Kicked out of club for wearing LGB Alliance Tshirt

@NonnyMouse1337

"that they believe in gender souls that inhabit all of us, then gender identity ideology should be classed as a religious belief and treated accordingly by society."

This is the only logical conclusion of the belief that people can be born in the wrong body and as you say, is magical thinking.

It's possible to refer to the developmental stage when this occurs and make sense of the threats of violence.

As the saying goes, I am a mother,just not your mother.

As I have said, it’s not ‘simply’ a group for gay and bi people if they are known to exist because they have an issue with trans (people/rights/activists/whatever

By that logic, couldn’t you then say that Action On Trans Health, or Mermaids, or Gendered intelligence are known to exist because they have a problem with gay people?

Actually, come to think of it...

Traditional liberalism was about tolerance.

All of the main parties have abandoned that in favour of more authoritarian policy and ideology.

The idea that the left is more tolerant is part of the 'liberal identity' PR. But its actually bullshit in practice.

The Lbg alliance and the feminists see the coming trap...

Not sure what I'm getting at?

See below.

Will Jennings @drjennings
^
A bit of rather belated analysis of the #GE2019 vote: when you plot the size of Conservative and Labour majorities (in % terms), it is striking how inefficient the Labour vote has become since 2005.^

Labour is increasingly piling up votes in its safe seats, whereas the Conservative majorities tend to increase at a fairly incremental rate.

This is interlinked with the dynamics of geographical polarisation that @ProfStoker and I have identified... it also is consistent with Jonathan Rodden's arguments in 'Why Cities Lose' on the disproportionate urban clustering of the vote for left parties.

This is interlinked with the dynamics of geographical polarisation that @ProfStoker and I have identified... it also is consistent with Jonathan Rodden's arguments in 'Why Cities Lose' on the disproportionate urban clustering of the vote for left parties.

Stephen Bush @stephenkb
This chart sums up what I wrote about this morning about why Johnson may be better served doing symbolic things to "rebalance" the economy rather than actually rebalancing the economy:
www.newstatesman.com/politics/devolution/2020/01/why-relocating-house-lords-york-would-be-smart-move-boris-johnson
Why relocating the House of Lords to York would be a smart move by Boris Johnson
The government has more of an interest in appearing to improve the state of northern constituencies than in actually doing so.

Thus twitter doesn't reflect voting reality or numbers in the UK. Even if the woke vote in numbers is increasing (which is debatable), the effect of constituencies (which are likely to be revamped this parliament even more in the Tories favour) means that you can't ignore a more socially Conservative vote as it has disproportionate influence now.

This is a change which a lot of people haven't got to grips with yet.

It affects a lot.

Stephen Bush's argument is that it serves the Tories to keep regional towns as shit holes because its drives the young to the cities in search of opportunity and in doing so stacks the Labour vote.

By the same token it serves the Conservatives to allow the woke brigade to carry on with their demands - and look nuts in doing so. And then act when it suits to 'rein it in' and to provoke a full on revolt against the Equality Act.

Who is going to get caught in the middle of that?

The mood is for 'traditional values' and 'localism'.

The left value tolerance, the right value security. There’s no point in making a security argument to a tolerance person. It won’t chime. Feminists have been making security arguments and have been surprised to be called bigots and phobes. LGB Alliance are doing the same.

The youth and woke vote is stacked up in the cities.

It does not serve the Conservative Party to pander to it. Indeed the crazier it is, the better it is for them. It helps to consolidate the blue vote in towns and rule areas away from the woke culture.

Why?

Because it helps fuel the culture war. It helps to provoke a backlash against the Equality act in full. That in turn serves the interests of the low regulation hard right of the Conservative Party.

Just this week I read an article in the local paper where a portrait of a local hero had been covered up by some trendy woke piece of art. You can imagine the comments...

The mood is for 'traditional values' and 'localism'.

This background doesn't help all these trans activists in the long run. They will find themselves up shit creek eventually. But it also doesn't help women, homosexuals and children either.

We are in the midst of a roll back against rights. All rights.

