Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

I am suing Stonewall to stop them policing free speech

[quote] My name is Allison Bailey. I am a criminal defence barrister, a feminist, a lesbian, a lifelong campaigner for racial equality, lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights, and a survivor of child sexual abuse.

[quote] With other LGB rights campaigners, I helped to set up the LGB Alliance. In retribution for this, Stonewall Diversity Limited (Stonewall), co-ordinated with the barristers’ chambers of which I am a member to put me under investigation. This was an attempt by Stonewall to intimidate and silence me and others critical of what we see as its malign influence in British life: workplaces, schools, universities, the police, the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service, and all government departments.

[quote] I am crowdfunding to pay for legal representation to take this case to the Employment Tribunal to show that: no one should be discriminated against or victimised for campaigning for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights; LGB people are free to organise and campaign around sexual orientation and not trans rights without apology or permission from Stonewall or anyone else; criticism and investigation of notions of gender identity that are in conflict with, and doing harm to, the interests, safety and rights of women, children and LGB people, is not hateful or transphobic.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 110Last Monday at 12:30 PM

[bold]Who am I[/bold]

[bold]Coming out in the era of section 28 [/bold]

[quote]I am from Oxford, England, the daughter of Jamaican immigrant parents. By the time I was 17 years old, I realised that I was same-sex attracted, that I was a lesbian. It was the late 1980s, a desperately hard and lonely time to be a lesbian, gay or bisexual young person in the United Kingdom. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was an historic act of wickedness that left young LGB teenagers like me with no resources, support or guidance whatsoever. I bear the scars of that abandonment to this day.

[quote]Despite section 28 and coming from a community not renowned for its acceptance of homosexuality, I have fond memories of finding community with other LGB people in Oxford in the late 1980s. There were two gay pubs: the Jolly Farmers and the Apollo. I frequented both. There was also a disco night above the Co-op on the Cowley Road. I knew that being openly and proudly lesbian was an act of self-preservation as much as it was one of defiance and activism. I knew this because I lived it. I can remember sitting in the Apollo as ACT-UP Silence = Death was explained to me and a badge pinned to my jacket. This was my community and I was determined and proud to be a part of it. I always have been.

by Anonymousreply 1Last Saturday at 4:47 AM

[bold]LGB & racial politics in the USA[/bold]

[quote]I left section 28 Britain for the USA in my late teens. I would spend the next 6 years living and working in the USA, much of it as a bookseller and community activist. I lived on The Castro and worked in the Mission District, in San Francisco, California; the epicentre of gay and radical left political activism, respectively, at the height of the AIDS epidemic.

[quote]I did voluntary work as a Black British woman working with African-American women on a local level to provide advocacy, community support and friendship to other black women, straight and LGB, facing social, health and income inequality in the San Francisco Bay Area.

by Anonymousreply 2Last Saturday at 4:47 AM

Love her

by Anonymousreply 3Last Saturday at 4:47 AM

[bold]Black Lives Matter[/bold]

[quote]In 1991, I watched television footage in horror and anger as LAPD officers were captured surrounding and beating Rodney King, an unarmed black man lying prone on the ground.

[quote]I hoped against all expectation that the police officers responsible would face justice. In 1992, when those same police officers were all acquitted, I took to the streets in peaceful protest, along with many others in San Francisco, as the Los Angeles riots raged. Then as now, LGB people from all walks of life stood in solidarity against racial injustice. I and many others were unlawfully arrested in San Francisco that night and unlawfully imprisoned. I was sent to Santa Rita Women's Jail.

[quote]I welcome the Black Lives Matter movement. I am hopeful that we may have finally arrived at a moment in history when racial injustice and police brutality can finally be addressed and reparations made.

[quote]However, I reject the suggestion by trans activists and their supporters, including so called anti-fascist journalists, that women like me must give way in our activism to more worthy causes and just shut up about our concerns about the new trans activism, as advocated for by Stonewall. This argument seems itself racist, misogynist, naive and self-indulgent.

[quote]Just as there may finally be a reckoning about racial injustice, I hope there may also one day soon be a similar reckoning about male violence, oppression and woman-hatred; including a reckoning about this moment in history when men tried to run off with women’s rights.

by Anonymousreply 4Last Saturday at 4:48 AM

[bold]The new trans activism: all scrutiny and critical voices labelled ‘transphobic’ [/bold]

[quote] In early 2018, when I first heard that plans were underway to make the lives of trans people easier, my reaction was that this was a good thing and I did not give it a second thought. I kept coming across the term ‘TERF’ but ignored it. I thought that bigots were simply being called out.

[quote] Then one day I clicked on a link: terfisaslur.com where someone had collated the online abuse that was being directed at women who I realised had entirely valid concerns and questions about the wisdom of replacing sex with gender.

[quote] I learnt that the new trans activism wants to smash the distinctions between men and women; replacing sex with notions of gender identity; making sexual difference a matter of self identification; and demands that any and every man that wishes to identify as a woman must be allowed to do so.

[quote] I learnt that the new trans activism is focusing, inexplicably, on young children and declaring them ‘trans’; treating puberty as a disease to be blocked with powerful drugs; delivering our young people into the arms of a multi-million pound industry of big pharmaceutical companies and plastic surgeons.

[quote] I saw that the same males who would have society regard them as women, were quick to brandish knives, axes, baseball bats and nooses, as they threatened with rape women who questioned the wisdom of replacing sex with gender —TERFs.

[quote] I realised that the new trans activism operated a crude but effective system of punishment and reward: agree with every demand of the trans lobby and be safe; object and face vilification, abuse, boycott, character assassination and cancellation.

[quote] I was horrified (and terrified).

[quote] I wanted to look away, to pretend that I had not seen it; that it did not reveal the worst woman-hating, lesbian hating, misogyny that I have ever come across in my lifetime.

[quote] I did not look away and I urge others not to either. Thanks to brave women who have come before me, such as the late, great, Magdalen Berns, whose courage and no nonsense approach to calling out the new trans activism as the men’s rights movement it so clearly is, gave me courage.

by Anonymousreply 5Last Saturday at 4:50 AM

[quote] I realised that I did not have to accept that any man can claim to be legally a woman, without having to undergo any hormone or surgical intervention, psychological evaluation or risk assessment.

[quote] I realised that it was okay and necessary to say that it is reckless and naive to think that men will only identify as women if they are stunning and brave and harmless: that the wicked, abusive, predatory, unwell and downright cantankerous will, by some miracle, refuse to take advantage of free and easy access to women, to their politics, safe spaces, sports, legal protections and identities.

[quote] I was shocked to discover that significant numbers of male sex offenders are permitted to identify as women and nothing is being done to stop them. In England and Wales, some 40 per cent or more of trans identified males in the prison population are men with convictions for sex offences, including rape and possession of the most serious indecent images of children. I read a steady stream of news reports from around the world of males who identify as women committing serious sex offences.

[quote] It is repugnant to me and wholly unacceptable, and frankly unbelievable, that the new trans activism demands that sex crimes committed by males who identify as women are recorded as having been committed by women; and that these males can demand to be referred to by female pronouns.

[quote] I discovered that women incarcerated in prison are left vulnerable to serious sexual assault and mental anguish, as males, including sex offenders, are locked up with them. The new trans activism demands that a man’s desire to identify as a woman is more important than the right of imprisoned women to safety and dignity. These women have no way to escape, no choice, they are locked up. I do not see how this is anything other than state facilitated abuse and mental torture.

[quote] Where there should have been discussion, investigation and inquiry, there has been the silencing of concerned and critical voices; not voices from the far right, but from women like me, who are of and from the progressive left.

[quote] Mantras have been chanted because the new trans activism is a movement that cannot bear scrutiny: TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN; TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS; TRANS PEOPLE ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE; PROTECT OUR TRANS SIBLINGS, and so on, do nothing to engage with and address the serious concerns that exist about replacing sex with gender.

[quote] The new trans activists are joined by politicians, journalists, lawyers, writers, entire organisations, and assorted celebrities, in the chanting of these mantras to shut down debate, while others who are appalled at what they see happening are too afraid to speak out. It is cult like behaviour, it is Orwellian, and it has disgraced and shamed a generation.

[quote] Labelling all critical voices ‘transphobic’ is a cynical political ploy of the new trans activism. It must be resisted.

by Anonymousreply 6Last Saturday at 4:50 AM

[bold]Surviving child sexual abuse: understanding that women and girls are oppressed because of their sex and not their gender identity[/bold]

[quote] The man who sexually abused me as a 9 year old little girl; the man who targeted my single-parent mother; the man who told me that I could trust him whilst he slipped drugs into my orange squash to render me helpless as he sexually assaulted me, was tried and convicted of multiple sexual assaults against me in 2015, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He was released from prison last month (May 2020) to serve out the rest of his sentence on licence.

[quote] I make this disclosure now because I feel compelled to stand in solidarity with other women with similar experiences of male physical and sexual violence. It is not weaponising trauma to say so, any more than recounting racist abuse is.

[quote] We must not allow men or women to bury, minimise and ignore the visceral reality of male violence. We must not allow the new trans activism to force survivors back into the closet; this would be an abuser’s charter.

[quote] It should be a cause of great alarm that the new trans activism takes such a regressive and shaming attitude to disclosures of abuse. This culture of denial and belittling has been the bedrock and the hallmark of every abuse scandal. It is a red flag that signals a safeguarding catastrophe in the making.

[quote] It is women like me whose lives have been torn apart and seriously blighted by wanton acts of male violence that know that men are often not who they say they are or claim to be.

[quote] I know that conflating sex with notions of gender identity will leave women with no legally enforceable boundaries against any man.

[quote] I know that if the new trans activism is not brought to heel, women will disappear as a political class.

by Anonymousreply 7Last Saturday at 4:51 AM

[quote] I am not a woman because of feelings in my head. I was not a little girl, vulnerable to the sexual gaze and then sexual assault by a middle-aged man because of feelings in my head. Women are not murdered and violently assaulted by men on an industrial scale because of feelings in their heads.

[quote] Telling little girls and young women that men who have feelings in their head that they are women make them any less of a statistical threat to their safety and well-being is dangerous and fanatical nonsense; legislating on this basis, utter madness.

by Anonymousreply 8Last Saturday at 4:52 AM

Yeah, OP - you've already linked to the article. There's no need to cut and paste it too.

by Anonymousreply 9Last Saturday at 4:53 AM

[bold] My story [/bold]

[bold] The need for a new lesbian, gay and bisexual organisation: the birth of the LGB Alliance [/bold]

[quote] In 2019, I helped to set up the LGB Alliance with other campaigners and activists who felt, like me, that organisations such as Stonewall had seriously lost their way in recent years: they had conflated sex with gender, meaning that same sex attraction – the fundamental basis of lesbian and gay attraction, and therefore the fundamental basis of lesbian and gay rights – was no longer recognised. The impacts of this have been several and severe, and in order to campaign properly for gay and lesbian rights, we felt that a new organisation was required.

[quote] 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.

[quote] 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.

[quote] 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.

[quote] 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.

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

[quote] It is a terrible 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.

by Anonymousreply 10Last Saturday at 4:53 AM

r9, if you'd read it, you'd know it's not an article but a crowdfund.

by Anonymousreply 11Last Saturday at 4:54 AM

[quote] I had been concerned about Stonewall for several months. In December 2018, my chambers had become a member of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme, and I had voiced my concern about this within chambers. I felt troubled by the scheme, because I felt that it allowed Stonewall to police the opinions and views of individuals whose organisations (such as mine) had joined the scheme.

[bold] Leaving women with no legally enforceable boundaries against men: Stonewall’s Acceptance without Exception policy [/bold]

[quote] The opinions in particular that I felt that Stonewall were policing were those which conflicted with Stonewall’s approach to discussions around sex and gender. Stonewall’s mantra is “acceptance without exception“, particularly of people who were born as men but who then identify as women: as a woman, a lesbian, a criminal defence barrister and someone who has had extensive experience of male violence, abuse and oppression of women, I believe that there should be some exceptions to males being admitted into female spaces.

[quote] These exceptions are already recognised and are contained in the Equality Act 2010. The removal of those exceptions, and a change in the law to allow them, is one of Stonewall’s explicit campaigning aims. I do not believe that this is consistent with campaigning for LGB rights; indeed one of the matters about which Stonewall later complained about me to my chambers was my vociferous objection to a Stonewall advocate lecturing on the “cotton ceiling” – the term used to encourage lesbians to have sex with males. This is in my view abusive, coercive and fundamentally homophobic. It ought to be absolutely anathema to any organisation which labels itself as a gay rights organisation as Stonewall does.

[quote] I have been abused as transphobic and bigoted. This is absolutely not the case. I have always been an advocate for transgender rights. I believe passionately that transgender people must enjoy protection under the law from discrimination and abuse. I abhor all attempts to strip transgender people of the full rights of citizenship; and in the USA the horrific killing of black trans identified males, trans women (by other males). However, I do not accept, for one moment, that in order to secure protections for trans women, including from male violence, women must lose a single one of the the hard won rights and protections they have from men, however males identify.

by Anonymousreply 12Last Saturday at 4:55 AM

I just donated. I totally agree with her. I know someone who left Stonewall a few years back and went back into the private sector. It’s absolutely ridden with this anti-lesbian crap.

by Anonymousreply 13Last Saturday at 4:55 AM

[quote] The label of transphobic has been applied to me and to others like me who recognise that sex is immutable. A person may identify as they identify, and they should be protected and respected for their identity. However, a person’s identity is not a license to cause distress or intimidation to others, and can never legitimately be used to put others to harm. There are necessary exceptions to the acceptance of males in female spaces, and those exceptions are necessary to protect women.

[quote] These injustices arise as a result of the misguided insistence that gender has somehow replaced sex as a fundamental aspect of human identity. It is for that reason that I am gender critical. This is not to say that gender is not a genuine aspect of identity for some people. But it is separate and does not (and cannot) replace sex.

[quote] The result of Stonewall’s “acceptance without exception” mantra is to put women at risk of harm. The insertion of self-identifying trans women into the female prison population has resulted in the sexual assault and rape of women. Women would be effectively excluded from the top echelons of women’s sport if male-bodied athletes are entitled to compete alongside them. The acceptance of male-bodied people in female-only public spaces such as changing rooms and medical settings excludes women whose religious beliefs prevent them from sharing space in a state of undress with males. The acceptance of male-bodied people in female-only spaces will cause trauma, fear and distress to many survivors of male violence.

[quote] Perhaps most specifically from my point of view, that Stonewall unilaterally and without any mandate whatsoever, and to further its lobbying ambitions, redefined homosexuality as same-gender and not same-sex attraction was an especially egregious betrayal of LGB people, especially lesbians. The inclusion of male-bodied people into the class of lesbian women means that lesbians are excoriated for bigotry and transphobia simply for being same-sex attracted. This is base homophobia.

