Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2

999 replies

OvaHere · 12/02/2021 10:25

Previous thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3950877-Allison-Bailey-to-sue-Stonewall

Allison's website allisonbailey.co.uk

Statement

First and foremost, I hope that my legal action will bring me justice. I also hope that it can stop Stonewall from policing free speech via its Diversity Champions scheme.

Stonewall have signed up many companies, public bodies, voluntary sector organisations and government departments to their manifesto and their value system regarding trans rights. What is called Stonewall Law. Without most of the public realising it, a large swathe of British employers have signed up to the Stonewall value system. It has done this by trying to silence and vilify women like me who have genuine concerns about how its approach to trans inclusivity conflicts with the protections, safety and dignity of women, girls, children and LGB people.

We cannot achieve a just outcome for everyone while Stonewall are free to threaten women like me with the loss of our livelihoods and reputations. Stonewall must be held to account. I intend to do just that.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Mummyoflittledragon · 13/02/2021 06:46

@NiceGerbil

'Well they clearly do, they just recognise that sometimes things are a bit more complicated than chromosones and genitals along with the bulk of the LGBT community.'

Oh come on JJ.

You're saying that the bulk of gay men are not partial to people with cocks?

That's really bizarre and yes homophobic.

Sexual orientation is about physical sex. Men/ women. Male bodies/ female bodies.

To flex this into. A gay man might well be attracted to a person who is 5'1, with hips tits and a cunt?

It's a lie and it's homophobic.

Exactly. It’s so disingenuous. My hairdresser is gay. He is definitely into cock.

My dd has just had a lesson that gender and sexuality aren’t the same. It was very trans dominated, accepting people’s realities, a big bit on checking people’s pronouns etc. It wasn’t explained how that one worked to the kids. What happens when a boy, who identifies as a girl and uses the pronouns she is attracted to a girl? The cognitive dissonance. But it’s just a stepping stone to TWAW and probably why the school suggested following someone on Instagram or Snapchat to show your support. The random person can then fill in the gaps.

PotholeParadies · 13/02/2021 07:47

But it’s just a stepping stone to TWAW and probably why the school suggested following someone on Instagram or Snapchat to show your support. The random person can then fill in the gaps.

Wha?

Doesn't that go against internet safety lessons?

VioletAlder · 13/02/2021 07:48

It does, yes. Especially as on that thread the classes were being delivered to y7 & 8, most of whom are below the sign up age (13) for those platforms.

MoleSmokes · 13/02/2021 07:56

@jj1968

You’d have more of leg stand on here jj68 if Stonewall were actually doing anything to protect gay men and lesbians.

But they do, they run a helpline, employment schemes, produce anti-bullying material and provide legal advice on LGB rights to employers. They do loads of stuff.

I do wonder what an LGB kid who is relieved homophobic bullying is now taken a bit more seriously by their school after they became Stonewall Champions and is grateful for the intervention would make of some of the comments here. Or an LGB kid encouraged to take up sport due to the Rainbow Laces campaign.

Funny then that they seem so shy about even mentioning LGB in their Annual Reports. Almost like they had other priorities.
Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2
Nothappytohelp · 13/02/2021 08:04

@nauticant

I'm really enjoying posters talking around the "give me attention, I said GIVE ME ATTENTION!" posts.

An excellent day of sunlight both in the High Court and outdoors too. Let's see how much media coverage today's hearing gets.

Complete tumbleweed from the media so far. I'd be interested if anyone manages to find any mention of yesterday's decision. Nothing on the BBC, it looks like their LGBT journalist was too busy interviewing Abigail on PhilosophyTube to even mention the case. John McManus from BBC put out a brief tweet last night but that's all I've seen so far.
TomatoesAreFruit · 13/02/2021 08:06

I dont know whether Alison Bailey will win or lose and I don't think it really matters now. She has evidenced that Stonewall put influence on her chambers.

