Promoting the principles in the LBOR and the wellbeing and visibility of lesbians globally.
June 2025
Announcing Lesbian Business Listings
|
Are you a lesbian who owns her own business? Would you like to let the world know about your business, what goods or services it provides, and that it is proudly lesbian owned?
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus is compiling a free listing of lesbian-owned businesses worldwide as a resource for sisters who would like to hire sisters. We aim to launch it later this month to celebrate Lesbian Pride, and we will update it from time to time as we receive new listings or receive notifications from you that your listing has changed or is no longer active. |
|
The goods or services listed do not need to be specifically lesbian; we welcome plumbers, gardeners, home care providers, lawyers, doctors, and more! Listings will be grouped by geographical location.
The application to list your business is here.
- The Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted. We will use only this definition in determining who is a lesbian for purposes of this business listing.
- WDI USA reserves the right to decline or remove a listing at any time or for any reason, at our sole discretion.
- By accepting a business listing, WDI USA is not endorsing any product or service offered.
- Women’s Declaration International (WDI), of which WDI USA is the US chapter, is an international women’s-rights organization whose principles are enumerated in the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. Before completing our business listing application form, please make sure that you are comfortable with our principles.
- The public nature of the WDI USA Lesbian Business Listings carries both benefits and risks. Readers around the world will have access to your listed business information, including the fact that your business is lesbian-owned. Only you can make the determination as to whether the benefits of having your business on our list outweigh the risks.
The application to list your business is here.
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
May 2025
Pride: What Went Wrong? Can We Fix It?
RESOLVED, that lesbians have the right to be
recognized and referred to as a discrete and
independent category; that is, as lesbians rather
than ‘LGBT’ or ‘LGB’ or ‘gay’ as a catchall;
The Lesbian Bill of Right
“Gay Pride” is what it was called first, although it included lesbians. The first gay pride march in 1970 was meant to commemorate the first anniversary of Stonewall. It was meant to be a march rather than a parade. Marchers didn’t know what to expect. Maybe there would be violence. Despite Stonewall’s success in gaining the sympathies of New Yorkers and the attention of the world, there had been a long history, and a long habit, of lesbians and gay men being physically attacked whenever they went out in public looking shamelessly (or “flamboyantly”) lesbian or gay.
Participating in this first march felt courageous. Marchers of both sexes, in pairs or in small groups of friends, and dressed for the most part like other young New Yorkers were dressed in June, assembled in the narrow streets of Greenwich Village near the Stonewall Inn. It wasn’t frightening there, we were assembling in the friendliest possible neighborhood anywhere. Village residents smiled and waved and cheered us. Some spontaneously joined us. What was worrying was how our march might be received once we left the Village and marched uptown toward Central Park. ¹
As it turned out, the effects of the 1969 Stonewall rebellion on city culture had been significant. In this commemorative march a year later there was no physical violence that I recall. There was an occasional mocking or angry verbal outburst. One woman said to the group of lesbians I was walking with, “You’ll never be a man, Honey, you’re not fooling anybody.” A lesbian near me immediately answered “Why would I want to be a man? Men are gross! My lover only loves women! Does anybody here want to be a man?” We all laughed with delight in our solidarity, high on our own ability to retort, finally, to a disrespectful stranger on the street in the middle of the day in midtown Manhattan. Our would-be tormentor stopped talking and stepped back into the crowd. It felt as though lesbians had just stepped out of the shadows, collectively and irrevocably. I understood at that moment that not only was our cause just, but that our momentum was irresistible and that our moment was now.
The organizers of the march, including some lesbians, took stock after that first march. Over the next several years there were changes. The most significant change for lesbians was that lesbian groups got the option to march separate from men, each lesbian group with its own banner. And some lesbians demanded to march at the front, in order not to be rendered invisible by the greater number of men and by the other cultural forces that tend to make lesbians invisible.
