Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2

[OvaHere]

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.

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.

It strikes me as ridiculous that if a gay man should meet someone who looks like Buck Angel and fancy him a bit he immediately ceases to be gay. LGB people got rid of this kind of purity testing years ago, it's strange to see straight people trying to inflict it on us now. I think the vast amount of LGB people are capable of having a nuanced view that yes, being lesbian or gay means same sex attraction, but sometimes someone gay or lesbian might be attracted to someone based on gender, and may even have a relationship with them and that shouldn't mean they are immediately expelled from their gayness. LGBT people have the right to define their own sexualities without straight people trying to police them. And that's why my internet is full of LGB people declaring their support for Stonewall whilst furious mostly straight people shout at them and accuse them of being homophobic. It's beyond parody.

And it may be an uncomfortable fact but many if not most trans people are LGB, and even if they aren't they may well be perceived that way and face homophobia. That's why the LGB and the T are united, why we have fought together and will continue to do so. I wonder what the LGB Alliance are doing for trans people who also happen to be LGB?

I think the vast amount of LGB people are capable of having a nuanced view that yes, being lesbian or gay means same sex attraction, but sometimes someone gay or lesbian might be attracted to someone based on gender, and may even have a relationship with them and that shouldn't mean they are immediately expelled from their gayness.

"Might be attracted to someone based on gender" - a completely fair comment but Stonewall's view is that people should never discriminate between sex and gender. To do so is transphobic.

LGBT people have the right to define their own sexualities without straight people trying to police them.

Which again is true but is it OK if Stonewall police them instead?

Well JJ - it's good that so many women who post on here are lesbians then isn't it and can tell you all how offensive it is to have our sexuality redesigned by men. A bit of listening and respect wouldn't go amiss.

LGBT people have the right to define their own sexualities without straight people trying to police them.

Does Allison Bailey have the right to define her own sexuality?

many if not most trans people are LGB

What does LGB mean in the context of trans people?

If a transwoman is in a relationship with a woman is that a lesbian relationship?

If a transman is in a relationship with a woman are they both straight?

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.*

Another lie: www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-uprising-50-years-lgbt-history

This makes me chuckle though. People go on and on about 'violent TRAs' but the one time trans people were absolutely unequivocably violent everyone's like no, it's not true, no trans were even there.

jj you do seem quite invested in the view that what someone looks like is important in framing a situation. This is at least the third time I've noticed it, we've discussed it before.
I do agree that strict labels are not helpful for many people. But for some, being able to define sex when they talk about their sexuality is important.

Well done Allison

Onwards and upwards

RRS has same legal representation as Allison

These brave women 👏👏👏👏

a completely fair comment but Stonewall's view is that people should never discriminate between sex and gender. To do so is transphobic.

I'd like to see some evidence of that being Stonewall's view. Surely it's more that people should not be discriminated against on the grounds of being LGB, and some LGB people may sometimes be in a relationship or experience an attraction based on gender. And that's okay, and they shouldn't be expelled from being lesbian or gay for doing so, not least because they may well still face homophobia.

you do seem quite invested in the view that what someone looks like is important in framing a situation.

I'd say what someone looks like can be pretty important when it comes to sexual attraction, certainly more important than chromosones for many people.

Lolling that sexual orientation relies on purity testing.

Top tip, it relies on sex.

Sorry jj, I know you want sexual orientation to have the same definition that Stonewall does, but I'm afraid it doesn't. The answer is still no. A feminine man does not make him a woman.

What does LGB mean in the context of trans people?

Interesting question. Obviously the answer should be how people view themselves, but in practice our sexuality is defined for us, by non trans people, based on their prejudices. So if a trans man snogs a bloke in the street he's quite likely to face homophobic abuse for being a gay man but if he tries to identify as a gay man people like LGB Alliance will attack him for being straight.

sometimes be in a relationship or experience an attraction based on gender.

People are attracted to others for all aorts of reasons and many men like to be in relationships based of 1950s sex role stereotypes where the woman looks after the home and children and he has the freedom to establish a career and make all the decisions in the house. Is that what you mean by relationships based on gender?

Good news:

LGB Alliance @ ALLIANCELGB
"Good news! Following a constructive meeting with @ Ofcom in December,

@ dawes_melanie has confirmed in writing that she had never intended to suggest (at a recent DCMS hearing) that LGB Alliance should be excluded from debate in the media./1of4

The slant put on her comments had been misused to try to prevent people meeting or quoting us. In its letter, Ofcom clearly confirms: “Ofcom has never stated or otherwise implied that ‘it is appropriate to talk to Stonewall and inappropriate to talk to LGB Alliance’.”/2of4"

mobile.twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1360534979407728640

Another lie: www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-uprising-50-years-lgbt-history

A link to an article by Stonewall to 'prove' that Stonewall aren't lying.

