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.

@gardenbird48

running total is at £116,160 - still going up with all that digging :¬))

Keeping this thread bumped as a reminder is helpful thanks all

That's a good total 👍

It is sad, because Stonewall have done so much good work for gay rights. Women have never been a priority (within gay rights movements generally, not just Stonewall) but lesbians have benefitted from the gains made.

AB is a brave woman for taking this case.

If a gay man went off on twitter about immigrants and got sacked he couldn't say but I'm gay, I'm protected - he wasn't sacked because he was gay but for his publicly held opinions - which is what Garden Chambers will argue happened to Bailey.

Don't be ridiculous. The equivalent for a gay man would be for him to say that he was only attracted to people of his own sex (males, the people with penises) and not transmen with vaginas.

No-one's arguing about the definition of a lesbian. It's completely irrelevent to the case. Everyone accepts she's a lesbian, the question is whether she was discriminated against for that.

Since one of her complaints was about a Stonewall representative talking about the 'cotton ceiling', I'm not so sure that the definition of 'lesbian' isn't being misrepresented by Stonewall.

”Since one of her complaints was about a Stonewall representative talking about the 'cotton ceiling', I'm not so sure that the definition of 'lesbian' isn't being misrepresented by Stonewall.”

Holy shit!!

I’m seeing a lot of complaints from young gay guys lately on soc media about The Boxer Ceiling.

These are the current Civil Rights equivalent of the Gay Rights movement of old.

Personally I cant wait for stonewall go public with the fact that they think a lot of lesbians don't believe in same-sex attraction.

I don’t spend much time on Twitter, but I’ve noticed a recent uptick in gay men expressing disquiet or outright disagreement with trans ideology. Is it Allison’s case or something else that has raised awareness?

From what I have seen it is that they are getting hit by an increase in equivalent shit to what has been happening to lesbians for longer, due to the boom in the numbers of transmen. Spaces being invaded, dating apps colonised and accusations of transphobia when they insist that they are same-sex attracted.

I’ve similarly seen posts by transmen who are baffled or angered that they are not accepted as actual men. Must be pretty upsetting and confusing to bump up against reality and realise you’ve been sold a pig in a poke but some of the behaviour towards gay guys sounds pretty obnoxious.

@OldCrone

If a gay man went off on twitter about immigrants and got sacked he couldn't say but I'm gay, I'm protected - he wasn't sacked because he was gay but for his publicly held opinions - which is what Garden Chambers will argue happened to Bailey.

Don't be ridiculous. The equivalent for a gay man would be for him to say that he was only attracted to people of his own sex (males, the people with penises) and not transmen with vaginas.

Exactly. And as she was asserting that lesbians are same-sex attracted, it does matter that sexuality is protected under the Equality Act. What's much more important is that this all kicked off with a protected act done by Allison, and for the claim of victimisation she does seems to have sufficient evidence. And that's regardless of any definitions under the Equality Act.

No-one's arguing about the definition of a lesbian. It's completely irrelevent to the case.

No it isn't. It's the central point of why Allison says she was discriminated against at the behest of Stonewall.

I work for a charity and someone from Stonewall came to do a talk a few years ago , it was very cult like, she said she would expect to stop someone in the corridor and for them to be able to recite Stonewall's mission immediately to her.

If a gay man went off on twitter about immigrants

Not comparable and irrelevant. This is a lesbian talking about the definition of lesbian as a same sex attracted female person.

yourhairiswinterfire

Para 50 too!

However, the Stonewall complaint of 31st October 2019 in itself plainly seeks to put pressure on Chambers to take action against the Claimant, indeed to the extent of urging Chambers to remove the Claimant from Chambers, and accompanies that with a threat about the ongoing relationship between Chambers and Stonewall itself if Chambers does not take action.

I am honestly shocked that a once respected organization like Stonewall could stoop so low!

@FeckTheMagicDragon

yourhairiswinterfire

Para 50 too!