It wasn’t just that the men were more numerous and taller. They were also louder, and some were more nearly naked. While in the lesbian groups there were a lot of jeans and men’s blue work shirts worn by serious women handing out political leaflets, it seemed that gay men had begun to get flashier, or to take their flashiness into the streets. Gay men’s bars became sponsors. They provided floats, amplified dance music, and men in bikinis dancing on the floats. Sometimes there would be a drag queen on a float instead of wiggling young men on a float. Sometimes instead of a bikini there would be leather chaps with suggestively placed zippers. In contrast, lesbians tended to look low key and androgynous, and tended to be mistaken for men. It was apparent that lesbians needed to march together if they were to have any chance of being recognized as lesbians. Some lesbians organized the separate and more politically serious Dyke March, held annually the day before the New York City Gay (and lesbian) Pride March. It never drew as big a crowd as the Pride March.
By the mid 1980s, the march had become not only a corporate event, but a government event. The mayor and other politicos would lead the march, followed by a row of NYPD on police motorcycles, followed by lesbians on motorcycles (aka “dykes on bikes” who insisted on riding in front of the gay men on motorcycles to avoid erasure by assumption of maleness; shout out to Sirens Women’s Motorcycle Club NYC for their effective advocacy), followed by floats carrying drag queens and leather men, Stonewall heroes and survivors, a pair of Grand Marshalls, marching bands, the Gay Men’s Chorus, a lesbian softball league, parents of lesbians and gay men, and unaffiliated marchers. And the route changed to begin on Fifth Avenue and march “home” downtown to the Village. Once your parade makes it to Fifth Avenue, you know you’ve arrived.
But the tension between gay men and lesbians, present from the beginning, never disappeared; if anything, it increased. Here are some differences between the gay male agenda and the lesbian feminist agenda that became clearer over the course of the 1970s:
Participating in this first march felt courageous. Marchers of both sexes, in pairs or in small groups of friends, and dressed for the most part like other young New Yorkers were dressed in June, assembled in the narrow streets of Greenwich Village near the Stonewall Inn. It wasn’t frightening there, we were assembling in the friendliest possible neighborhood anywhere. Village residents smiled and waved and cheered us. Some spontaneously joined us. What was worrying was how our march might be received once we left the Village and marched uptown toward Central Park. ¹
As it turned out, the effects of the 1969 Stonewall rebellion on city culture had been significant. In this commemorative march a year later there was no physical violence that I recall. There was an occasional mocking or angry verbal outburst. One woman said to the group of lesbians I was walking with, “You’ll never be a man, Honey, you’re not fooling anybody.” A lesbian near me immediately answered “Why would I want to be a man? Men are gross! My lover only loves women! Does anybody here want to be a man?” We all laughed with delight in our solidarity, high on our own ability to retort, finally, to a disrespectful stranger on the street in the middle of the day in midtown Manhattan. Our would-be tormentor stopped talking and stepped back into the crowd. It felt as though lesbians had just stepped out of the shadows, collectively and irrevocably. I understood at that moment that not only was our cause just, but that our momentum was irresistible and that our moment was now.
The organizers of the march, including some lesbians, took stock after that first march. Over the next several years there were changes. The most significant change for lesbians was that lesbian groups got the option to march separate from men, each lesbian group with its own banner. And some lesbians demanded to march at the front, in order not to be rendered invisible by the greater number of men and by the other cultural forces that tend to make lesbians invisible.
It wasn’t just that the men were more numerous and taller. They were also louder, and some were more nearly naked. While in the lesbian groups there were a lot of jeans and men’s blue work shirts worn by serious women handing out political leaflets, it seemed that gay men had begun to get flashier, or to take their flashiness into the streets. Gay men’s bars became sponsors. They provided floats, amplified dance music, and men in bikinis dancing on the floats. Sometimes there would be a drag queen on a float instead of wiggling young men on a float. Sometimes instead of a bikini there would be leather chaps with suggestively placed zippers. In contrast, lesbians tended to look low key and androgynous, and tended to be mistaken for men. It was apparent that lesbians needed to march together if they were to have any chance of being recognized as lesbians. Some lesbians organized the separate and more politically serious Dyke March, held annually the day before the New York City Gay (and lesbian) Pride March. It never drew as big a crowd as the Pride March.
By the mid 1980s, the march had become not only a corporate event, but a government event. The mayor and other politicos would lead the march, followed by a row of NYPD on police motorcycles, followed by lesbians on motorcycles (aka “dykes on bikes” who insisted on riding in front of the gay men on motorcycles to avoid erasure by assumption of maleness; shout out to Sirens Women’s Motorcycle Club NYC for their effective advocacy), followed by floats carrying drag queens and leather men, Stonewall heroes and survivors, a pair of Grand Marshalls, marching bands, the Gay Men’s Chorus, a lesbian softball league, parents of lesbians and gay men, and unaffiliated marchers. And the route changed to begin on Fifth Avenue and march “home” downtown to the Village. Once your parade makes it to Fifth Avenue, you know you’ve arrived.
