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.

I find this graphic striking. Is this the one you were referring to Bettyfilous?

Youve contradicted yourself!

my point is that society expects us to define ourselves on the basis of the sex of the people we’re attracted to

Exactly!

But then:
The original expectation that people were only attracted to/ had sex with people of the opposite sex was itself a gender norm

No I disagree. Hetero-normative as a societal expectation doesn't take gender norms into account. It only considers physical attributes. Man - penis, woman - vulva. The concepts of trans weren't even a consideration. (Apple just autocorrected penis to Lemsip!)

@Helen8220

“Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes, and other people have a different experience, and opinion, and feel that LGB people are better served by a separate group.”

But it’s also reasonable for those of us who consider the LGB Alliance as having a divisive and regressive agenda to criticise them for that.

So do you also agree that it's reasonable for those who consider Stonewall to have a divisive and regressive agenda to criticise them for that?

I'm going to quote a few paragraphs from Allison Bailey's statement on her web page to illustrate what I mean. (Link in the OP)

Gender non-conforming children and young people, who would otherwise overwhelmingly grow up to be happily LGB, are vulnerable to the new trans activism’s ‘born in the wrong body’ narrative, leading to an explosion in medical and surgical procedures on healthy young bodies, especially female bodies, so as to conform to 1950s gender stereotypes.

There is now growing evidence that this movement is being driven by homophobia: children and young people who do not want to be labelled LGB in a homophobic society, and parents who do not want LGB children.

Disproportionate numbers of trans identified girls and young women experience body dysphoria because of histories of sexual abuse, depression, anxiety, mental ill-health and autism, and because they are in turmoil about being same-sex attracted — lesbian, yet they are sent down a trans medical pathway.

These young women have had years on testosterone and double mastectomies. They report that their mental ill-health and same-sex attraction was not addressed; they were encouraged instead to view their body dysphoria as a trans identity issue and medical transition as a panacea, a cure all.

These brave young women are detransitioning and speaking out. Their voices and their stories point to an unfolding medical scandal.

It is a sad indictment of the new trans activism, that one of the greatest threats to LGB people today, especially young lesbians, is Stonewall, and its spin-off trans child and youth organisations. These organisations have been allowed to label gender non-conforming children, aged as young as 8 years old, transgender.

Thanks ANewCreation That’s the one.

My experience of stonewall is that they fight for all LGBT+ people, the recent focus of trans (and to some extent also bi) rights is a natural response to that being where there is still the most work to do.

I came out during the fight against Section 28 & at that time, Stonewall were wonderful. They were fighting for same-sex orientations to be recognised & respected. Then they achieved gay marriage & suddenly needed a new cash cow.

And now, they talk about same-gender attraction instead of same-sex, they say that if lesbians don’t embrace penis owners as part of our community we’re bigots, they tried to get single-sex exemptions removed from the Equality Act (because in the words of Ruth Hunt ‘women are always going to get raped’ and they’ve made it extremely clear that they couldn’t care less if gender non-conforming children who would have grown up lesbian or gay get drugged, sterilised & operated on to resemble the opposite sex. And thank fuck for Keira Bell on that last one.

Oh, and when lesbians demonstrate in favour of our rights, Stonewall call the police on us. They are far more dangerous than the patriarchy ever was, because people think they’re still supporting gay rights when they’re actually doing the complete opposite. Lesbians have always been oppressed for being homosexual. The huge difference is that nowadays, through some truly extraordinary PR moves, we’re being cast as the oppressors.

@OldCrone

“So if a woman has a relationship with a transwoman with a penis, are they in a lesbian relationship or a heterosexual relationship?”

The terms are socially constructed and defined so it would depend on the views of whoever you asked. I’m not sure I believe there is such a thing as a ‘lesbian relationship’ - I am in a relationship with another woman but I wouldn’t call it that because neither of us is a lesbian. If by ‘lesbian relationship’ you mean ‘a relationship between two people who don’t have penises’ the example you give of a trans woman with a penis clearly wouldn’t fit that definition - but that’s entirely circular

Sorry for the slow reply - I think that Stonewall does represent the interests of lesbians, as evidenced by the many lesbians who are happy to be associated with it (and indeed, who work for it)

But that’s not a reply, Helen8220, it’s a sidestep.

I was asking specifically about the representation of lesbians who are exclusively same-sex attracted, as per the meaning of the term “lesbian” as it was always understood till very recently.

Now it seems to be true that there are some lesbians who are happy to redefine their sexual orientation as being “same-gender” attracted. Women who could potentially be capable of sexual attraction to people with a penis if those penis-havers identify as women. And yes, perhaps those lesbians feel represented by Stonewall.

