Kicked out of club for wearing LGB Alliance Tshirt

What happens when the celebs move on to the next cause? Which they will (and are)...

Yes I expect it would cause offence - but more bandwagon jumping offence. I found Emma Watson’s T-shirt a rather pathetic attempt to look right on and stroke certain groups. Rather naive and offensive (in the whole debate arena). I don’t think she was thrown out of anywhere...

You want to prevent people wearing LBG shirts by claiming the slogan is hateful?

No, I’m saying that it should be entirely expected for your average person to see that t-shirt and think it’s unacceptable, and also for it to piss off trans people (even ones who don’t want to wank in the ladies).

But why did the organisation that was set up to fight for the rights of same-sex attracted people ever start to support people who identify as transgender anyway, noblegiraffe?

I don’t see the connection.

We don’t expect the British Heart Foundation to fundraise for research into diabetes, do we?

Noble many of those who are woke also are desperate to be nice and to project a certain image to the world.

When told they support homophobes it either horrified them or it is taken as a personal attack on them.

It can go either way tbh.

The thing is there is more than one group involved and there are some who are vulnerable and need protection and some who are actively abusing the situation for their own ends at the expense of more vulnerable groups.

The fact is that so people question things and instead are more concerned about branding and pr is precisely the reason we are in this mess.

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

Fashion only lasts for so long after all.

IMO the rainbow issue will start to fall a little out of fashion in favour of a green identity and I think that will start to change the dynamics slightly of activism too.

Going on about how this t-shirt is innocently supporting LGB people just reminds me of when kids at school poke another kid in the back

You haven't answered my question. You accepted Aesop's description of appalling tactics without demur. If it wasn't accurate, why didn't you challengeYou want to prevent people wearing LBG shirts by claiming the slogan is hateful? That's a demonstration of intolerance and control.

Bovary The MN feminism section seems to view trans people as either bully boys throwing their weight around, banning books, cancelling platforms, getting people sacked or taken to court.

Except when they view them as emotionally fragile, possibly abused, possibly autistic young people, usually female who have been sold the lie that medical procedures will solve all their problems.

Or the ‘old school transsexual’ who quietly gets on with things and hopes no one will notice.

The average person is more likely to have come into contact with the second two than the first, I would have thought.

So if you’re talking about trans people and how they’re so powerful that you have to break away from the organisation that supports them and deliberately create one that drops them from the usual name for the community, you should really expect the general reaction to be ‘WTF’.

Going on about how this t-shirt is innocently supporting LGB people just reminds me of when kids at school poke another kid in the back repeatedly out of sight and then when the kid snaps, go all wide eyed and innocent. It’s worth remembering that to most people, the kid you are poking isn’t some bloke wanting a wank in the women’s toilets, it’s their niece, or colleague or friend.

the trans narrative requiring books to be removed from libraries, hounding people out of jobs, threatening venues holding meeting, censoring academics, issuing death threats etc might undermine your argument?

That might be what is happening.... more importantly, is your average person even aware it’s happening?

Noblegiraffe

I just want to clarify. You accept that analysis of the trans lobby. You seem neither surprised, nor concerned by Aesop's description of appalling behaviour. The only relevant point to you is whether the wider public actually knows about these bullying, oppressive tactics. Is that an accurate summary of your position?

The average person on the street doesn’t give a shit about bisexual versus pansexual. It’s basically counting angels on pinheads. Twattery that other people (mainly students) seem to really care about that doesn’t really matter.

Have Stonewall released anything saying that lesbians should ‘just do penis’?

In general, people don’t care until it adversely affects them.

FWIW of all the arguments that I've used with friends about this debate, one of the ones that has cut through most is the 'lady dick' and 'lesbians with penises' points.

The penny starts to drop fairly quickly...

What is Stonewall’s definition of ‘heterosexual’? Attracted to opposite genders? But if someone is attracted to someone of the same sex but opposite gender then would they say they are not homosexual? And presumably as genders are not binary they do they mean attracted to a different gender? In which case given the diversity of genders then nearly every woke person must actually be heterosexual? Then what is bisexual and how does it differ from pansexual?

If refuting that story means going into technical detail about how you define homosexual, then you’ve lost.

I think most people would think Stonewall/TRAs/angry men have "lost" when you explain they each insist homosexuality is wrong and bigoted, and lesbians should just do penis.

If refuting that story means going into technical detail about how you define homosexual, then you’ve lost.

It depends on the line you take, but saying 'lesbians can't have a penises' is the same argument but in a simply understood way that cuts across. From there you can make the argument.

I've heard so many people wonder out loud "what is the T doing in LGBT? Its not a sexuality, it's something different"

It's not something the general public have missed.

