Jump to content

Talk:Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Change LGBT to LGB or TERF ?

I don't know exactly the consensus on wikipedia regarding this so I'll just write what I think here.

From the page: "Bailey, who is a feminist, a lesbian and a lifelong LGBT campaigner stands against changes in the law through which people born as men can self-identify as women."


The choice of lifelong LGBT campaigner seems incorrect to me as she apparenlty left LGBT rights organisation Stonewall after it started it's 'trans inclusion' policy. The second part of this same sentence (quoted above) also to me sends a similar message from TERFs (Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists) and might be more precise.

Also, I would note that in the quote from Bailey, she uses "LGB" and not 'LGBT'. Niquarl (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I've changed LGBT to LGB as that's how she uses it herself.Melissa Highton (talk) . 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

spelling out the words 'lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights' has further resolved the problem of redirecting to 'LGB'(talk) 18:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Melissa Highton

Tribunal hearing 12 October 2021

Ms Bailey’s crowdfunding page says: We had a successful administrative hearing in my Tribunal claim against Stonewall and Garden Court on Tuesday 12 October. A number of case management issues were dealt with, the main one being that I have been given permission to pursue my claim as direct discrimination on the basis of my gender critical beliefs, as well as the existing grounds of indirect discrimination and victimisation. The trial is still on track to commence on 25 April 2022. I will provide a more detailed update in due course. [1]

Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a suitable source for this information. Does anyone know of an acceptable source for this? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsuitable sources and original research

@Melissa Highton: (i) Please be more careful in your selection of sources, and in making sure that the source supports the statements you are adding. (ii) Your addition of lexisnexis as a source for the reference to S111 of the Equality Act is original research WP:OR. Please self-revert this. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple of citations on the page which lead to https://allisonbailey.co.uk/ including the main quote in the page. I think it is good in this case to use the language she uses - particularly in describing herself and her motivations. Ive added the link to s111 in case anyone wants to check it against the text she has on her page if you think it might not be reliable.Melissa Highton (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Query re inf from the Times 1 December 2021

@AndyGordon:Thanks for adding the inf from the Times about ‘philosophical belief’ being added as a ground of discrimination in this case. I don’t have access to the Times. Your edit says that the judge ruled on this matter in December 2021. According to Ms Bailey’s website, this ruling was made at a hearing on 12 October 2021. [2] (I didn’t add this because I thought it was not a suitable source.) What does the Times story say about the date of the decision? Also, is it certain that Stonewall opposed the application to amend the grounds? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: The Times' piece doesn't say unfortunately. You can access the full text via archive.today. The only date (roughly) mentioned is for the full hearing in April next year. I can only speculate as to why The Times is only publishing notice of it now, but I suspect that it's probably that the written decision wasn't available until on or around 1 December, and that what Allison published on her website was based on an oral judgement issued in October. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
That said, The Telegraph have a piece from two days prior stating that a decision from the case was published online on 29 November, though it characterises the decision somewhat differently to both The Times and Allison on her website. It also contradicts both in saying that the full hearing will occur in June next year. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: Thanks for the link. I will amend the article to say that this was reported in December 2021. I see that the Times article does say that Stonewall opposed the application, so it is correct to say that the judge ruled against Stonewall, and I will leave this, apart from deleting ‘again’, which I think is a bit editorialising. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok from me too. Thank you for checking these other sources. AndyGordon (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Description of result of the tribunal

@NHCLS: 1) I don’t understand why you object to the statement which I and another editor added saying that Bailey lost her claim against Stonewall. This was a significant part of her claim, and is probably the aspect which is of most interest to our readers. Surely you are not trying to conceal this from our readers?

2) Personnel Today (a source which I added) says “The tribunal, which began in April, found that by upholding the complaint against her, GCC had victimised her for a protected act – the fact she had tweeted about the idea of a “cotton ceiling” and her belief that Stonewall was driving a dangerous agenda around gender self-identification.” On Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. Are you saying that the Personnel Today article is wrong?

3) Your wording gives the misleading impression that the tribunal ruled that tweets by Ms Bailey were in breach of the core duties of barristers. There is a danger that Wikipedia might be suggesting that Ms Bailey breached these duties – which is misleading and perhaps potentially defamatory.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

1) I object to describing the findings in general as win/lose since she wasn't making a single claim. She made a number of claims, some of which were against Stonewall and some of which were against Garden Court Chambers, and then the tribunal made decisions on each of those individual claims. Like, the court upheld her claim that Garden Court Chambers discriminated against her but didn't uphold her claim that Garden Court Chambers caused her to lose income and didn't uphold her claim that Garden Court Chambers systemically considered gender-critical views bigoted - you can't really summarise that as just winning or losing her claim against the chambers.
2) and 3) The Personnel Today article isn't wrong: when Garden Court Chambers got complaints about her, they started an investigation. In this investigation, they concluded that two tweets she had made were likely to breach barristers' core duties - one about the cotton ceiling and saying Stonewall had an agenda. The tribunal ruled that Garden Court Chambers making this conclusion amounted to discrimination against her. The way the article was written before I made the edit, it said that the tribunal ruled that it was discrimination and also it ruled that it had victimised her over those tweets - it was saying the same thing twice. NHCLS (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Further points: There is now a story on this in the Guardian.[3]

a)This also says at the beginning that she was victimised, which is not currently mentioned in our article.

b) It includes: The panel, led by the employment judge Sarah Goodman, said GCC was wrong to publish a statement saying Bailey was being investigated in relation to her tweets after complaints, including from Stonewall, that they were transphobic, and to subsequently conclude that two of the tweets were likely to have breached a barrister’s core duties. However, it rejected her claim against Stonewall. So this says that the tribunal ruled that the idea that the tweets breached a barrister’s core duties was wrong – if this aspect is mentioned in our article, this should be made clear.

I will reply to your replies separately. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

She won some of her claims and lost others. She failed in all her claims against Stonewall – as I have said, this is a significant part of the judgment, which was made clear in my wording, but which is now obscure in your preferred wording. It is almost being euphemistic to refuse to say who won and who lost in a legal claim.
She won a claim of discrimination and a claim of victimisation against her chambers. The discrimination and victimisation are separate claims. The tribunal was not saying the same thing twice. My wording was accurate about this, and clearer than yours.
And if you want to give details of the decision, rather than just saying won or lost, then why did you delete my wording The chambers had also victimised her because of her tweet about the idea of a “cotton ceiling” and her belief that Stonewall had a dangerous agenda regarding gender self-identification.
I also await your reply to my further points.
Sweet6970 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
the tribunal ruled that the idea that the tweets breached a barrister’s core duties was wrong – if this aspect is mentioned in our article, this should be made clear - agreed, and that's what I was trying to do. Would it be clearer if it was formulated like "the tribunal ruled that Garden Court Chambers had discriminated against her by tweeting that complaints against her tweets would be investigated and had discriminated against her and victimised her by concluding in that investigation that two of her tweets, one tweet about the idea of a "cotton ceiling" and one tweet about her belief that Stonewall had a dangerous agenda regarding gender self-identification, had potentially breached the core duties of barristers."?
then why did you delete my wording - I didn't delete the wording, I moved into the preceding sentence (but you're right that I missed out the victimised her when I merged the two sentences together);
She failed in all her claims against Stonewall - would it work better if the paragraph went something like "Baliey made a number of claims against Garden Court Chambers and against Stonewall. In terms of the claims against Garden Court Chambers, the tribunal ruled that [insert the sentence above]. The tribunal also ruled that [insert the claims about the chamber the court ruled against]. In terms of the claims against Stonewall, the tribunal ruled against all of them, namely that [insert details]"? NHCLS (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I am agreeable to the current wording, after your amendment as you suggested above. It’s a pity that the case is so complicated, which makes it difficult to be both clear and accurate. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There's no template for a table where you could have each claim in one column and the tribunal's ruling on that claim in the other column, is there? NHCLS (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I know nothing about tables on Markup, and I don’t know of any suitable template – which does not mean one doesn’t exist. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

