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.

Intersex groups have asked to be protected from those wishing to weaponise their circumstances and I respect that. The existence of intersex people does nothing to support the arguments for self identification.

No sorry, you don't get to completely misrepresent the demands of intersex people and then shut down the argument and claim they must never be mentioned. Pretty much every intersex prganisation in the world supports Self ID and the removal of sex markers on ID etc. Some even campaign for an end to legal sex.

I can fully understand the aggresiveness with which intersex demands are silenced because it must be very difficult to accept that were society to develop along the lines many gender critical people want then life would be a nightmare for intersex people or anyone's whose physical sex was ambiguous. And of course it's very convenient to insist there are only two sexes and sex is not a spectrum - and then declare YOU MUST NOT TALK ABOUT INTERSEX PEOPLE.

Almost all intersex groups have called for solidarity between trans and intersex people, whilst recognising the important differences which should not be conflated or co-opted. Part of that solidarity surely means amplifying intersex demands to ban unnecessary surgery, to allow for easy change of legal sex, to recognise that the medicalisation of intersex conditions can lead to harm, to allow full participation in sport based on legal sex and to ensure that healthcare providers working with intersex people understand their needs.

Now the truth is that many gender critical people strongly oppose some of these demands, which is why I suspect the insistence that intersex people never be mentioned is so fiercely pursued. You don't really want people to know that most of you would support banning Caster Semenya and those like her from women's sport because you think intersex people are disabled in some way and so deserving of pity - unlike trans people who are all perverts or confused gays. And so they must never be mentioned because you do not want the collateral damage from your war on trans people to be made visible.

You're clearly very upset about this issue @jj1968, perhaps you should start a thread about it instead of derailing this one?

That works for me.

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?

Good question. I'd hope that the answer is obvious.

I would participate in a separate thread about DSD & the etymology and medical historiography of 'intersex' etc. I agree it's a separate thread. Thank you.

Shall we just agree that 'completely misrepresenting' arguments is generally A Bad Thing, and get back to the thread subject?

Nothappytohelp You are quite right that this is the heart of the problem. Sex and sexual attraction are innate. We cannot choose our sex nor can we change the sex to whom we are attracted. Stonewall abandoned any pretence at support for the LGB community as soon as it acquired the same rights as heterosexual people. That’s when it latched on to the lucrative “trans” ideology. Unfortunately this ideology is based neither in science nor material reality. It’s all about Men’s Rights to destroy those of women. Stonewall defines ‘trans’ in their glossary:

“An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.“Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.”

Stonewall doesn’t even accept biological science. Sex is NOT “assigned” at birth. It is observed. I see no reason to accord delusions and downright nastiness the same right to be heard as science and facts.

So, like many people on here, I've done a bit of digging today. Is there a way of tracking how well it's going, other than checking regularly?

Glad to see the fundraiser is still increasing daily. I will be adding to it every month until funds are no longer needed.

Did SW cast their net so very wide quite deliberately, do you think, @MagicFerret, in terms of that definition?

@Impatiens

You're clearly very upset about this issue *@jj1968*, perhaps you should start a thread about it instead of derailing this one?

I've made my point thanks, happy to leave it there.

@OwBist

So, like many people on here, I've done a bit of digging today. Is there a way of tracking how well it's going, other than checking regularly?

I'm not sure but I check it by keeping the page open on my phone and refreshing whenever I want to check. Saves me searching for it.

Stonewall doesn’t even accept biological science. Sex is NOT “assigned” at birth. It is observed. I see no reason to accord delusions and downright nastiness the same right to be heard as science and facts.

Totally agree - that's where the 'both sides of the argument' type of remarks fall down - why should dishonesty and bullying be given the same weight? They can be heard - there's no stopping them being heard - but also no reason for organisations to fall over themselves to accommodate such dishonesty.

Stonewall doesn’t even accept biological science. Sex is NOT “assigned” at birth. It is observed.

You could say it is assigned based on observation, I don't think it would be anti-science to say that, or grammatically incorrect. Sex differences, whilst undoubtedly a natural phenomena, are still a taxonomy named and created by humans, just like species taxonomies and everything else. A cat doesn't know it's a cat, and it's only by an understanding of what humans have agreed a cat means, that humans can then assign a species to it.

But more importantly, it's just a term that some people prefer so perhaps Stonewall's use of it accepts that. We do this all the time in other areas, it's what's known as being polite, or being nice if you like, which I know some of you oppose. One of my grandparents went to his death furious that an innocent word that once meant happy had been hijacked by sexual deviants. But society got over it, languages evolves, some things stick some things don't, but you can hardly attack a charity that supports trans people for using language some trans people prefer or claiming it means they don't understand basic biology. How many people do you know who are literally black, or literally white? Are those terms anti-science? Does it mean people who use them don't understand the colour spectrum? Or is language perhaps a bit more nuanced than that?

Just added in £20, I have been off Twitter for a while to get a break from all the bullshit but glad to see the funding is back open

she's on £113k at the moment, which is great news.

Heartening for the growing numbers of LGB Alliance followers - they went from zero to 38k followers in about a year and many many sister groups in other countries - there seems to be a powerful need for these organisations.

And as per usual, the majority are small donations. There are so many of us supporting this cause.

It's great isn't itDialSquare ?
So many people supporting her.

Undoubtedly, and it’s believed they also include MAPs - they just don’t advertise it. The wider their net the more money they get I imagine. So much is hidden. This is the latest organisation they appear to have infiltrated:
Women’s Equality Network

jj1968 Nonsense. Utter nonsense. “Assigned” and “observed” are totally different in meaning. Assigned implies there’s a choice. Observed is accepting fact. The only time sex may be assigned is if a DSD is evident - and these affect a minuscule number of births as thanks to the use of DNA these too can now be observed correctly.

It is persistentwoman. And I imagine the support will only increase the more sunlight there is about this case.

she's on £113k at the moment, which is great news.

Oh fantastic. I will get out my shovel on payday.

Thanks for this - I have finally got round to donating.

It's crazy how it's left to brave individuals like Allison and Keira to take on these David & Goliath fights.

Just been reading the below the line comments on The Times on its piece on a bookshop apologising about Julie Bindel talking there 2 years ago. The article mentions Juno Dawson and the links to Stonewall. A number of the comments bring up the Stonewall connection and the case Allison is bringing against them.

Over the next 5 months any time Stonewall is referenced in an article this action will be referenced in the comments. Win or lose (and I hope she wins) those emails between GCC and Stonewall will be brought up. It is going to look incredibly bad for them as more and more people start to ask questions. Stonewall must really have been scared of the LGBA to have risked this. Or it was a really, really bad idea that they didn’t think through.

They (SW) think they're never wrong and they assumed that judges and everyone would agree with them.