August 2026
On August 21, 2026, LBORI sent the following letter to Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament, regarding its pending deliberation to add “hate speech” and “hate crime” to its Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. LBORI’s concern is that free speech would be negatively impacted for all member nations, especially for women, lesbians, and sex realists.
Dear President Metsola:
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (LBORI) is an international network of radical feminist, lesbian organizations. Our aim is to promote the rights of lesbians worldwide, consistent with the Lesbian Bill Of Rights (the LBOR). We are writing to you with regard to your call for “hate speech” and “hate crime” to be added to Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). So it is our understanding that if the proposal is enacted, some types of speech content would be criminalized for all member nations.
As we wrote in November, 2025:
The silencing of women has a long and brutal history. In earlier centuries, women could be tortured for speaking out, which was seen as “nagging.” Almost unbelievably, the Scold’s Bridle, a painful metal mask intended to enforce female silence, remained on the British penal books until 1967. It controlled women perceived as publicly challenging male authority or social norms. Though laws today apply to everyone, they impact women especially hard, rendering us silent, compliant, and invisible.
Over the last decade or two, Western democracies have shifted from open societies that tolerate disagreement to managed societies that criminalise it. Laws sold as preventing “harm” or “hate” now punish lawful expression, especially when it challenges ideological fashion.
As we wrote in May, 2024:
. . . as lesbians who do not subscribe to the idea of men as women through self-ID or
simple declaration and who don’t recognise men as lesbians, we are particularly vulnerable:
Already, we are called anti-LGBTQIA+ or anti-drag and are listed alongside right-wing extremists . . . .
Democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, including ideas that may seem to some
citizens to be offensive or even hateful; because citizenship in any democracy requires the
ability to tolerate hearing such ideas expressed. . . . the preeminence of free speech is a principle that should prevail in all nations that either see themselves as democracies or aspire to be democracies . . . .
In addition, our membership reached consensus on the following:
● Speech alone, not combined with a criminal act, should generally not be criminalized.
Our reasoning is that speech that is untrue or offensive can best be rebutted, and its
harmful effects neutralized, with more speech in opposition. Suppressing speech does
not provide an opportunity for rebuttal, or for rebuttal of the rebuttal; and the public is
deprived of a full airing of pros and cons, necessary for making informed judgments.
● Criminalizing speech alone harms women generally and lesbians in particular, as recent
developments have made clear: Saying that men aren’t women should not jeopardize
the speaker’s employment, parental custody, or incur any other chilling effect –
regardless of whether some consider the words hurtful, and regardless of claims that the
speech might at some future time encourage violent acts against a vulnerable minority.
● We think the line of criminality should be drawn at criminal acts; or at speech that is in
effect part of a continuous criminal act (e.g., to an assembly: “Kill that TERF right there, right now”).
We urge you to take these concerns and principles into consideration as you determine how you will proceed with respect to Article 83.
Sincerely,
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
LAVA (New Zealand)
RadFemLes USA
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (LBORI) is an international network of radical feminist, lesbian organizations. Our aim is to promote the rights of lesbians worldwide, consistent with the Lesbian Bill Of Rights (the LBOR). We are writing to you with regard to your call for “hate speech” and “hate crime” to be added to Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). So it is our understanding that if the proposal is enacted, some types of speech content would be criminalized for all member nations.
As we wrote in November, 2025:
The silencing of women has a long and brutal history. In earlier centuries, women could be tortured for speaking out, which was seen as “nagging.” Almost unbelievably, the Scold’s Bridle, a painful metal mask intended to enforce female silence, remained on the British penal books until 1967. It controlled women perceived as publicly challenging male authority or social norms. Though laws today apply to everyone, they impact women especially hard, rendering us silent, compliant, and invisible.
Over the last decade or two, Western democracies have shifted from open societies that tolerate disagreement to managed societies that criminalise it. Laws sold as preventing “harm” or “hate” now punish lawful expression, especially when it challenges ideological fashion.
As we wrote in May, 2024:
. . . as lesbians who do not subscribe to the idea of men as women through self-ID or
simple declaration and who don’t recognise men as lesbians, we are particularly vulnerable:
Already, we are called anti-LGBTQIA+ or anti-drag and are listed alongside right-wing extremists . . . .
Democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, including ideas that may seem to some
citizens to be offensive or even hateful; because citizenship in any democracy requires the
ability to tolerate hearing such ideas expressed. . . . the preeminence of free speech is a principle that should prevail in all nations that either see themselves as democracies or aspire to be democracies . . . .
In addition, our membership reached consensus on the following:
● Speech alone, not combined with a criminal act, should generally not be criminalized.
Our reasoning is that speech that is untrue or offensive can best be rebutted, and its
harmful effects neutralized, with more speech in opposition. Suppressing speech does
not provide an opportunity for rebuttal, or for rebuttal of the rebuttal; and the public is
deprived of a full airing of pros and cons, necessary for making informed judgments.
● Criminalizing speech alone harms women generally and lesbians in particular, as recent
developments have made clear: Saying that men aren’t women should not jeopardize
the speaker’s employment, parental custody, or incur any other chilling effect –
regardless of whether some consider the words hurtful, and regardless of claims that the
speech might at some future time encourage violent acts against a vulnerable minority.
● We think the line of criminality should be drawn at criminal acts; or at speech that is in
effect part of a continuous criminal act (e.g., to an assembly: “Kill that TERF right there, right now”).
We urge you to take these concerns and principles into consideration as you determine how you will proceed with respect to Article 83.
Sincerely,
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
LAVA (New Zealand)
RadFemLes USA
June 2026
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women solicited input, and LBORI Submitted this statement to her on February 16.
Call for input to the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls to the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly on violence against older women.
As lesbians, we submit this statement because there are forms of violence that lesbians experience due to the intersection of age and sexual orientation. In addition to the needs shared by all older women, older lesbians face further, specific vulnerabilities.
Violence against older women is not particularly visible and violence against older lesbians is even more hidden.
Lesbians tend to be an unexpected subject, largely overlooked by policymakers, and older lesbians are the most neglected demographic among lesbians.
This invisibilisation is the first form of violence, both in everyday life and at the institutional level. Invisibility prevents the development of appropriate measures to support older lesbians during one of the most vulnerable stages of our lives.
Older lesbians generally have fewer children and family members who can care for us, as we have typically resisted forming traditional families. While this may protect us from the high levels of domestic violence experienced by heterosexual women—since we do not live with the abuser—it often leaves us alone or vulnerable when facing the hardship of the aging process. Our families may consist of networks of friends, former partners and, where present, a current partner. However, these networks are generally composed of other older lesbians who increasingly also require support.
Lesbians have often had to rely more than heterosexual women on our physical strength, not only to meet the demands of daily life, but also to defend ourselves against male violence, as we could not delegate this function to a male partner. We have had to run faster to escape threats or even physically resist them. With aging, the physical strength that once supported our safety diminishes, and therefore we need secure solutions to protect us from male violence.
Nothing about aging is designed with lesbians in mind: Nursing homes and services for old people are conceived and designed for heterosexual individuals. The needs of older lesbian couples or single older lesbians are rarely considered, including our desire for female community, female staff, and the need for independent spaces, including moments of separation from heterosexual women.
Gender identity ideology is also a problem because it allows men who claim to be lesbians to enter spaces dedicated to us, or to be considered as female members of service staff. This is particularly disturbing for lesbians.
Data collected in statistics and reflected in UN recommendations are also distorted when no clear distinction is made between sex (reproductive biology) and gender (defined in the LBOR as sex-based stereotypes whose purpose is to force all women into a subordinate position in relation to all men).
It is therefore essential for the UN not to conflate sex with gender, and maintain women’s and lesbians’ rights on the basis of our female sex.
Violence against older women is not particularly visible and violence against older lesbians is even more hidden.
Lesbians tend to be an unexpected subject, largely overlooked by policymakers, and older lesbians are the most neglected demographic among lesbians.
This invisibilisation is the first form of violence, both in everyday life and at the institutional level. Invisibility prevents the development of appropriate measures to support older lesbians during one of the most vulnerable stages of our lives.
Older lesbians generally have fewer children and family members who can care for us, as we have typically resisted forming traditional families. While this may protect us from the high levels of domestic violence experienced by heterosexual women—since we do not live with the abuser—it often leaves us alone or vulnerable when facing the hardship of the aging process. Our families may consist of networks of friends, former partners and, where present, a current partner. However, these networks are generally composed of other older lesbians who increasingly also require support.
Lesbians have often had to rely more than heterosexual women on our physical strength, not only to meet the demands of daily life, but also to defend ourselves against male violence, as we could not delegate this function to a male partner. We have had to run faster to escape threats or even physically resist them. With aging, the physical strength that once supported our safety diminishes, and therefore we need secure solutions to protect us from male violence.
Nothing about aging is designed with lesbians in mind: Nursing homes and services for old people are conceived and designed for heterosexual individuals. The needs of older lesbian couples or single older lesbians are rarely considered, including our desire for female community, female staff, and the need for independent spaces, including moments of separation from heterosexual women.
Gender identity ideology is also a problem because it allows men who claim to be lesbians to enter spaces dedicated to us, or to be considered as female members of service staff. This is particularly disturbing for lesbians.
Data collected in statistics and reflected in UN recommendations are also distorted when no clear distinction is made between sex (reproductive biology) and gender (defined in the LBOR as sex-based stereotypes whose purpose is to force all women into a subordinate position in relation to all men).
It is therefore essential for the UN not to conflate sex with gender, and maintain women’s and lesbians’ rights on the basis of our female sex.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
June 2026
The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) solicited input on Dismantling Gender Stereotypes and the Unequal Power Relations that Sustain them (8th draft), and LBORI provided this paragraph-by-paragraph commentary.