However, the Stonewall complaint of 31st October 2019 in itself plainly seeks to put pressure on Chambers to take action against the Claimant, indeed to the extent of urging Chambers to remove the Claimant from Chambers, and accompanies that with a threat about the ongoing relationship between Chambers and Stonewall itself if Chambers does not take action.

I am honestly shocked that a once respected organization like Stonewall could stoop so low!

The people who used to run it or work there must be gutted.

The people who used to run it or work there must be gutted.

Hence some of them feeling the need to start an organisation that actually represented them....

It's a good job the case isn't about a gay man going off on Twitter about being racist or insisting the moon is made of cheese because that would be indefensible.

But given that it's about a lesbian saying an LGBT group doesn't support her concerns as a lesbian, and the LGBT group demanding she be sanctioned for it, I'd say we can make out minds easy about irrelevant bullshit comparisons.

If a gay man went off on twitter about immigrants and got sacked he couldn't say but I'm gay, I'm protected - he wasn't sacked because he was gay but for his publicly held opinions - which is what Garden Chambers will argue happened to Bailey.

Ah the twisty disinformation false equivalence strawman. That old chestnut.

Nowt to do with the problematic homophobic homogenderism shit that Stonewall are trying to pass off as homosexuality at all. Nope that shit is A OK.

But given that it's about a lesbian saying an LGBT group doesn't support her concerns as a lesbian, and the LGBT group demanding she be sanctioned for it, I'd say we can make out minds easy about irrelevant bullshit comparisons.

Indeed.

This is just so mental. I find it so depressing I'll stop reading and contribute instead.

The people who used to run it or work there must be gutted

Several of those who founded Stonewall eg Simon Fanshawe have said as much, publicly.

I just want to post this screenshot again, because a picture says a thousand words. People, mostly women, are leaving organisations like Stonewall because they feel Stonewall and so on no longer represent them. In some cases they are setting up new organisations, and they are being persecuted for that.

It's like an abusive ex-boyfriend, who says if he can't have you, nobody can.

@QueenoftheAir

The people who used to run it or work there must be gutted

Several of those who founded Stonewall eg Simon Fanshawe have said as much, publicly.

Yes indeed.

All those people, lesbian, gay, bi and straight, who devoted so much time to the bloody organisation, only to see it now become the very thing it was fighting.

It's like an abusive ex-boyfriend, who says if he can't have you, nobody can.

Exactly

@OldCrone

No-one's arguing about the definition of a lesbian. It's completely irrelevent to the case. Everyone accepts she's a lesbian, the question is whether she was discriminated against for that.

Since one of her complaints was about a Stonewall representative talking about the 'cotton ceiling', I'm not so sure that the definition of 'lesbian' isn't being misrepresented by Stonewall.

It doesn't matter what Stonewall think a lesbian is. The case is not about the meaning of the word lesbian it is about whether discrimination took place.

Perhaps a better analogy is imagine if Bailey was a trans inclusive lesbian working with a gender critical chambers and went off on a rant on twitter about trans women being women or something and found herself sacked for it. Would this mean she had been sacked for being a lesbian? Could she argue that most lesbians and women agree with her so to dicipline her for making these views publicly known amounted to indirect discrimination? In effect that the policy of the chambers to not allow members to state that trans women are women made it an environment that was detrimental to lesbians in a way it wasn't for straight women? I think it would be difficult to make that case, and that is what Alison Bailey is trying to do in the direction.

(the analogy doesn't hold perfectly because she'd be far better going for discrimination based on protected belief in this case - all the parties in Maya's case agreed that trans women are women would be likely to be a protected belief. Alison isn't going for protected belief though, presumably because if Maya's appeal fails then she would lose by default.)

Perhaps the case will be tried on the facts of the matter, rather than the latest analogy from the handbook of 'lesbians saying no is just like Hitler invading Poland'.