When Saying ‘Only Women Can Breastfeed’ Lands You in Court
Australian mother Jasmine Sussex never thought that saying that only women can breastfeed on social media would land her in court.
She writes:
I’m a mother of three, and for nearly 15 years, I volunteered as a breastfeeding counsellor, supporting women through some of the most sacred and vulnerable moments of their lives.
Supporting mothers wasn’t just what I did, it was who I was.
Now I’ve lost that role.
I’ve been publicly shamed.
And I’m being taken to court.
Why?
Because I said something simple, natural, and true:
Only women can breastfeed.
And because I dared to say that publicly – I’m being dragged through an expensive legal process under Queensland’s vilification laws.[1]
According to her lawyers from the Human Rights Law Alliance, Sussex is defending herself against a vilification claim brought by a man who identifies as a woman named Jennifer Buckley, who has taken issue with Jasmine’s comments about men breastfeeding.
Transwoman Jennifer Buckley shared publicly on their social media account that they was taking ‘domperidone’, a drug that induces lactation, so that they could have the experience of breastfeeding their newborn child.
Jasmine responded to the comments, saying:
“This is Buckley’s delusional queer theory take on his experience of “‘breastfeeding”.’.
Buckley is alleging that Ms Sussex’s online comments amount to vilification, saying that they were ‘hurtful’.
(In addition to the vilification claim, Jasmine was initially subject to censorship at the hands of the Australian government, who contacted X (formerly Twitter) to demand that her comments about male breastfeeding be removed, as ‘they had broken the law’).
Why is this happening? The problem with ‘Vilification Laws’
Sussex is one of many people who have fallen afoul of Australian anti-vilification or ‘hate-speech’ laws, which have made their way into legal systems across the Anglosphere over the last few decades.
Under the Queensland version of the law, vilification occurs when someone makes a public act that incites:
Hatred towards
Serious contempt for
Severe ridicule of
a person or group based on protected attributes, including gender identity.[2]
But as Kristen Waggoner from the US-based Alliance Defending Freedom (who defend people in religious freedom cases) pointed out in a recent interview, these hate-speech laws are vaguely worded and are so subjective that it puts ordinary people like Sussex at risk of punishment for upholding now-controversial views (such as that only women can breastfeed).
But there’s a deeper problem that Christians need to be aware of:
The Deeper Problem: Redefining Humanity and Oppression
These anti-vilification laws are based on a view of human flourishing that is antithetical to the traditional Judeo-Christian view of humanity.
As American author Carl Trueman argues, we live in an age where human flourishing and oppression have been redefined, such that human flourishing means being able to act outwardly as one feels inwardly, and that who we are is largely a matter of personal choice, not external imposition.
So, if I feel like I’m a woman when I’m a biological male, then I really am a woman, regardless of my biology.[3]
Furthermore, oppression is now redefined: oppression now involves making people feel bad about themselves, i.e. hurting their feelings. So, if you in any way criticise my decision to be a woman or to breastfeed my child even though I’m a biological male, then you’re keeping me from feeling good about myself and my identity, and thus oppressing me.
And such anti-vilification laws codify this new view of humanity and oppression.
If we can’t speak the truth publicly, then injustice grows
You might be someone who thinks to themselves: look, I’m uncomfortable with these vilification laws, but they won’t affect me. I’m a nice person who doesn’t say anything controversial online.
Why should I care about these anti-vilification laws?
Well, firstly, it weakens all our ability to speak the truth in public. These laws are antithetical to freedom of speech and religion, as they drastically lower the bar for what’s considered acceptable speech. Today, it’s Sussex who’s hauled before a tribunal for speaking the truth in public.
But tomorrow?
How long will we be able to speak unpopular Christian truths in public, whether about a person’s gender, abortion or God’s coming judgment?
Second, if we’re weakened in our ability to speak the truth in public, it’s much harder to oppose bad policies and ideologies. This means the innocent are more likely to be harmed. As lawyer John Steenhof from the Human Rights Law Alliance – the lawyers representing Sussex – wrote recently:
Issues that concern child safeguarding, as well as emerging ideas about gender ideology, are matters of public interest and should be open to public debate.
If we can’t discuss whether it's in the best interest of children to have biological males breastfeeding them, where does that leave society? And more importantly, where does it leave children?
To find out more about Jasmine Sussex’s upcoming tribunal appearance and to support her case, visit the Human Rights Law Alliance Website.
Further reading around this topic:
4 different types of arguments Christians should use in the public square
One thing Christians can do to strengthen religious freedom in the West
[1] Email from the Human Rights Law Alliance of Jul 10, 2025.
[2] It's worth mentioning that this is a civil vilification case, not a criminal vilification case. But that's a small comfort to Sussex, who is being dragged through this expensive and painful process.
[3] I realise a case can be made for a tiny percentage of people who genuinely struggle with transgender feelings, mostly males, from an early age. This is complex, but our queer theory and secular western culture goes beyond that to subjectivising biology altogether.