CEDAW General Recommendation No. 41 on Dismantling Gender Stereotypes and the Unequal Power Relations that Sustain them (8th draft)
Lesbian Bill of Rights International (LBORI) is an international network of radical feminist lesbian organisations that have adopted the Lesbian Bill of Rights (LBOR).
“Gender stereotypes” is a redundant expression because gender is the sum of stereotypes whereby society subjugates women: gender is the cultural expression of the material oppression of the sex class of women and girls by the sex class of men and boys. Therefore we ask to replace the words "gender stereotypes" with "sex-role stereotypes" and "gender-based violence" with "male violence against women and girls" throughout this document.
The central argument of the document should be that gender constitutes an oppressive cultural construct that harms the sex class of women and girls and should be dismantled through legal and policy interventions at the state level.
(4)
The sentence “Women often suffer intersectional discrimination and gender stereotypes based on their sex and gender” should be so revised: “Women often suffer intersectional discrimination and gender discrimination based on their sex”.
Women should be defined as adult human females, and the discrimination they experience should be conceptualized as multifaceted forms of violence directed at them as a sex class by men and boys.
“Gender identity” is a contradictory concept and should be removed from the list. If gender is understood as the cultural sum of stereotypes that oppress women, it should not be treated as an identity. Feminists are fighting to abolish gender as expression of their oppression.
(5)
“Gender” would be better defined as the cultural expression of a material oppression. Like all superstructures, it helps to maintain the underlying oppression. However, it should be made clear that the root cause of discrimination against women is the patriarchal structure of society, which is culturally expressed through the stereotypes that, taken together, are called gender. This definition should be kept in mind throughout the document.
The direct causal relationship between material oppression and cultural superstructure is not clearly expressed in the document. At times, it gives the impression of an idealist approach that places gender at the root of discrimination, rather than the other way around. Of course, in real life there is a circular relationship between the two levels, but the causal analysis should remain clear.
(9)
The definition should be: “Gender is the sum of ideas, attitudes, beliefs and stereotypes produced by patriarchal systems - which prevail in all societies”.
(13) - (24) - (33)
Biological differences are not perceived; they simply exist. Of course, the cultural value attributed to them—what is called gender—can vary over time. Women’s struggles can also loosen certain aspects of sex-based stereotypes.
(17) - (34)
Among the dangers facing girls, the document should also list gender identity ideology, which is pushing an increasing number of young lesbians and girls who do not conform to sex-based stereotypes toward medicalization. They are subjected to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The myth of gender identity has allowed the return of conversion therapy for the most vulnerable lesbians, under the false promise that they can transition to the opposite sex—something that is impossible, as sex cannot be changed. This harmful practice is misnamed “affirming therapy,” but in reality, it functions as a form of conversion therapy, mainly targeting young lesbians and turning them into a simulacrum of straight men.
Being a human female is not a feeling; it is a biological fact that automatically inscribes women into a sexual class that suffers discrimination. There is no such a thing as a female soul in a male body or vice versa. The concept of female and male soul is a reactionary one because it accepts sex-based stereotypes, which are historically determined and enforced by patriarchal oppression.
(20) - (37)
Lesbians should not be placed in the same category as “transgender” people. “Transgender” means someone who thinks can evade gender; but this is wishful thinking: all women, including lesbians are subject to gender oppression. No individual can simply opt out of an oppressive system; only a collective subject can challenge and fight it. This becomes particularly problematic if, by “transgender,” the document refers to men who claim to be women. In that case, data, policies, and positive actions aimed at women would be undermined.
Lesbian spaces, communities, and culture would also be threatened if men who claim to be women were considered lesbians and allowed to participate. Lesbian sexual orientation is based on sex, not on whether someone appears masculine or feminine.
(25)
While it is important to promote the sharing of childcare responsibilities between men and women, it should also be stressed that the bond between mother and child is primary and cannot be placed on the same level as the paternal bond. Historically, the attribution of ownership and control over children to fathers has been a foundational element of patriarchal society. For this reason, the prevailing relationship between mother and child should be recognised in law—for example, by granting mothers more time to stay with the child when they are very young, and by giving mothers primary legal authority in cases of separation or divorce, rather than equal authority.
Recognising the importance of the mother-child bond is essential. From this perspective, surrogacy can be understood as a form of sex-based violence, and it should be named as such in the document.
(30)
The list of harmful practices should also include surrogacy, prostitution, and participation in pornography. These practices are associated with huge risks to women’s physical and mental health, involving increased exposure to male violence, sexually transmitted infections, psychological distress, and long-term trauma. Moreover, they reinforce the notion that women are not fully human but can, in response to certain male demands, be reduced to objects.
The list should also include the conversion therapy of young lesbians and gay men through hormone-based transition practices.
(31)
The document should stress the importance of preserving women’s sports by restricting participation to individuals whose sex is female. This is not solely a matter of testosterone levels; males and females differ across multiple physiological systems—including muscle mass, bone density, cardiovascular capacity, and skeletal structure. These biological differences are actual and not perceived, have significant effects on athletic performance and should be recognized and respected in the organization and regulation of competitive sports.
It is also essential to safeguard women’s institutional and non-institutional spaces, preserving them as single-sex environments (e.g., prisons, dormitories, and the premises of women’s organizations etc.).
(52)
States should adopt a clear definition of woman and gender. Women should be defined as adult human females, and the discrimination they experience should be conceptualized as multifaceted forms of violence directed at them as a sex class. Gender constitutes an oppressive cultural construct that harms the sex class of women and girls and should be dismantled through legal and policy interventions at the state level.
States should ban surrogacy and adopt the Nordic model for addressing prostitution.
Mothers should be supported in the primacy of the maternal bond and should be given primary legal authority in cases of separation or divorce, rather than equal authority.
Official records (e.g., crime, identification cards, health histories) should reflect the biological distinction between men and women, and the same principle should apply to positive actions.
(54)
Families should be supported when a daughter or son challenges sex-based stereotypes with the goal of avoiding unnecessary medicalization. No conversion therapy should be offered to minor lesbians or gays to make them heterosexual through transition.
Mothers should be supported in the primacy of the maternal bond and given primary legal authority in cases of separation or divorce, rather than equal authority.
(56)
Surrogacy, prostitution, pornography, and the medicalization of youth who challenge sex-based stereotypes should be considered practices harmful to women’s health.
(57)
States should ban surrogacy and adopt the Nordic model for addressing prostitution.
(58)
States should adopt a clear definition of “woman” (adult human female). If this definition is blurred by conflating sex and gender, any positive action will be undermined as proved time and time again in the countries where other definitions of “woman” are accepted in law and policy.
(61)
Promote the liberation from all symbols and practices of subordination purported to be religious.
Lesbian Bill of Rights International (LBORI) is an international network of radical feminist lesbian organisations that have adopted the Lesbian Bill of Rights (LBOR).
“Gender stereotypes” is a redundant expression because gender is the sum of stereotypes whereby society subjugates women: gender is the cultural expression of the material oppression of the sex class of women and girls by the sex class of men and boys. Therefore we ask to replace the words "gender stereotypes" with "sex-role stereotypes" and "gender-based violence" with "male violence against women and girls" throughout this document.
The central argument of the document should be that gender constitutes an oppressive cultural construct that harms the sex class of women and girls and should be dismantled through legal and policy interventions at the state level.
(4)
The sentence “Women often suffer intersectional discrimination and gender stereotypes based on their sex and gender” should be so revised: “Women often suffer intersectional discrimination and gender discrimination based on their sex”.
Women should be defined as adult human females, and the discrimination they experience should be conceptualized as multifaceted forms of violence directed at them as a sex class by men and boys.
“Gender identity” is a contradictory concept and should be removed from the list. If gender is understood as the cultural sum of stereotypes that oppress women, it should not be treated as an identity. Feminists are fighting to abolish gender as expression of their oppression.
(5)
“Gender” would be better defined as the cultural expression of a material oppression. Like all superstructures, it helps to maintain the underlying oppression. However, it should be made clear that the root cause of discrimination against women is the patriarchal structure of society, which is culturally expressed through the stereotypes that, taken together, are called gender. This definition should be kept in mind throughout the document.
The direct causal relationship between material oppression and cultural superstructure is not clearly expressed in the document. At times, it gives the impression of an idealist approach that places gender at the root of discrimination, rather than the other way around. Of course, in real life there is a circular relationship between the two levels, but the causal analysis should remain clear.
(9)
The definition should be: “Gender is the sum of ideas, attitudes, beliefs and stereotypes produced by patriarchal systems - which prevail in all societies”.
(13) - (24) - (33)
Biological differences are not perceived; they simply exist. Of course, the cultural value attributed to them—what is called gender—can vary over time. Women’s struggles can also loosen certain aspects of sex-based stereotypes.
(17) - (34)
Among the dangers facing girls, the document should also list gender identity ideology, which is pushing an increasing number of young lesbians and girls who do not conform to sex-based stereotypes toward medicalization. They are subjected to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The myth of gender identity has allowed the return of conversion therapy for the most vulnerable lesbians, under the false promise that they can transition to the opposite sex—something that is impossible, as sex cannot be changed. This harmful practice is misnamed “affirming therapy,” but in reality, it functions as a form of conversion therapy, mainly targeting young lesbians and turning them into a simulacrum of straight men.
Being a human female is not a feeling; it is a biological fact that automatically inscribes women into a sexual class that suffers discrimination. There is no such a thing as a female soul in a male body or vice versa. The concept of female and male soul is a reactionary one because it accepts sex-based stereotypes, which are historically determined and enforced by patriarchal oppression.