She failed in all her claims against Stonewall - Yes, but any victory Stonewall may wish to claim is a very Pyrrhic one given that the Tribunal agreed in paragraph 293 of its judgement (my emphasis added) that: “We concluded that all the claimant’s pleaded beliefs, not just the belief that woman is sex not gender, are protected”. Those protected beliefs, as set out in paragraph 279, are:

279. The beliefs for which Equality Act protection is claimed are set out in paragraph 8 of the further revised amended particulars of claim:

“She believed (and continues to believe) that the first respondent’s [Stonewall’s] campaigning on gender theory is sexist and homophobic. In particular, the claimant believed and believes that:

(a) Sex is real and observable. Gender (as proselytised by the First Respondent) is a subjective identity: immeasurable, unobservable and with no objective basis.

(b) At the root of the First Respondent’s espousal of gender theory is the slogan that “Trans Women Are Women”. This is advanced literally, meaning that a person born as a man who identifies as a woman literally becomes a woman for all purposes and in all circumstances purely and exclusively on the basis of their chosen identity. To all intents and purposes, the First Respondent has reclassified “sex” with “gender identity”.

(c) The tone of the First Respondent’s campaigning on this subject has been binary, absolutist and evangelical. It may be summarised as “You are with us, or you are a bigot.” Discussions on the subject have become extremely vitriolic, largely as a result of the First Respondent’s absolutist tone, replicated by other organisations with which the First Respondent works closely. This has resulted in threats against women (including threats of violence and sexual violence) becoming commonplace. The First Respondent has been complicit in these threats being made.

(d) Gender theory as proselytised by the First Respondent is severely detrimental to women for numerous reasons, including that it denies women the ability to have female only spaces, for example in prisons, changing rooms, medical settings, rape and domestic violence refuges and in sport.

(e) Gender theory as proselytised by the First Respondent is severely detrimental to lesbians. In reclassifying “sex” with “gender”, the First Respondent has reclassified homosexuality from “same sex attraction” to “same gender attraction”. The result of this is that heterosexual men who identify as trans women and are sexually attracted to women are to be treated as lesbians. There is therefore an encouragement by followers of gender theory (including the First Respondent) on lesbians to have sex with male-bodied people. To reject this encouragement is to be labelled as bigoted. This is inherently homophobic because it denies the reality and legitimacy of same sex attraction and invites opprobrium and threatening behaviour upon people who recognise that reality and legitimacy.

(f) It is particularly damaging to lesbians that the First Respondent has taken this position. The First Respondent had been the foremost gay and lesbian rights campaigning organisation in the UK and one of the world’s leading such organisations. The adoption of gender theory by the First Respondent therefore left those gay, lesbian and bisexual people who did not ascribe to gender theory without the representation that the First Respondent had previously provided, and left those people labelled as bigots by their primary representative organisation.

So Bailey's claims against Stonewall weren't successful, but the organisation doesn’t come out of the case very well at all. JezGrove (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the tribunal is setting out the beliefs held by Ms Bailey which are protected under the Equality Act. I don’t think that the tribunal is saying that it supports these beliefs. It is not necessary for the tribunal to share Ms Bailey’s beliefs in order to give a judgment that she has been discriminated against because of her beliefs. My impression from skimming the judgment was that Ms Bailey lost her claims against Stonewall on the facts – she could not show that Stonewall had instigated discrimination against her. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
No, the Tribunal wasn't saying that it shared the beliefs about Stonewall, simply that those beliefs are protected and "worthy of respect in a democratic society". Garden Court's actions were their own responsibility and they could simply have ignored Kirrin Medcalf's complaint. JezGrove (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Then I think we agree about the actual case. And I think it’s true that there was a fair amount of adverse publicity for Stonewall during the course of the proceedings. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is she even article-worthy?

Does every barrister merit their own page on Wikipedia?