Except the 'easy story' is not the one being reported.

The incident has led to angry exchanges between the LGB Alliance supporters and trans activists. The LGB Alliance was branded “trans-exclusionary” and a hate group for promoting the views that “biological sex is real” and “sex is binary, not a spectrum”.

The actual story is.

Joanna Cherry, QC, the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West, said "...Basically saying you can’t be a lesbian unless you’re my kind of lesbian, from a man, is unacceptable.”

the trans narrative requiring books to be removed from libraries, hounding people out of jobs, threatening venues holding meeting, censoring academics, issuing death threats etc might undermine your argument?

That might be what is happening, but is it required to happen, and more importantly, is your average person even aware it’s happening?

The LGB Alliance’s issue is that the easy story is:

‘What’s the LGB Alliance?’
‘They’re that organisation that are pissed off at Stonewall for trying to get trans rights’
‘What’s wrong with trans people?’
‘Dunno, but look, they’ve deliberately left the T off LGB’
‘Oh, wow, that’s fucked up.’

If refuting that story means going into technical detail about how you define homosexual, then you’ve lost.

The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.

Except those of us, like me, who have returned to using the word homosexual to define ourselves to make it very clear it is sex based attraction, and that no, I will not be framing my sexual choices as a woman around some perceived duty of providing 'inclusivity' with my body for people born male. Because this is insane. And homophobic. To put it mildly.

I am thankful for some sense being spoken by Joanna Cherry. The twitter feed was awful - full of misogynistic nonsense.

noble is there a reason why you didn't quote the rest of my sentence? Do you think acknowledging that the trans narrative requiring books to be removed from libraries, hounding people out of jobs, threatening venues holding meeting, censoring academics, issuing death threats etc might undermine your argument?

And the poster who quotes Niemöller in a quote that’s about Nazis coming for various groups and the need to speak out to change legislation.

It's a frequently used quote that can be applied to many other situations, not just the Nazis!

The reductio ad absurdum of the Stonewall definition of being a lesbian is, of course, that you could have two male bodied people performing fellatio on each other's penises, and for that to be a lesbian act if that is how they identify themselves.

Which seems a bit mad, don't you think? The word "lesbian" has come entirely unmoored from its meaning in that scenario.

So I am wholly supportive of lesbians (and gay men and bisexuals, and trans people who are same sex attracted, too) carving out a space where such obliteration of meaning does not occur, and asserting their identity in a way that they are not currently permitted to do in Stonewall World. T-shirts and all.

Also the Equality act defines homosexuality as follows:

12Sexual orientation
(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.

In effect if you are using the Stonewall definition of homosexuality as the basis of your equality policy on homosexuality you are running the risk of being in breach of the equality act.

This is why changing birth certificates is so controversial. It could in effect be homophobic if this is affecting lesbians in particular disproportionately.

Is wearing a t-shirt of an organisation which is an activist about the problem 'goady' or 'raising awareness'?

If you think that Stonewall is acting in a way which is homophobic then your argument that the t-shirt wearer is 'goady' starts to fall apart. If you dont think Stonewall's definition is homophobic, I'd love to hear why you don't think it is.

That's quite some reach

Post before yours literally says the trans narrative....is reminiscent of fascism

And the poster who quotes Niemöller in a quote that’s about Nazis coming for various groups and the need to speak out to change legislation.

So one side is going ‘hate speech’ and the other side is going ‘fascists’.

And that just makes things worse.

This is Stonewall's definition of homosexual:
Homosexual
This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has an emotional, romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.

This is the definition of homophobia on Wikipedia:
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and ignorance, and is often related to religious beliefs.

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

Stonewall's definition of homosexual is institutionally homophobic as it is based on gender, therefore how people identify, rather than their sex.

This is why the LGB Alliance was set up.

Wearing a t-shirt that says LGB Alliance on it, is a statement of this.

Those who believe in the Stonewall definition are homophobic and do not like being called out on it.

Saying that this is in anyway being like a nazi is pretty special in this context. I have to question anyone who defends the Stonewall definition. Especially if they are prattling on about how it's like a nazi to point out institutionalised and internalised homophobia.

The incident has led to angry exchanges between the LGB Alliance supporters and trans activists. The LGB Alliance was branded “trans-exclusionary” and a hate group for promoting the views that “biological sex is real” and “sex is binary, not a spectrum”.

Anyone reading that is going to think wtf??

Joanna Cherry, QC, the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West, said "...Basically saying you can’t be a lesbian unless you’re my kind of lesbian, from a man, is unacceptable.”

...and then they'll get it.