(20) - (37)
Lesbians should not be placed in the same category as “transgender” people. “Transgender” means someone who thinks can evade gender; but this is wishful thinking: all women, including lesbians are subject to gender oppression. No individual can simply opt out of an oppressive system; only a collective subject can challenge and fight it. This becomes particularly problematic if, by “transgender,” the document refers to men who claim to be women. In that case, data, policies, and positive actions aimed at women would be undermined.
Lesbian spaces, communities, and culture would also be threatened if men who claim to be women were considered lesbians and allowed to participate. Lesbian sexual orientation is based on sex, not on whether someone appears masculine or feminine.
(25)
While it is important to promote the sharing of childcare responsibilities between men and women, it should also be stressed that the bond between mother and child is primary and cannot be placed on the same level as the paternal bond. Historically, the attribution of ownership and control over children to fathers has been a foundational element of patriarchal society. For this reason, the prevailing relationship between mother and child should be recognised in law—for example, by granting mothers more time to stay with the child when they are very young, and by giving mothers primary legal authority in cases of separation or divorce, rather than equal authority.
Recognising the importance of the mother-child bond is essential. From this perspective, surrogacy can be understood as a form of sex-based violence, and it should be named as such in the document.
(30)
The list of harmful practices should also include surrogacy, prostitution, and participation in pornography. These practices are associated with huge risks to women’s physical and mental health, involving increased exposure to male violence, sexually transmitted infections, psychological distress, and long-term trauma. Moreover, they reinforce the notion that women are not fully human but can, in response to certain male demands, be reduced to objects.
The list should also include the conversion therapy of young lesbians and gay men through hormone-based transition practices.
(31)
The document should stress the importance of preserving women’s sports by restricting participation to individuals whose sex is female. This is not solely a matter of testosterone levels; males and females differ across multiple physiological systems—including muscle mass, bone density, cardiovascular capacity, and skeletal structure. These biological differences are actual and not perceived, have significant effects on athletic performance and should be recognized and respected in the organization and regulation of competitive sports.
It is also essential to safeguard women’s institutional and non-institutional spaces, preserving them as single-sex environments (e.g., prisons, dormitories, and the premises of women’s organizations etc.).
(52)
States should adopt a clear definition of woman and gender. Women should be defined as adult human females, and the discrimination they experience should be conceptualized as multifaceted forms of violence directed at them as a sex class. Gender constitutes an oppressive cultural construct that harms the sex class of women and girls and should be dismantled through legal and policy interventions at the state level.
States should ban surrogacy and adopt the Nordic model for addressing prostitution.
Mothers should be supported in the primacy of the maternal bond and should be given primary legal authority in cases of separation or divorce, rather than equal authority.
Official records (e.g., crime, identification cards, health histories) should reflect the biological distinction between men and women, and the same principle should apply to positive actions.
(54)
Families should be supported when a daughter or son challenges sex-based stereotypes with the goal of avoiding unnecessary medicalization. No conversion therapy should be offered to minor lesbians or gays to make them heterosexual through transition.
Mothers should be supported in the primacy of the maternal bond and given primary legal authority in cases of separation or divorce, rather than equal authority.
(56)
Surrogacy, prostitution, pornography, and the medicalization of youth who challenge sex-based stereotypes should be considered practices harmful to women’s health.
(57)
States should ban surrogacy and adopt the Nordic model for addressing prostitution.
(58)
States should adopt a clear definition of “woman” (adult human female). If this definition is blurred by conflating sex and gender, any positive action will be undermined as proved time and time again in the countries where other definitions of “woman” are accepted in law and policy.
(61)
Promote the liberation from all symbols and practices of subordination purported to be religious.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia
June 2026
LBORI Statement on the European Union Court of Justice: Whose law applies when EU nations disagree on “gender identity”
Woman’ means adult human female;
On March 12, 2026, the European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ) decided whether a Bulgarian citizen who started a hormonal treatment in Italy could have his documents changed in Bulgaria, an EU member nation. Bulgaria does not recognise “gender identity.” Prior to ruling, the court considered observations submitted by Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Portugal, among others. The EUCJ ruled that the man’s “gender identity” as a woman must be upheld throughout the EU.
At the core of the judgment was the court’s interpretation of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), created in 2000. Among the items at issue were several provisions of the Charter that address equality between men and women, the right to move freely among member nations, and respect for private life. Also at issue was what to do about a conflict in law between the European Union and Bulgaria.
The Bulgarian Constitution Court has been clear that “sex,” according to the Bulgarian Constitution, means biological sex. Nevertheless, it was this Court that referred the case to the EUCJ, expressing concern that its prior rulings might cause discrimination against Bulgarian “transgender persons” in relation to others similarly situated in other EU countries, for instance, with respect to the right to travel freely among EU countries. So there was a potential conflict between the Bulgarian Constitution and the EU Charter.
The EUCJ reasons, in part, as follows:
As EU law currently stands, a person’s status, which is relevant to the rules on changing the family name, patronymic, first name or gender identity of a person, is a matter which falls within the competence of the Member States. EU law does not detract from that competence. Nevertheless, in exercising that competence, each Member State must comply with EU law, in particular the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the right conferred on all Union citizens to move and reside within the territory of the Member States . . . . The exercise of the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States . . . is likely to be hindered by a Member State’s refusal to recognise a change of gender identity . . . .
So the EUCJ has ruled that a member nation’s Constitution is trumped by the rights given by the EU Charter for citizens of member nations to travel freely. It would appear that “to travel freely” means to travel internationally without having your identity questioned when you attempt to present yourself as the opposite sex.
The EUCJ goes on to explain how important it is for member states to recognize “gender identity”:
According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, Article 8 ECHR protects a person’s gender identity as a constituent element and one of the most intimate aspects of his or her private life. Thus, that Article 8 encompasses the right of each person to establish details of their identity as individual human beings, which includes the right of transgender people to personal development and physical and moral integrity and to respect for and recognition of their gender identity . . . . It thus follows from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that, under Article 8 ECHR, States are required to provide for a clear and foreseeable procedure for legal recognition of gender identity which allows for a change of gender data and thus of family name, patronymic and first name or personal identification number, on official documents, in a quick, transparent and accessible manner . . . . To tolerate discrimination based on the difference between biological sex and gender identity would be tantamount, as regards a transgender person, to a failure to respect the dignity and freedom to which he or she is entitled . . . .
The conflict of law question is also addressed directly:
. . . [I]t should also be borne in mind that the requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law entails the obligation for national courts to change their established case-law, where necessary, if it is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with EU law . . . .
The EUCJ’s analysis utterly ignores the harmful impact of gender identity ideology on women including lesbians. It is to be hoped that nations such as Bulgaria, who at least to some degree recognize that sex is real and that it sometimes matters, will not quietly accept this autocratic ruling that harms women and girls.
Throughout this ruling “gender” and “sex” are used interchangeably and confusingly. As radical feminist lesbians, we oppose the substitution of “gender identity” for sex on material grounds and think that the concept of "transgender" is too vague to be formalized in law. Women are oppressed on the basis of sex, not “gender identity.” If a man can claim a female identity, he can be allowed access to female-only spaces, institutions, and resources, depriving women of legal protections that impact safety, privacy, and fairness.
- ‘Girl’ means minor human female;
- ‘Lesbian’ means a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted;
- ‘Gender’ means sex-based stereotypes whose purpose is to force all women into a subordinate position in relation to all men;
On March 12, 2026, the European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ) decided whether a Bulgarian citizen who started a hormonal treatment in Italy could have his documents changed in Bulgaria, an EU member nation. Bulgaria does not recognise “gender identity.” Prior to ruling, the court considered observations submitted by Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Portugal, among others. The EUCJ ruled that the man’s “gender identity” as a woman must be upheld throughout the EU.
At the core of the judgment was the court’s interpretation of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), created in 2000. Among the items at issue were several provisions of the Charter that address equality between men and women, the right to move freely among member nations, and respect for private life. Also at issue was what to do about a conflict in law between the European Union and Bulgaria.
The Bulgarian Constitution Court has been clear that “sex,” according to the Bulgarian Constitution, means biological sex. Nevertheless, it was this Court that referred the case to the EUCJ, expressing concern that its prior rulings might cause discrimination against Bulgarian “transgender persons” in relation to others similarly situated in other EU countries, for instance, with respect to the right to travel freely among EU countries. So there was a potential conflict between the Bulgarian Constitution and the EU Charter.
The EUCJ reasons, in part, as follows:
As EU law currently stands, a person’s status, which is relevant to the rules on changing the family name, patronymic, first name or gender identity of a person, is a matter which falls within the competence of the Member States. EU law does not detract from that competence. Nevertheless, in exercising that competence, each Member State must comply with EU law, in particular the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the right conferred on all Union citizens to move and reside within the territory of the Member States . . . . The exercise of the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States . . . is likely to be hindered by a Member State’s refusal to recognise a change of gender identity . . . .
So the EUCJ has ruled that a member nation’s Constitution is trumped by the rights given by the EU Charter for citizens of member nations to travel freely. It would appear that “to travel freely” means to travel internationally without having your identity questioned when you attempt to present yourself as the opposite sex.
The EUCJ goes on to explain how important it is for member states to recognize “gender identity”:
According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, Article 8 ECHR protects a person’s gender identity as a constituent element and one of the most intimate aspects of his or her private life. Thus, that Article 8 encompasses the right of each person to establish details of their identity as individual human beings, which includes the right of transgender people to personal development and physical and moral integrity and to respect for and recognition of their gender identity . . . . It thus follows from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that, under Article 8 ECHR, States are required to provide for a clear and foreseeable procedure for legal recognition of gender identity which allows for a change of gender data and thus of family name, patronymic and first name or personal identification number, on official documents, in a quick, transparent and accessible manner . . . . To tolerate discrimination based on the difference between biological sex and gender identity would be tantamount, as regards a transgender person, to a failure to respect the dignity and freedom to which he or she is entitled . . . .