By the time the generational tipping point hits... There will be far bigger issues and scandals will have broken. The left won't stop the tide unless they realise what's going on and how they need to engage outside the metropolitan bubble.

The pattern of demographics doesn't favour the Labour...

And how has this centring manifested itself, in the view of the general public?

As I have said, it’s not ‘simply’ a group for gay and bi people if they are known to exist because they have an issue with trans (people/rights/activists/whatever). And they put out full page ads saying as much.

Why should it? It’s a group for gay and bi people. Trans isn’t a sexual orientation is it?

Lord and where on the t-shirt does it explain that?

It doesn’t. It’s just LGB and DEFINITELY NOT the T.

Charlie yeah, I know all that. But you know what? Most people don’t. That’s the point.

Not people - but the activists, who would push women’s rights back, and don’t forget their homophobia.

Why on earth would the average person think it's unacceptable?

Because it’s a group that apparently has a problem with trans people. Having a problem with trans people is for the likes of Donald Trump.

Going on about how this t-shirt is innocently supporting LGB people

Utter rubbish.

You know what? I've met and spoken to several older people who are transsexuals who are the population the GRA was originally aimed to help. We may not agree on everything but I've never heard one be rude here, nor threaten anyone.

Offline and online I've seen and heard from dozens after dozens of people representing exactly the politics I am here standing up against. I've seen one destroy an LGBT group. I've seen the selfishness, the rudeness, the utter lack of empathy, the rape threats, the death threats, the toddler tantrums, up front and personal.

There is no trans group standing up saying they don't agree with this. Or that the extremists don't represent them. Or that they understand female needs, fears, support female people's needs as part of identifying as women, and stand with females to find an answer to work for everyone. None.

There is a never ending trickle of those extremists and their representatives popping up on MN to scold women for not being endlessly polite to, nice about and sympathetic towards these extremists and their threats and appalling behaviour. That no matter what they do to females and how they threaten females rights, the real crime is female people getting cross about it, losing patience and God forbid, not being NICE.

Take that sexism and go away with it. I don't have the patience.

Kind of sounds like ‘well she was wearing a miniskirt our at night...’

Addendum to 4.

Early-onset homosexual transsexuals, who you probably mean by "old school transsexuals" are the second type of transsexuals.

No, I’m saying that it should be entirely expected for your average person to see that t-shirt and think it’s unacceptable,

Why on earth would the average person think it's unacceptable?

The MN feminism section seems to view trans people as either bully boys [or] emotionally fragile, possibly abused, possibly autistic young people, usually female [...] Or the ‘old school transsexual

Here's a friendly explanation of who we view through what lens:

1. The MN feminism section consists of hundreds of contributors spanning the range of all viewpoints on transsexualism and transgender ideology and legislation.

1. For the most part it's not trans people per se who are seen as "bully boys" but trans rights activists, who may or may not be trans. In particular we are concerned with the extreme ideology currently dominating the discourse and its proponents.

1. You've also left out the group of crossdressers from which arise the late-onset, non-homosexual transsexuals (aka autogynephiliac). This group is frequently discussed in relation to boundary violations, which is one of our main concerns.

1. And because transsexualism comes in two distinct and mutually exclusive types, it is hardly surprising that we are indeed discussing these two groups of transsexuals as separate issues.

1. With the rapidly growing group of children who first identify as trans in post-adolescence, which is majority female and often underage, autistic and LGB, and the group of transvestites, which is majority male, heterosexual and usually middle-aged, we have four distinct groups of people who identify as trans forming a focus for our debates.

1. All have different needs, and different behaviours affecting the rest of us and consequently different issues concern us in relation to them and how they affect other protected groups.

HTH

Noble. Drip drip drip is how Stonewall got its original purpose and aims achieved.

You don't change minds overnight.

It doesn't mean that awareness and activism by someone like the lbg alliance can not change that though.

Indeed. I’m not sure that they should have made their entry into the debate by full page ads criticising the GRA in technical detail though. Angel/pinhead.

LGB Alliance - fighting for the right to be same-sex attracted AGAIN? I dunno.

I can hardly wait to see what that is.