'Get the L Out' Statement by the lesbian protesters at Pride London

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act:

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,
(b)persons of the opposite sex, or
(c)persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

------------

The EA makes some types of discrimination unlawful when based on a protected characteristic such as sexual orientation. One type of unlawful discrimination is harassment:

(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

(2)A also harasses B if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).

(3)A also harasses B if—

(a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and
(c)because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.

(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—

(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

(5)The relevant protected characteristics are—

age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

This describes exactly what's happening.

Lesbians are being subjected to an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment because of unwanted conduct, including sexual conduct, related to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

Lesbianism = anti-trans
Caring about womens rights = anti-trans

Same shit, different day.

Sorry to be a doofus, I’ve screen shot where will I find that link?
Going to get post deleted just in case.

Send legal at the council l a link to sexual orientation and philosophy in the EA and a screenshot of the post.

that’s a worse male to female ratio than the House of Lords.
LOL!
I mean, not LOL, it’s shit- but also that that’s a very good parallel being made about male power. At least the House of Lords don’t have the front to make grandiose claims about its contributions to diversity- unlike the Pride in London committee who hailed that as a massive success for themselves in this year’s press release..

Has anyone posted this great article by Jo Bartosch?

medium.com/@josephinebartosch/lesbian-pride-lesbian-protest-cea2c1404cc0

Yesterday I counted the women on the 2018 Pride in London website, the actual women — not the diva drag queens. In a tableau of thirteen images, there was one with some women volunteers, that’s a worse male to female ratio than the House of Lords.

I learned today that marmite is owned by Unilever (who own Dove). It's all interesting isn't it?

That video is brilliant!

Please watch. The faces of many of the people who the women spoke to and explained what they were doing were priceless. It's very clear that many people are completely unaware of the treatment that lesbians get

I love it! I wept

Just say this petition on another thread.

www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-keep-sex-segregated-areas-sex-segregated

Getthelout have just released a video of their protest on Sat!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0xtqIvuGzg&feature=youtu.be

Red, I've found being known as a woman with generally left wing views is a help. People I know have been surprised to hear I'm not toeing the Labour Party line, surprised enough to want to hear why. So I tell them.

As most people still assume transwomen are hyper vulnerable gay men who have had all the surgery, once I tell them what the situation is now they are astonished.

They soon work out the pitfalls of Self-ID for themselves.

Distance, that's pretty much my take on it. When self ID comes up irl most people assume I'm pro - because I'm pretty far to the left on most topics and I'm known as being all-inclusive and anti any kind of discrimination. I've tried having reasoned debates but it doesn't work. So now I tend to stick with "biology is real".

But surely a trans woman would understand that they are never going to be a biological female, because (so far) it's impossible. And that they have a biological history that is different from that of women who are born females. And that that has consequences (e.g. giving birth, having breast cancer, being raped and made pregnant, etc.)

What is so controversial about that?

You'd think, wouldn't you?

How can one argue with this ? It's unhinged

Utterly so. I imagine it's because they quoted the lesbian protestors in the article and let their words speak for themselves. Despite it as you say having a clear pro trans slant.

This may be taken as inflammatory, but I swear it's not my intention.

But it seems to me that the entire rationale underlying the insistence that "woman" cannot be defined in any meaningful way, that you should talk about "pregnant people" and not "pregnant women", that there are women with a penis is - well, a huge tantrum with biology and with biological facts.

I can perfectly understand that someone needs to live as a member of the gender that does not in principle correspond to their biological sex. And that's perfectly understandable.

But surely a trans woman would understand that they are never going to be a biological female, because (so far) it's impossible. And that they have a biological history that is different from that of women who are born females. And that that has consequences (e.g. giving birth, having breast cancer, being raped and made pregnant, etc.)

What is so controversial about that?

R0wan and Sophocles

Long time lurker here, just popping in to reference this research about vaginal bacteria and their overwhelming absence in surgically constructed neovaginas.

No idea how to do a clicky link on my phone, sorry.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695466/

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-44757403

Am posting because I saw TRA absolute slam this article, which to my mind show pro-trans bias. That's how complete our submission should be. One TRA tweeted about it, and the protest, that Amnesty should now arrange to fly trans people out of the UK because it's so dangerous.

How can one argue with this ? It's unhinged

I think there should be caution about focus on Sadiq Kahn.

I'm not focusing on him. I don't particularly like him, but that applies to many politicians.

Super dandy wrote:

^New poster appears with a long post in support of GC

• brilliant post - come on in, pull up a chair - don't apologise

New poster appears with a long post not in support of GC

• "That was really just another plop, in a slightly longer form, from freezingsheep wasn’t it?" followed immediately by a a stream of hostile posts^

I think the new poster referred to here was me, and the kind responses were to my somewhat distraught post on this thread yesterday morning.

I know the thread has moved on, but I have been reflecting on this post by Super Dandy today, and the fact that the kindness was only because posters here agreed with me.

It strikes me that I really want is to be wrong, for my understanding and teaching of gender not to have been co-opted and used against the ideals I believe in; for the dignity and integrity of women to be upheld and not threatened by self-ID. I want to be able to accept the claims made to womanhood by non-female-bodied people. I want to read an argument which disagrees with my position and which I can understand and agree with. I have not read it yet.

I want to be wrong because I am socialised to be nice, and telling people 'no' is not nice, when they don't accept the 'no' the first time, and keep pushing.

I have a colleague who has told me that women have, for decades, been expanding the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman and therefore what is there to discuss? But this only makes sense if one takes the view that in the eighteenth/nineteenth century, only elite women were regarded in any way or seen as women; then class consciousness came to the fore; and then recognition of race - in other words, that women who were not white, elite, educated were excluded from discourses of womanhood, and women from other backgrounds were then included. But no-one in the past ever seriously questioned that working class women were female, or that slave women were female - in fact, the hazards of rape and pregnancy outside marriage, of maternal mortality and poverty, fell hardest on these women, hazards born of biological function.

Consciousness raising quite rightly sought to give women of all backgrounds a voice and feminism quite rightly was challenged to be empowering to women of all backgrounds by women of colour. It is not clear to me how expanding quite rightly the boundaries of feminism beyond the white, educated classes really means expanding feminism to include penis bearers though.

So the other argument I have heard is that gender is innate, an identity, and really, what does it harm me if a man identifies as a woman and comes in the female bathrooms? That kind of argument makes me the one who has to defend my views or who is somehow wrong. It remind me of my xH saying 'what is wrong with you?', when I did not want him to touch me.

So, that is the thing I think - that it is women who voice concerns who are portrayed as those in the wrong. Even when the concerns relate to the recognition and protection of the bodies we have, which are the only bodies we have, and which shape how society views us, not some innate, but nebulous sense of gender identity. And I have not yet heard an argument which makes me believe that women voicing concerns are wrong.

That's some nerve. Stupid man.

The hypocrisy of Commander Khan, today speaking about the Trump protest.

Khan insisted there is freedom of speech and freedom to protest in the UK and he could not act as a 'censor'.

He said: 'My views are irrelevant. The issue is 'Do they have freedom to protest, freedom to assemble and should they be allowed to do so? If it's peaceful and it's safe they should.'

Mr Khan said: 'If it's peaceful and if it's safe. Look, I can't be the censor. It's not for me to decide what's in good taste or bad taste.'