The conflict of law question is also addressed directly:
. . . [I]t should also be borne in mind that the requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law entails the obligation for national courts to change their established case-law, where necessary, if it is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with EU law . . . .
The EUCJ’s analysis utterly ignores the harmful impact of gender identity ideology on women including lesbians. It is to be hoped that nations such as Bulgaria, who at least to some degree recognize that sex is real and that it sometimes matters, will not quietly accept this autocratic ruling that harms women and girls.
Throughout this ruling “gender” and “sex” are used interchangeably and confusingly. As radical feminist lesbians, we oppose the substitution of “gender identity” for sex on material grounds and think that the concept of "transgender" is too vague to be formalized in law. Women are oppressed on the basis of sex, not “gender identity.” If a man can claim a female identity, he can be allowed access to female-only spaces, institutions, and resources, depriving women of legal protections that impact safety, privacy, and fairness.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
June 2026
Here is LBORI's response to the EU Action Plan for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in EU External Action 2028 – 2034 (GAP IV), submitted April 28, 2026.
Lesbian Bill of Rights International (LBORI) is an international network of radical feminist lesbian organisations that have adopted the Lesbian Bill of Rights (LBOR)
We welcome this EU call at a time when women across Europe are under attack from the political right, from neoliberal economic systems, and from gender ideology. This is not a series of isolated challenges, but a converging assault that undermines women’s rights at every level.
First of all, it is essential to clarify that women’s rights are based on biological sex, while gender consists of stereotypes that culturally justify the material oppression of women by men. Therefore, starting from the very title of this initiative (which should be “EU Action Plan for Sex Equality”), it is crucial not to conflate sex and gender, as this obscures oppression. Women are adult human females, and they are oppressed because they belong to the female sex.
No meaningful policies for women’s empowerment can be developed if sex is erased and replaced by gender identity. Women’s movements have long resisted gender precisely because it operates as an oppressive mechanism of constraint and subordination.
If the distinction between sex and gender is not safeguarded, women-only spaces and initiatives will be compromised by the inclusion of biological males who claim a “female gender identity”—a concept that is defined only through historically constructed stereotypes imposed on women.
We believe that the EU should:
Lesbians should not be included in a generic lgbt category, but recognized for what they are: women who wish to maintain the spaces they have fought for over decades.
Young lesbians should not be subjected to forms of conversion therapy which, through puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, attempt to turn them into a simulacrum of heterosexual boys.
Organizations such as ILGA, which encourage these types of practices and support the inclusion of males in the female category, should not receive EU funding.
In Europe, women face serious issues of male violence. It is therefore essential to prioritize financial support for pathways out of violence, supporting both individual women and the autonomous services that women have built over decades. These services should remain women-only, both in terms of users and staff.
No process of women’s empowerment can succeed in societies where prostitution exists and women’s bodies are treated as available to men’ s consumption: the exchange of sex for money is a male-driven practice that harms all women. The EU should therefore support, both financially and through appropriate services, pathways out of prostitution and adopt the Nordic model.
Similarly, any attempt to legalize surrogacy represents a serious blow to women’s dignity, as it requires women to sell parts (eggs) or functions (pregnancy) of their bodies. Women are not vessels, and children are not commodities to be bought or gifted away. Human dignity must be upheld by distinguishing a person from an object.
We welcome this EU call at a time when women across Europe are under attack from the political right, from neoliberal economic systems, and from gender ideology. This is not a series of isolated challenges, but a converging assault that undermines women’s rights at every level.
First of all, it is essential to clarify that women’s rights are based on biological sex, while gender consists of stereotypes that culturally justify the material oppression of women by men. Therefore, starting from the very title of this initiative (which should be “EU Action Plan for Sex Equality”), it is crucial not to conflate sex and gender, as this obscures oppression. Women are adult human females, and they are oppressed because they belong to the female sex.
No meaningful policies for women’s empowerment can be developed if sex is erased and replaced by gender identity. Women’s movements have long resisted gender precisely because it operates as an oppressive mechanism of constraint and subordination.
If the distinction between sex and gender is not safeguarded, women-only spaces and initiatives will be compromised by the inclusion of biological males who claim a “female gender identity”—a concept that is defined only through historically constructed stereotypes imposed on women.
We believe that the EU should:
- clearly distinguish between sex (biology) and gender (cultural oppression), and reject laws based on self-identification;
- guarantee and protect women-only spaces, services, and political organizing;
- avoid a top-down approach, relying on media campaigns of questionable effectiveness. Available funds should instead be directed toward concrete services for women and directly to women’s organizations. These organizations most of the time need adequate physical spaces to carry out their work, yet the costs across Europe are often prohibitive and the EU should help in this respect.
Lesbians should not be included in a generic lgbt category, but recognized for what they are: women who wish to maintain the spaces they have fought for over decades.
Young lesbians should not be subjected to forms of conversion therapy which, through puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, attempt to turn them into a simulacrum of heterosexual boys.
Organizations such as ILGA, which encourage these types of practices and support the inclusion of males in the female category, should not receive EU funding.
In Europe, women face serious issues of male violence. It is therefore essential to prioritize financial support for pathways out of violence, supporting both individual women and the autonomous services that women have built over decades. These services should remain women-only, both in terms of users and staff.
No process of women’s empowerment can succeed in societies where prostitution exists and women’s bodies are treated as available to men’ s consumption: the exchange of sex for money is a male-driven practice that harms all women. The EU should therefore support, both financially and through appropriate services, pathways out of prostitution and adopt the Nordic model.
Similarly, any attempt to legalize surrogacy represents a serious blow to women’s dignity, as it requires women to sell parts (eggs) or functions (pregnancy) of their bodies. Women are not vessels, and children are not commodities to be bought or gifted away. Human dignity must be upheld by distinguishing a person from an object.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
LAVA (New Zealand)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
LAVA (New Zealand)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
|
December 2025 |
Puberty-Blocking Drugs Banned for Minors in New Zealand
What it means for lesbians
RESOLVED, recognizing that if not intervened upon, the majority of ‘trans-identifying’ youth grow up to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual, the right to be free from conversion therapy includes the right to be free of indoctrination into gender identity ideology and its accompanying cosmetic medical procedures designed to disguise one’s sex…
The New Zealand Government’s decision to halt new prescriptions of puberty blockers (gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, GnRH) for “gender dysphoria” is an important step in the right direction and marks a tectonic shift in youth healthcare policy. For us, this pause brings a cautious sense of hope - especially for children who may grow up to be lesbian or gay. It’s not a total ban, but it significantly reduces the medicalisation of distressed children.
What has changed
The Government has announced yesterday that new prescriptions of puberty blockers for “gender dysphoria” will be paused until the results of clinical trials in the UK are available.
Young people already receiving these prescriptions will be able to continue their treatment for now.
GnRH remain available for established medical uses, such as early-onset puberty, prostate cancer, endometriosis and hormone-related conditions.
Why this matters for lesbians
Many children experience discomfort and distress during adolescence - in fact, it’s a normal part of human development. Especially children who don’t seem to fit the stereotypical expectations of their sex often navigate a complex journey of self-discovery, questioning and identity. By halting new prescriptions, the policy shifts attention from almost automatic medicalisation of physical development to psychological and social support - areas that urgently need widening and increased funding.
For girls who may later come out as lesbians, the change offers protection: Instead of being channelled into puberty suppression and social “transition” simply because their bodies or feelings don’t align with societal expectations, the new policy will prioritise time for natural development and self-reflection over irreversible medical interventions.
While this development is welcome, important questions remain:
Now for it: What needs to happen next?
As advocacy groups, we need to:
The Government has announced yesterday that new prescriptions of puberty blockers for “gender dysphoria” will be paused until the results of clinical trials in the UK are available.
Young people already receiving these prescriptions will be able to continue their treatment for now.
GnRH remain available for established medical uses, such as early-onset puberty, prostate cancer, endometriosis and hormone-related conditions.
Why this matters for lesbians
Many children experience discomfort and distress during adolescence - in fact, it’s a normal part of human development. Especially children who don’t seem to fit the stereotypical expectations of their sex often navigate a complex journey of self-discovery, questioning and identity. By halting new prescriptions, the policy shifts attention from almost automatic medicalisation of physical development to psychological and social support - areas that urgently need widening and increased funding.
For girls who may later come out as lesbians, the change offers protection: Instead of being channelled into puberty suppression and social “transition” simply because their bodies or feelings don’t align with societal expectations, the new policy will prioritise time for natural development and self-reflection over irreversible medical interventions.
While this development is welcome, important questions remain:
- The very concept of “gender dysphoria” is under increasing scrutiny. The Cass Review, a major review commissioned in the UK found that much of “gender medicine” is built on shaky foundations, noting that most clinical guidelines for children are neither independent nor strongly evidence-based.
- The government’s policy pause appears to be closely linked to the UK Pathways clinical trial, which is due to report in the coming years. The trial documenting the use of powerful drugs originally developed for other conditions - in children for whom long-term safety data is limited - raises strong ethical questions.
- The pause leaves children currently taking the drug in a dangerous position. We believe their cases should be reviewed immediately, with parents and clinicians engaging in a thorough and transparent informed-consent process about the risks and potential harms, such as infertility and loss of sexual function.
- Oranga Tamariki’s (NZ Ministry for Children) current guidelines for children in state care remain rooted in an “affirmation-first” model, which is particularly concerning because young people who experience distress about their sex are disproportionately represented in care.
Now for it: What needs to happen next?