But the tension between gay men and lesbians, present from the beginning, never disappeared; if anything, it increased. Here are some differences between the gay male agenda and the lesbian feminist agenda that became clearer over the course of the 1970s:
- Gay men were aiming to become fully enfranchised patriarchs, while lesbian women’s liberationists were aiming to destroy patriarchy. This meant that gay men wanted to have homosexuality decriminalized, and they wanted the right to marry and be custodial parents. And they also wanted the right to engage in sexual excesses in public, like straight men. Decriminalization was the only aim shared by radical feminist lesbians.
- Gay men were emotionally attached to drag; it was, and remains, central to gay male culture. Lesbian women’s liberationists understood drag to be a mockery of the femininity that women were encouraged or forced to perform.
- Until the AIDS crisis became apparent around 1980, gay male culture promoted many sexual encounters with many strangers, including orgies – in most gay bars and clubs, on the Christopher Street pier, on Christopher Street itself. This could be seen as an extension of the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. It became part of lesbian culture too, but not nearly to the same degree, possibly in part because there weren’t enough lesbians or enough lesbian venues in the City, reflecting lesbians’ diminished access to money, travel, and ability to support a plethora of commercial lesbian-only venues.
- Gay men promoted sadomasochism and the associated leather fetishism. Lesbians became bitterly divided on this issue, leading to what has been termed the “sex wars,” which eventually exhausted the Women’s Liberation Movement. It seemed to radical feminist lesbians that some lesbians were imitating gay male culture, including its sneering denigration of lesbians, all women, and “vanilla” sexual practices grounded in affection and intimacy.
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus has written previously about how patriarchy treats lesbians – either by pretending that lesbians don’t exist or, if erasure fails, by punishing lesbians. One erasure technique is conflating lesbians with gay men. Lesbians are widely assumed to be a shorter, less colorful, less affluent, less amusing subset of the “gay” culture that we are assumed and encouraged to share.
By the second decade of the 21st century, the uncomfortable alliance between lesbians and gay men was made untenable by the forced marriage of LGB with TQIA+. Lesbian and gay pride marches have become rebranded as “Pride” celebrations of male sexual aggression as well as male fetishes. The lesbian motorcycle clubs have been forced to admit men who claim to be lesbians. Lesbians have been reframed as TERFs and driven out of Pride marches everywhere. As a result, public good will has been lost. Not only is Pride everywhere losing the near universal support of corporations and politicians; it is losing the support of private citizens who don’t want their kids or themselves exposed to kinky sex in public.
Having been kicked off the rainbow, lesbians are probably intended to cooperate in our own erasure (again). But maybe we should never have hopped onto the rainbow. It was never a natural coalition. It gave lesbians nominal decriminalization as homosexuals, only to quickly recriminalize us as TERFs. It gave us the dubious right to participate in the patriarchal institution of marriage, with the state as a third partner in our love relationships. It gave us the right to be custodial mothers, provided we’re open to our kids being either traditionally gendered or “transed.”
Lesbians can’t benefit from the rights that gay men have won to be full brothers in patriarchy. This is because patriarchy requires the unpaid labor of women, including all lesbians. Patriarchy depends on women as the personal servant class to the master class of men, including gay men. Lesbians need a Women’s Liberation Movement and Lesbian Pride. After all, the Stonewall rebellion was started by a lesbian; Stonewall is lesbians’ to commemorate. We are not gay men, we are not a subset of gay men, we are not bisexual, and we are not “Queer.” There is an ongoing patriarchal push to subsume lesbians into some other group, and we think it’s time for lesbians to separate, cultivate our lesbian communities, grow the number of lesbians, and push back. To be clear, lesbians are not a monolith, and we need to be careful to include lesbians of all races and ethnicities, of all abilities, of all economic classes, of all ages, and so forth. But if we make alliances with non lesbians, they should be primarily with women’s liberationists, and not with men of any sexual orientation, because the problem is patriarchy; it’s never the solution.
