Britain’s biggest LGBT campaign group has been criticised for being too aggressive in pushing the transgender agenda, and several public and private bodies are backing away from its diversity scheme.
Organisations pay upwards of £2,500 plus VAT to subscribe to the lobby group’s programme, which rewards employers for promoting LGBT ideology inside and outside of the workplace.
But many of those groups are now backing away from the scheme because of Stonewall’s harsh rhetoric against anyone who questions the transgender agenda.
Stonewall’s Chief Executive Nancy Kelley has compared people who believe in biological sex with anti-Semites. When questioned about her comments, she said the comparison ‘is apt’.
Stonewall co-founder-turned-critic Simon Fanshawe criticised the group for ‘pushing a divisive dogma’ and insisting ‘without discussion that those born male can become women simply by saying so, and therefore enter exclusively female spaces and use women-only services’.
In May, the Equality and Human Rights Commission revealed that it had ended its membership of Stonewall’s scheme.
The House of Commons, the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency, and the employment dispute service ACAS are among other groups that have also cut ties.
The Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, has now called on all government departments to withdraw from the scheme.
Ofsted, Channel 4, University College London, and law firm Moon Beever are among the latest public and private bodies to reveal they have left the group’s divisive pro-trans programme.
According to calculations made by The Sunday Telegraph last year, fees paid to Stonewall by public bodies cost the taxpayer at least £600,000 a year.
Barrister Akua Reindorf warned the University of Essex, after its links to the group resulted in it misrepresenting the law on transgender issues.
And a former Old Bailey judge also raised serious concerns over the privileged position afforded to Stonewall by the Law Commission in its consultation on hate crime law.
Yet still, Stonewall continues to push its radical agenda. As well as its diversity scheme, it runs Workplace Equality Index.
In order to climb up the index, employers have been told to swap the term ‘mother’ for ‘parent who has given birth’.
Employment and discrimination barrister Naomi Cunningham said law firms should consider the ‘reputational consequences of outsourcing their judgment on equality, diversity, and inclusion to a lobby group that’s been caught attempting back-door law reform by misrepresenting the law’.
Oxford professor Michael Biggs has written to his vice-chancellor, warning her that the University ‘should not submit to an unelected organisation which campaigns for a particular political agenda, which provides misleading information of the law’.