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 Reem Alsalem called for input on Violence Against Women and Girls.
This is LBORI’s response:
UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem called for input on 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 Reem Alsalem 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 Reem Alsalem 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.