[quote] It was because of these injustices – and the role as I and others saw of it of Stonewall in promoting these injustices – that the LGB Alliance was set up, in order to fill the void in LGB campaigning that Stonewall had left when they decided to campaign for “acceptance without exception”.

by Anonymousreply 14Last Saturday at 4:55 AM

Karen!

by Anonymousreply 15Last Saturday at 4:56 AM

[bold] Stonewall (a registered charity) throwing its weight around & trying to police & silence its critics [/bold]

[quote] In October 2019, I tweeted about the launch of the LGB Alliance. My chambers contacted me to say that they were concerned by some of the replies that they were receiving on Twitter, and asked me to remove reference to chambers on my twitter bio. I did so.

[quote] However, chambers also tweeted that they were investigating me, implying that I had somehow done something wrong. They did not tell me before they issued that statement, and it does not appear that they were in fact investigating anything when they initially said that they were.

[quote] Over a week later, I was informed that a complaint had been received from Stonewall and that this was now under investigation. When the complaint was provided to me, I saw that what Stonewall had written was misleading and disingenuous. The complaint included a threat that Stonewall’s relationship with chambers would be damaged unless chambers took action against me.

[quote] I engaged fully with the complaint, providing a lengthy response to the investigation. Nevertheless, the investigation upheld complaints against me.

[quote] I felt that the way in which this had been done validated the concerns that I had expressed the previous year, and which Nicholas Hellen reported in The Sunday Times, and that Stonewall were in effect policing me through my chambers simply for being critical of their work and for raising concerns about their work. I felt that chambers were intimidated by Stonewall into reaching a finding against me, mindful that Stonewall are a significant and (to many people) ostensibly benign organisation.

by Anonymousreply 16Last Saturday at 4:56 AM

[bold] Stonewall: nothing to disclose — until there was [/bold]

[quote] I lodged Subject Access Requests to my chambers and to Stonewall, asking for the data they held on me. My chambers replied with 4 lever arches of documents; Stonewall initially denied that they had any documents at all, despite the fact that their complaint to my chambers had already been provided to me so I knew that they had this document at least – and the absence of that document in their response indicated that there were other documents to which I was entitled and which they were withholding from me.

[quote] When I raised with Stonewall that I knew that they were withholding documents from me in breach of their legal obligations, and the possibility of a referral to the Information Commissioner, they responded by providing me with some documents. These show that:

[quote] - Individuals within my chambers were liaising with Stonewall in the days following the launch of the LGB Alliance,

[quote] - Stonewall were involved in eliciting complaints against me from third party organisations and directing them to my head of chambers.

[quote] - The process by which chambers was deciding how to deal with me was being shared with Stonewall, and Stonewall were strategising on how to shape its outcome, including in relation to specific internal meetings at chambers.

[quote] - “Roundtable” and “data gathering” meetings appear to have been held between my chambers and Stonewall in which I was discussed.

[quote] None of this was known to me at the time, and none of it was known to me until Stonewall provided its second response to the Subject Access Request.

by Anonymousreply 17Last Saturday at 4:57 AM

[bold] The case against Stonewall (& my chambers) [/bold]

[quote] The case that I am bringing is that I have been subjected to victimisation because of the concerns I raised about Stonewall’s actions.

[quote] 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.

[quote] I am suing both my chambers and Stonewall because Stonewall caused and induced the treatment to which I was subjected by my chambers.

by Anonymousreply 18Last Saturday at 4:58 AM

[bold] What I am crowdfunding for and why I need your help [/bold]

[quote] This is a case about me and my treatment. But it is also a case about Stonewall and its conduct against people who hold beliefs like mine. I do not believe that my treatment by Stonewall is unique, and I suspect that there are many others (whether they know it or not) who have been subjected to the same treatment. I hope that as a result of bringing this claim this treatment will stop.

[quote] I have instructed Peter Daly of Slater and Gordon Lawyers, and Aileen McColgan QC to represent me (this is not my area of law and a case of this importance and complexity needs experts in the field of employment law). The claim has been lodged at the Employment Tribunal and once processed both Stonewall and chambers will be required to issue their defences to the claim. At that point we will be able to identify the full scope of work required to see the matter to a conclusion.

[quote] Thank you for your support.

[quote] Happy #PRIDE2020! Sending love x

by Anonymousreply 19Last Saturday at 4:59 AM

Americans, take heed: If the proposed changes to the Equality Act, which conflate sex and 'gender identity', pass the Senate, gay rights and women's rights will no longer exist. Contact your Senators and ask them to remove 'gender identity' from the proposed amendment.

by Anonymousreply 20Last Saturday at 5:01 AM

And the trans terrorists have had her crowdfund pulled.

by Anonymousreply 21Last Saturday at 5:13 AM

[quote] crowdjustice appear to have closed my crowdfund against Stonewall and my chambers. It had reached a record breaking £48K in 6 hours. Could this all get anymore sinister? Don’t worry, I will raise the money. I’m not going anywhere. We will triumph. Keep heart xx

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 22Last Saturday at 5:22 AM

Responses to the cowardice:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23Last Saturday at 5:32 AM

[quote] And the trans terrorists have had her crowdfund pulled.

