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.

@OvaHere

Just had a look at her page. The donations have really rolled in today.

Marvellous news

It is a pleasant thought indeed to go to sleep tonight knowing that Allison has made such brilliant strides. And I'm really not virtuous enough to pretend I haven't enjoyed the obvious tantrums a strong lesbian woman saying 'hell no' has induced in some quarters. She fucking rocks.

Allison is amazing. It would have been so much easier for her to let this go, but she didn't. She's been slurred as a homophobe and transphobe. I saw her racially abused on Twitter, only to be told that she deserves it for being a ''terf'' when she asked for help identifying the vile prick. (Right side of history, eh). She had her crowd funder taken down with no explanation, and yet she still kept going.

She really is absolutely amazing. An inspiration. Thank you, Allison!

An ideological belief. Being forced upon people employed in every sector under the sun. Nurses, police officers, bankers, teachers, check out assistants, lawyers, council workers, academics, and so on and so on... as well as students and schoolchildren... all being told they must not publicly dissent from this ideology on pain of losing their jobs, their ability to make a living at all if they are then blacklisted in their entire sector. Or, in the case of students and schoolchildren, on pain of being ostracised and bullied by their peers (or even accused of and possibly charged with a hate crime, if the CPS hadn’t been forced by a legal challenge to withdraw their odious guidance).

What kind of societies run along these lines? What kind of societies force people to believe an ideology, on pain of all kinds of punishments, actual genuine punishments if they don’t, if they say out loud they don’t?

What kind of person sees that as a desirable scenario? And would quite blatantly propose this model as a perfectly reasonable way for society to be run?

What an insight into how far some people will take this, if no one challenges them. Absolutely chilling.

Isn't it, Talking.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Surely it's more that if an organisation signs up to a scheme which supports the idea that trans women are women, or that gay people should be able to get married or whatever, and gets the benefits of that scheme on terms or PR, increased LGBT clients etc then they should abide by it's principle? Which might means diciplining a high profile person in the organisation who has very publically spoken out against those values? And if they don't then they might not longer be considered eligible for the scheme?

Sorry, not meaning to continue the derail, but this from jj yesterday has just kept on bothering me... it’s classic TRA conflation of trans rights with gay rights, and burying the “outrageous” position underneath them“perfectly reasonable” position, but surely what this comes down to is advocating totalitarianism in the workplace, isn’t it?

In the first example it’s not about the right of a minority group to do something that the rest of society is able to do, as per championing gay marriage. It’s about mandated belief in an ideology, pure and simple. “An organisation that signs up to a scheme which supports the idea that TWAW”. Not the right of trans people to marry, to live free from harassment, to have the same access to healthcare/housing/support services as everyone else, etc; no, the idea that TWAW is what’s being promoted here.

An ideological belief. Being forced upon people employed in every sector under the sun. Nurses, police officers, bankers, teachers, check out assistants, lawyers, council workers, academics, and so on and so on... as well as students and schoolchildren... all being told they must not publicly dissent from this ideology on pain of losing their jobs, their ability to make a living at all if they are then blacklisted in their entire sector. Or, in the case of students and schoolchildren, on pain of being ostracised and bullied by their peers (or even accused of and possibly charged with a hate crime, if the CPS hadn’t been forced by a legal challenge to withdraw their odious guidance).

What kind of societies run along these lines? What kind of societies force people to believe an ideology, on pain of all kinds of punishments, actual genuine punishments if they don’t, if they say out loud they don’t?

What kind of person sees that as a desirable scenario? And would quite blatantly propose this model as a perfectly reasonable way for society to be run?

What an insight into how far some people will take this, if no one challenges them. Absolutely chilling.

Awesome post 👏

@BuntingEllacott

It is a pleasant thought indeed to go to sleep tonight knowing that Allison has made such brilliant strides. And I'm really not virtuous enough to pretend I haven't enjoyed the obvious tantrums a strong lesbian woman saying 'hell no' has induced in some quarters. She fucking rocks.

Yes. She's immovable.

It emanates from her. To me, it's her defining characteristic.

And yes, it produces outrage in a lot of men.

Are stonewall still busy randomly extending their remit into areas that are nothing to do with them, without presumably expertise in those areas, and when there are loads of existing charities?

In order to keep the cash coming in...

I might have a look.

Tonights Torygraph reporting an interesting story which ties in neatly with Allison Baileys treatment in many respects.

College or student bodies will be sanctioned for trying to cancel, dismiss or demote people for their views.

So where does that leave Stonewall's in school and on campus campaigning?