- All existing cases of children on puberty blockers must be reviewed and evaluated, ensuring genuine informed consent.
- Oranga Tamariki’s affirmation-based model must be investigated to ensure it does not harm children’s long-term wellbeing.
- The ethics of the UK’s Pathways clinical trials need to be investigated.
As advocacy groups, we need to:
- continue engagement, scrutiny and advocacy to ensure that children’s health remain at the centre of policy decisions,
- form new and strengthen existing national and international alliances to maintain momentum to further inform the public and keep up the pressure,
- safeguard and monitor the policy pause and prevent it from being reversed,
- widen the scope of investigation into other “gender” related organisations, policies and laws that impact women and children (Conversion Practices, “rainbow” charities, government agencies advocating for DEI, etc).
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
Arcilesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
Arcilesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
November 2025
Freedom of Speech is under threat globally:
Why this matters for lesbians
The silencing of women has a long and brutal history. In earlier centuries, women could be tortured for speaking out, which was seen as “nagging.” Almost unbelievably, the Scold’s Bridle, a painful metal mask intended to enforce female silence, remained on the British penal books until 1967. It controlled women perceived as publicly challenging male authority or social norms. Though laws today apply to everyone, they impact women especially hard, rendering us silent, compliant, and invisible.
Over the last decade or two, Western democracies have shifted from open societies that tolerate disagreement to managed societies that criminalise it. Laws sold as preventing “harm” or “hate” now punish lawful expression, especially when it challenges ideological fashion.
United Kingdom
The UK leads the Western world in online prosecutions, with thousands of arrests annually under the Malicious Communications Act and Communications Act 2003, often for social media posts. Many result in convictions or cautions for speech alone, something almost unimaginable a generation ago.
Australia This Australian women’s advocate and founder of Binary Australia was repeatedly investigated under vilification laws for referring to males as “men.” Her experience shows how even mild factual statements can trigger legal scrutiny in jurisdictions with broad anti-discrimination codes.
New Zealand This is a women’s rights campaigner charged under the Harmful Digital Communications Act after refusing to remove social media posts critical of a “trans rights” activist. Her digital devices were seized, and she faces ongoing proceedings. (Feminist Legal, 2025)
Brazil Cêpa was charged with “social racism” (a criminal category now interpreted to include “transphobia”) for misgendering a politician. Facing up to 25 years in prison, she fled Brazil and was granted asylum in Europe. (The Australian, 2025)
This essay explores how such laws impact women, including lesbians, who speak out - particularly about the harms of “gender identity” ideology. Their experience reveals that when governments decide which words can be spoken, democracy begins to erode.
Many of these laws are similar across multiple countries. Speech restrictions are framed as “harm prevention” and target anything “grossly offensive”, causing “emotional distress” or even just “causing annoyance”. But “harm” is subjective. The person most determined to be offended gains a kind of veto power over another’s free speech. Some complainants who have posted indecencies themselves claim moral outrage when women state biological facts, and courts often side with them.
In the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, activists and institutions use these frameworks to suppress dissent on such topics as observable sex and gender identity ideology. Women and lesbians who were once vocal defenders of our rights are often silenced.
This trend is part of a new authoritarianism, clothed in the language of popular psychotherapy. Governments claiming to shield citizens from emotional discomfort treat us like children, while grievance-driven litigation erodes fundamental rights.
When people see women arrested or losing their jobs for tweets, or activists dragged into court for stating facts, they fall silent. There is a “chilling effect” in free speech. Self-censorship spreads. Writers, podcasters, parents, and teachers check every word and avoid topics that could invite complaints or police visits. Public debate withers; what remains is conformity and politeness born of the fear of legal proceedings, harassment complaints, or employment sanctions. Lesbians who assert that same-sex attraction means female-only are accused of “hate” and “bigotry.” Speech must be both inoffensive and ideologically aligned, stifling democracy, innovation, and societal development.
The push to curb free speech also reveals an uncomfortable similarity between the progressive left, which seeks to erase biological sex, and the ultra-conservative right, who push women back into domestic roles. Both aim to remove women from public life.
For lesbians, whose very definition depends on recognition that sex is real, this convergence is especially dangerous. To live freely, we must speak freely. When we cannot say “women are female” or “a man is a male” without legal risk, we are no longer equal citizens. Free speech is not an abstraction.
Internationally, prosecutions are not driven by a single kind of law. Whether called Harmful Digital Communications Act, Online Safety Bill, or hate speech provisions, the logic is the same: Regulate speech to protect people from claimed emotional harm. Mechanisms differ, but the outcome is always the same - silencing those whose ideas offend current political fashion.
In stark contrast to Western silencing, repression in Iran and Afghanistan, for instance, is overt and lethal. In Iran, women advocating for basic rights face arrest, flogging, and execution. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has erased women's voices from public life. Yet women in both countries continue to resist. Women in the West must resist laws that curtail free speech to show that liberty is both necessary and possible for all women.
Laws that punish women and lesbians for naming reality protect delusions and lies, not people. When delusions become enforceable, truth and democracy narrow. But resistance is growing. Across the UK, Australia, the US, and beyond, women, including lesbians, are pushing back - in courts, in public squares, and online. Every placard, article, submission, book, or post refusing intimidation is an act of resistance and courage. Freedom of speech is not a luxury. Women everywhere need to speak the truth as much as they need to breathe. In doing so, they defend not only their rights, but everyone’s right to think, question, and speak freely.
Over the last decade or two, Western democracies have shifted from open societies that tolerate disagreement to managed societies that criminalise it. Laws sold as preventing “harm” or “hate” now punish lawful expression, especially when it challenges ideological fashion.
United Kingdom
The UK leads the Western world in online prosecutions, with thousands of arrests annually under the Malicious Communications Act and Communications Act 2003, often for social media posts. Many result in convictions or cautions for speech alone, something almost unimaginable a generation ago.
- Kathleen Stock
The Office for Students fined Sussex University £585,000 for failing to uphold free speech protections after harassment campaigns targeted philosopher Kathleen Stock for stating that sex is real. (Office for Students, 2025)
- Lucy Connolly
Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for an offensive post about asylum seekers. Although her remarks were ugly, they did not result in immediate violence; the case demonstrates how speech alone - even a deleted tweet - can now lead to lengthy prison terms. (ITV News, 2024)
Australia This Australian women’s advocate and founder of Binary Australia was repeatedly investigated under vilification laws for referring to males as “men.” Her experience shows how even mild factual statements can trigger legal scrutiny in jurisdictions with broad anti-discrimination codes.
New Zealand This is a women’s rights campaigner charged under the Harmful Digital Communications Act after refusing to remove social media posts critical of a “trans rights” activist. Her digital devices were seized, and she faces ongoing proceedings. (Feminist Legal, 2025)
Brazil Cêpa was charged with “social racism” (a criminal category now interpreted to include “transphobia”) for misgendering a politician. Facing up to 25 years in prison, she fled Brazil and was granted asylum in Europe. (The Australian, 2025)
This essay explores how such laws impact women, including lesbians, who speak out - particularly about the harms of “gender identity” ideology. Their experience reveals that when governments decide which words can be spoken, democracy begins to erode.
Many of these laws are similar across multiple countries. Speech restrictions are framed as “harm prevention” and target anything “grossly offensive”, causing “emotional distress” or even just “causing annoyance”. But “harm” is subjective. The person most determined to be offended gains a kind of veto power over another’s free speech. Some complainants who have posted indecencies themselves claim moral outrage when women state biological facts, and courts often side with them.
In the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, activists and institutions use these frameworks to suppress dissent on such topics as observable sex and gender identity ideology. Women and lesbians who were once vocal defenders of our rights are often silenced.
This trend is part of a new authoritarianism, clothed in the language of popular psychotherapy. Governments claiming to shield citizens from emotional discomfort treat us like children, while grievance-driven litigation erodes fundamental rights.
When people see women arrested or losing their jobs for tweets, or activists dragged into court for stating facts, they fall silent. There is a “chilling effect” in free speech. Self-censorship spreads. Writers, podcasters, parents, and teachers check every word and avoid topics that could invite complaints or police visits. Public debate withers; what remains is conformity and politeness born of the fear of legal proceedings, harassment complaints, or employment sanctions. Lesbians who assert that same-sex attraction means female-only are accused of “hate” and “bigotry.” Speech must be both inoffensive and ideologically aligned, stifling democracy, innovation, and societal development.
The push to curb free speech also reveals an uncomfortable similarity between the progressive left, which seeks to erase biological sex, and the ultra-conservative right, who push women back into domestic roles. Both aim to remove women from public life.
For lesbians, whose very definition depends on recognition that sex is real, this convergence is especially dangerous. To live freely, we must speak freely. When we cannot say “women are female” or “a man is a male” without legal risk, we are no longer equal citizens. Free speech is not an abstraction.
Internationally, prosecutions are not driven by a single kind of law. Whether called Harmful Digital Communications Act, Online Safety Bill, or hate speech provisions, the logic is the same: Regulate speech to protect people from claimed emotional harm. Mechanisms differ, but the outcome is always the same - silencing those whose ideas offend current political fashion.
In stark contrast to Western silencing, repression in Iran and Afghanistan, for instance, is overt and lethal. In Iran, women advocating for basic rights face arrest, flogging, and execution. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has erased women's voices from public life. Yet women in both countries continue to resist. Women in the West must resist laws that curtail free speech to show that liberty is both necessary and possible for all women.