But I’m not talking about those women. I’m talking about the women who are never attracted to people with a penis under any circumstances. Those women, those lesbians, whose sexual orientation is exclusively towards other people with biologically female bodies. Those woman for whom sexual attraction towards the biologically female body is the absolute foundation of their lesbianism.

Do you recognise that this is a sexual orientation?

Do you think women should be entitled to have this sexual orientation?

And if so, do you think they are entitled to expect the country’s leading “LGBT” org to support and represent them?

Please try to answer these specific questions if you actually want this to be any kind of communication.

[quote Helen8220]@OldCrone

“So if a woman has a relationship with a transwoman with a penis, are they in a lesbian relationship or a heterosexual relationship?”

The terms are socially constructed and defined so it would depend on the views of whoever you asked. I’m not sure I believe there is such a thing as a ‘lesbian relationship’ - I am in a relationship with another woman but I wouldn’t call it that because neither of us is a lesbian. If by ‘lesbian relationship’ you mean ‘a relationship between two people who don’t have penises’ the example you give of a trans woman with a penis clearly wouldn’t fit that definition - but that’s entirely circular[/quote]
Try this:

"If a woman has a relationship with a transwoman with a penis, are they in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship?”

You don't have to be homosexual to have a homosexual relationship, nor do you have to be heterosexual to have a heterosexual relationship.

This is starting to feel like pigeon chess again, though, so I'm off out to do something else.

[quote Helen8220]@OldCrone

“So if a woman has a relationship with a transwoman with a penis, are they in a lesbian relationship or a heterosexual relationship?”

The terms are socially constructed and defined so it would depend on the views of whoever you asked. I’m not sure I believe there is such a thing as a ‘lesbian relationship’ - I am in a relationship with another woman but I wouldn’t call it that because neither of us is a lesbian. If by ‘lesbian relationship’ you mean ‘a relationship between two people who don’t have penises’ the example you give of a trans woman with a penis clearly wouldn’t fit that definition - but that’s entirely circular[/quote]
I can see why you align with Stonewall’s thinking here.

And no, I would never refer to a lesbian relationship as one between two people who don’t have penises, because I thought that thinking like that went out of fashion about sixty years ago. With or without penis is not how to define a woman. Sheesh.

Your post is kind of proving what the LGBA is on about- fine if you don’t want to believe that there’s such a thing as a lesbian relationship because of some fancy sleight of hand with wordplay, but many many lesbians will take issue with that casual erasure.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

But that’s not a reply, Helen8220, it’s a sidestep.

I was asking specifically about the representation of lesbians who are exclusively same-sex attracted, as per the meaning of the term “lesbian” as it was always understood till very recently.

Now it seems to be true that there are some lesbians who are happy to redefine their sexual orientation as being “same-gender” attracted. Women who could potentially be capable of sexual attraction to people with a penis if those penis-havers identify as women. And yes, perhaps those lesbians feel represented by Stonewall.

But I’m not talking about those women. I’m talking about the women who are never attracted to people with a penis under any circumstances. Those women, those lesbians, whose sexual orientation is exclusively towards other people with biologically female bodies. Those woman for whom sexual attraction towards the biologically female body is the absolute foundation of their lesbianism.

Do you recognise that this is a sexual orientation?

Do you think women should be entitled to have this sexual orientation?

And if so, do you think they are entitled to expect the country’s leading “LGBT” org to support and represent them?

Please try to answer these specific questions if you actually want this to be any kind of communication.”

People are entitled to only have sex with people without penises, of course. I don’t see anything useful in getting into an an argument about what ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ means - they will always mean slightly different things to different people. A man who has once or twice been aroused by a woman’s body is still entitled to identify as gay. All of these categories are socially constructed and while they have to have some core of objective, socially recognised meaning, there is always going to be a lot of grey around the edges

People are entitled to only have sex with people without penises, of course. I don’t see anything useful in getting into an an argument about what ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ means - they will always mean slightly different things to different people. A man who has once or twice been aroused by a woman’s body is still entitled to identify as gay. All of these categories are socially constructed and while they have to have some core of objective, socially recognised meaning, there is always going to be a lot of grey around the edges

I’m still no clearer on what you actually think, only on how you seem to be oddly determined to avoid direct answers. Once again, Helen, in relation to this specific group of women who are exclusively sexually attracted to other people with biologically female bodies, can you give me answers to these questions:

Do you recognise this as a sexual orientation, yes or no?

Do you think women should be entitled to have this sexual orientation, yes or no?

And if so, do you think they are entitled to expect the country’s leading “LGBT” org to support and represent them, yes or no?

Three simple yes or no answers. If you actually want to communicate.

@helen8220
You have spectacularly missed the point everything AB said is perfectly fine correct and anyone who finds the legal definition of a lesbian (exclusively same sex attracted) offensive needs to give themselves shake and get a grip.
No company or organisation should be sanctioning anyone for sating the law especially a law firm

I don’t see anything useful in getting into an an argument about what ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ means - they will always mean slightly different things to different people.

