LGB Alliance is now a registered charity

People can identify however they want. They may struggle when people go with the recognised definitions from the dictionary though. Which the majority of people do. Rather than just making things up because they want to.

Words matter. Meanings matter. Facts matter. I'm going with the dictionary.

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is

It's the law, as passed by Parliament.

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is

...and the government

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is. However it isn't an accurate representation of how everyone would define their sexuality or how they identify. Then post a specific definition of sexuality to correct it then! Not a bored or blase comment. Not a shoulder shrug, an "It's too compex, you wouldn't understand" comment.

An actual, in print, black and white definition!

"HETEROSEXUAL / STRAIGHT
Refers to a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women or to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men.

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

As "Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'" therefore surely a male of any age may thus, and should for clarity, be described as a man and likewise for human beings who are female?

The glossary is nonsense. Two men fellating each other could be lesbians. A woman and a man having PIV could be homosexual.

Sorry, should have included a link to the glossary

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms

Ooh, this is curious.

I've just been for a check and Stonewall have been playing with their definitions page once again. It really is extraordinary how frequently core definitions around human sexuality need to be changed.
Might be worth a look over the way back machine to see when the changes were made, if anyone has the time?

On the surface they now read better because they simply talk about men and women rather than people being oriented towards the same or opposite gender (sic) not sex. Many pdfs exist of various iterations of the old definitions.

However, and this is key, Stonewall do not actually define the words 'man' or 'woman'.
Stonewall are firm believers in TWAW and TMAM so the use of these words is as gender not sex based terms. That's all sexuality redefined.

Interestingly, I don't think they have yet rewritten their definition of homosexual so it reflects the old style... Catch it while you can.

"HETEROSEXUAL / STRAIGHT
Refers to a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women or to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men.

(Used to be
HETEROSEXUAL / STRAIGHT
A person who is attracted to people of a different gender to their own e.g. a man who is attracted to women.)

HOMOSEXUAL
This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.

SEX
Assigned to a person on the basis of primary sex characteristics (genitalia) and reproductive functions. Sometimes the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are interchanged to mean ‘male’ or ‘female’."

Yeah, Stonewall, they really shouldn't be - hence the need for the LGBAlliance who express with clarity:

"We advance the interests of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, and stand up for our right to live as same-sex attracted people without discrimination or disadvantage".

A few weeks ago, a gay man stated he was same-sex attracted and that heterosexual females are not gay men. For that, he was reported to the police. I don't recall hearing anything from Stonewall on this? I'd have thought the main LGBT charity would be absolutely horrified by that?

Stonewall had no problems with calling the police on lesbians when we demonstrated outside their conference on Lesbian Visibility Day, defending the definition of lesbianism as same-sex attraction. Very carceral of them.

Sorry pressed too soon

Good to know on both counts.

Scarf and donation!

Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

Good to know on both counts.

Hardliners openly strategise ways to make life tougher for trans people

tbf, FWR was part of strategising the funding of a judicial review of Census decisions by the ONS that were adjacent to undermining provisions of the GRA2004 and EA2010. I think it was here that I learned about the challenge around coercive control and the need for its recognition as part of DA - so FWR prompted a donation to Sally Challenor's campaign.

FWR did encourage people to take part in the democratic process and return a personalised response to various surveys on topics ranging from PHSE, the virtual erasure of sex classes in sports to safeguarding, women's health, VAWG and things that loom large in the lives of everyday citizens.

A number of FWR have written letters to MPs about the plight of women with no recourse to public funds when they are the subject of DV.

I see these (and more) as strategising ways to enforce the rights of women as a sex class rather than overlook and erase them.

Inconvenient facts! Don’t look at them... look over here at my cute little puppy.

Oh thank you. I didn’t know that. I’ll go ask.

And finally a huge thank you to Sugar and pals. They’ve inspired me to do plenty of digging this morning.

Secondly, good luck to tinsel

Firstly. Wonderful news. Congratulations to all at LGBA.

Oh my first deletion. I wonder what I said as nothing in the talk guidelines enlightened me. I’m just going to try posting in sections to see if I can figure out what the problem with my post was.

Jonathan Best and Ruth Hunt (former CEO Stonewall) were interviewed on Radio 4 about the petition request.

Shortly after the interview on Radio 4, Jonny Best received a threatening email which neccesitated a police report.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384782-PM-radio-four-Stonewall-petition?pg=6#prettyPhoto/0/

Jonathan Best also then endured a campaign of spurious smears and malicious reporting and false allegations at his university (Huddersfield)

twitter.com/JonnyWorst/status/1363063679474950147

Telegraph
6th March 2021
'University forced to apologise and compensate PhD student over 'transphobic' tweets'

(extract)
"Officials at the university launched a formal probe and summoned the music tutor to disciplinary hearings, later alleging he had potentially been “offensive” and not respected others’ “feelings”.

But in the first free speech case of its kind, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education - which handles student complaints - has now criticised multiple “procedural failings” with the university’s investigation and ordered it to apologise and pay him £800.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator also told the institution to swiftly review its disciplinary procedures, after Mr Best complained.

He told The Telegraph it illustrates the “chilling effect on free speech in action”, with censorship and a “low grade totalitarianism” sitfling scholarly debate on the distinction between gender identity and biological sex.

“In these free speech cases, the process is the punishment - getting through the process is grindingly difficult and stressful. It wears you down,” he said. “It makes you wonder if speaking and writing honestly is worth it.” (continues)

In Mr Best’s case, a student sent screenshots of his tweets and blog posts to university authorities. One said: “There is no such thing as ‘misgendering’. There is no such thing as ‘deadnaming’.” Another claimed “misogynistic trans ideology” was being pushed in schools.

The formal complaint alleged “repeated transphobic behaviour” and “discrimination”. An investigation was opened in August 2019 and Mr Best defended the posts under freedom of speech laws." (continues)

He was found in breach of the university’s social media and trans equality policies that protect against a “humiliating or offensive environment”. Mr Best successfully appealed, then went to the ombudsman which reviewed the case.

The OIA ruled last month: “We are not satisfied that the University has adequately apologised for the delay and the impact of the procedural failings on Mr Best. We consider that distress and inconvenience was caused to Mr Best, which has not been recognised by the University.” (continues)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/06/university-forced-apologise-compensate-phd-student-transphobic/