex toilet facilities. 👇

Finally, as I have uncovered before, here is conclusive proof that Stonewall actively encourages its allies to troll International Women’s Day. They do this by suggesting active promotion of “transwomen” on a day set aside for women. This, of all their actions, is the most provocative.. Anyone taking seriously the need to foster good relations between different protected characteristics (Sex and Gender Reassignment) should have predicted how inflammatory this course of action would be. Check #IWD2021 for how often this originates from Stonewall Allies. 

I am  unwaged and donations are always welcome but, with so many important legal cases under way,  here is a  worthy causes who could use some support: AEA Crowdfunder