Just like some people see NSPCC and think rubberman. Some people will see stonewall and think bullying behaviour. It is not great.

The best thing Stonewall could do now is apologise.

persistentwoman · 13/02/2021 08:15

@RedToothBrush

I stress here that the problems with Stonewall repeatedly come back to this homophobia redefining of terms and lobbying overreach which isn't being flagged as problematic and against the interests of those it claims to represent in its charity commission remit.

You can go into the ways and wherefores but it always comes back to institutional homophobia (particularly lesbophobia) and the self interest and power of Stonewall itself rather than being about all those it claims to represent.

There is no balance. Just the deliberate systematic removal of the visability of lesbians and the institutional erasure of evidence of the issues lesbians are facing. In other contexts the process would be compared to cultural suppression and even eradication of identity (I'm not going to use the word I'm thinking of here, only hint at it - the process is the same though).

Human rights exist only when balance is found. To do this you have to allow the identification of conflicts of interest. Stonewall are going out of their way to deny a problem because they gain power and political influence from doing so. (aka as lobbying which is why stressing the issues with lobbying which potentially imo are at odds with the law is important).

Its so far removed from the premise of protecting human rights as to be an active suppressor of them.

The history of rights has shown that oppressors frequently twist morality in perverse ways to justify suppression as being in the 'best interests' of their victims and society as a whole. 'Morality' is turned on its head to justify the indefensible.

Lesbians being told they are bigoted and need reeducation, discrimination and persecution in the work place in name of social progress for asserting their sexual boundaries and refusing dick makes a pretty good case for the prosecution on this score.

I really hope sunlight is shone on this paradox and perversity of the definition of homosexuality at the heart of the rot and corruption at Stonewall.

As this thread was derailed immediately after this important post I'm repeating it. Thank you RTB for this. The motivation of men in enabling the erasure of lesbians is no surprise but I do grieve for the number of women who unthinkingly collude in this travesty. If I recall correctly there was some mention of the cotton ceiling in the case (used as an example of how wrong Alison is)? If I'm correct hopefully this will be a spectacular own goal as it exposes the "institutional erasure" and twisted morality that RTB highlights.
RedToothBrush · 13/02/2021 08:35

@jj1968

Do Stonewall look at the responses and ever think, maybe we need to think about this.....

Of course they don't. LGB people have been through what trans people are going through now before. And they know how it ends. All liberation struggles look like this. When those opposed to you realise you are such a threat that they have to move from ignoring you to throwing pretty much every resource they have into attacking you then it's just a matter of time. You've already won.

History shows us the pattern of behaviour of Authoritarism and its an ugly one.

Acts which abuse minority groups are legitimised by sudden redefinations of language and morality, often at odds with what people think and imposed from the top down. Whereever this occurs people should be wary.

Orwell wrote about Winston and his fingers and the inability to speak the truth to power for a reason.

In the redefination of homosexuality by Stonewall you have a very glaring example of this. Ideology being used to twist morality. We have a situation where this redefination now means that couples of the opposite sex now are included in the definition of homosexual by Stonewall. This is at the expense and enables the abuse of same sex attracted people.

When a lesbian can not state she rejects the mere concept of sex with a male organ regardless of who it is attached to and how they identify or what their documentation is, you have a problem. When she is then harassed and discriminated against with threats to remove her source of income for doing this, this slips into willful persecution. When she is accused of being a bigot and transphobic in asserting her sexual orientation (protected in law by the Equality Act) by an organisation with serious soft power which has definitions somewhat at odds with the Equality Act and who are actively campaigning for the abolition of the Equality Act you have a problem. You have a power group subverting the law and using its status to be above the law and trying to pretend its defintions are the law.

When the law is in this situation and you have a group deliberately trying to erase evidence of problems and trying to deny the existence of conflicts of interests and trying to dominate the cultural identity and ability of a minority group to be automonamous and free to represent their own interests, you have oppression.