Laws that punish women and lesbians for naming reality protect delusions and lies, not people. When delusions become enforceable, truth and democracy narrow. But resistance is growing. Across the UK, Australia, the US, and beyond, women, including lesbians, are pushing back - in courts, in public squares, and online. Every placard, article, submission, book, or post refusing intimidation is an act of resistance and courage. Freedom of speech is not a luxury. Women everywhere need to speak the truth as much as they need to breathe. In doing so, they defend not only their rights, but everyone’s right to think, question, and speak freely.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
Arcilesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
Arcilesbica (Italy)
CoAL (Australia)
Addendum (December 2025) to
Freedom of Speech is under threat globally: Why this matters for lesbians
Freedom of Speech is under threat globally: Why this matters for lesbians
Germany and USA
The interaction of “gender identity” with existing free-speech principles is developing rapidly in Germany and in the United States as well as in the countries we previously discussed. As an addendum to our earlier article on freedom-of-speech concerns with respect to dissenting views on "gender identity," the following examples from Germany and the United States show how this conflict is currently playing out.
Two German examples illustrate how speech suppression has been enforced:
In the United States, where there is a Constitutional right to free speech, a group of parents were banned from school property by school officials in New Hampshire for wearing “XX” armbands to a girls’ school soccer game to protest boys playing on girls’ teams. The parents’ lawsuit is currently awaiting a ruling by the federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Fellers v. Kelly).
Two German examples illustrate how speech suppression has been enforced:
- The disclosure ban in the Self-Determination Act (SBGG) prohibits revealing a person’s sex at birth or former legal name without consent. Violations are treated as administrative offences and can be punished with fines of up to €10,000.
- The parents’ brochure Wegweiser aus dem Transgenderkult (“Guide Out of the Transgender Cult”), published by Rona Duwe, was placed on the federal index of media harmful to minors. As a result, it may no longer be publicly advertised.
In the United States, where there is a Constitutional right to free speech, a group of parents were banned from school property by school officials in New Hampshire for wearing “XX” armbands to a girls’ school soccer game to protest boys playing on girls’ teams. The parents’ lawsuit is currently awaiting a ruling by the federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Fellers v. Kelly).
September 2025
LBORI Report on
How UN Women Want to Reframe Male Violence Against Women and Certain Men
The United Nations group called United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) held a webinar September 3, 2025 titled “Measuring gender-based violence: Data collection and evidence on violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC).” I was able to attend live and remotely as coordinator of Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (LBORI).
The webinar organizers – Raphaëlle Rafin, Sophie West-Browne, and Giorgia Airoldi – used the occasion to introduce their report having the same title as the webinar. I can assure any readers who do not support gender identity ideology that the chat was by far the most interesting aspect of the webinar; or perhaps I am influenced in saying that because I persistently asked what I considered pertinent questions in the chat, sparking discussion.
The gist of my persistent questioning during the live chat was “This webinar purports to be about ways to perform accurate, meaningful, and useful data collection. But how can those aims be accomplished where there is no coherent definition of ‘lesbian’ or of sexual orientation, and no discussion of how both conflict with ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’?”
I received a couple of rude or dismissive responses to my question at first; so I reframed and rephrased it several times in the chat. Eventually, several attendees said something like “I wondered that too.” And eventually I received as much of an answer as I could reasonably have expected from supporters of UN Women, to the effect that ‘lesbian’ doesn’t need definition because
So, it was explained to me, it is for these reasons that the report focuses on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics – and not on whether victims of violence actually *are* lesbian, for instance. Because actually *being* lesbian is somehow beside the point. Conveniently, if this is accepted, then whether any person can actually *be* “trans” is also logically beside the point!
It was further explained to me that understanding the scope of the issue (which issue?) and the common roots of the violence are what matters most. But which demographic perpetrates the overwhelming percentage of the violence universally? Of course it is men and boys, and acknowledging that bit of data is forbidden in this patriarchal ideology; the erasure of sex in favor of “sex characteristics” aims at ignoring the obvious, universal link between maleness and violence against women, lesbians, and those people perceived to be like either group.
I’m puzzled by the notion that ‘lesbian’ is culturally specific. LBORI’s Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as “a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” The purported cultural specificity of that definition eludes me. But I suspect the criticism is in alignment with a transgenderist/postmodernist agenda:
Going forward, it seems predictable that the proponents of gender identity ideology, including UN Women, will increase their usage of the SOCIESC acronym instead of LGBTQIA+ as a next step in their campaign to erase all women (including lesbians in particular) and to erase men and boys as the main perpetrators of violence universally.
The webinar organizers – Raphaëlle Rafin, Sophie West-Browne, and Giorgia Airoldi – used the occasion to introduce their report having the same title as the webinar. I can assure any readers who do not support gender identity ideology that the chat was by far the most interesting aspect of the webinar; or perhaps I am influenced in saying that because I persistently asked what I considered pertinent questions in the chat, sparking discussion.
The gist of my persistent questioning during the live chat was “This webinar purports to be about ways to perform accurate, meaningful, and useful data collection. But how can those aims be accomplished where there is no coherent definition of ‘lesbian’ or of sexual orientation, and no discussion of how both conflict with ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’?”
I received a couple of rude or dismissive responses to my question at first; so I reframed and rephrased it several times in the chat. Eventually, several attendees said something like “I wondered that too.” And eventually I received as much of an answer as I could reasonably have expected from supporters of UN Women, to the effect that ‘lesbian’ doesn’t need definition because
- such terms as those included in the ‘LGB’ acronym, for instance, are too “culturally specific” to be universally applicable to the work of the United Nations; and
- violence can be based on self ID or on perceived identity (for example, someone thinks you look like a lesbian).
So, it was explained to me, it is for these reasons that the report focuses on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics – and not on whether victims of violence actually *are* lesbian, for instance. Because actually *being* lesbian is somehow beside the point. Conveniently, if this is accepted, then whether any person can actually *be* “trans” is also logically beside the point!
It was further explained to me that understanding the scope of the issue (which issue?) and the common roots of the violence are what matters most. But which demographic perpetrates the overwhelming percentage of the violence universally? Of course it is men and boys, and acknowledging that bit of data is forbidden in this patriarchal ideology; the erasure of sex in favor of “sex characteristics” aims at ignoring the obvious, universal link between maleness and violence against women, lesbians, and those people perceived to be like either group.
I’m puzzled by the notion that ‘lesbian’ is culturally specific. LBORI’s Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as “a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” The purported cultural specificity of that definition eludes me. But I suspect the criticism is in alignment with a transgenderist/postmodernist agenda:
- It’s useful to avoid defining any terms at all where the intent is to conflate terms (such as ‘sex’ and ‘gender’) in some usages, but distinguish them in others.
- It’s useful when the intent is to erase sex to avoid either defining or using any term that tends to focus the reader’s attention on sex.
Going forward, it seems predictable that the proponents of gender identity ideology, including UN Women, will increase their usage of the SOCIESC acronym instead of LGBTQIA+ as a next step in their campaign to erase all women (including lesbians in particular) and to erase men and boys as the main perpetrators of violence universally.
Lauren Levey, coordinator
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
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)
9 February 2024
To the CEDAW Secretariat:
To the CEDAW Secretariat:
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (LBORI) is an international network of lesbian radical feminist organizations. Our principles are enumerated in the Lesbian Bill Of Rights (the LBOR).
“Gender stereotypes” is a redundant expression because gender is the sum of stereotypes whereby society subjugates women: Gender is the cultural expression of the material oppression of women by men.
For this reason, LBORI asks CEDAW and all governmental bodies to maintain the word “sex” in their recommendations and legislation and to avoid conflating it or replacing it with “gender.” This clarity is crucial to the very survival of any lesbian community and to legal protection for women and girls as a sex class: Lesbians’ rights, as it is for all women, are based on sex. UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem recently warned against erasing sex-based language, calling it a "new form of violence against women."
The language of gender is dangerous for women in general and for lesbians in particular because it paves the way to legitimizing the concept of “gender identity” and, subsequently, of the right of men to self-identify as women. “Gender identity” is a lie that some men could be born in the wrong sexed bodies and possess female souls; this lie is then used by men to appropriate women’s rights, spaces, and opportunities.
Being a human female is not a feeling, but a biological fact. Men as a sex class use this biological fact to subordinate women as a sex class. There is no such thing as a female soul in a male body, nor vice versa. In fact, there is not even a female soul in a female body, nor vice versa. Humans are fully embodied; no part of us exists apart from our bodies. We are our body and the body is never the “wrong” one. The concept of a female or male soul is a reactionary one because it accepts gender stereotypes that are historically determined by the cultures, politics, and economics of the patriarchal oppression of all women and girls as a sex class.
Lesbian spaces, community, and culture would be destroyed if men claiming they are women were considered lesbians and allowed by law to participate. Lesbians’ sexual orientation is based on attraction to the female sex, not to feminine gender presentation. Lesbians can be masculine looking or feminine looking, but their romantic love and sexual attraction are for women, never for men who claim to be women.
Moreover, an increasing number of young lesbians accepting the concept of “gender identity” are being medicalised all over the world. They are administered puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones; basically, the lie of “gender identity” allows the return of conversion therapy for the most vulnerable lesbians and other young women, forcing them to consider men as sexual partners. “Transing” of homosexuals is done explicitly as a conversion practice in very homophobic countries such as Iran.
Finally, it should be noted that the “gender identity” agenda is unfortunately pushed by NGOs on women’s associations around the globe, through the power of funding to be given or denied, notwithstanding the fact that in most countries of the world being born female is automatically a heavy burden and has nothing to do with the subjective claim of gender identity. There is no country in which any woman or girl can “identify” her way out of the pre-existing sex-based subjugation.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
“Gender stereotypes” is a redundant expression because gender is the sum of stereotypes whereby society subjugates women: Gender is the cultural expression of the material oppression of women by men.