Fortunately, we still have the labrys flag, and we still have the only analysis of universal male domination that makes any sense. Happy Lesbian Pride!
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
¹ This description of the first New York City Gay Pride March in 1970 is based on the first-hand account of Lesbian Caucus member Lauren Levey, who participated in that event.
On April 16, 2025 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a landmark ruling, to decide whether men having a “gender recognition certificate” (GRC) are women for purposes of the UK’s Equality Act of 2010. In effect, the Court was asked to define “woman” and “sex” for purposes of the Equality Act. The Equality Act protects a number of categories of people on the basis of historic oppression, including age, race, sex, “gender reassignment,” disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, marriage or civil partnership, and pregnancy or maternity.
The ruling was anxiously awaited by lesbians everywhere, not just in the UK. The stakes were high for all women, but especially for lesbians: Would lesbians be allowed to gather publicly – as lesbians, excluding all men – for social purposes and for political campaign purposes? Where public boards designate a certain number of seats for women, or for lesbians, would a man having a GRC qualify?
When the ruling was made, it was greeted by lesbians worldwide with relief and joy. In short, the Court ruled that the Equality Act has always defined woman and sex as biological, and not to be conflated with “certificated” sex. It thereby excludes all men from the category of woman and of lesbian. The Court defined lesbian as “a female who is sexually oriented towards (or attracted to) females.” That is, men cannot be lesbians and have no right to enter lesbian spaces, with or without a GRC. It was spectacularly good news for UK lesbians, who have experienced discrimination in public places such as pubs for being perceived as “TERFs,” that is, for excluding males from their public gatherings. That discrimination would now be unlawful.
UK lesbians deserve particular credit for their work that led to this major legal victory, including the groups Scottish Lesbians and Lesbian Persistence.
The Court did state that under the Equality Act “transgender” people will continue to be protected from discrimination – without defining “transgender people” – based on either their status as “trans” or someone’s perception of them as female; so obviously there is still some political campaigning that needs to be done in this area in the UK. There is good reason for courts to avoid defining “transgender people,” because even those who call themselves “transgender” are unable or unwilling to produce a coherent definition. Nevertheless, this was a significant win for women and girls, including lesbians.
What specifically might this UK ruling mean for lesbians in other countries? For one thing, it seems to advance a trend of rolling back so-called “transgender rights” that had already been underway in a number of countries. In this article we will take a look at the countries represented by LBORI member organizations, describing the current state of the law regarding lesbians vis a vis “gender identity,” and how and whether the FWS ruling might influence lesbian rights outside of the UK.
The ruling was anxiously awaited by lesbians everywhere, not just in the UK. The stakes were high for all women, but especially for lesbians: Would lesbians be allowed to gather publicly – as lesbians, excluding all men – for social purposes and for political campaign purposes? Where public boards designate a certain number of seats for women, or for lesbians, would a man having a GRC qualify?
When the ruling was made, it was greeted by lesbians worldwide with relief and joy. In short, the Court ruled that the Equality Act has always defined woman and sex as biological, and not to be conflated with “certificated” sex. It thereby excludes all men from the category of woman and of lesbian. The Court defined lesbian as “a female who is sexually oriented towards (or attracted to) females.” That is, men cannot be lesbians and have no right to enter lesbian spaces, with or without a GRC. It was spectacularly good news for UK lesbians, who have experienced discrimination in public places such as pubs for being perceived as “TERFs,” that is, for excluding males from their public gatherings. That discrimination would now be unlawful.
UK lesbians deserve particular credit for their work that led to this major legal victory, including the groups Scottish Lesbians and Lesbian Persistence.
The Court did state that under the Equality Act “transgender” people will continue to be protected from discrimination – without defining “transgender people” – based on either their status as “trans” or someone’s perception of them as female; so obviously there is still some political campaigning that needs to be done in this area in the UK. There is good reason for courts to avoid defining “transgender people,” because even those who call themselves “transgender” are unable or unwilling to produce a coherent definition. Nevertheless, this was a significant win for women and girls, including lesbians.
What specifically might this UK ruling mean for lesbians in other countries? For one thing, it seems to advance a trend of rolling back so-called “transgender rights” that had already been underway in a number of countries. In this article we will take a look at the countries represented by LBORI member organizations, describing the current state of the law regarding lesbians vis a vis “gender identity,” and how and whether the FWS ruling might influence lesbian rights outside of the UK.