However you cut it, Stonewall have moved from the role of liberators to persecutor for homosexuals, particularly lesbians. The attacks on the LGB Alliance who are trying to represent their own interests as separate to the T highlight it well. Stonewall do not want a rival group. They dont want another body representing the self interests of group they are trying to control. If Stonewall were bothered about the interests of homosexuals why are they so bothered by homosexuals trying to represent their own interests? Its because its a threat to their monopoly and their soft power ehich undermines the law. It allows homosexuals to speak for themselves and to describe how institutional erase of their issues and identity is being carried out, led by the very people who are supposedly charged with protecting them.

History also tells us that Authoritarians don't like women. And they dont like intellectuals, academics and lawyers. These groups are a threat to them because academic power, a good grasp of language and an understanding of the law means these people are the ones best placed to challenge individuals and organisations which seek to put ideology above all else and at the expense of science, reason and reality. They are therefore the places, people and institutions that authoritarians attack first. Destroy these and the law can be undermined and subverted regardless of what it actually says.

Stonewall are acting in a way which actively legitimises the persecution of lesbians. It redefines language to coercively control and abuse them. It support corrective rape. And removes the ability of lesbians to describe what is happening to them by destroying their culture, controlling their community, attacking any leaders who go against their party line, it is opposed to rival groups forming to self represent instead insisting on a one party monopoly of the field, it redefines lesbians to include people who are not part of their group in an effort to strip power from them.

Nothing about Stonewall is liberal. There is no discussion or debate allowed. Representation must not deviate from proscribed doctrine and ideological line. All others must be crushed before them.

This is not liberation. This is domination. It is not changing hearts and minds. Its trying to criminalise homosexuals who do not want to be forced to consider someone from the opposite sex as a sexual partner.

It uses sexist, racist and homophobic methods to do this. But disguises them with twisted morality and redefinations and labels itself as progressive.

Nope. Ot is corruption of power. It is abuse of those it seeks to represent.

History has shown that power corrupts and corrupts absolutely unless we have checks and balances to unrivalled power. Liberalism is founded on the principles of enabling that through debate and representation. Authoritarianism seeks to remove all debate and diversity of thought and representation.

Nothing about Stonewall is healthy at the moment. It is using its power against 'its own.' This cycle is not unique. It is not progressive.

When Winston can not say how many fingers he has, Orwell is saying beware of those who remove your power to describe reality and remove your ability to speak the truth to power.

Its a lesson that rings through the ages.

PronounssheRa · 13/02/2021 08:39

The best thing Stonewall could do now is apologise.

I agree, Stonewall need to apologise and rethink their approach but I don't think they will.

I expect there will be reports on this in the media and it will reflect badly on Stonewall (apart from the BBC, whose LGBT correspondent seems to ignore half his brief).

NotBadConsidering · 13/02/2021 08:45

They won’t apologise. They’ll see it through and use it as “an attack on trans rights.”

And it’s amazing that Ben Hunte, whose remit if reporting LGBT issues for the BBC, is not remotely interested in a black lesbian and the most well known LGBT organisation in the country being in court on opposing sides. I think we know why Hmm.

BingBongSong · 13/02/2021 08:46

Thanks for the excellent thread ovahere and what a good outcome yesterday.

I remember sending a card to Allison when this all kicked off and Crowdjustice suspended her page. Will definitely be donating again to carry this forward in June.

RedToothBrush · 13/02/2021 08:49

The best thing Stonewall could do is have its head resign and have a full proper investigation by a third party into institutional homophobia.

Except there are no third parties. The head will take no responsibility for the incident. It will be covered up and Stonewall will pretend it never happened as they can brazen it out.

Its rotten to its core and needs a full proper independent high profile and publicity public inquiry.