Surely a reference to her in the article about transphobia/trans-exclusionary attitudes should be enough? 49.184.175.200 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Her case has been reported on by The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, and many others so I don't think notability is in question. Labelling her views as transphobia/trans-exclusionary is POV - she argues that her gender critical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010 as per the judgement in Maya Forstater's Employment Appeal Tribunal. We'll have to wait for EJ Goodman to rule in Bailey's case to see how her remarks and tweets were viewed by the tribunal panel. JezGrove (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be re-examined in light of wikipedia's WP:ONEEVENT policy. This article is entirely about this one court case, so I'll be moving the article to one specifically about the court case unless there is some good argument to be made about her individual notability. Estill-math (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed move. This article is about more than the tribunal case. For instance, she is also notable for her involvement with LGB Alliance. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)  
Her LGB alliance work has one sentence and it's under the heading for her court case. I think it'd be great if we could expand it and put it in its own section, but as of now this is still a one issue article. I'll hold off in case someone wants to do that work and can find the appropriate sourcing. Estill-math (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I also disagree. Doesn't Ernesto Miranda also fall into the same category, and yet he has an article separate from the one about the legal case for which he is remembered? JezGrove (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
No comment yet on Bailey's notability, but would a more topically relevant comparison not be Keira Bell, the complainant of Bell v Tavistock? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
From the wiki on people known for one event. I do agree with Sweet6970 that if we can get more reliable sourcing and a better article on her other work (with LGB alliance), that the page could be saved, but this court case isn't nearly as notable as Miranda's. Estill-math (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@Estil-math: I am baffled by your attitude. The views on this Talk page overall are that the article should be retained, yet you say ‘I’ll hold off…’ as if you have a right to edit against consensus, and you refer to the possibility of the article being ‘saved’ as if there had been some campaign to delete it. As I have already said (but you seem to have ignored) Allison Bailey is notable for her involvement in LGB Alliance. You have not provided any argument as to why this article should not be retained in its current state. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm baffled as to why you're so defensive. Moving the entirety of the article to a page about the case wouldn't change any of the information in the article as written. The intro information about Allison Bailey would all be kept, it would just have a more appropriate title. Besides a description of her early life, 100% of the article body is about this case. I believe this clearly puts it into the category where the consensus Wikipedia opinion Wikipedia:Notability (people) is that the article should be about the event not the person. You have said that she is more notable than just this one event, so I wanted to give you or someone else time to change the page reflect that notability because as of now it does not. Plus, hey if I change it and everyone disagrees, reverting just takes a few button clicks, so you're complaining really is just taking up more of your own time. Estill-math (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I would largely agree with your viewpoint on this. This individual only came into the public eye briefly because of one case against her now former employer. I don’t really think there is any other real meat in this article to justify a ‘notable people’ individual page. Best to move as suggested which still retains the core of the article. 82.41.119.42 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, as per my previous comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I had read your previous comments before I responded to the thread. May I gently remind you that Wikipedia sets out to be a factual online source of information. It’s not a vehicle for anyone to push a particular agenda or viewpoint. You are perhaps straying into this territory. 82.29.227.25 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