F&F the idiot OP for wasting a thread on this DOA bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 24Last Saturday at 5:35 AM

Allison Bailey is a black lesbian feminist barrister. The daughter of Jamaican immigrants, she was raised by a single mother and was the victim of child sexual abuse when she was nine. She marched on Pride in San Francisco in the early 90s and is a lifelong LGB activist... 1/7

Last year, an organisation tried to destroy @BluskyeAllison's career. It complained to her chambers because it didn't like her views. It elicited complaints against her from other organisations and directed them to her head of chambers. She was being openly victimised. 2/7

Which organisation persecuted a working-class, black, lesbian feminist barrister like this? Some lunatic racist outfit from the far right, maybe? The kind of body that can't cope with uppity black women like @BluskyeAllison and needs to destroy her? 3/7

That last part is certainly true, but the first part? It will surprise many people to learn that the organisation that targeted @BluskyeAllison and did its best to destroy her hard-won career was @stonewalluk. Yep, fluffy, benign Stonewall, the champion of diversity. 4/7

Not if you're guilty of wrong-think, it isn't. The truth is, Stonewall is an Orwellian organisation, with tentacles in every area of public and private life, policing those who dare dispute its central doctrine that a man with a beard and penis is a woman if he says he is. 5/7

And even though Stonewall is female-led (with a female CEO and chair), the dissidents it hates most of all are women – in this case, a black, working-class, lesbian woman who managed to create a brilliant career through her own hard work. 6/7

Sounds unbelievable? All the details are in @BluskyeAllison's crowdfunder. If you think @stonewalluk is a benign organisation, you're in for a rude awakening. Do make a donation if you can afford it

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25Last Saturday at 5:49 AM

Thank you, OP, for posting all the info that was in the article here on DL, especially since they have now removed this woman’s page (deleting the article) and are trying to silence her (again); unbelievable!

by Anonymousreply 26Last Saturday at 7:00 AM

If anyone was previously doubting the ideological capture and the absolute hatred trans activists have for free speech and women, let this event be noted.

by Anonymousreply 27Last Saturday at 8:51 AM

What’s up, Oprah?

What’s up, Gayle?

What’s up Robin?

What’s up Wanda?

by Anonymousreply 28Last Saturday at 8:54 AM

Is there some other way of donating to her? She is doing the Lords work.

by Anonymousreply 29Last Saturday at 10:18 AM

r29...no one has mentioned a second plan yet. I don't know if they're still trying to work things out with "crowd justice", which needs to refund 50k pounds to thousands of people, or if she and her lawyers are arranging something else. Frankly, all the people who donated should stage a class action. It would be great to see in discovery who complained and about what. And what threats they made.

by Anonymousreply 30Last Saturday at 10:21 AM

But is she Jewish?

by Anonymousreply 31Last Saturday at 10:23 AM

This isn’t going anywhere lmao. You bigots are such losers.

by Anonymousreply 32Last Saturday at 10:24 AM

[quote]This isn’t going anywhere lmao. You bigots are such losers.

Go stuff a tampon up your ass, freak.

by Anonymousreply 33Last Saturday at 10:26 AM

R33

I hit a nerve. I am a gay man who accepts trans people and care about them and their rights. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 34Last Saturday at 10:28 AM

Homosexuality is not bigotry, it's a sexual orientation.

by Anonymousreply 35Last Saturday at 10:29 AM

R34 don't bother. This guy is way too far gone to be reached. Just let him talk to himself. It's almost certainly just one guy

by Anonymousreply 36Last Saturday at 10:37 AM

[quote]I hit a nerve. I am a gay man who accepts trans people and care about them and their rights. Deal with it.

Okay then. I'll let all the female rape victims that are housed with bio males in prisons to "deal with it". I'll tell all the young women who lose out on sports scholarships to bio males to "deal with it". I'll tell all the young gay men and women, who had their bodies ruined because they were brainwashed in childhood into thinking that they were trans, to "deal with it".

Seems like a winning argument.

by Anonymousreply 37Last Saturday at 10:37 AM

You're willing to martyr all gay people for the bio-medical industry to make lifelong patients sterilized gay children. How brave!

by Anonymousreply 38Last Saturday at 10:39 AM

R36, it’s Matthew Anscher, a deranged trans-hater who was banned from Twitter and who therefore constantly clears his cookies so he can post and “like” his own posts here again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again times a billion.

(Cue 20 of his sock puppets strenuously denying they are Matthew and ‘liking’ each fake post 30 times.)

by Anonymousreply 39Last Saturday at 11:05 AM

LGB Alliance have a site where you can donate. I will just donate to that for the time being:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40Last Saturday at 11:05 AM

[quote] [R34] don't bother. This guy is way too far gone to be reached. Just let him talk to himself. It's almost certainly just one guy

Count me as another.

by Anonymousreply 41Last Saturday at 11:06 AM

R39, I'm a gay woman from Denmark, but please do keep pretending that only one person on Datalounge hates the tranny agenda. It's to your own disadvantage, (and it's rather entertaining, too).

by Anonymousreply 42Last Saturday at 11:08 AM

...oh, and it’s just a matter of a few minutes until all the Matthews get my r39 F&F’d.

by Anonymousreply 43Last Saturday at 11:08 AM

r39, wrong wrong wrong again, as usual.

by Anonymousreply 44Last Saturday at 11:21 AM

The majority of online trans-activists are the same fucking Russians bots that have been flooding this board for years. And outside of mis-educated Western college kid circles, everyone fucking knows biological sex exists. TRAs are the most repugnant merger of left and right wing extremists. And I'm sure all those non-binary girls are going to be second guessing their trans support agenda after gender identity replaces biological sex in law and, with it, their abortion rights. Have fun fucking your 'transbians'!

by Anonymousreply 45Last Saturday at 11:25 AM

I think that each state in the US and maybe 2 or 3 locations in smaller countries should have one small protective section of jails and one prison or a wing in a larger prison to segregate all trans convicts together.