It won't happen. Too many others with vested interests and have power to gain through Stonewalls mantras and indoctrination.

highame · 13/02/2021 09:03

I'm not sure when this will hit the media. It will certainly take quite a bit of thought. If we get something in the Sunday papers I'd be surprised. It's going to be very difficult to report because however it is reported, it will come across as anti Stonewall. We can argue all we like about the fact they are wrong and they really are, but they (in the eyes of the population at large)are the organisation for gay rights and many of us have given them a great deal of support over the years (talking about straight here). It isn't going to be easy to write about this, but the media will because this IS the story

persistentwoman · 13/02/2021 09:09

Presumably as this was a 'pre action'? case, any press reporting will inevitably be limited? I have no doubt that the press will be watching this very careful and that there will be extensive reporting once the actual case gets underway. With the reporters with a vested interest already rehearsing how they can spin this in their favour.

highame · 13/02/2021 09:10

Does Pink News have an opinion Grin

nauticant · 13/02/2021 09:16

I don't think the hearing has a narrative that newspapers can grasp and readily present to readers so I wasn't expecting any reporting in depth.

The real test will be when the full hearing takes place. That will have lots of these people doing this and other people doing that and will look much more like a story with conflict and dark deeds.

AMK42 · 13/02/2021 09:17

@highame We need to work at grassroots level. Transgender Trend have published on their blog that companies, organisations, schools, etc., that have signed up to Stonewall’s “guidance” as Stonewall Champions are breaking the law as Stonewall’s advice is incompatible with the new DfE Relationships guidance on several counts.www.transgendertrend.com/stonewall-school-champion/

I have already written to the Charity Commissioners pointing out that Stonewall no longer support Lesbian and Gay people as their demands for the Trans community are incompatible with the Rights of Women and Homosexuals.

Sadly we can no longer rely in the media, including the BBC to report accurately as too many have been manipulated into becoming “Stonewall Champions” and our voices have been cancelled on Twitter and Facebook.

QueenoftheAir · 13/02/2021 09:17

LGB Alliance members include ex-Stonewall campaigners who felt that they had to come out of retirement, so to speak

Tagging on - at least one founder of Stonewall - Simon Fanshawe - has been publicly critical of Stonewall's current policies re transgender and the implicit homophobia of transactivism. The founders of the LGB Alliance were also involved in the early days of Stonewall.

I'm a straight female, so this is not my world to stick my nose in except to support (digging weekly) but it must feel like a deep betrayal by one's own community, and also a painful backlash from the generation they liberated.

Joisanofthedales · 13/02/2021 09:17

Recently went digging but will be digging again in celebration of these small wins on the road to victory.
oh and yah boo sucks to the usual suspects who litter these threads with whataboutery and support for the cancel culture which threatens our right to free speech.

InvisibleDragon · 13/02/2021 09:19

Amazing post RedToothBrush - everything you say is so clear, and this really cuts away all the obfuscation to get to the heart of what Is happening:

When a lesbian can not state she rejects the mere concept of sex with a male organ regardless of who it is attached to and how they identify or what their documentation is, you have a problem. When she is then harassed and discriminated against with threats to remove her source of income for doing this, this slips into willful persecution. When she is accused of being a bigot and transphobic in asserting her sexual orientation (protected in law by the Equality Act) by an organisation with serious soft power which has definitions somewhat at odds with the Equality Act and who are actively campaigning for the abolition of the Equality Act you have a problem. You have a power group subverting the law and using its status to be above the law and trying to pretend its defintions are the law.

Thank you so much toOvaHere and others who have collected and summarised everything so clearly here, I couldn't have followed what was happening without this thread.

BettyFilous · 13/02/2021 09:21

A powerful post, RedToothBrush. Thank you.

QueenoftheAir · 13/02/2021 09:21

Tagging on:

If, for example, someone in GCC expressed homophobic views publicly about lesbians and Stonewall said that either GCC deal with that person or they would not be able to reference Stonewall recognition of their diversity and inclusion, would AB support her colleague's right to attack her sexuality in the workplace or expect her company to protect her?

That's not a direct comparison, though. Ms Bailey was not attacking a colleague.