For this reason, LBORI asks CEDAW and all governmental bodies to maintain the word “sex” in their recommendations and legislation and to avoid conflating it or replacing it with “gender.” This clarity is crucial to the very survival of any lesbian community and to legal protection for women and girls as a sex class: Lesbians’ rights, as it is for all women, are based on sex. UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem recently warned against erasing sex-based language, calling it a "new form of violence against women."
The language of gender is dangerous for women in general and for lesbians in particular because it paves the way to legitimizing the concept of “gender identity” and, subsequently, of the right of men to self-identify as women. “Gender identity” is a lie that some men could be born in the wrong sexed bodies and possess female souls; this lie is then used by men to appropriate women’s rights, spaces, and opportunities.
Being a human female is not a feeling, but a biological fact. Men as a sex class use this biological fact to subordinate women as a sex class. There is no such thing as a female soul in a male body, nor vice versa. In fact, there is not even a female soul in a female body, nor vice versa. Humans are fully embodied; no part of us exists apart from our bodies. We are our body and the body is never the “wrong” one. The concept of a female or male soul is a reactionary one because it accepts gender stereotypes that are historically determined by the cultures, politics, and economics of the patriarchal oppression of all women and girls as a sex class.
Lesbian spaces, community, and culture would be destroyed if men claiming they are women were considered lesbians and allowed by law to participate. Lesbians’ sexual orientation is based on attraction to the female sex, not to feminine gender presentation. Lesbians can be masculine looking or feminine looking, but their romantic love and sexual attraction are for women, never for men who claim to be women.
Moreover, an increasing number of young lesbians accepting the concept of “gender identity” are being medicalised all over the world. They are administered puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones; basically, the lie of “gender identity” allows the return of conversion therapy for the most vulnerable lesbians and other young women, forcing them to consider men as sexual partners. “Transing” of homosexuals is done explicitly as a conversion practice in very homophobic countries such as Iran.
Finally, it should be noted that the “gender identity” agenda is unfortunately pushed by NGOs on women’s associations around the globe, through the power of funding to be given or denied, notwithstanding the fact that in most countries of the world being born female is automatically a heavy burden and has nothing to do with the subjective claim of gender identity. There is no country in which any woman or girl can “identify” her way out of the pre-existing sex-based subjugation.
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
23 December 2024
UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls called for input to a report on the HRC forms of sex-based violence against women and girls.
This is LBORI’s response:
UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls called for input to a report on the HRC forms of sex-based violence against women and girls.
This is LBORI’s response:
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (LBORI) is a network of lesbian radical feminist organizations that have all adopted the Lesbian Bill Of Rights (LBOR). The LBOR describes the particular forms of discrimination and violence that lesbians experience, followed by a list of specific rights that, if adopted in the laws and policies of nations, would address that discrimination and violence.
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
8 December 2024
Women's Declaration International calls for CEDAW Committee to reject the term "gender stereotypes".
LBORI supports their call.
Women's Declaration International calls for CEDAW Committee to reject the term "gender stereotypes".
LBORI supports their call.
Lesbian Bill of Rights International (LBORI) supports WDI’s call for the CEDAW Committee to reject the term "gender stereotypes" in General Recommendation 41 (GR 41) and restore the use of "sex role stereotypes" as stated in the original Convention.
The Convention defines "sex" as the basis for discrimination against women and girls. Shifting to "gender" entrenches the very stereotypes that harm all women including lesbians, and that CEDAW aims to eliminate.
UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls recently warned against erasing sex-based language, calling it a "new form of violence against women."
LBORI urges the Committee to uphold women’s sex-based rights by renaming GR 41 to "sex role stereotypes," thereby preserving vital legal protections for women and girls.
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
The Convention defines "sex" as the basis for discrimination against women and girls. Shifting to "gender" entrenches the very stereotypes that harm all women including lesbians, and that CEDAW aims to eliminate.
UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls recently warned against erasing sex-based language, calling it a "new form of violence against women."
LBORI urges the Committee to uphold women’s sex-based rights by renaming GR 41 to "sex role stereotypes," thereby preserving vital legal protections for women and girls.
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
20 October 2024
UN Free & Equal, the "LGBTIQ+" campaign arm of the UN posted on X:
"Lesbians have many gender expressions, body types, and sex characteristics."
This is LBORI's response:
UN Free & Equal, the "LGBTIQ+" campaign arm of the UN posted on X:
"Lesbians have many gender expressions, body types, and sex characteristics."
This is LBORI's response:
To UN Free & Equal (@free_equal, email: [email protected]):
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International is an international network of radical feminist, lesbian organizations that have all adopted the The Lesbian Bill Of Rights (the LBOR). We are responding to your post on October 8, International Lesbian Day to point out a flaw in it.
Your post reads, in part: “Lesbians have many gender expressions, body types, and sex characteristics.”
But not all of that is true. Some of us do not perform gender at all. And we only have female sex characteristics because all lesbians are female — a term that describes reproductive biology.
Our opposition is based on the LBOR, which provides, in pertinent parts:
‘Lesbian’ means a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted;
Your statement suggests that men can be lesbians. They can’t. All lesbians are women or girls. Lesbians can be masculine-presenting or feminine-presenting, or not have a “gender identity” at all. But no lesbian is male. Lesbian is a female sexual orientation that excludes all men, however they may “identify”; lesbian is not a “gender identity.”
For you, an agency of the United Nations, to erase lesbians on International Lesbian Day makes your campaign unfit for purpose.
We therefore request that you correct your falsehoods.
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International is an international network of radical feminist, lesbian organizations that have all adopted the The Lesbian Bill Of Rights (the LBOR). We are responding to your post on October 8, International Lesbian Day to point out a flaw in it.
Your post reads, in part: “Lesbians have many gender expressions, body types, and sex characteristics.”
But not all of that is true. Some of us do not perform gender at all. And we only have female sex characteristics because all lesbians are female — a term that describes reproductive biology.
Our opposition is based on the LBOR, which provides, in pertinent parts:
‘Lesbian’ means a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted;
Your statement suggests that men can be lesbians. They can’t. All lesbians are women or girls. Lesbians can be masculine-presenting or feminine-presenting, or not have a “gender identity” at all. But no lesbian is male. Lesbian is a female sexual orientation that excludes all men, however they may “identify”; lesbian is not a “gender identity.”
For you, an agency of the United Nations, to erase lesbians on International Lesbian Day makes your campaign unfit for purpose.
We therefore request that you correct your falsehoods.
Endorsed by: WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance New Zealand, Lesbian Action Group (Australia), Lezbicon (Norway), ArciLesbica (Italy)
12 May 2024
How Laws on “Hate Speech” and “Hate Crimes” Affect Lesbians
Country reports
How Laws on “Hate Speech” and “Hate Crimes” Affect Lesbians
Country reports
Threats to freedom of speech in democratic societies are not just internal political struggles, but concerted actions by international players as well. For instance, in May 2019, then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron founded the global organization “Christchurch Call,” a major lobby for online censorship and new “hate speech” legislation. Countries have different justice systems; however, in the face of global actors threats to democracy should not be considered in isolation.
Current supporters/funders of the Christchurch Call include 55 nations as well as inter-governmental entities such as the European Commission, major corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, and a large network of NGOs that include global think tanks like the Brookings Institution, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), as well as groups set up specifically to combat “hate,” like the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE). All of these groups promote gender identity ideology, which harms women and children, including lesbians.
In response, LBOR International presents a summary of “hate” law as it is rapidly developing in several sample countries, along with our recommendations for legislation to resist dangerous censorship and protect women and children, including lesbians.
Current supporters/funders of the Christchurch Call include 55 nations as well as inter-governmental entities such as the European Commission, major corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, and a large network of NGOs that include global think tanks like the Brookings Institution, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), as well as groups set up specifically to combat “hate,” like the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE). All of these groups promote gender identity ideology, which harms women and children, including lesbians.
In response, LBOR International presents a summary of “hate” law as it is rapidly developing in several sample countries, along with our recommendations for legislation to resist dangerous censorship and protect women and children, including lesbians.
3 March 2024
LBOR International on Conversion Therapy Bans
Country reports
LBOR International on Conversion Therapy Bans
Country reports
RESOLVED, that lesbians have the right to be free from conversion therapy
– The Lesbian Bill Of Rights
Over the last few years a new device has been appearing in legislation globally: a ban on what is termed “conversion therapy” with respect to both sexual orientation and so-called “gender identity”.
These bans raise several questions:
Historically the term “conversion therapy” has described efforts by medical professionals as well as religious counselors and relatives to change people’s sexual orientation using techniques that in hindsight resemble torture. These techniques include aversion therapy (inducing aversion through shame or physical pain), involuntary institutionalization, involuntary electroshock treatment, and more. The underlying historical assumption was that homosexuality was undesirable both for society and for the individual engaging in homosexual behaviors.
The gay liberation movement of the 1970s asserted that same-sex attraction is neither a disease that needs to be cured nor a societal scourge; and that, in fact, great personal damage can be done to an individual who is forced to undergo so-called “therapy” or “counseling” to change her or his sexual orientation. This view has gained acceptance with the general public over the last 50 years, but for the most part, the law has been slow to ban the practice with respect to sexual orientation.
– The Lesbian Bill Of Rights
Over the last few years a new device has been appearing in legislation globally: a ban on what is termed “conversion therapy” with respect to both sexual orientation and so-called “gender identity”.
These bans raise several questions:
- Should sexual orientation and “gender identity” be treated equally and in the same legislation that bans conversion therapy?
- Should such bans apply to adults as well as minors? That is, should the bans apply to an adult who wants professional help to change him or herself?
- What, if any, are appropriate penalties or remedies for violation of such a ban?