United States
The current US President has issued an Executive Order stating that only two immutable sexes are to be recognized, male and female. Federal agencies have generally complied, for instance by removing preferred pronouns from employees’ online profiles; and passports are no longer being issued with inaccurate sex markers. The execution of some of Trump’s EOs has been blocked by court injunctions; for example, there are still men housed in women’s prisons, pending judicial outcomes, and there are still men claiming to be women in the US military.
At the state level there is sharp division regarding recognition of “transgender people,” depending on whether the state has a Republican (“red”) or Democratic (“blue”) majority. Red states typically have legislation providing for single-sex prisons, shelters, sports, and/or public toilets. Blue states typically protect “trans status,” and are preparing to clash with federal policy in court. But red states also tend to disenfranchise lesbians as part of “LGBTQ+,” for example, by banning or attempting to prohibit teachers from discussing same-sex relationships with their young students, along with all things “trans” and “queer.” It all needs judicial resolution at the federal level.
The lawfulness of so-called “gender affirming care” for minors (more accurately called the use of medical procedures to disguise children’s sex characteristics) is the central subject of an important lawsuit pending before the US Supreme Court, United States v. Skrmetti. In this case, the state of Tennessee had banned the procedures on children, and several parties sued to have the ban removed, including some parents, the Biden administration, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The US chapter of Women’s Declaration International filed an amicus curiae brief in that case; Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) also filed an amicus brief. The ruling is expected in June, 2025.
The Skrmetti case raises issues far broader than just the administration of cross-sex hormones and surgical sterilization of minors. Additional issues include whether there can be male “women,” whether “transgender” describes a class that is sufficiently coherent to be protected under the US Constitution, and whether transgender ideology harms lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals; a ruling that answers these questions may benefit lesbians. The judiciary is not supposed to be influenced by global trends; but the FWS ruling, coming from the highest court in a country whose common-law legal system we share, could possibly provide cover for the US Supreme Court justices if they want to rule similarly.
The current US President has issued an Executive Order stating that only two immutable sexes are to be recognized, male and female. Federal agencies have generally complied, for instance by removing preferred pronouns from employees’ online profiles; and passports are no longer being issued with inaccurate sex markers. The execution of some of Trump’s EOs has been blocked by court injunctions; for example, there are still men housed in women’s prisons, pending judicial outcomes, and there are still men claiming to be women in the US military.
At the state level there is sharp division regarding recognition of “transgender people,” depending on whether the state has a Republican (“red”) or Democratic (“blue”) majority. Red states typically have legislation providing for single-sex prisons, shelters, sports, and/or public toilets. Blue states typically protect “trans status,” and are preparing to clash with federal policy in court. But red states also tend to disenfranchise lesbians as part of “LGBTQ+,” for example, by banning or attempting to prohibit teachers from discussing same-sex relationships with their young students, along with all things “trans” and “queer.” It all needs judicial resolution at the federal level.
The lawfulness of so-called “gender affirming care” for minors (more accurately called the use of medical procedures to disguise children’s sex characteristics) is the central subject of an important lawsuit pending before the US Supreme Court, United States v. Skrmetti. In this case, the state of Tennessee had banned the procedures on children, and several parties sued to have the ban removed, including some parents, the Biden administration, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The US chapter of Women’s Declaration International filed an amicus curiae brief in that case; Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) also filed an amicus brief. The ruling is expected in June, 2025.
The Skrmetti case raises issues far broader than just the administration of cross-sex hormones and surgical sterilization of minors. Additional issues include whether there can be male “women,” whether “transgender” describes a class that is sufficiently coherent to be protected under the US Constitution, and whether transgender ideology harms lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals; a ruling that answers these questions may benefit lesbians. The judiciary is not supposed to be influenced by global trends; but the FWS ruling, coming from the highest court in a country whose common-law legal system we share, could possibly provide cover for the US Supreme Court justices if they want to rule similarly.
Germany
In Germany, the Self-Determination Act (“SBGG”) has been in force since November 1st, 2024. Under this law, adults may change their sex entry once a year between female, male, diverse, and no entry.
