​Civil service staff were ‘not consulted’ on membership of controversial Stonewall diversity scheme - women's rights group say

It comes as the Northern Ireland Civil Service defended signing up to schemes run by Stonewall – a lobby group which has focused on transgender issues in recent years.

​It has been accused of misrepresenting equality legislation and undermining sex-based rights such as women-only spaces – which it denies.

It has also issued controversial definitions of terms related to sex and gender which have been adopted or disseminated to staff by various public bodies.

The Women’s Rights Network Northern Ireland (WRN NI) say that civil service staff have not been consulted about membership of the Stonewall ‘Diversity Champions’ scheme.

Organisations often rely on the support of self-selecting ‘staff networks’ for garnering the views of groups within the workforce, rather than attempting to gauge a broader range of opinion.

The NICS dodged questions from the News Letter about whether it has any evidence that gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender staff – whom the Stonewall scheme is meant to support – back the group’s aims.

Instead, a civil service spokesperson said Stonewall is “recognised for its work with, and training for, public and private sector employers in helping to create LGBTQ+ inclusive and welcoming working environments”.

That has been rejected by WRN NI, who appeared before a “tense” meeting of the Assembly’s Executive Office committee last week to ask for protection of women’s spaces in proposed changes to equality laws.

A spokeswoman for WRN NI told the News Letter: “In the midst of a cost of living crisis people do not need their taxes being paid to Stonewall to police NICS staff language and behaviour.

“We would ask who else has this type of influence over NICS internal (and external) policies and guidance? Who else has been consulted from a diversity and inclusion perspective? And, most importantly, why is there a consistent lack of inclusion of other minority groups in favour of ‘TQ+’ lobbyists?

“NICS staff have told us that they have not been consulted on whether they want (or need) to be Stonewall Diversity Champions. They are also working in an environment which doesn’t allow non-compliance with all aspects of gender ideology.

“Why, when other civil service departments have separated themselves from Stonewall, is the NICS continuing to support a group that actively promoted the sterilisation of children through perpetuation of an ideology? Before just last week themselves rolling back on this and their oppressive definition of transphobia”.

NICS is currently disseminating feedback it received from Stonewall’s 2024 ‘Workplace Equality Index’ (WEI) submission to civil servants, as well planning its entry to this year’s competition “to benchmark practices against the best practice criteria”.

WEI is a league table of organisations, run and ranked by Stonewall based on how well they meet its aims. If Stonewall approves of an organisation’s policies and actions, they achieve a higher ranking. NICS uses the index as “a key tool in measuring our diversity and inclusion progress”.

In recent years, Stonewall redefined a number of words to accommodate its belief in gender ideology. This included words like homosexual – which the group says means “someone attracted to someone of the same sex or gender” – and bisexual, which is says mean someone “who is attracted to more than one gender”.

In short, anyone is whoever they say they are. For example, a heterosexual male and female couple could define themselves as homosexual or “queer” under Stonewall’s interpretation.

WRN NI are a minority voice in the women’s sector in Northern Ireland – but say their views are reflective of the majority of people here. Many of the established women’s rights groups support Stonewall’s approach, and argue, for example, that “trans women are women”.

In yesterday’s News Letter, TUV MLA Timothy Gaston said that the organisation was “discredited” – and urged the finance minister John O’Dowd to stop funding its schemes. Stonewall were approached for comment, but did not respond.