It solves all the problems of 'putting people in danger' housed with the 'wrong' populations. There are other protected populations (child murderers/rapists, cops) why not this one?

by Anonymousreply 46Last Saturday at 11:43 AM

r46, they'd need a whole prison for them.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 47Last Saturday at 11:54 AM

Well, yes if you need space for more convicts, dedicate more space. One prison per state, equality and safety for all.

by Anonymousreply 48Last Saturday at 12:06 PM

Here's the article in one piece -

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 49Last Saturday at 12:06 PM

r48, that's not possible in countries which have been persuaded to conflate biological sex and 'gender identity' into law. The US is next, despite already housing violent serial male rapists with women because they suddenly decide ten years into their life sentences that they think they're women.

by Anonymousreply 50Last Saturday at 12:08 PM

R30 to be clear, Crowdjustice don’t debit funds until a drive had met it’s goal which it hadn’t yet at the time Crowdjustice egregiously took it down. What they did is against their own policy though. I donated and I look forward to an alternative way to donate to Allison. I’ve sent them a shirty email using the donation confirmation email they sent me as a starting point protesting their capitulation to this revolting group-think.

by Anonymousreply 51Last Saturday at 12:57 PM

"I looked at Crowd Justice's website. Their terms and conditions are an interesting read, a fair few wouldn't stand much scrutiny (for example, they say they can take down your page and refuse to transfer funds to you within their complete discretion). "

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 52Last Saturday at 1:07 PM

Stonewall in the UK really is a disgusting organisation, even one of its founders wants nothing to do with it anymore.

by Anonymousreply 53Last Saturday at 1:19 PM

It's back up. CravenJustice is doublespeaking and edited Allison's statement.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54Last Saturday at 3:50 PM

r51, it had far surpassed its goal of 20k when it was taken down. They stretched to 40k and passed that, stretched to 60k and were at 48k when it was yanked.

by Anonymousreply 55Last Saturday at 3:52 PM

What a load of crap. Block.

by Anonymousreply 56Last Saturday at 3:59 PM

Lol imagine hating trans people so much you’re willing to waste your money on this garbage of a failure.

by Anonymousreply 57Last Saturday at 4:14 PM

Crowd justice page is back up.

I just donated.

by Anonymousreply 58Last Saturday at 4:15 PM

Translation: I think free speech means freedom from consequences. How dare people punish me for my bigotry towards trans people!

by Anonymousreply 59Last Saturday at 4:18 PM

[quote]Lol imagine hating trans people so much you’re willing to waste your money on this garbage of a failure.

No dear. Imagine a "gay" organization hating lesbians so much that they tried to get one disbarred, just because she started an organization that didn't include trannies.

by Anonymousreply 60Last Saturday at 4:18 PM

R60

It was always for LGBT. Stop trying to rewrite history. Stop the divisive hateful tactics. I’m so tired of the bad faith actors.

by Anonymousreply 61Last Saturday at 4:22 PM

What the fuck are you talking about R60? Her organization? Or gay organizations in general? Because no, the "T" was only added very late in the game. Most organizations started out as being lesbian and gay only.

Adding the T to the mix never made a lick of sense anyway.

by Anonymousreply 62Last Saturday at 4:31 PM

Meant to adress R62, obviously.

by Anonymousreply 63Last Saturday at 4:31 PM

Trannies are homophobic sexists. Being PRO-Gay PRO-Lesbian Pro-Women and Anti-gay conversion therapy are all GOOD THINGS.

by Anonymousreply 64Last Saturday at 4:32 PM

Trans people have been with us for decades. They have always faced similar discrimination and bullshit as us. Idiots want to divide us and spread hatred in our community when we were always supposed to be about love and acceptance.

by Anonymousreply 65Last Saturday at 4:32 PM

R62

From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT.

by Anonymousreply 66Last Saturday at 4:33 PM

So, R66? My point stands. They were latecomers, who never should have been a part of a movement for acceptance of SEXUALITY in the first place.