No medical-psychological assessments or operations are required for this. A self-declaration at the registry office is sufficient.
Children from the age of 14 may also ask for a change of sex entry according to their “gender identity” with the consent of their parents, or, alternatively, a court. Highly controversial guidelines on medical procedures have been drawn up by medical associations and allow puberty blockers and medical interventions from the age of 14.
On February 23rd, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats were elected by a majority of voters. They are currently negotiating a coalition government. Before the election, the Conservatives had promised to abolish the law, but the Social Democrats rejected this, meaning that the law will be evaluated until 2026.
German feminists are actually rallying once again to fight the law and are hoping that the changes in the UK and the USA will help them to do so successfully.
In Germany, the Self-Determination Act (“SBGG”) has been in force since November 1st, 2024. Under this law, adults may change their sex entry once a year between female, male, diverse, and no entry.
No medical-psychological assessments or operations are required for this. A self-declaration at the registry office is sufficient.
Children from the age of 14 may also ask for a change of sex entry according to their “gender identity” with the consent of their parents, or, alternatively, a court. Highly controversial guidelines on medical procedures have been drawn up by medical associations and allow puberty blockers and medical interventions from the age of 14.
On February 23rd, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats were elected by a majority of voters. They are currently negotiating a coalition government. Before the election, the Conservatives had promised to abolish the law, but the Social Democrats rejected this, meaning that the law will be evaluated until 2026.
German feminists are actually rallying once again to fight the law and are hoping that the changes in the UK and the USA will help them to do so successfully.
New Zealand
The UK ruling is in stark contrast to the situation of lesbians in New Zealand, where the law currently permits self-identification, i.e., male inclusion in the legal category of "woman." NZ’s Human Rights Act and Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act allows for legal changes of sex markers without any requirement for medical transition.
In contrast to the UK’s ruling, which reaffirms that “woman” and “lesbian” are categories rooted in biological sex, NZ law conflates sex with self-declared “gender identity.” This has left many lesbians legally vulnerable and socially marginalised.
Lesbians are working to restore our sex-based rights and protections, but have not yet challenged the status quo in a court of law in New Zealand. However, following unsuccessful mediation attempts facilitated by the Human Rights Commission, one lesbian group, Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa (LAVA) escalated the matter to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision in this case could have significant implications for the balance between freedom of expression and anti-discrimination protections within New Zealand's legal framework. In 2021, Wellington Pride had declined LAVA’s application to host a stall at an event because the organisers perceived LAVA's views as “anti-transgender.” LAVA contends that this exclusion constitutes unlawful discrimination based on their ethical beliefs, political opinions, and sexual orientation. The case will be heard later this year.
There is also a new bill in the pipeline: Introduced by the New Zealand First party, the Fair Access to Bathrooms Bill seeks to mandate the provision of clearly marked unisex and single-sex bathrooms in all new public buildings. The bill aims to restore the privacy and safety of women and girls. The public discussion around this bill will certainly be informed by the UK’s Supreme Court ruling.
Should a legal challenge against the erasure of lesbians and for the re-establishment of sex-based protections arise, the UK findings will surely be useful to lawyers, activists, and legislators in NZ. Although NZ courts are fully independent, decisions from the UK Supreme Court can be cited as precedents. Hopefully, NZ judges will look to the UK ruling to help interpret terms like “sex” or “discrimination” under NZ’s Human Rights Act 1993, even though they’re not bound to follow it.
The UK ruling is in stark contrast to the situation of lesbians in New Zealand, where the law currently permits self-identification, i.e., male inclusion in the legal category of "woman." NZ’s Human Rights Act and Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act allows for legal changes of sex markers without any requirement for medical transition.
In contrast to the UK’s ruling, which reaffirms that “woman” and “lesbian” are categories rooted in biological sex, NZ law conflates sex with self-declared “gender identity.” This has left many lesbians legally vulnerable and socially marginalised.
Lesbians are working to restore our sex-based rights and protections, but have not yet challenged the status quo in a court of law in New Zealand. However, following unsuccessful mediation attempts facilitated by the Human Rights Commission, one lesbian group, Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa (LAVA) escalated the matter to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision in this case could have significant implications for the balance between freedom of expression and anti-discrimination protections within New Zealand's legal framework. In 2021, Wellington Pride had declined LAVA’s application to host a stall at an event because the organisers perceived LAVA's views as “anti-transgender.” LAVA contends that this exclusion constitutes unlawful discrimination based on their ethical beliefs, political opinions, and sexual orientation. The case will be heard later this year.