Or is this to show that Stonewall are lying?

Yes Roz.

More good news 👏👏

I saw it on their Twitter feed as well

Surely it's more that people should not be discriminated against on the grounds of being LGB, and some LGB people may sometimes be in a relationship or experience an attraction based on gender. And that's okay, and they shouldn't be expelled from being lesbian or gay for doing so, not least because they may well still face homophobia.

So should lesbians be accused of transphobia if they are only attracted to female people?

[quote RozWatching]Good news:

LGB Alliance @ ALLIANCELGB
"Good news! Following a constructive meeting with @ Ofcom in December,

@ dawes_melanie has confirmed in writing that she had never intended to suggest (at a recent DCMS hearing) that LGB Alliance should be excluded from debate in the media./1of4

The slant put on her comments had been misused to try to prevent people meeting or quoting us. In its letter, Ofcom clearly confirms: “Ofcom has never stated or otherwise implied that ‘it is appropriate to talk to Stonewall and inappropriate to talk to LGB Alliance’.”/2of4"

mobile.twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1360534979407728640[/quote]
Well that's good news.

I wonder if the timing is significant...

@OldCrone

Another lie: www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-uprising-50-years-lgbt-history

A link to an article by Stonewall to 'prove' that Stonewall aren't lying.

Or is this to show that Stonewall are lying?

The claim that Stonewall say the riots were led by a trans woman is a lie. What they actually say is: "Lesbians and trans women of colour were some of the key people involved in the act of resistance, including Stormé DeLarverie, Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson."

Oh wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as ithers see us.

Been pondering on that line this morning. Important to remember that the reality of the self is set in the context not just of ones own perception, but in what society sees. Much out of fashion these days.

But, screeching back to the topic at hand, I for one am very much looking forward to see when, how and by whom Garden Court Chambers were induced to discipline a lesbian for setting up a group focusing on lesbians, bisexuals and gay men.

As a bisexual cis woman in a long term relationship with another woman, I doubt that I would ever want the LGB Alliance representing me or my interests. I don’t know a single gay or bi person (in real life) who believes LGB Alliance is genuinely interested in our rights, as opposed to campaigning against the rights of trans people

@jj1968

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.

It strikes me as ridiculous that if a gay man should meet someone who looks like Buck Angel and fancy him a bit he immediately ceases to be gay. LGB people got rid of this kind of purity testing years ago, it's strange to see straight people trying to inflict it on us now. I think the vast amount of LGB people are capable of having a nuanced view that yes, being lesbian or gay means same sex attraction, but sometimes someone gay or lesbian might be attracted to someone based on gender, and may even have a relationship with them and that shouldn't mean they are immediately expelled from their gayness. LGBT people have the right to define their own sexualities without straight people trying to police them. And that's why my internet is full of LGB people declaring their support for Stonewall whilst furious mostly straight people shout at them and accuse them of being homophobic. It's beyond parody.

And it may be an uncomfortable fact but many if not most trans people are LGB, and even if they aren't they may well be perceived that way and face homophobia. That's why the LGB and the T are united, why we have fought together and will continue to do so. I wonder what the LGB Alliance are doing for trans people who also happen to be LGB?

I'm sorry but there is nothing stopping someone who identified as gay deciding they are actually hetrosexual/bisexual if they want to be. Thats their choice. Its their choice is they want to be 'homogendered' and believe that men and women have to adhere to gendered stereotypes in the way they dress/present themselves. That doesn't make them homosexual though. The clue is in the sex part of the word 'homosexual'. The definition of homosexual refering to gender remains homophobic though.

And I never said that there is some kind of 'purity' test. Just that sex and gender are separate things that carry important different meanings.

Those who are homosexual should be allowed to be homosexual without being pressured to have sex with someone of the opposite for any reason whatsoever because thats being able to assert your own sexual boundaries and own sexual identity. This conflation with gender is oppressive because it removes this ability and leads to the persecution of homosexuals.

I am perfectly happy for the homogenderists to crack on how they like at the same time without imposing their beliefs and preferences on others.

You are just trying to twist what I said. Again with the twisting of meaning to try and language to demostrate moral superiority.

I will call it out every time I see it tried on. Its offensive.

@jj1968

you do seem quite invested in the view that what someone looks like is important in framing a situation.

I'd say what someone looks like can be pretty important when it comes to sexual attraction, certainly more important than chromosones for many people.

Absolutely. I’ve never asked to see a person’s genitals in order to decide whether I’m attracted to them (although I realise being bi I’m in a different position to many here).

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

I was going to mention Fred Sergeant too. Here's a very interesting documentary: