It pains me no end that former breastfeeding counsellor Jasmine Sussex is being exposed to accusations of vilification for stating the truth that men cannot breastfeed.

Like my experience, the process is the punishment. She is before a Queensland tribunal having defend herself and the reality that men cannot produce breast milk that adequately nourishes and sustains a baby.

If you have been following the case you would know how shocking the details are.

X commentator and former lawyer Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun attended the hearing this week. She posted the following on X.

Headline takeaway from today’s Sussex v Buckley appeal hearing:

Counsel for Jasmine Sussex told the Tribunal that Ms Sussex has filed a written report from leading breastfeeding expert Professor Whitehall, who is expected to give evidence that:

- Men do not have mammary glands.

- Men cannot produce breast milk.

- The only glands in a male capable of producing fluid are sweat glands.

- Any fluid expressed from a man’s chest is similar to sweat or pus.

Mr Morris KC, for Ms Sussex, told the Tribunal that Professor Whitehall’s report says, in relation to Mr Buckley’s claim to have lactated:

“not only is this unprecedented and unique, it is also impossible… any fluid produced from a man’s chest is going to be similar to sweat or pus”

I find that so repulsive and disturbing. Of course men cannot breastfeed. It is beyond comprehension that Jasmine has to defend this reality in court. 

How insane has our society become that we would not only subject little babies to such perversion but also punish people who call it out?

To understand more about where the case is up to please read below. The following is taken directly from the HRLA website who are representing Jasmine:

A former breastfeeding counsellor was back before a Brisbane tribunal on Wednesday  – not for a final hearing, but for a procedural step in a case that has now been running for years.

Jasmine Sussex is defending a vilification complaint brought by a transgender-identifying man after she publicly criticised men who claim they can breastfeed. The complaint, lodged in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, alleges she incited hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule.

We last covered Jasmine’s case in November, when it was confirmed the matter would proceed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. HRLA Principal Lawyer John Steenhof put the question at the heart of the case plainly: “It’s not going to be a case that’s going to come to a definitive position on what is right and wrong … but whether we’re allowed to speak about them.”

Wednesday's hearing was about evidence before the tribunal. The complainant claims to have induced lactation under medical supervision. Jasmine’s legal team sought an order that the complainant provide medical evidence relating to that claim. A single-member panel of the tribunal ruled earlier this year that the complainant need not produce the evidence, and that it was irrelevant to whether Jasmine’s criticism amounted vilification.

Jasmine, who is represented by HRLA and Anthony Morris KC, is appealing that ruling.

The dispute is narrow but it matters. And as Mr Morris argued, the nature of this evidence raises a question of public interest – whether induced lactation in men is a safe substitute for mother’s milk, or healthy for an infant at all.

Whichever way the appeal falls, the decision will shape what any eventual hearing can consider.

This is how these cases grind on – each procedural question argued, reserved, and appealed while the years accumulate, and still without any finding of vilification. In many ways, the process is the punishment.

Queensland has, in the past year, taken modest steps toward restoring common sense to gender policy – reinstating a freeze on puberty blockers for minors, and a cabinet minister acknowledging that a woman is an adult human female. But in the same state Jasmine has been hauled before a tribunal for saying something nearly all Queenslanders would accept as common sense.

The question is not whether Jasmine’s views are contested. It is whether contested views on biological sex, infant welfare, and women’s rights can be expressed at all without attracting years of legal proceedings.

When they cannot, the cost falls on ordinary Australians – not on those with the resources to absorb it.

HRLA awaits the tribunal’s decision, which will determine how Jasmine’s case proceeds.