There is also a new bill in the pipeline: Introduced by the New Zealand First party, the Fair Access to Bathrooms Bill seeks to mandate the provision of clearly marked unisex and single-sex bathrooms in all new public buildings. The bill aims to restore the privacy and safety of women and girls. The public discussion around this bill will certainly be informed by the UK’s Supreme Court ruling.
Should a legal challenge against the erasure of lesbians and for the re-establishment of sex-based protections arise, the UK findings will surely be useful to lawyers, activists, and legislators in NZ. Although NZ courts are fully independent, decisions from the UK Supreme Court can be cited as precedents. Hopefully, NZ judges will look to the UK ruling to help interpret terms like “sex” or “discrimination” under NZ’s Human Rights Act 1993, even though they’re not bound to follow it.
Australia
The finding of the UK Supreme Court that Man and Woman refer to biological sex will not explicitly apply in Australian Law. The finding on the other hand could be very influential in that it will supply an argument that can be used without associating women’s rights with bigotry, extreme right wing organisations, Nazis, or Donald Trump.
Currently most of Australia has “self-ID” laws where a man can claim to become a woman just by claiming female identity.
For example, there is a football team in New South Wales that won its division with five players who, in the terms of international athletic standards, had gone through male puberty. The young women who objected to the unfairness were the ones sanctioned.
Legal cases on the meaning of “woman” currently in appeal to the Federal Court
1. The Lesbian Action Group applied to the Australian Human Rights Commission for an exemption to run public events for lesbians, i.e., women with the sexual orientation of being attracted to persons of the same sex.
- The exemption request was based on the clauses in the Sexual Discrimination Act referring to Special measures intended to achieve substantive equality between men and women, or people who have different sexual orientations.
- The exemption was refused by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
- On appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal, the finding was that anyone can be excluded from public events for Lesbians, except a man who identifies as a woman who is sexually attracted to women.
- The Appeal to the Federal Court will be heard February 2026.
2. “Tickle vs Giggle for Girls”, where the judge found that a man who identifies as a woman was indirectly discriminated against by being excluded from a social media platform established to provide support for women. Significant in the judgement was the statement that “on its ordinary meaning, sex is changeable.” This Appeal will be heard in August 2025.
The finding of the UK Supreme Court could be very useful as a protection from and defence against criminal charges of “Hate Speech.” An Australian Court would have to find that a paraphrasing of the finding of the UK Supreme Court was “hateful.” “Hate Speech” laws recently passed in Victoria define hate speech in terms of Gender Identity as anything that a “reasonable transgender person” finds hateful. There is no defence that a statement can be proven true.Transgender activists claim that “misgendering” and “deadnaming” are hateful.
Self-ID laws allow the alteration of a Birth Certificate to change the birth sex recorded. Thus the social experience of birth as a boy baby, growing up as a boy child, the acquisition of qualifications and work experience under a male name, the fathering of children, marriage as a man are all declared as never having happened. There is an obvious legal minefield in the area of a person claiming that he or she has been “deadnamed” when asked to fulfill obligations undertaken in the persona of the male person that never existed. The finding of the UK Supreme Court that sex means biological sex may give the confidence to people harmed by the gender transition of an intimate or business associate to bring legal action
The finding of the UK Supreme Court that Man and Woman refer to biological sex will not explicitly apply in Australian Law. The finding on the other hand could be very influential in that it will supply an argument that can be used without associating women’s rights with bigotry, extreme right wing organisations, Nazis, or Donald Trump.
Currently most of Australia has “self-ID” laws where a man can claim to become a woman just by claiming female identity.
For example, there is a football team in New South Wales that won its division with five players who, in the terms of international athletic standards, had gone through male puberty. The young women who objected to the unfairness were the ones sanctioned.
Legal cases on the meaning of “woman” currently in appeal to the Federal Court
1. The Lesbian Action Group applied to the Australian Human Rights Commission for an exemption to run public events for lesbians, i.e., women with the sexual orientation of being attracted to persons of the same sex.
