Plan B Forum

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:42 am**

A barrister has raised more than £60,000 to sue LGBT charity Stonewall and her chambers for allegedly trying to 'silence' her for her stance on transgender issues.

Allison Bailey has lodged a claim at the Employment Tribunal against Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers, alleging she was victimised 'because of concerns I raised about Stonewall's actions.'

Ms Bailey claims she was 'indirectly discriminated against because both my chambers and Stonewall treat people who hold gender critical beliefs as being bigoted and unworthy of respect.'

The action came after she helped set up the LGB Alliance, a controversial action group which criticises Stonewall's approach to transgender rights, the Law Gazette reported.

Ms Bailey launched a CrowdJustice campaign to fund legal action, writing on the page: 'The case that I am bringing is that I have been subjected to victimisation because of the concerns I raised about Stonewall's actions.

'It alleges that I have been indirectly discriminated against because both my chambers and Stonewall treat people such as me who hold gender critical beliefs as being bigoted and unworthy of respect.

'Those people are overwhelmingly women. This treatment is therefore indirectly discriminatory against women.

But despite the suspension, Ms Bailey has already raised her goal of £60,000 and the fundraiser has been closed for further pledges.

The barrister, a self-proclaimed feminist and lesbian, is among a group who believe making it simple for people to self-identify as women is a threat to feminism, Legal Cheek said.

She says 'if the new trans activism is not brought to heel, women will disappear as a political class.'

LGB Alliance, which rivals Stonewall, has been accused of transphobia. Ms Bailey, however, denies this, claiming 'I have always been an advocate for transgender rights'.

A Stonewall spokespersons said: 'We work with a diverse range of organisations through our Diversity Champions programme to give advice on tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic discrimination and how they can be more inclusive of LGBT people.

'While we aren't able to comment on individual cases, we know it's vital businesses take active steps in creating equality for all lesbian, gay, bi and trans people'.

Garden Court Chambers added: 'We strongly refute any claim that we have acted unlawfully or in any way colluded with Stonewall. We consider these allegations to be groundless and the claim to be without merit'.

Share or comment on this article: Lesbian barrister raises

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:49 pm**

She's entitled to her opinion, but when one voices one's opinion regarding anything they must be prepared for others to criticize them. Just as she is free to say what she wants, so is Stonewall. As for her chambers, I am not very familiar with the barrister system and what duties a chambers owes to its affiliated (as far as I know this is a less loose association than a partnership in the US) barristers, but again, I fail to see anything in the article that would be actionable.

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:47 pm**

"Gender critical" is the new Orwellian-speak for transphobic.

And I'm sorry, you can't claim to stand up for trans rights if you deny that trans women are women and/or that trans men are men. That's like saying you stand for racial justice but don't believe that Blacks should have the right to vote.

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:44 pm**

Most men are men
Some men are really women
Most women are women
Some women are really men
All others are lunatics

By which I recognize transgender persons are fellow humans and deserve serious and empathetic societal acceptance and support

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:04 pm**

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:44 pm
Most men are men
Some men are really women
Most women are women
Some women are really men
All others are lunatics

And the colored girls go:
doo-doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo (doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, dooh)

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:17 pm**

Scooter wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:47 pm
"Gender critical" is the new Orwellian-speak for transphobic.

And I'm sorry, you can't claim to stand up for trans rights if you deny that trans women are women and/or that trans men are men. That's like saying you stand for racial justice but don't believe that Blacks should have the right to vote.

Yeah, well, no, and fuck that noise.

Trans women, no matter how many hormones they take, are not biologically women. Never will be as we have not figured out to re-engineer their DNA to make them biologically women. They can dress up in the finest clothes, paint their faces, have the surgery and cast off their penis, have a lovely set of breasts implanted, take the hormones, work in society, marry, adopt children, and live the everyday life of a woman. All this I will support and embrace. I understand it is a type of purgatory for many, the underlying source of that purgatory being that they are not and never will be biologically women. They have my blessing and best wishes. A line is drawn in the support sand however. I will not ever support women who are biologically men competing in sporting events for women. They have an unfair biological advantage over the actual beings who are biologically women.
It sucks, but it is not fair to women. Our gender has a right to protection from this.

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:42 pm**

No one has ever claimed that trans women are "biologically" women (i.e. there is a clear distinction made between sex and gender), and the rejection of trans women as women by the trans-exclusionary crowd goes far beyond issues related to biology. They assert that someone who wasn't born with a vagina has no claim to be considered a woman for any purpose. For example, trans-exclusionary lesbians reject identifying a trans woman who is attracted to women as a lesbian; they claim that she is a heterosexual man. Trans-exclusionary feminists deny that trans women experience sexist oppression because, regardless of how trans women present to the world, they see the oppression of women as being driven completely by biology, i.e. if you weren't born with a vagina, you can't experience sexism.

I confess to knowing next to nothing about the "rules" that may apply to trans women competing in women's sports, but given how rarely it actually occurs, I see it much more frequently used as a wedge to deny trans women recognition as women in much broader contexts.

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:10 pm**

They assert that someone who wasn't born with a vagina has no claim to be considered a woman for any purpose.

We can probably agree on a big fuck off to those folks.

For example, trans-exclusionary lesbians reject identifying a trans woman who is attracted to women as a lesbian

I watched something along these lines transpire at work, and I will admit that the trans-her who was attracted to the lesbian-her confused the hell out of me. Both were under my supervision at work and lesbian-her complaining about trans-her hitting on lesbian-her was awkward as heck.

Trans-exclusionary feminists deny that trans women experience sexist oppression because, regardless of how trans women present to the world, they see the oppression of women as being driven completely by biology, i.e. if you weren't born with a vagina, you can't experience sexism.

Ok, if I could take a pill which turned my skin black would that automatically grant me the wisdom to ever understand what it means to be black? It would not, and I might justifiably be viewed by blacks who were born black as some Johnny-come-lately pretender. Being black is as biologically driven as being female is. I can darken my skin, but I can never, under current options available, re-engineer myself to be black. (And if I could I still would not immediately, or possibly ever at my age, understand what it means to be black and have been held back by systemic racism. Now make that sentence with black substituted by female and racism substituted by sexism. ) So possibly the women have a valid point.

Posted: **Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:42 pm**

Joe Guy wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:04 pm
And the colored girls women of color go:
doo-doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo (doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Doo-doo-doo, dooh)

Fixed.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:14 am**

I'm sick of hearing about all seven of them. Pipe down already

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:27 am**

I once dated a woman who sold insurance. She turned out to be a transamerican.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:01 pm**

Joe Guy wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:27 am
I once dated a woman who sold insurance. She turned out to be a transamerican.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:06 pm**

Trans-exclusionary feminists deny that trans women experience sexist oppression because, regardless of how trans women present to the world, they see the oppression of women as being driven completely by biology, i.e. if you weren't born with a vagina, you can't experience sexism.

While that is possibly correct (I really cannot say for certain) I would think there is much more to being a woman that being subjected to sexist oppression (even if one does rank that oppression as a major factor). I am also surprised that members of a group that rates oppression so important, would choose to oppress another minority; it makes very little sense to me. And ultimately, it comes down to a label; these people remind me of the people who object to same sex couples who have been legally married to call themselves married.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:58 am**

Scooter wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:47 pm
"Gender critical" is the new Orwellian-speak for transphobic.

And I'm sorry, you can't claim to stand up for trans rights if you deny that trans women are women and/or that trans men are men. That's like saying you stand for racial justice but don't believe that Blacks should have the right to vote.

JK Rowling disagrees with you.

yrs,
rubato

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2020 2:27 am**

I'm sure that David Duke would disagree with me about being a racist, but that changes nothing.

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:34 am**

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:36 am**

Not a cogent response. And she is nothing like trans-phobic. And her writing supports it. She has a long record of thoughtful opinions and has earned the right to be taken seriously and not shouted down by people unable to think things through for themselves without consulting the mob.

She is expressing the view that the definition of "woman" is biological. A reasonable and clear definition offensive to no one.

If someone came up to me and said they were from Uranus it would not oblige me to agree and call him/her a Uranal. If I thought they were exceptionally deluded, childish or stupid I might play along by way of patronizing them but there is no obligation to do so. And patronizing someone is more offensive than telling them what you really think.

yrs,
rubato

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:42 am**

To say that "woman" is strictly biological is to deny that trans women are women, I.e. it denies their very identity. She can dress up her "support" any way she wants, the essence of her position is that trans women are really men playing dressup. It doesn't get any more transphobic than that.

It's no different than saying that gayness is not a legitimate sexual orientation, and that all gay people are really heterosexuals who are pretending to be attracted to the same sex.

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:10 am**

Isn’t there a middle way? Is it possible to both support that trans women are women, and to support that persons born biologically female and raised gendered female have a particular lived experience of misogyny and sexism that is different?

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:19 am**

I assume that "trans" people are in fact the opposite gender to what has been assigned (without getting into what "assign" means).

So a man who gets bits cut off and others augmented to be a "woman" is, in effect, a woman and vice versa. The defining element is not a uterus but chromosomes.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that. If a chap merely "thinks" he should be a woman and goes about dressed up as and acting like one, then he's not a transsexual woman but a transvestite.

Rowling is correct in the latter case but not in the first. I think.

Plan B Forum

Lesbians and trans women..

Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..

Re: Lesbians and trans women..