
Jasmine Sussex, a former breastfeeding counselor, appeared before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on June 24 to defend herself against charges of "vilification." Her crime: publicly stating that a biological male named Adrian Buckley — who goes by "Jennifer" — cannot breastfeed a newborn baby.
The government of Queensland, Australia, is prosecuting a woman for agreeing with a biology textbook.
Buckley, a paramedic, posted on Facebook back in 2019 about inducing lactation. He described taking domperidone, a drug that increases prolactin levels, in order to produce fluid from his chest so he could nurse his infant son within the first hour of birth. Sussex, who had spent her career counseling mothers on breastfeeding, responded on social media with what most people would consider an unremarkable observation: men cannot breastfeed.
For that, she lost her position with the Australian Breastfeeding Association in 2021. Her social media posts were censored by Twitter/X in May 2023. And in November 2023, she was officially notified by the Queensland Human Rights Commission that she was under investigation based on a complaint Buckley filed accusing her of vilification and discrimination under Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
The Act was amended in 2013 to include "gender identity" protections. Sussex's public statements about biological reality now qualify as potential violations.
Buckley wrote in his complaint: "I am a transgender woman who, under medical supervision was able to induce lactation." The tribunal, under QCAT member Peter Bridgman, ruled in a January 13, 2026 decision that Buckley's legal team did not have to provide medical evidence regarding the chemical makeup of the fluid given to his baby. The tribunal stated that whether the substance was actually breast milk was "not of relevance" to whether Sussex had vilified him.
The court said the scientific question doesn't matter. What matters is whether Sussex hurt someone's feelings by answering it honestly.
Five expert witnesses testified at the hearing, including a pediatrician, a leading midwife, and a bioethicist, addressing the composition of the secretion and the potential risk to infants. The tribunal had already ruled their core finding — that this isn't breast milk — was legally irrelevant to the vilification charge.
Sussex, representing herself with pro-bono legal help, said: "The attack on mothers by some men who claim to be women, or worse mothers, leaves me feeling physically grief stricken. No, men cannot breastfeed." She also noted she was "very lucky to have compassionate, pro-bono lawyers and some wonderful world renowned expert witnesses to support the tribunal in understanding the marvelous maternal capacity to nourish our young."
The rebuttal from the other side amounts to this: it doesn't matter whether the statement is scientifically accurate. What matters is that a protected class felt targeted. Queensland's legal framework has effectively made biological fact subordinate to self-declared identity. The five expert witnesses could have brought every lactation study ever published, and the tribunal had already decided that evidence was beside the point.
This isn't a one-off. Australia, Canada, the UK, and several European countries have all moved toward criminalizing speech that contradicts gender ideology. The pattern is consistent: the law doesn't argue that the statement is false. It argues that the statement is harmful. The distinction between "wrong" and "offensive" has been erased, and the legal system treats them identically.
A woman with a career in maternal health stated a biological fact that every mammalian species on the planet confirms. A government tribunal ruled that whether the fact is true is irrelevant. Five medical experts showed up to testify, and the court said their testimony doesn't apply to the legal question.
When the truth isn't a defense, it was never really about the truth.


Comments are closed.