- The exemption request was based on the clauses in the Sexual Discrimination Act referring to Special measures intended to achieve substantive equality between men and women, or people who have different sexual orientations.
- The exemption was refused by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
- On appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal, the finding was that anyone can be excluded from public events for Lesbians, except a man who identifies as a woman who is sexually attracted to women.
- The Appeal to the Federal Court will be heard February 2026.
2. “Tickle vs Giggle for Girls”, where the judge found that a man who identifies as a woman was indirectly discriminated against by being excluded from a social media platform established to provide support for women. Significant in the judgement was the statement that “on its ordinary meaning, sex is changeable.” This Appeal will be heard in August 2025.
The finding of the UK Supreme Court could be very useful as a protection from and defence against criminal charges of “Hate Speech.” An Australian Court would have to find that a paraphrasing of the finding of the UK Supreme Court was “hateful.” “Hate Speech” laws recently passed in Victoria define hate speech in terms of Gender Identity as anything that a “reasonable transgender person” finds hateful. There is no defence that a statement can be proven true.Transgender activists claim that “misgendering” and “deadnaming” are hateful.
Self-ID laws allow the alteration of a Birth Certificate to change the birth sex recorded. Thus the social experience of birth as a boy baby, growing up as a boy child, the acquisition of qualifications and work experience under a male name, the fathering of children, marriage as a man are all declared as never having happened. There is an obvious legal minefield in the area of a person claiming that he or she has been “deadnamed” when asked to fulfill obligations undertaken in the persona of the male person that never existed. The finding of the UK Supreme Court that sex means biological sex may give the confidence to people harmed by the gender transition of an intimate or business associate to bring legal action
Norway
There are no cases pending in Norway that impact the protection of lesbians vis a vis people claiming "trans" status. In light of the UK ruling, Lezbicon is consulting with lawyers with an eye toward putting together a lawsuit having a lesbian-rights issue.
There are no cases pending in Norway that impact the protection of lesbians vis a vis people claiming "trans" status. In light of the UK ruling, Lezbicon is consulting with lawyers with an eye toward putting together a lawsuit having a lesbian-rights issue.
Italy
In Italy there is a law regulating “gender transition” that involves Court approval based on psychological and medical reports, but does not require surgical intervention. Although a national self-ID bill is not in the offing, there is a strong push to promote self-ID at a local level and within schools, universities, and professional associations. The ongoing battle in Italy at the moment is more cultural than legal. However, the UK ruling is certainly going to help. It should serve as a warning of the legal incoherence that an obscure notion such as “gender identity” can bring into the Italian legal system.
In Italy there is a law regulating “gender transition” that involves Court approval based on psychological and medical reports, but does not require surgical intervention. Although a national self-ID bill is not in the offing, there is a strong push to promote self-ID at a local level and within schools, universities, and professional associations. The ongoing battle in Italy at the moment is more cultural than legal. However, the UK ruling is certainly going to help. It should serve as a warning of the legal incoherence that an obscure notion such as “gender identity” can bring into the Italian legal system.
In the short time since the UK ruling, there has been angry pushback by transgenderists in the UK. Some vow that they will defy the high court’s ruling. Lesbians worldwide are watching closely to see whether and how the ruling will be implemented, and whether the return to reality and common sense will be adopted into the laws and policies of other countries; because incorporating the reality of sex into every aspect of law and policy is crucial to our ability to take part in public life as lesbians with reasonable liberty and safety.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (LBORI)
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
Arcilesbica (Italy)
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
Arcilesbica (Italy)
|
19 March 2025
Violence against Lesbians
Our coordinator Lauren Levey met with Reem Alsalem to discuss “Forms of sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues.” Lauren spoke specifically about violence against lesbians, and made specific recommendations. Her report on this consultation was screened on WDI’s
Feminist Question Time on 29 March 2025. |
Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls
|
Lauren Levey (USA) on gender stereotypes
Besides serving as our coordinator for LBORI, Lauren Levey is a board member of Women's Declaration International (WDI) USA, and also coordinates its Lesbian Caucus and State Legislative Advocacy Team. Watch Lauren on the WDI Youtube channel. Here, she is talking about CEDAW's recent call for submissions on Gender Stereotypes. The CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) is an international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Her presentation also includes an introduction to the work of LBORI and the WDI USA Lesbian Caucus.