So if there is no definition of what gay or lesbian is, presumably there is therefore no such thing as discrimination against gay or lesbian people?

Tbh I'm kinda gobsmacked that you can't see anything useful about being able to define gay or lesbian. Guess all those brave people who publicly came out despite anti-gay rhetoric wasted their time huh?

terms are socially constructed

Yes, Helen, all words are in human societies. And?

AB is bringing a legal case. Words have been democratically ascribed meanings in English & Welsh law, and she is relying on these. Actual reality is being relied upon here. Not some third rate academic Gotcha culture.

@titchy

I don’t see anything useful in getting into an an argument about what ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ means - they will always mean slightly different things to different people.

So if there is no definition of what gay or lesbian is, presumably there is therefore no such thing as discrimination against gay or lesbian people?

Tbh I'm kinda gobsmacked that you can't see anything useful about being able to define gay or lesbian. Guess all those brave people who publicly came out despite anti-gay rhetoric wasted their time huh?“

You clearly don’t need to have a perfect universally agreed definition of a gay person in order to penalise discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If an employer has a policy that disproportionately disadvantages a person in a relationship with another person of the same sex or gender, as compared to employees who are in relationships with persons of a different sex or gender, that’s discriminatory

@TheLaughingGenome

“terms are socially constructed

Yes, Helen, all words are in human societies. And?

AB is bringing a legal case. Words have been democratically ascribed meanings in English & Welsh law, and she is relying on these. Actual reality is being relied upon here. Not some third rate academic Gotcha culture.”

As others have pointed out here, the issues at stake in the legal case do not include the definition of a lesbian

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

I’m still no clearer on what you actually think, only on how you seem to be oddly determined to avoid direct answers. Once again, Helen, in relation to this specific group of women who are exclusively sexually attracted to other people with biologically female bodies, can you give me answers to these questions:

1. Do you recognise this as a sexual orientation, yes or no?

1. Do you think women should be entitled to have this sexual orientation, yes or no?

1. And if so, do you think they are entitled to expect the country’s leading “LGBT” org to support and represent them, yes or no?

Three simple yes or no answers. If you actually want to communicate.

1. I don’t believe sexual orientations are clearly defined objective categories. But if you push me I’d say I don’t think that is a separate orientation in its own right - clearly that group of women are gay, or lesbians - whichever term is preferred - but I don’t think all lesbians fall within that group.

1. Notwithstanding that I don’t think that group is a separate orientation, obviously they are entitled to exclusively be sexually attracted to the people to whom they are exclusively sexually attracted.

1. All people with the LGBT umbrella are entitled to expect their interests as LGBT people to be represented by stonewall

You clearly don’t need to have a perfect universally agreed definition of a gay person in order to penalise discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

You do need one to bring about a discrimination case though. Neither do you need to be an actual relationship either. Fortunately there is a legal definition - it's same SEX, not gender.

And clearly this thread is about much more than AB's court case.

That should have been “within” the LGBT umbrella, not “with” the LGBT umbrella (although I do have a rather lovely rainbow umbrella that I refer to as my “big gay umbrella”)

@titchy

“You do need one to bring about a discrimination case though. Neither do you need to be an actual relationship either. Fortunately there is a legal definition - it's same SEX, not gender.

And clearly this thread is about much more than AB's court case.”

You don’t - the equality act definition of sexual orientation is pretty opaque is that it refers to being ‘sexually orientated towards” people of the same or a different sex (or both). As I’ve commented earlier, notwithstanding that the definition refers to sex rather than gender, I really think it’s very unlikely that a court would find that discrimination was not on the basis of sexual orientation where it was directed towards a person because they were (for example) in a relationship with a non-binary person. I doubt the court would even require the sex of the partner to be established for that purpose

Could you please try to quote people properly Helen, your posts are difficult to parse. You can do italics by placing ^ in front of and after the text. Or to bold use a * in the same way.

Tbh I'm kinda gobsmacked that you can't see anything useful about being able to define gay or lesbian. Guess all those brave people who publicly came out despite anti-gay rhetoric wasted their time huh?

This.

Helen8220 - general formatting advice to make your posts easier to parse:
If you are responding to a particular post you can hit 'quote' on that post then respond to it - it makes it easier to see the post you're quoting in context.

If you want to respond to a partial post, you can either "'@" or use either side of the user name (no spaces between the and the text) and then use * to bold the text you are quoting.

Haha Erish - cross posted!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Could you please try to quote people properly Helen, your posts are difficult to parse. You can do italics by placing ^ in front of and after the text. Or to bold use a * in the same way.

Seconded.