She was defending lesbians' rights to maintain and discuss same-sex attraction.

This is the major problem with TRA's attacks on lesbians (and indeed, women in general):
That TRAs always see a defence of women's rights to be an attack on transgender people.

It's illogical and invalid logic, and bullying and abusive. As well as illegal.

Datun · 13/02/2021 09:30

@RedToothBrush

The best thing Stonewall could do is have its head resign and have a full proper investigation by a third party into institutional homophobia.

Except there are no third parties. The head will take no responsibility for the incident. It will be covered up and Stonewall will pretend it never happened as they can brazen it out.

Its rotten to its core and needs a full proper independent high profile and publicity public inquiry.

It won't happen. Too many others with vested interests and have power to gain through Stonewalls mantras and indoctrination.

Could they be sued for misrepresentation? Or the legal equivalent.

People are donating money on the basis of the legal definitions as per the equality act.

Not per the rewriting of its entire raison d'etre.

gardenbird48 · 13/02/2021 09:42

Tagging on - at least one founder of Stonewall - Simon Fanshawe - has been publicly critical of Stonewall's current policies re transgender and the implicit homophobia of transactivism. The founders of the LGB Alliance were also involved in the early days of Stonewall.

And another founder Fred Sargeant who seems to have disappeared from Twitter recently (probably pointed out too many uncomfortable facts) - he had personal testimony from the people who were actually at the Stonewall riots and it doesn’t match Stonewall’s fictional version where they claim it was led by a transwoman (who wasn’t a transwoman and wasn’t there) minimising the efforts of the real participants.

It is so bizarre that two high profile lesbians are involved in the erasure of lesbians but they are a handy smokescreen for claims that Stonewall can’t be anti lesbian because they have one in charge, even though all their actions are anti lesbian.

Stonewall and friends have conducted such an horrendous smear campaign on the LGB Alliance, convincing people in power that they are a hate group.

Maybe once Allison wins this case she can take them to court for defamation as well?

Winesalot · 13/02/2021 09:49

LGB people have been through what trans people are going through now before. And they know how it ends.

Not sure LGB people had their own lobby groups redefine them completely without asking before this tacking on of the T though. But that is an excellent point to raise. And it was done at the same time that ‘woman’ was also redefined too. So LGB and women have much in common there.

All liberation struggles look like this. When those opposed to you realise you are such a threat that they have to move from ignoring you to throwing pretty much every resource they have into attacking you then it's just a matter of time. You've already won.

Right. Great to point out it was a very long strategy starting with setting policy with one intention and then having it misinterpreted deliberately by this lobby group.

However, as you say. The fight for LGB people is not over, and it seems strange that one large organization is also throwing a lot of effort to label a smaller organization that does NOT exclude the T from membership, but simply focuses on the specific needs of LGB. Surely, like any group working towards ending violence against women and girls, other groups should be encouraged. If it is a narrow interest group, that’s ok it just means that group has a voice and all groups should work together.

Wonder why that is not happening. Wonder why those who were part of Stonewall when it set its first direction are starting up again.

But nice you think that a group once renowned for free speech and has been acknowledged that it now actively discourages free speech is ‘winning’ . I rather think that every time women’s voices get silenced by threats, everytime women are told they are aligned with the far right because they don’t agree with their boundaries being lowered or stomped on, everytime someone reads about the situation in France at the moment and asks how that happened and who was responsible, and the decades of shame that the group behind this have now to account for... more people become aware of what has been happening and the problems that have arisen under the ‘be kind’ ‘be nice’ soothing it all through.

I think any person calling a ‘win’ at the moment has also forgotten women have been fighting this fight for centuries.

I think any person calling a ‘win’ forgets ‘purity’ of thinking schemes like this being pushed that are not based in reality, don’t last.

How many fingers Winston? is indeed an apt question.

But stating that the side dictating the answer is ‘winning’ also shows the utter contempt that person has for supposed ‘losing’ side.