Their "rights" are now at odds with ours, and they need to leave the table.

by Anonymousreply 67Last Saturday at 4:39 PM

LITERAL VIOLENCE

by Anonymousreply 68Last Saturday at 4:50 PM

The bio-medical industry has basically turned a generation of nitwits into lobbyists for them. Have hundreds of thousands of dollars of elective surgeries that maim your bodies, make you sterile and ensure that you're incapable of orgasm, if you could even find someone willing to fuck you, and spend a lifetime -- because once you start, you can't actually stop -- getting hormone injections. Cool way to prop up a mom & pop (is that transphobic?) business like Big Pharma.

by Anonymousreply 69Last Saturday at 4:51 PM

Fuck you, R32. Misogynist fuckhead.

by Anonymousreply 70Last Saturday at 4:57 PM

Fuck you sideways, R57.

by Anonymousreply 71Last Saturday at 4:58 PM

I just donated. It’s a war on women.

by Anonymousreply 72Last Saturday at 4:59 PM

[quote]I am not a woman because of feelings in my head. I was not a little girl, vulnerable to the sexual gaze and then sexual assault by a middle-aged man because of feelings in my head. Women are not murdered and violently assaulted by men on an industrial scale because of feelings in their heads.

Dayuuumm.

by Anonymousreply 73Last Saturday at 5:03 PM

[quote]Lol imagine hating trans people so much you’re willing to waste your money on this garbage of a failure.

You moron, r57, you’ve just proved about five arguments against yourself.

Allison Bailey Esq says she's suing Stonewall.UK to to make Stonewall “stop policing free speech.” She claims Stonewall compiled a dossier on her because of views she expressed on her own time. Then they took the dossier to her employer, behind her back, and that Stonewall's actions resulted in adverse employment consequences for her. Outrageous conduct by Stonewall, if true.

But for you, lesbians supporting her, only do so because they “hate trans”. It’s always all about the trans, isn’t it?

by Anonymousreply 74Last Saturday at 5:07 PM

Fuck off liar at r61. UK Stonewall was strictly for gay issues up until a few years ago and was even attacked for it. So they got internalised lesbophobia lesbian Ruth Hunt in to run it and it turned into a transqueer cesspool of gay erasure. Even one of the founders of UK Stonewall, Simon Fanshawe, is so disgusted by how captured the organisation has become by the trans cult, he became a founder of the LGB Alliance!

And gay issues in general up until a decade or so ago were simply lesbian, gay and bisexual issues. The T was thrust upon us. Even Marsha only spoke in terms of gay rights and Pride was Gay Pride for decades.

Even if it had "always" been LGBT, what's wrong with the LGB, who have same-sex attraction in common, doing something separately from the T, which is about another issue entirely? No one criticises the T if they ever want to do anything on their own.

by Anonymousreply 75Last Saturday at 11:27 PM

Yes, the movement was prior to the ‘90s was just the Gay Rights movement. It wasn’t really until then that the term LGBT entered common parlance, which happened to appease lesbians who demanded their a term that specifically reference just them.

by Anonymousreply 76Last Sunday at 12:30 AM

Gay men are in denial about trans activists. They’re already stealing Stonewall out from under you. I don’t know what’s next, but they’re certainly not going to stop when they’ve got this much momentum.

by Anonymousreply 77Last Sunday at 1:50 AM

R77 I’m a gay mans and I’m not in denial. This is why it’s important for people to stick up for her and support her case so these activists through Stonewall can be knocked down a peg or two in court where it really matters. If trans activists want my support they can lay off all the “TERF” and “bleeders” bullshit and treat woman with the dignity and respect they want for themselves. Then they will have it and not before.

by Anonymousreply 78Last Sunday at 2:49 AM

Stonewall is led by a lesbian, who has just relaxed another lesbian, not a gay man.

We gay men are at the bottom of the ladder in our own movement.

by Anonymousreply 79Last Sunday at 2:51 AM

R39, I'd forgotten all about Matt and his "jenn-durr" posts, but you're right.

by Anonymousreply 80Last Sunday at 2:53 AM

The LGB Alliance is anti-gay marriage. Major LGB Alliance member and recruiter Gary Powell is an anti-abortion, anti-surrogacy sexist nutjob who gets paid by the Heritage Foundation and The Witherspoon Institute to speak at their meetings; they're both heavily anti-gay organizations. LGB Alliance will frequently RT The Federalist and Conservative Woman, and have been praised by Breitbart and Quillette.

by Anonymousreply 81Last Sunday at 3:09 AM

Where is your proof that they are "anti-gay marriage", R81? As for this Gary Powell person, his connection to them seems tenuous, but good on him for being anti-surrogacy.

by Anonymousreply 82Last Sunday at 3:33 AM

[quote]but good on him for being anti-surrogacy.

F&F R82.

by Anonymousreply 83Last Sunday at 3:34 AM

CrowdJustice has closed the collection because it hit its target. I wonder whether it was their decision or hers not to increase the target once again.

by Anonymousreply 84Last Sunday at 5:45 AM

I'm not too interested. Why don't you go talk about it on Mumsnet, R84.

by Anonymousreply 85Last Sunday at 5:47 AM

Then it makes perfect sense why you'd waste minutes of your life typing that replay, R84. Yes. minutes.

by Anonymousreply 86Last Sunday at 5:49 AM

*reply

by Anonymousreply 87Last Sunday at 5:50 AM

r84, she put out a statement saying she wanted to extend the target as the scope of the inquiry has expanded. CrowdJustice should be sued. Report them to the FTC for homophobia.

by Anonymousreply 88Last Sunday at 6:14 AM

Most gay men would be happy to hear it was closed, I bet.

