THE GLINNER UPDATE
A handful of the good news stories from the gender beat this week. Enjoy!
Leaving Them Kids Alone
A Missouri judge has upheld the state’s ban on medical interventions for minors suffering with gender issues.
The 2023 legislation, Senate Bill 49, prohibits the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery to treat gender dysphoria in children under the age of eighteen in Missouri. This law has been challenged in the courts by a group of parents of so-called ‘trans children’.
This week, Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter upheld Senate Bill 49. In his 74-page ruling he wrote that state legislatures have a right to restrict medical practices that have a lack of consensus when it comes to medical ethics. Carter concluded that there is “An almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment,” and thus granted the state legislature authority to ban such interventions.
Between These Walls
Argentinian President, Javier Milei, has vowed that the country’s female prisons will be strictly single sex.
This week, Javier Milei, the president of Argentina, promised to ban trans-identified males from female prisons. He told reporters, “Recently, we’ve seen cases of criminals using the gender identity law to claim they’re women who should be in women’s prisons… That’s why we’re putting an end to this nonsense. We’re going to ban it. Criminals won’t be able to request prison transfers under gender identity and we’ll push for provincial prisons to adopt this policy”.
Stonewall in Court
Permission has just been granted by the Court of Appeal in Allison Bailey’s ongoing legal battle against Stonewall and the reasons given are extremely hopeful.
Allison Bailey was a criminal defence barrister. She is a feminist, a lesbian and a lifelong campaigner for racial equality and lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights. Together with other LGB campaigners, she co-founded the LGB Alliance in order to uphold the rights of those same-sex (not gender) attracted and to challenge Stonewall’s all-pervading influence in UK public life. Stonewall retaliated by colluding with the chambers of which Bailey was a member to try and silence her with Garden Court Chambers placing her under investigation.
She then the took legal action against both Garden Court Chambers and Stonewall.
The judgment handed down in Allison Bailey’s employment tribunal in July 2022 found unanimously that she had been discriminated against and victimised by Garden Court Chambers and she was subsequently awarded £20,000 in costs. However, her claim against Stonewall for causing a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. Earlier this year, Allison appealed this decision and, sadly, was unsuccessful.
But Allison was determined to bring Stonewall to justice and filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against Stonewall, appealing the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment. This week permission was granted by the Court of Appeal in Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited.
“The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.”
Round 3 is on. The hearing is likely to take place next year at the earliest. We wish Allison and her legal team the very best of luck.
The Future is Rosie
The indomitable Rosie Duffield is back on The Women and Equalities Committee.
The Women and Equalities Committee is a cross-party group of House of Commons MPs which examines the work of the Government Equalities Office, holds the government to account on equality policy and law – including the Equality Act 2010 -and also scrutinises the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
This week Rosie Duffield re-joined the committee, having been offered one of the two places allocated to Conservative MPs.
Women Won’t Wheesht in Court
The fantastic For Women Scotland were at the Supreme Court this week to continue their ongoing battle to protect the definition of the word ‘woman’.
This fight began when the Scottish Government introduced its Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) Bill in 2018. The intention was to increase the representation of women on public boards. However, the Statutory Guidance rendered the act absolutely futile because the word ‘woman’ was redefined to include males who identify as women.
The brilliant warriors at FWS have been fighting this misogynistic nonsense ever since, culminating in their landmark court case this week. Their case was heard in Courtroom 1 of the UK Supreme Court in Westminster and argued by barrister, Aidan O’Neill KC. It included interventions from Sex Matters, the LGB Alliance, Scottish Lesbians, and The Lesbian project.
There were so many supporters in court (including Joanna Cherry KC, EHRC Commissioner, Akua Reindorf, journalists Fiona Parker and Nick Wallis, and law expert, Dr Michael Foran) that an overflow room had to be used.
You can watch back each session of the hearing by using this link.
The case hinges on the overlap of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. The former allows a male to obtain a gender recognition certificate and be treated under the law as the opposite sex ‘for all purposes’. The latter includes both ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’ as protected characteristics. The issue being discussed in court is how ‘sex’ should be defined in this collision of the two Acts; biological sex (ie the only and actual kind) or legal sex (ie having a piece of paper that says ‘woman’ on it)?
Hannah Barnes wrote an extremely comprehensive summary of the case in The New Statesman and Ian Macwhirter delivered a great comment piece in The Times. The incredibly hard-working Tribunal Tweets provided a detailed account of the court proceedings with their invaluable live tweeting and Sex Matters has compiled an exhaustive list of links for further details and background information etc.
You can also hear the wonderful Rosie Duffield MP and Susan Smith of FWS talking to Andrew Marr about the case on LBC.
The outcome of the case – the court’s decision is expected next year – could be a real game-changer in the fight against gender woo. But, whatever happens, we extend our heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to the formidable, tenacious and courageous women warriors of FWS (and their supporters!) for taking on this fight. Brava, sisters.
And Finally…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply