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.

Aaah - it's an Observer article, not a Guardian one! 'Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist' is the end credit.

Surprisingly balanced article from The Guardian.

Yes well, more prominent than that is a fawning interview with Laverne Cox containing all the usual lies, by Observer commissioning editor and signatory of the Suzanne Moore denouncement letter Eva Wiseman, so let’s not go too far with the praise .

I won’t link it, likely to give too many the rage.

@Helen8220

“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?

Welcome to Mumsnet Helen8220!

As pp said this is a question for another thread. So I'll start one for you to ask whatever questions you may have.

There you go Helen8220. Ask away on here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4165041-Q-A-thread-for-New-Posters

Good idea 👍

“ Forgotthebins

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.”

I will be interested to see the outcome of the case. Is there a publicly available copy of the judge’s decision on the strike out application?

In general terms, I think there is a fine balance for organisations to strike between preventing employees/associates from publicly expressing views that they consider would bring the organisation into disrepute or make other employees feel under threat, and overstepping and oppressing free speech. Setting aside the reasonableness or otherwise of the views we’re talking about, there must be circumstances in which it is justified for an employer to sanction employees for expressing certain views - eg, if someone in a prominent position in a local authority were to openly express blatantly racist views on Twitter under their own name, i think it would likely be reasonable for them to lose their job.

Maybe the chambers got it wrong in this case - and maybe Stonewall’s involvement was inappropriate - I will await the decision before forming a view

“ CharlieParley

There you go Helen8220. Ask away on here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4165041-Q-A-thread-for-New-Posters”

Thank you! Sorry for diverting the discussion

I will be interested to see the outcome of the case. Is there a publicly available copy of the judge’s decision on the strike out application?

The judge indicated she would be providing written reasons for refusing to strike out the claim at the preliminary hearing.

The full hearing is scheduled to start in June.

Thanks! I will watch out with interest

Found it strange that BBC , even in their diversity section, didn't pick up this legal case against Stonewall . I would have thought it would have been worth a mention?

It really is strange. The BBC made such a big deal of the new LGBT correspondent. Said correspondent is busy making TikTok videos for Stonewall
Now the BBC even has a dedicated Gender & Identity correspondent, but apparently no one who could report on this case.

I think they've 'had the training'.

Is Lewtin still the Culture Secretary? Might be worth a letter I suppose.

The BBC is 100% captured.

There seem to be a few brave GCers holed up inside the citadel, but getting word to the outside world is difficult.

John McManus has put some stuff on Twitter about this. He hasn't said why Ben Hunte was too busy doing tik tok videos to cover it.

Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) Tweeted:
Am remembering when Allen & Overy's Head of Litigation told my old Chambers that, so long as I was in Chambers, not only would they not send any work to me, but they would not send any work to any other member of Chambers either. twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1360934124312264704?s=20

Is Jollyon trying to ... compare what happened to Allison to what happened to him in the aftermath of boasting about foxmurder?

@Xanthangum

Jo Maugham (*@JolyonMaugham*) Tweeted: Am remembering when Allen & Overy's Head of Litigation told my old Chambers that, so long as I was in Chambers, not only would they not send any work to me, but they would not send any work to any other member of Chambers either. twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1360934124312264704?s=20

Is Jollyon trying to ... compare what happened to Allison to what happened to him in the aftermath of boasting about foxmurder?

I'm sure he's posting in support of a black lesbian barrister being bullied. Surely with all his privilege, he'd not do anything else?

Perhaps Jolyon should take action, then, if he thinks he's been detrimented under the protected characteristic of fox bludgeoning?

Sounds like it. Maybe in JM's world there's no difference between whacking a fox to death with a cricket bat and setting up an organisation to offer support to marginalised people.

Can't believe he used the biological essentialist (almost) word 'Overy'. Bit insensitive to those womxn who don't have them.

I will await the decision before forming a view

Hi Helen8220 and welcome

I’ve got a simpler question for you, seeing as you don’t feel well apprised enough to answer the previous one yet.

Do you think that an exclusively same-sex attracted [black, working class] lesbian who advocates for the rights of others to also be exclusively same-sex attracted should have a reasonable expectation that “LGBT” group Stonewall would represent her interests?

Yes or no?

@chestnutSquash

The BBC is 100% captured.

Close, obvs, but not 100%. Let’s not forget the excellent Newsnight reporting on the Tavistock GIDS.

Yes, perhaps the BBC is 100% 'trained', but not 100% captured.

Ah yes. I forgot about Newsnight.

@PotholeParadies

TheLaughingGnome

Intersex conditions campaigner ClaireCAIS on twitter, the site differently-normal.com/blog-2/ and the charity DSD Families.

So one intersex person then, and a group which represents the parents of intersex kids.

Actual intersex organisations of intersex people have pointed out that whilst trans people and intersex people have some shared interests, intersex is very different from being trans and has very specific demands.

I posted this before from the largest intersex group in the US:

The two terms are often confused: while a person who is transgender has a gender that is different from the one traditionally associated with the sex they were assigned at birth, a person who is intersex was born with a variation in their sexual or reproductive anatomy such that their body does not fit typical definitions of male or female

.•Both intersex and transgender people can identify as men, women, gender-fluid, non-binary, or in a multitude of different ways.

•While transgender people may identify differently from how they were assigned, their biology at birth typically conforms to a binary understanding of sexual and reproductive anatomy.

•Intersex people are generally assigned male or femaledespite their anatomical atypicality, but may later identify differently and correspondingly identify as transgender.

•A person cannot transition to “become” intersex because having an intersex condition is defined as a variation in reproductive anatomy present at birth.

interactadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/LavLaw-Trans-and-Intersex-Fact-Sheet.pdf