Disputed category – Anti-transgender activists

This category was added by Web-julio, deleted by Daff22, and re-added by DanielRigal. There is nothing in the article to support this category, and it should be deleted. In a category, we are saying in wikivoice that the subject of the article belongs to the category, but ‘anti-transgender activist’ is not even mentioned in the article. I suggest that DanielRigal self-reverts. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The category is clearly due, especially considering her case against Stonewall is the principal source of her notability. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all – it was Allison Bailey who was the victim of discrimination. Making a legal claim for discrimination– which was largely upheld – is wholly different from being an ‘activist’. And to say that she is an ‘anti-transgender activist’ in wikivoice, we need this to be the common way she is described in RS. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
See WP:CAT, which includes Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial and A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. and Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
She literally founded LGB Alliance. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
This clearly violates WP:BLPCAT, and despite what you say, Bailey won a discrimination case against her employer. Please try and maintain NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted to status quo as discussion ongoing, and also because it appear to violate BLP and NPOV. The article focuses on discrimination against Bailey, not the other way round.Daff22 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the category is definitely due. She gained notoriety for her opposition to transgender rights and was a co-founder of the LGB alliance, one of the largest anti-trans groups in the UK. Your comment comes across as WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT HenrikHolen (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know why you say that LGB Alliance is ‘one of the largest anti-trans groups in the UK’ since our article does not describe it as such. Being pro-LGB is not the same as being anti-trans, or, indeed, anti-heterosexual. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Our article does describe the LGB alliance as such. From its entry
"The LGB Alliance has been described by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights as transphobic, in a statement signed by a number of Labour MPs, and by articles in four scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary" or "anti-trans". Hope not Hate and the Trades Union Congress have described the group as anti-trans. It has also been described by several members of parliament, journalists, and LGBT organisations and activists as a hate group."
Are you contending that it isn't a hate group? Please clarify. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Those are attributed statements. Void if removed (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Not only are the statements all attributed, but refs 5-14 are all from 2021 and 2022 i.e. they cannot be taken as statements about the current activities of the group. There is also nothing about any activities which could be interpreted as that of a hate group. LGB Alliance is a registered charity: anyone who has evidence that it is engaged in ‘hate group’ activities should report this to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
No. This is entirely incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
They were reported by the LGBT consortium, the largest coalition of LGBT charities in the UK, and they sued to remove their charitable status. The courts ultimately ruled the charities did have standing to challenge the classification of the LGB alliance as a charity.
I feel we are moving away from the question before us, namely the categorization of Bailey. Whether or not you concede that the LGB alliance is a hate group, it is most definitely an anti trans group, and by extension so is Bailey as one of its founders.
I do believe that a classification from 2 years ago is still legitimate to cite, considering there has been no meaningful change to the activities or composition of the group. HenrikHolen (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
That's a lot of WP:SYNTH and bare assertion to bring to a BLP. X is Y because you assert it is true, therefore Z is Y by extension, is a long way from "here is how the subject is consistently described in reliable, neutral, secondary sources". Please try to stick to NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe it is much of a leap to say that if she co-founded an anti-trans group, and continues to support that group, then she could reasonably be considered anti-trans. That seems more like a sky is blue argument than synth. HenrikHolen (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
They were reported by the LGBT consortium… - for what? And I think you have left out a ‘not’ in The courts ultimately ruled the charities did have standing to challenge the classification of the LGB alliance as a charity. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I did miss a "not", yes. Thank you. The arguments of the consortium are summarized here:
https://www.consortium.lgbt/2021/06/02/consortium-supports-challenge-to-lgb-alliance-charity-status/ HenrikHolen (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The link you have provided does not give any details of evidence of activities as a ‘hate group’. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to say again, what you're looking for is "here is how the subject is consistently described in reliable, neutral, secondary sources".. And to do that you need evidence that outweighs this.
