Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall

999 replies

OhHolyJesus · 27/06/2020 08:20

There is a crowdfunder so I won't share the link but here a part of the text. It's long but brilliant and this isn't the half of it. Off to find my wallet...

The new trans activism: all scrutiny and critical voices labelled ‘transphobic’

In early 2018, when I first heard that plans were underway to make the lives of trans people easier, my reaction was that this was a good thing and I did not give it a second thought. I kept coming across the term ‘TERF’ but ignored it. I thought that bigots were simply being called out.

Then one day I clicked on a link: terfisaslur.com where someone had collated the online abuse that was being directed at women who I realised had entirely valid concerns and questions about the wisdom of replacing sex with gender.
I learnt that the new trans activism wants to smash the distinctions between men and women; replacing sex with notions of gender identity; making sexual difference a matter of self identification; and demands that any and every man that wishes to identify as a woman must be allowed to do so.
I learnt that the new trans activism is focusing, inexplicably, on young children and declaring them ‘trans’; treating puberty as a disease to be blocked with powerful drugs; delivering our young people into the arms of a multi-million pound industry of big pharmaceutical companies and plastic surgeons.
I saw that the same males who would have society regard them as women, were quick to brandish knives, axes, baseball bats and nooses, as they threatened with rape women who questioned the wisdom of replacing sex with gender —TERFs.
I realised that the new trans activism operated a crude but effective system of punishment and reward: agree with every demand of the trans lobby and be safe; object and face vilification, abuse, boycott, character assassination and cancellation.
I was horrified (and terrified).
I wanted to look away, to pretend that I had not seen it; that it did not reveal the worst woman-hating, lesbian hating, misogyny that I have ever come across in my lifetime.
I did not look away and I urge others not to either. Thanks to brave women who have come before me, such as the late, great, Magdalen Berns, whose courage and no nonsense approach to calling out the new trans activism as the men’s rights movement it so clearly is, gave me courage.
I realised that I did not have to accept that any man can claim to be legally a woman, without having to undergo any hormone or surgical intervention, psychological evaluation or risk assessment.
I realised that it was okay and necessary to say that it is reckless and naive to think that men will only identify as women if they are stunning and brave and harmless: that the wicked, abusive, predatory, unwell and downright cantankerous will, by some miracle, refuse to take advantage of free and easy access to women, to their politics, safe spaces, sports, legal protections and identities.
I was shocked to discover that significant numbers of male sex offenders are permitted to identify as women and nothing is being done to stop them. In England and Wales, some 40 per cent or more of trans identified males in the prison population are men with convictions for sex offences, including rape and possession of the most serious indecent images of children. I read a steady stream of news reports from around the world of males who identify as women committing serious sex offences.
It is repugnant to me and wholly unacceptable, and frankly unbelievable, that the new trans activism demands that sex crimes committed by males who identify as women are recorded as having been committed by women; and that these males can demand to be referred to by female pronouns.
I discovered that women incarcerated in prison are left vulnerable to serious sexual assault and mental anguish, as males, including sex offenders, are locked up with them. The new trans activism demands that a man’s desire to identify as a woman is more important than the right of imprisoned women to safety and dignity. These women have no way to escape, no choice, they are locked up. I do not see how this is anything other than state facilitated abuse and mental torture.
Where there should have been discussion, investigation and inquiry, there has been the silencing of concerned and critical voices; not voices from the far right, but from women like me, who are of and from the progressive left.
Mantras have been chanted because the new trans activism is a movement that cannot bear scrutiny: TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN; TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS; TRANS PEOPLE ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE; PROTECT OUR TRANS SIBLINGS, and so on, do nothing to engage with and address the serious concerns that exist about replacing sex with gender.
The new trans activists are joined by politicians, journalists, lawyers, writers, entire organisations, and assorted celebrities, in the chanting of these mantras to shut down debate, while others who are appalled at what they see happening are too afraid to speak out. It is cult like behaviour, it is Orwellian, and it has disgraced and shamed a generation.
Labelling all critical voices ‘transphobic’ is a cynical political ploy of the new trans activism. It must be resisted.

Surviving child sexual abuse: understanding that women and girls are oppressed because of their sex and not their gender identity
The man who sexually abused me as a 9 year old little girl; the man who targeted my single-parent mother; the man who told me that I could trust him whilst he slipped drugs into my orange squash to render me helpless as he sexually assaulted me, was tried and convicted of multiple sexual assaults against me in 2015, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He was released from prison last month (May 2020) to serve out the rest of his sentence on licence.

I make this disclosure now because I feel compelled to stand in solidarity with other women with similar experiences of male physical and sexual violence. It is not weaponising trauma to say so, any more than recounting racist abuse is.

We must not allow men or women to bury, minimise and ignore the visceral reality of male violence. We must not allow the new trans activism to force survivors back into the closet; this would be an abuser’s charter.

It should be a cause of great alarm that the new trans activism takes such a regressive and shaming attitude to disclosures of abuse. This culture of denial and belittling has been the bedrock and the hallmark of every abuse scandal. It is a red flag that signals a safeguarding catastrophe in the making.
It is women like me whose lives have been torn apart and seriously blighted by wanton acts of male violence that know that men are often not who they say they are or claim to be.
I know that conflating sex with notions of gender identity will leave women with no legally enforceable boundaries against any man.

I know that if the new trans activism is not brought to heel, women will disappear as a political class.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
OvaHere · 11/02/2021 11:44

There's ongoing discussion now on other points which I don't fully understand the background to. Something to do with not having time to prepare for cross examination of a particular person.

PenguindreamsofDraco · 11/02/2021 11:55

Reads like the other side want to have AB's case kicked out on paper (strike out) and in support of that, they wanted to call who I imagine is a senior silk (QC) in the chambers (Ms Khan), but the Judge has said no, because AB's team haven't had time to prepare to cross examine her.

OvaHere · 11/02/2021 11:57

@PenguindreamsofDraco

Reads like the other side want to have AB's case kicked out on paper (strike out) and in support of that, they wanted to call who I imagine is a senior silk (QC) in the chambers (Ms Khan), but the Judge has said no, because AB's team haven't had time to prepare to cross examine her.
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't clear who Ms Khan was.
Manderleyagain · 11/02/2021 12:03

Alison's qc says "This hearing is about whether the core pleaded statements have more than no chance of success."

It sounds like the defendants have not yet fully disclosed who was behind what, and so Alison hasn't been able to set out who exactly who she is accusing. She knows what happened but not yet everybody who caused that. Then the defendent's legal team are accusing her of not setting out who she is accusing as if it's her fault!

Manderleyagain · 11/02/2021 12:06

Safe schools have lost sound. Lgba are tweeting it too.
mobile.twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1359822312514723840

OvaHere · 11/02/2021 12:09

@Manderleyagain

Alison's qc says "This hearing is about whether the core pleaded statements have more than no chance of success."

It sounds like the defendants have not yet fully disclosed who was behind what, and so Alison hasn't been able to set out who exactly who she is accusing. She knows what happened but not yet everybody who caused that. Then the defendent's legal team are accusing her of not setting out who she is accusing as if it's her fault!

Very shady behaviour.
nauticant · 11/02/2021 12:10

About Judy Khan QC:

twitter.com/AllianceLGB/status/1188413385643302912

BlackForestCake · 11/02/2021 12:24

You’d think that the members of the STAG would be proud of their work trying to make workplaces "safe" for trans people ... but apparently not

OvaHere · 11/02/2021 12:42

The LGBA thread is really interesting. Depending on whether Allison and her team are allowed access to material currently redacted this could be a very significant case regarding the overreach of Stonewall. I hope some good journalists are watching.

nauticant · 11/02/2021 12:59

It is, especially now it's moved onto the interaction between Michelle Brewer, unidentified people at Garden Chambers (confusingly referred to as GC), and Stonewall:

twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1359839552005943301

Lively stuff. (If you're fascinated by legal argy-bargy.)

BuntingEllacott · 11/02/2021 13:06

So their defence is "Bailey hasn't got a case because we won't tell her exactly who conspired against her, so she can't prove it, even though their words are there. If you can't put names to the words, you have no redress."

Have I misunderstood??

Redshoeblueshoe · 11/02/2021 13:08

I've only popped over from Twitter so I can understand things. Thank you for the explanations.

OvaHere · 11/02/2021 13:14

@BuntingEllacott

So their defence is "Bailey hasn't got a case because we won't tell her exactly who conspired against her, so she can't prove it, even though their words are there. If you can't put names to the words, you have no redress."

Have I misunderstood??

I think that's about the size of it.
Chrysanthemum5 · 11/02/2021 13:14

Yes, i'm reading the twitter feed but it's all a bit legal and complicated for me - so this thread is helping me understand it all!

Manderleyagain · 11/02/2021 13:14

Yes I hadn't appreciated how much the case will be about the diversity champions scheme - claimant's barrister stating that the scheme is how sw impose their views, and those views were the reason or cause of the discrimination.

It'll be interesting to see if the court accepts that it could be indirect discrim for being female & a lesbian. She obviously has chosen not to go with philosophical belief.

Redshoeblueshoe · 11/02/2021 13:30

The loss of earnings was staggering.

Manderleyagain · 11/02/2021 13:30

@BuntingEllacott

So their defence is "Bailey hasn't got a case because we won't tell her exactly who conspired against her, so she can't prove it, even though their words are there. If you can't put names to the words, you have no redress."

Have I misunderstood??

I think they are just trying different things. They all moved on from that when Allison's barrister stated that 'disclosures' are not complete.

I don't know if the judge can see what the names are? She (the judge) asked if the redacted names were members of Chambers. Allison's team obviously can't see who some of the communications are with, only one side of the conversation. It sounds really tricky trying to talk about stuff that's basically 'he said she said' in electronic evidence, with the names removed and incomplete versions.

Judge gave a strong indication she would not allow some key names to be redacted if it goes to full hearing. Hope it does. I think it will shine a strong light on how things are working. Brave woman made of strong stuff.

nauticant · 11/02/2021 13:45

Judge gave a strong indication she would not allow some key names to be redacted if it goes to full hearing

This seems to be a strike out (among other things) hearing and I assume the judge is withholding the names because she's keeping in mind the potential outcome of the entire case being struck out. In this case, it could be harmful for names to have been revealed when the case was always going to end up in the bin.

However, if the case does continue, the judge is saying more will be revealed in a full hearing because clearly this would be necessary for the evidence to be presented and weighed up meaningfully.

TheLaughingGenome · 11/02/2021 13:48

I'm so grateful for this thread and the twitter accounts.

BuffaloCauliflower · 11/02/2021 14:06

Thank you to those reporting and explaining!

Punching · 11/02/2021 14:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

yourhairiswinterfire · 11/02/2021 14:24

The @stonewalluk is "extraordinary" says Cooper. Internal clerks email addresses used. Stonewall writes that @gardencourtlaw* have always been allies. "However for GCC to continue to campaign to support Allison puts us in a difficult position with yourselves".

Then @stonewalluk continues that it trusts GCC will "do what is right and stand in solidarity with trans people". Stonewall says that GCC must take disciplinary action or they will disassociate themselves from GCC who will then "face the reputational consequences".

Angry Fuckers.

nauticant · 11/02/2021 14:25

What's interesting is that if (when) the judge says there will be a full hearing, this will increase the settlement pressure on Garden Court Chambers, since, from what's being reported in the current hearing, this could be excrutiatingly embarrassing for them. Including for Michelle Brewer who last year was appointed to sit as a judge.

nauticant · 11/02/2021 14:29

Let's see what the press make of this when there's a full hearing:

mobile.twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1359869842107555843

Manderleyagain · 11/02/2021 14:46

As the tweeting goes on it's clear that the claim is she's been discriminated against because of her philosophical belief as well as sexual orientation and sex. So there are three protected characteristics in the claim.