By Stephanie Bastiaan
Today, Wednesday 10 June 2026, Jasmine Sussex's case will return to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to set a date for an appeal against a decision handed down by QCAT member Peter Bridgman in January 2026.
Summary of the Case
In 2024, Jasmine Sussex was taken to QCAT by trans-identified male Jennifer Buckley for alleged vilification after raising concerns online about biological males attempting to “chestfeed” newborn babies.
Buckley first documented attempts to lactate on Facebook in 2019 while Buckley’s wife was pregnant with their son. According to an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Buckley began increasing doses of oestrogen and taking the drug domperidone in the months leading up to the birth, with the support of endocrinologist, Dr Naomi Achong.
Despite doctors at the hospital reportedly warning Buckley that attempting to feed the newborn baby from Buckley’s chest could put the child at risk, Buckley signed a waiver and pursued it within the first hour of the baby's birth while Buckley’s wife was being treated for a haemorrhage. Buckley said the couple discontinued the practice after the "milk" supply ceased a day and a half after leaving the hospital, which Buckley attributed to stress of the wife being readmitted with a retained placenta. Buckley described the experience of “chestfeeding” as making Buckley feel "more feminine".
In 2021, Sussex, a 15-year volunteer with the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA), responded to a post by Buckley on the ABA's Facebook page, stating plainly that Buckley appeared to be a man claiming to be a woman. Buckley lodged a complaint with the ABA, and Sussex, along with several other breastfeeding counsellors, was dismissed following investigations into their failure to use gender-neutral language such as "parent" instead of "mother". Sadly, the ABA – which received a $20,000 donation in 2021 from Rainbow Families to develop a "trans-inclusive" booklet, Breastfeeding, Chestfeeding and Human Milk Feeding – is another captured organisation.
The case now before QCAT followed three years of complaints by Buckley to various authorities, including the Queensland Human Rights Commission and the eSafety Commissioner, which subsequently ordered the removal of posts by Sussex stating that men cannot breastfeed. The substance of the case is yet to be decided, with the parties still contesting procedural questions (read a more in-depth summary in The Australian).
The appeal of the January 2026 decision
As part of her defence, Sussex's legal team sought access to Buckley's medical records – specifically, the qualifications of treating practitioners, details of the treatment used to induce lactation, and the composition of the bodily fluid produced and fed to the baby. Bridgman dismissed the application in January, ruling that Buckley's medical treatment was "simply not relevant to the matter".
"Whether or not Ms Buckley received the medical treatment, the nature and effects of the treatment, the composition of various bodily fluids and the qualifications and experience of those working with her are not elements of the alleged vilification," Mr Bridgman wrote.
These documents, however, are not peripheral – they go to the heart of the matter. The medical facts establish that Buckley is a male attempting to “chestfeed”. That determination is directly relevant to whether Sussex had reasonable grounds to raise her concerns and whether those concerns constitute vilification at all.
It's worth noting that Sussex's concerns are legitimate. There is currently no high-quality or long-term evidence supporting the safety or nutritional value of these excretions, nor the long-term effects on infants, particularly when produced alongside a cocktail of "gender-affirming" drugs, including oestrogen, anti-androgens, progestogens and other feminising hormones. There is considerable concern, however, that the commonly used lactation drug domperidone may carry a risk of causing heart problems in babies.
The judgment contains a notable reference to American commentator Matt Walsh, who appeared in the Respondent’s documents in relation to an episode of his program addressing the promotion of male “chestfeeding” in the context of transgender affirmation.
In a concerning move, Member Bridgman appears to have independently sourced a description of Walsh from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website – a source not tendered in evidence by either party – characterising Walsh as someone who “reportedly advocates violence against transgender people and their medical providers.”
By including this mischaracterisation of Walsh in Sussex’s documents, the judgment implicitly reflects on Sussex’s character, despite stopping short of any explicit finding to that effect. The use of self-sourced material, without affording the parties an opportunity to respond, raises legitimate concerns about impartiality and procedural fairness.
A vilification claim will not change the biological reality that only women can breastfeed. It is wrong that innocent babies are being used as props to validate an adult's gender identity.
Meanwhile, Sussex continues to be dragged through legal proceedings for stating biological facts. Wednesday's Directions Hearing is the next step towards an appeal that will hopefully be successful and eventually lead to a finding in favour of Sussex and biological reality. However, if our political leaders stepped up, women like Jasmine would be spared the burden of doing their job for them.
Stephanie Bastiaan is Head of Advocacy at Women's Forum Australia.
Women’s Forum Australia is an independent think tank that undertakes research, education and public policy advocacy on issues affecting women and girls, with a particular focus on addressing behaviours and practices that are harmful and abusive to them. We are a non-partisan, non-religious, tax-deductible charity. We do not receive any government funding and rely solely on donations to make an impact. Support our work today.
| I’ll stand with women ▷ |