It is odd to me that this BLP has basically been stable for many months (no talk activity since 2022), and now suddenly it is vitally important it either be deleted or given a highly contentious new category, with zero news coverage and zero additional sources presented, to the extent it generates this level of argument. Void if removed (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose it's true sources often describe her euphemistically as "gender critical" instead, and describing her as such may be the more diplomatic option. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I also have been wondering why there has been a sudden assault on this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@Raladic, you have made an unsourced change to a WP:BLP in a WP:CTOP applying a contentious label without consensus, with a misleading edit comment, and without taking part in the discussion here.
I draw your attention to my comment here for how secondary sources consistently refer to the subject. Unless you have an overwhelming list of equivalent coverage to the contrary, you are violating WP:BLPSTYLE. You do not have those sources, and have not presented any. I have reverted your change, and ask you not to revert it again without providing comparable sources first and working towards consensus here first. Void if removed (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I have read the consensus in this talk thread and applied the change to the article that reflects it. The sources are in the article already that supported it, as was explained to you in this thread, and just as the infobox says, she is most know for founding of the LGB Alliance. This is also why this article is at AfD, as the current BLP doesn't satisfy the BLP notability criteria, so the article will likely be merged into LGB Alliance, or changed to be about the case.
The fact that you have undone it now, despite multiple editors having warned you that your only argument appears to be that you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is the violation here, so I recommend you self-revert yourself. Raladic (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT  is irrelevant to this matter, as will be obvious if you read it. You all need to apply WP:CAT to this question. The opinions of Wikipedia editors on whether Bailey is an anti-transgender activist are irrelevant -it is the way she is referred to by reliable sources which counts. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
multiple editors having warned you that your only argument
My argument is, as I stated in the linked comment, that of the mainstream WP:RS that come back when you search her in google news none of them refer to her in those terms. In the first two pages of a google news search, only Novara came close, but even that didn't actually state it, and they aren't reliable anyway.
What you have to overcome therefore is not just one or two contrary instances, but the clear weight of coverage to the contrary, and the fact that the thing she's most notable for is that when her employer labelled her in broadly this way, that was ruled to be unlawful discrimination. Add to that the general concerns about WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPCAT, and I'm making a substantive argument to which the response has been to claim its just obviously true, WP:OR-by-quote-interpretation, and to count the number of results of a trivial and useless google search ("allison bailey" "anti-trans") whose first result is a supportive UnHerd article by Julie Bindel which matches because of some random anonymous user comment. These are not adequate responses.
I'll admit to being confused how anybody can read that and call it WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which is about article deletion and wholly irrelevant) or WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (which is the essay they surely meant but that doesn't seem to apply to the discussion above, or my part in it at least).
What I will note is that essay says:
It is neither productive nor desired to have multiple groups of editors trying to out-"vote" one another, treating editorial decisions on content and topics as popularity contests. [...] Again, we base our arguments upon what sources say, not upon our personal likes and dislikes.
I think these are words to bear in mind. Void if removed (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I find it quite outstanding that 2 users, both of whose edits mainly focus on anti-trans perspectives and at best verge on WP:PUSHing, are trying to claim that one of the leading anti-trans activists in the UK, who is only notable for her anti-trans activism, is not an anti-trans activist, while claiming that any pro-LGBT news sources are unreliable because of bias (whereas WP:RS/P considers PinkNews reliable, for example), but ignoring that the entire mainstream UK news ecosystem repeatedly repeats and platforms anti-trans talking points, to the extent that the United Nations Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity has criticised the UK for its hostile anti-LGBT atmosphere [4]. Even UN Women have described the "gender-critical" movement as anti-LGBTIQ+ [5]. But somehow this isn't WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT but pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim that Bailey is not anti-trans is somehow RIGHTing GREAT WRONGS. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