If this rolls out, how does that affect their funding?

This might apply only to the education sector but i can see it potentially having a ripple effect into corporate campaigning.

Interesting... (i have my concerns over this plan and what the wider implications are but i do see it having GC relevance)

Keep your eyes on how this story develops.

Christoper Hope @christopherhope
Culture secretary Oliver Dowden has also summoned 25 of the UK's biggest heritage bodies and charities to a summit on Feb 23 where they will be told "to defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down”.

Obviously this is aimed in a particular way but the phrase about public funds and political purposes has caught my eye given the sheer extent of Stonewall's lobbying and how it gets so much income from public funds...

There's a lot of background that's been rumbling for a while about 'no-platforming' in Universities. THE will have several articles going back a while.

Just dug again. Allison is a formidable woman.

'Culture secretary Oliver Dowden has also summoned 25 of the UK's biggest heritage bodies and charities to a summit on Feb 23 where they will be told "to defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down”.'

Who are they really targeting though? They don't care about women etc.

'do Britain down'...?

And Ofcom has now said that they never intended to suggest LGB Alliance were an unsuitable and inappropriate source to quote in media items about trans issues.

twitter.com/alliancelgb/status/1360534979407728640?s=21

That's great news about Ofcom, feeling really positive tonight. Allison is a mighty shero!

Thanks all for pointing me to the rules, and explaining the position on ‘cis’. I am new here, as you can probably tell. It’s a term I use about myself (primarily) when I think in the context it’s helpful/relevant to make clear that I’m a woman who was born biologically female. I can see the quid pro quo point, in return for not misgendering (though I feel like I’ve seen a bit of that here today) - but if I only use about myself I can’t really see the objection?

It’s a term I use about myself (primarily) when I think in the context it’s helpful/relevant to make clear that I’m a woman who was born biologically female.

All women were born biologically female. If you had been born male you'd be a man.

Just to explain a bit about why I’m here, I recently found out that a close friend, who frequents mumsnet, has a very different view about trans matters from me, and we’ve had a few quite heated arguments. It’s made me realise how many people there are out there who see things similarly to me in many ways (feminist, generally progressive, lefty, liberal) but are completely opposed to me on this issue. Looking at what’s out there (eg Twitter), the tone of the discussion seems to be pretty unhelpful on both sides. I thought this might be a good place to come for a polite, reasoned debate

“OldCrone

All women were born biologically female. If you had been born male you'd be a man.”

Well that is clearly one of the key points of disagreement between us isn’t it?

You'd need to ask mnhq if they are ok with that.

“persistentwoman

Welcome to Mumsnet Helen8220

Intersex organisations have been very clear that they do not want to be appropriated or used by trans or any other groups .”

Thanks!

I can’t say I’ve done a survey, but this particular intersex speaker said the vast majority of intersex people she’d met were happy to support the trans rights cause.

Her case was really interesting - she was born apparently biologically female, but following investigations in her teens when she didn’t start having periods they discovered she had XY chromosomes, but a rare genetic condition meant she hadn’t properly developed male sex characteristics. She has to take HRT for life, as she doesn’t produce female hormones.

I realise that’s very much the exception rather than the rule, but how would you characterise her in terms of sex?

There you go. That's why many intersex people are fucked off with being used as an argument or 'gotcha'.

The vast vast vast majority of trans people are standard male/ female.

Intersex people have their own organisations and battles to fight

The hijacking of the concept of sex assigned at birth. Which is an intersex concept and relates to a massive amount of harm and pain that thankfully has stopped in the UK at least. Is crass.

To co opt that historical suffering in order to prop up, to push an idea about a different group. Is crass.

@Helen8220

“OldCrone

All women were born biologically female. If you had been born male you'd be a man.”

Well that is clearly one of the key points of disagreement between us isn’t it?

What I've said is fact. It's scientifically correct. There isn't really anything to disagree with.

"It's scientifically correct. There isn't really anything to disagree with."

I remember reading someone making the argument that the fact that there is very little research going into proving that all women are women, means clearly that not all women are women.

Helen8220 the medical history of a speaker you heard does not seem relevant to the case of Allison Bailey. Which is a clear case of overstepping boundaries by Stonewall - they might have a role offering advice on policy to their corporate partners if that’s what the corporate wants, but I have never heard of a charity getting involved in hiring and firing within a corporate partner - that is clear boundary being broken stuff. The fact they tried to persecute a lesbian for discussing a matter which is subject to a possible change in the law and therefore quite reasonably something you would expect a barrister to take an interest in is - that is, well, quite something.