Any organisation considering whether they should stay in the @stonewalluk schemes should consider that they are not in line with the @EHRC employers code of practice.

Why take the risk of signing up to a scheme that is different from the law?

Stonewall tells employers to "acknowledge the limitations of the Equality Act (2010)"
It advises against using language based on compliance with the law saying this is "outdated" and may "cause offence"
Ignore what the law says about protected characteristics says Stonewall guidance
"Gender Identity" and "Gender Expression" are treated as protected characteristics.

They are not.
"Best practice" monitoring is not in line with GDPR or Equality Act

Ignores sex, substitute gender identity
And more confusion and conflation of protected characteristics...
The EHRC said specifically in AEA v EHRC that this is not right.

It can be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim to have facilities which are *single sex* and which do not include people on the basis of gender identity.
No consideration of what this policy means for inclusion of women and girls, including those from faith groups.
"High barrier of proof"... this does not come from the Equality Act.

The Equality Act says circumstances where "a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex".
Organisations should take care to comply with the Equality Act... all 9 protected characteristics.

Stonewall guidance does not help them do this and puts them at risk of facing discrimination and harassment claims in relation to other protected characteristics

More from All

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.