So not homophobia.

by Anonymousreply 89Last Sunday at 6:17 AM

This is what she said early this morning UK time.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 90Last Sunday at 6:22 AM

$ounds like a $cam. If she really needed more money why would she start it at 20k? And now she thinks 60k is not enough? Lmao And she sounds like a conservative whiner.

by Anonymousreply 91Last Sunday at 6:35 AM

The entire Gay Rights movement (HRC, GLAAD, Stonewall) has been HIJACKED by "trans" who wouldn't even really be considered "trans" by the traditional definition of T (i.e. drag queen and super effeminate gay men)

by Anonymousreply 92Last Sunday at 6:38 AM

[quote] They've gone against their own clearly-expressed procedure and closed her page once it reached its stretch target.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 93Last Sunday at 6:39 AM

It said after the initial stretch target. She’s been stretching this out multiple times. When will you losers realize you are being hoodwinked?

by Anonymousreply 94Last Sunday at 6:44 AM

[quote]Stonewall is led by a lesbian, who has just relaxed another lesbian

Isn't that a good thing?

by Anonymousreply 95Last Sunday at 6:46 AM

r95 No. She's a toady. She's a scumbag. A complete scumbag selling out all gay rights for a very nice paycheck.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 96Last Sunday at 6:52 AM

R95

The point is that rad fems main issue is with other women.

But that produces cognitive dissonance in their minds.

by Anonymousreply 97Last Sunday at 7:01 AM

There is a concerted effort, spearheaded by the likes of James Billingham (@oolon on Twitter and co-creator of “TERFblocker”) and David Paisley (star of BBC soap River City and newly self-appointed trans-defending white knight) to suggest that the campaign is a “scam.” This is based on such brilliant legal insight as “Allison Bailey is a barrister so why can’t she do her on employment tribunal” and “she didn’t work for Stonewall so how can she sue them in an employment tribunal?”

My god, you guys have cracked the case! You’ve blown the whole thing right open!! You’d better get right into Allison’s legal team about how they missed this stuff!!!

It’s not like both of these questions can be answered by actual lawyers and they’re just examples of two thick non-lawyers mouthing off about stuff they have no absolutely no clue about, but who don’t let being clueless stop them.

by Anonymousreply 98Last Sunday at 7:07 AM

People have been taking crowdjustice to task for 2 days

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99Last Sunday at 7:14 AM

R94, that is entirely normal for legal crowdfunding campaigns where estimates of legal costs are an art and not a science, and it is not always possible to guess how long a case will take or how many stages ir will require. Indeed the “stretching” is a regular feature of the CrowdJustice site for that sort of reason.

Some people have got way too used to “no debate” and now actually don’t have any valid points, even if they were capable of arguing them.

Of course, some crowdfunded actions are questionable and I can think of one or two I’m suspicious of. But you’re going to have do better than that on this one.

by Anonymousreply 100Last Sunday at 7:17 AM

The LGBAlliance has managed to attack one of the few openly gay men in Parliament and Britain’s most noted gay rights campaigner in just the last week.

They also managed to tweet that anti gay marriage gem defence of Baroness Nicholson.

They’re homophobic cunts.

by Anonymousreply 101Last Sunday at 7:21 AM

R100

Why can’t she just be happy with the 60k? That’s 3x her starting amount. That’s why I think she, and her blind defenders, are acting stupid.

There are many more important gay issues that don’t receive this funding.

by Anonymousreply 102Last Sunday at 7:22 AM

R102

*that deserve more funding

by Anonymousreply 103Last Sunday at 7:26 AM

I actually agree — in reality, I think Allison Bailey should be happy with the amount R102, for what it’s worth, and that there are other causes to support, but CrowdJustice is imposing a cap despite it not previously indicating that there was one.

Either there is something wrong with the campaign and it shouldn’t raise any funds, or the campaign should be able to raise as much as it likes from people who want to give their money (it is up to them), with a clear use of funds statement, and an indication as to what would be done with any surplus.

To disable their own stretch function then CrowdJustice are going to need to rewrite their own Ts and Cs. Instead they’ve simply cut this one off. That looks political.

by Anonymousreply 104Last Sunday at 7:28 AM

I suspect she’s at least aware of the kind of money Posie Parker and Maya Forstater have made from fans.

Every movement becomes a racket...

by Anonymousreply 105Last Sunday at 7:44 AM

CrowdJustice was bribed/threatened by Stonewall aka Big Pharma.

by Anonymousreply 106Last Sunday at 7:45 AM

You know, R106, that’s libellous without proof.

by Anonymousreply 107Last Sunday at 7:47 AM

LOL r107

Don’t you know where you are?

Your post is clearly a legal threat, leveled in order to chill discussion of crowdjustice's treatment of this barrister, Allison Bailey.

... and also designed to chill discussion of Stonewall UK

by Anonymousreply 108Last Sunday at 8:48 AM

It is sad that a swarm has descended and f&f’d this thread to death. I can only wonder who they might be...

by Anonymousreply 109Last Monday at 12:29 PM

People who don't like a woman who associates with a homophobic group suing a gay rights group?

by Anonymousreply 110Last Monday at 12:30 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!