Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Thread gallery
29
HildegardP · 14/02/2026 21:01

MyAmpleSheep · 13/02/2026 23:45

I will be a party pooper and say I think it's unlikely.

Show quote history

I don't want to give up on optimism but realise that's a bias in itself. Where do you think the weaknesses lie?

fromorbit · 14/02/2026 09:03

Great timing. Another victory is coming.

wantmorenow · 14/02/2026 08:46

Fantastic news.

MyAmpleSheep · 13/02/2026 23:45

CassOle · 13/02/2026 19:23

Oh wow!

How likely is it for permission to be given?

I will be a party pooper and say I think it's unlikely.

FarriersGirl · 13/02/2026 21:33

Whoop Whoop!! good news😀

KnottyAuty · 13/02/2026 20:08

Amazing! Very glad to hear this. Might Stonewall be winding up before the liability for the onslaught of tribunals lands?

Harassedevictee · 13/02/2026 19:36

Epic.

Talkinpeace · 13/02/2026 19:32

She is such a strong lady

CassOle · 13/02/2026 19:23

Oh wow!

How likely is it for permission to be given?

Original poster
impossibletoday · 13/02/2026 18:55

Process is progressing!

OP posts:
Original poster
impossibletoday · 13/02/2026 18:54

.

Allison Bailey v Stonewall
OP posts:
OP posts:
Needapadlockonmyfridge · 24/01/2026 06:47

Byjimminy · 23/01/2026 22:12

Crikey. Alison is amazing. 💪

She absolutely is!

thirdfiddle · 24/01/2026 01:08

Thank you Allison. What a trooper.
And yes what a team!

HildegardP · 23/01/2026 22:41

Good on her. That's a stellar team & nobody there is short of work so they clearly think there's a viable case to be made.

(Has MNHQ nixed "fingers crossed" emojis? Can't seem to find one.)

Byjimminy · 23/01/2026 22:12

Crikey. Alison is amazing. 💪

Original poster
impossibletoday · 23/01/2026 21:13

.

Allison Bailey v Stonewall
OP posts:
WeMeetInFairIthilien · 23/01/2026 18:45

Ovaries of steel!

OP posts:
Talkinpeace · 18/12/2025 21:35

I am quite happy that people I know (in real life) believe they have changed sex.
I have made it clear to them that I do not share their belief.
I use their preferred names.
In an A&E I would ALWAYS make sure that they got the right medical treatment for their biology

my pronouns are
give / over

MyrtleLion · 18/12/2025 21:12

BrokenSunflowers · 18/12/2025 19:10

In the ERCC trial the GI belief there was called ‘extreme’ by the judge but in reality reflected what most TRA insist. In order to be WORIADS the belief must not conflict with others fundamental rights - clearly something it does when it demands other deny reality.

Show quote history

There is difference between the protection of trans identifying people from harassment in employment and services (you can't be sacked for transitioning or not be hired for being trans, or denied a mortgage, shop/hotel service etc for being trans) and the belief that everyone has an innate gender identity that can be different to one's biological sex.

A belief in gender identity is wholly different to the characteristic of gender reassignment. What's more, gender identity needs to be objectively defined, and it cannot be imposed on the rest of society. It cannot be used to make others use wrong sex pronouns or to force companies/organisations/the general public go along with that belief. In a similar way that Christians can no longer shame the public for not going to church or believing in God.

The definition itself will be a big stumbling block.

MyAmpleSheep · 18/12/2025 20:14

MyrtleLion · 18/12/2025 18:17

This is why it should be tested in court. But it appears the Appeal Court has inadvertently ruled and surely that should be appealed???

Show quote history

It was a throwaway remark, obiter, from the Judge, and not relevant to the judgment, so it doesn't set a precedent. So there's no need to appeal it. But it may be persuasive on a lower court in the future. We'll see.

Talkinpeace · 18/12/2025 19:15

I genuinely think that Alison will let it rest now.
Other cases are better uses of crowdfunding than seeking another appeal on this.

Stonewall are not what they were when she started.
The Translucent group photo was a belter.
Other groups need to be dragged into the daylight

BrokenSunflowers · 18/12/2025 19:10

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 18/12/2025 19:00

I don't think it is particularly controversial to observe that GI belief is protected belief, given that there is actual legislation (following a ECtHR decision) that provides for formal recognition of acquired gender, and protection from discrimination for individuals who aspire to it, whether already formally recognised or not. It would be a bold move to suggest HMG has been up to something not WORIADS!

There's a lot more to explore here. In particular whether the law needs to be interpreted in a particular way to keep it within the bounds of what is Grainger-compliant, and whether there is a corresponding Article 9 issue. (YY IMHO)

I'm quite excited and hopeful that protected belief is edging into view, here and in the Kelly and Peggie cases. Because balancing it against GC belief seems like a better bet than setting the PC of GR against that of sex. And it will enrage TRAs, who think it's true fact not belief at all!

Show quote history

In the ERCC trial the GI belief there was called ‘extreme’ by the judge but in reality reflected what most TRA insist. In order to be WORIADS the belief must not conflict with others fundamental rights - clearly something it does when it demands other deny reality.

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 18/12/2025 19:00

MyrtleLion · 18/12/2025 18:17

This is why it should be tested in court. But it appears the Appeal Court has inadvertently ruled and surely that should be appealed???

Show quote history

I don't think it is particularly controversial to observe that GI belief is protected belief, given that there is actual legislation (following a ECtHR decision) that provides for formal recognition of acquired gender, and protection from discrimination for individuals who aspire to it, whether already formally recognised or not. It would be a bold move to suggest HMG has been up to something not WORIADS!

There's a lot more to explore here. In particular whether the law needs to be interpreted in a particular way to keep it within the bounds of what is Grainger-compliant, and whether there is a corresponding Article 9 issue. (YY IMHO)

I'm quite excited and hopeful that protected belief is edging into view, here and in the Kelly and Peggie cases. Because balancing it against GC belief seems like a better bet than setting the PC of GR against that of sex. And it will enrage TRAs, who think it's true fact not belief at all!

Swipe left for the next trending thread