whose edits mainly focus on anti-trans perspectives and at best verge on WP:PUSHing,
I would ask you to strike this please. Void if removed (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
only notable for her anti-trans activism
She is principally notable for successfully winning a discrimination claim against her employer, who called her transphobic, and her allegation that Stonewall induced this discrimination is to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim that Bailey is not anti-trans
I am not saying that. I am saying that the standard for contentious labels such as that on a WP:BLP is high, per WP:BLPSTYLE, and especially so for categories per WP:BLPCAT. The balance of secondary coverage in WP:RS does not support this, at all, and I'm surprised we're now having this lengthy discussion since there has been zero additional new coverage to support this sudden demand on a fairly static article.
What you and I may personally think about the subject is (or ought to be) completely irrelevant to our efforts to describe them neutrally, and fairly, as they are described in reliable sources. So when your response to me providing the first 20 or so examples of how they are actually referred to in mainstream sources like the BBC and the Independent and the Guardian via a google news search is this sort of thing:
the entire mainstream UK news ecosystem repeatedly repeats and platforms anti-trans talking points
I'm afraid this sounds a little WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, yes. Void if removed (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
to OwenBlacker: Presumably I am one of the ‘2 users’ you are referring to. I have never said that PinkNews is unreliable, only that it is biased. And as for focusing on ‘anti-trans perspectives': I have this evening been referred to as ‘transgender’ [6] and been told that I am ‘triggered’ [7] Sweet6970 (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this and suggest you raise the issue of WP:PUSHing with the arbitration committee HenrikHolen (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:CIVILPOV issues are notoriously difficult to prove, but the appropriate place to raise them is either WP:AE or WP:ANI, not here (WP:RFAR is a court of last resort and would usually only be attempted after at least one of the other two has failed.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to point everyone to when Raladic brought this to AE a few weeks ago, with no action, and suggest you a) stop WP:HOUNDING, b) refrain from personal attacks, and c) stick to neutrally presenting what reliable sources say. Void if removed (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
What do LGBT papers say about Bailey?
  • Pink News - Bailey, a lesbian barrister and co-founder of the anti-trans lobby group LGB Alliance, sued LGBTQ+ rights charity Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers, of which she is a member.The so-called “gender critical feminist” claimed that “Garden Court took action” against her by launching an investigation and and withholding work from her over her anti-trans social media posts and her involvement with LGB Alliance.[8]
  • Gay City News - The self-described gender-critical feminist claimed Garden Court Chambers took action following her publication of anti-trans social media posts and involvement with LGB alliance, a dedicated anti-trans lobbying group.
What do LGBT community orgs and people say about Bailey/LGBA?
  • Despite more than 40,000 people signing a petition urging the Charity Commission to reject the application on the grounds LGB Alliance is an “anti-trans hate group”, it was accepted in April 2021.[9]
  • With trans youth charity Mermaids – supported by LGBT+ Consortium, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Foundation, TransActual and Good Law Project – questioning the Charity Commission’s decision to register LGB Alliance as a charity,[10]
  • The Alliance is seen by many in the LGBT sector as a fringe organisation at best, and at worst a hate group.[11]
And let us not forget the most recent part of the case - she took Stonewall to court over calling her transphobic and lost.[12]
Apart from my obvious support of the category, I'd also cheekily support category:people considered anti-trans activists by the majority of LGBT people, media, and organizations in their country.
This isn't to mention the article has the categories category:British feminists, category:lesbian feminists, and category:British women's rights activists - which should be removed since we only have a single source actually calling her a feminist, the ever-reliable Times, if we aren't counting the other, the WP:DAILYMAIL.... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
So you don't have a source calling her an "anti-trans activist", least of all anything comparable to the balance of coverage here, and even more so nothing new which could have precipitated the enormous, pointless discussion here.
she took Stonewall to court over calling her transphobic and lost
This is a complete misrepresentation of the case. Void if removed (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes or no - do LGBT newspapers and LGBT community organizations overwhelmingly describe the org she founded as an anti-trans lobbying group?
I'll also note that "person X created anti-trans lobbying group Y" is much better writing than "anti-trans person X created anti-trans lobbying group Y" while being the same message - you're asking for sources that redundantly repeat themselves in a way that no writer worth their pen would. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
YFNS – Please stick to the point – which is how reliable sources in general refer to Bailey, not how a particular subset of sources refer to LGB Alliance. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a non-sequitur. We are looking for categorical statements about the subject of a BLP. What you're looking for is "Allison Bailey, an anti-trans activist", consistently, in a broad range of secondary sources. What you provided is variations on lesbian barrister, gender critical feminist, and LGBA founder. Void if removed (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Variations on "founder of an anti-trans group". Yes or no, are sources saying she founded an "anti-trans" lobbying group? We have many sources making the categorical statement she is the "co-founder of an anti-trans group". We don't have that category, just the overarching one "anti-trans activists".
Are you arguing that when sources explicitly say she is the co-founder of an anti-trans group, that this is not a categorical statement? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bailey_v_Stonewall,_Garden_Court_Chambers_and_Others/Archive_1&oldid=1262131005"