Historically the term “conversion therapy” has described efforts by medical professionals as well as religious counselors and relatives to change people’s sexual orientation using techniques that in hindsight resemble torture. These techniques include aversion therapy (inducing aversion through shame or physical pain), involuntary institutionalization, involuntary electroshock treatment, and more. The underlying historical assumption was that homosexuality was undesirable both for society and for the individual engaging in homosexual behaviors.
The gay liberation movement of the 1970s asserted that same-sex attraction is neither a disease that needs to be cured nor a societal scourge; and that, in fact, great personal damage can be done to an individual who is forced to undergo so-called “therapy” or “counseling” to change her or his sexual orientation. This view has gained acceptance with the general public over the last 50 years, but for the most part, the law has been slow to ban the practice with respect to sexual orientation.
4 October 2023
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International Supports Lesbian-Only Spaces
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International Supports Lesbian-Only Spaces
This is a statement in support of the application by Lesbian Action Group (Melbourne) to the Australian Human Rights Commission for an exemption from anti-discrimination laws so that they may exclude men from “Lesbians Born Female,” a lesbian-only event to be held in Melbourne.
Lesbian Bill of Rights International is an international network of lesbian organizations that have all adopted the Lesbian Bill of Rights. Members in the network include LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance (New Zealand), the Women’s Declaration International Australia/New Zealand Lesbian Caucus, The Countess Lesbian Working Group (Ireland), and the Women’s Declaration International USA Lesbian Caucus.
The LBOR provides, in pertinent parts:
Whereas, the enshrining of so-called “gender identity” in law has resulted in the
erasure of lesbian-only spaces and the demonization of lesbians, who, recognizing
that homosexuality is based on sex, refuse dating and sexual relationships with men
who say they are lesbians;
Resolved, that lesbians have the right to create and maintain lesbian-only spaces.
The position of LBOR International is not unique. The Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights provides (Article 5) that women’s rights to peaceful assembly “should include the right of women and girls to assemble and associate as women or girls based on their sex, and the rights of lesbians to assemble and associate on the basis of their common sexual orientation, without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’.”
Recently LAZ reloaded, one of the member organizations in the LBOR International network, released a statement on lesbian-only spaces, which has been endorsed by all members of LBOR International. It is written in the context of Germany; but the principles are universal. Any law that prohibits lesbians from peaceful assembly in public as lesbians only – meaning female homosexuals – has the effect of stigmatizing all lesbians, criminalizing those lesbians who refuse to recognize the lie that some men are lesbians, and erasing lesbians from public life; and is fundamentally sexist and anti homosexual.
We urge you to grant the requested exemption to the Lesbian Action Group in Melbourne. The world is watching.
LBOR International
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
Lesbian Resistance (NZ)
The Countess LWG (Ireland)
WDI Australia/New Zealand Lesbian Caucus
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Bill of Rights International is an international network of lesbian organizations that have all adopted the Lesbian Bill of Rights. Members in the network include LAZ reloaded (Germany), Lesbian Resistance (New Zealand), the Women’s Declaration International Australia/New Zealand Lesbian Caucus, The Countess Lesbian Working Group (Ireland), and the Women’s Declaration International USA Lesbian Caucus.
The LBOR provides, in pertinent parts:
Whereas, the enshrining of so-called “gender identity” in law has resulted in the
erasure of lesbian-only spaces and the demonization of lesbians, who, recognizing
that homosexuality is based on sex, refuse dating and sexual relationships with men
who say they are lesbians;
Resolved, that lesbians have the right to create and maintain lesbian-only spaces.
The position of LBOR International is not unique. The Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights provides (Article 5) that women’s rights to peaceful assembly “should include the right of women and girls to assemble and associate as women or girls based on their sex, and the rights of lesbians to assemble and associate on the basis of their common sexual orientation, without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’.”
Recently LAZ reloaded, one of the member organizations in the LBOR International network, released a statement on lesbian-only spaces, which has been endorsed by all members of LBOR International. It is written in the context of Germany; but the principles are universal. Any law that prohibits lesbians from peaceful assembly in public as lesbians only – meaning female homosexuals – has the effect of stigmatizing all lesbians, criminalizing those lesbians who refuse to recognize the lie that some men are lesbians, and erasing lesbians from public life; and is fundamentally sexist and anti homosexual.
We urge you to grant the requested exemption to the Lesbian Action Group in Melbourne. The world is watching.
LBOR International
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
Lesbian Resistance (NZ)
The Countess LWG (Ireland)
WDI Australia/New Zealand Lesbian Caucus
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
The Effects of Losing Lesbian-Only Spaces in Germany and How to Get Them Back
On July 4, 2023, the network of lesbian radical feminist organizations worldwide, LBOR INTERNATIONAL, has been established. LAZ reloaded is one of the founding members (Announcing LBOR International).
The proliferation of so-called „gender identity ideology“ in the Western world and elsewhere has led to the extinction of autonomous lesbian spaces internationally and the downright demonization of lesbians, for whom homosexuality is based on sex, and who refuse to share autonomous spaces with men who call themselves lesbians.
Lesbians have the right to create and maintain spaces exclusively for lesbians! Therefore, it is important to show means to get lesbian spaces back.
The proliferation of so-called „gender identity ideology“ in the Western world and elsewhere has led to the extinction of autonomous lesbian spaces internationally and the downright demonization of lesbians, for whom homosexuality is based on sex, and who refuse to share autonomous spaces with men who call themselves lesbians.
Lesbians have the right to create and maintain spaces exclusively for lesbians! Therefore, it is important to show means to get lesbian spaces back.
9 July 2023
Announcing LBOR International
Announcing LBOR International
An International Network of Lesbian Radical Feminist Organizations
The purpose of this document is to describe lesbian reality, lesbian rights, and lesbian political potential consistent with radical feminist principles.
-The Lesbian Bill of Rights (LBOR)
These are the organizations presently in the LBOR International network. We have all adopted the Lesbian Bill of Rights:
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
[email protected]
@laz_reloaded
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
[email protected]
@lesbianresist
WDI AUS/NZ Lesbian Caucus lesbian.caucus
[email protected]
The Countess Lesbian Working Group (Ireland)
[email protected]
@TheCountessIE
Lesbian Rights Alliance (UK)
[email protected]
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
[email protected] (Attn: Lesbian Caucus)
@WDI_USA_LesCauc
We have united with the following aims:
To help us speak with a unified voice, we will use the LBOR definitions, including:
Lesbian: A human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively* same-sex attracted.
Woman: An adult human female.
Girl: A minor human female.
Gender: Sex-based stereotypes whose purpose is to force all women into a subordinate position in relation to all men.
Radical feminism: For the limited purpose of joining LBOR International, (a) a sex-class analysis of patriarchy and (b) the aim of abolishing gender in all its forms are required.
We’re excited about the possibilities of international lesbian radical feminist collaboration. We’re actively seeking additional members, and we plan to write additional statements on specific topics affecting lesbians and organize other actions. Follow us on social media, and contact one of our organizations if you think your organization may be a good fit.
—-----------
* LAZ Reloaded has omitted the word “exclusively” in its adoption of the LBOR. This is because they wish to make it explicit that the category “lesbians” includes women who may not have been exclusively same-sex attracted in the past, but are presently exclusively same-sex attracted. The other network members agree with this clarification, but we think it is implicit in the LBOR definition.
The purpose of this document is to describe lesbian reality, lesbian rights, and lesbian political potential consistent with radical feminist principles.
-The Lesbian Bill of Rights (LBOR)
These are the organizations presently in the LBOR International network. We have all adopted the Lesbian Bill of Rights:
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
[email protected]
@laz_reloaded
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand
[email protected]
@lesbianresist
WDI AUS/NZ Lesbian Caucus lesbian.caucus
[email protected]
The Countess Lesbian Working Group (Ireland)
[email protected]
@TheCountessIE
Lesbian Rights Alliance (UK)
[email protected]
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
[email protected] (Attn: Lesbian Caucus)
@WDI_USA_LesCauc
We have united with the following aims:
- To increase the visibility of lesbians and lesbian issues, as distinct from the so-called “LGBTQ+ community,” as described by lesbian radical feminists.
- To be able to speak with a unified international voice that is both a lesbian voice and a principled, radical feminist voice consistent with the LBOR.
- To be able to mobilize quickly to address specific harms to lesbians anywhere in the world and mutually amplify our voices – via protests, website posts, mass mailings, and social media posts. In addition, we may address international organizations (e.g., UN, EU) on lesbian issues.
- To make it easier for some or all member organizations to communicate, share information, and collaborate on international actions, including, for example, simultaneous street protests, or organizing international lesbian conferences.
- To promote the LBOR.
- To grow our membership.
- To connect with other lesbian groups and other radical feminist groups where appropriate.
To help us speak with a unified voice, we will use the LBOR definitions, including:
Lesbian: A human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively* same-sex attracted.
Woman: An adult human female.
Girl: A minor human female.
Gender: Sex-based stereotypes whose purpose is to force all women into a subordinate position in relation to all men.
Radical feminism: For the limited purpose of joining LBOR International, (a) a sex-class analysis of patriarchy and (b) the aim of abolishing gender in all its forms are required.
We’re excited about the possibilities of international lesbian radical feminist collaboration. We’re actively seeking additional members, and we plan to write additional statements on specific topics affecting lesbians and organize other actions. Follow us on social media, and contact one of our organizations if you think your organization may be a good fit.
—-----------
* LAZ Reloaded has omitted the word “exclusively” in its adoption of the LBOR. This is because they wish to make it explicit that the category “lesbians” includes women who may not have been exclusively same-sex attracted in the past, but are presently exclusively same-sex attracted. The other network members agree with this clarification, but we think it is implicit in the LBOR definition.