LGB Alliance to plan helpline with Lottery funding

My trans daughter is no longer a teenager, but I am still her mother and my opinion and experience is as valid as anyone else's.

Yes/no - if someone says they feel something, it must not be questioned?

Would be good to clear that up.

I definitely feel I'm not right-wing.
Boris Johnson says he feels he is honest.
Some parents feel that boys playing with dolls is wrong.

I mean, I know I say it a lot, but this is all they have.

people can feel all sorts of things

doesn't mean any of them are true, does it?

It is how a lot of trans people describe how they feel. Who are we to tell them they're wrong to say it?

Interesting tidbit from the GIDS article in the Times:
Yet recently a senior figure at Stonewall, which has been gung-ho for child medical transition, said to me, “I think the wrong people are being referred to GIDS.”

Well said @Artichokeleaves that sums it up nicely.

Because the interests and voice of LGB people not only became entirely subsumed behind TQ+ focus in Stonewall, but Stonewall actively began to use their leverage and history to push TQ+ homophobic agendas while spinning it as being in the name of LGB people.

As you see here; the insistence that lovely Stonewall loves and represents ALL the members of the never ending alphabet - while their head says openly that homosexuality is like racism, and homosexual people should not reject heterosexual partners with trans identies of being the sex that they are in fact not.

At this point, obviously, a hell of lot of LGB people said it's time that govt etc realised that this is not in our name, we do not agree, this is a major problem, and it has to be accepted that the TQ+ voice and LGB voice is not always the same. Like women and TW, battle one is to break the forced teaming of the group because the interests often conflict, and the political lobby intentionally subordinates and suppresses the equal voices and interests of the non TQ+ group.

TLDR: Because Stonewall is pushing policy and law in the name of LGB that is actually not representative or inclusive of all LGB people and their voices and is increasingly actively and unashamedly homophobic.

Of course they both are charities.

There is a massive difference in size and the constant investment needed to run Stonewall vs what is needed to run LGB Alliance.

I am sure that you understand the significance of size?

It was Cathryn McGahey QC, a witness for Garden Court, who drew the analogy between this workshop exploring how “ideologies of transphobia and transmisogyny impact sexual desire” and South African racial integration and who implied it was possible in a non-coercive way to persuade a same-sex attracted lesbian she might want to have sex with a trans woman.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/29/if-lesbian-prefers-same-sex-dates-thats-not-bigotry-desire-personal-thing

In this metaphor, Allison (a black, lesbian, working class survivor of sexual abuse) is Eugene Terreblanche and India Willoughby is Nelson Mandela.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4558576-sonia-sodha-on-mb-and-the-cotton-ceiling?

Maybe because Stonewall is being run as a charity ‘business’ and needed to secure funds to feed itself.

LGBA is a registered charity.

if this is the case why is there suddenly a need for an LGB only organisation?

idk, could it be because homophobia has escalated to the point that the head of a respected charity that has influence over hundreds of major corporations and government department is saying openly on the BBC that same sex attraction is “sexual racism?”

Maybe because Stonewall is being run as a charity ‘business’ and needed to secure funds to feed itself.

Leaving LGB people with no representation just for their needs. Therefore a new grassroots organisation that doesn’t have the overheads that Stonewall have had been created to fill that need.

It was a business decision.

Stonewall could have wound back to fit a budget that was sustainable, but made the decision the other way.

What I don't understand is that I've read on here many times how Stonewall decided after gay marriage was made legal and almost universal acceptance of LGB people there was nothing left to achieve and they needed to pivot towards the T to stay relevant and keep the funds coming in, if this is the case why is there suddenly a need for an LGB only organisation?

I’m still waiting for Starlee or any of the others to comment on Nancy Kelley of Stonewall & the Garden Court barrister equating lesbianism with racism.

Thanks Hearach and Starlee for getting back to me on what it means for my oldest to call themself non binary and gay. Respectively, 'no idea who they are attracted to/weird question' and 'ask them'. Which...yeah.

To me, this encapsulates the breakdown in our shared language around sex and sexual orientation. When my friends first came out as gay decades ago, what would have been truly weird would have been to say, 'Thank you for telling me. What sex does that mean you are attracted to?' Because gay=same sex attracted. Here we are 4 decades on and LGBTQ+ advocates on here can't say whether a male person who says that they are gay is more likely to be attracted to male or female people. 🤦‍♀️

On this board, the regular posters who describe themselves as lesbians use the shared common meaning of the word 'lesbian'.

So if someone asked me 'who are those posters most likely to be attracted to?' I can confidently assert, never having met them, that they are female people attracted solely to other female people. Because the word 'lesbian' - like the word 'woman' and 'female' is already taken and describes a discrete group of people. It should not be repurposed because the group of people it describes still exist and need it for their protection in law.

The sine qua non of Lesbianism is that it involves female people only.

Is it possible for humans to change sex? No. So can a biologically male person ever, in any circumstances, be a lesbian? No.

What if all their friends/the media/controversial lobby groups say they are lesbian? Still no.

If a female person plans to stay in a happy long term sexual relationship with a male person, are they a lesbian? No. They are heterosexual or bisexual. Again, perfectly valid sexualities, but not gay.

What if the male has long hair and nail polish and has had facial feminisation surgery and bottom surgery and a GRC and calls themself she/her and Katie? Still not a lesbian/woman/female.

Make up some new words, if you like, to describe these 'new' sexualities. Words to describe the group of people who are attracted say to extremely feminine males, or masculine females. Knock yourself out. It is not going to be useful in law because, when it comes down to it, there are only really four options when it comes to sexual orientation: same sex, opposite sex, both sexes, neither.

Naturally, my oldest is attracted to whoever they are attracted to. Not really any skin off my nose. Yet if, say, as a male person, they are exclusively attracted to female people, (believing that they share a gender identity) that would be a perfectly valid sexual orientation, just not a gay one... And their needs and experience - and possible need for a helpline - would be entirely different if the exclusive object of their sexual attraction was fellow males...

Thank you Annie and artichoke. I did suspect that was the case.

So a correct 'comparison' would be to look at the achievements within the first three years if some posters want to get snarky and declare When the LGB Alliance get off their arse and do something useful and Stonewall on the other hand are applauded because they do proper work.

But I would expect that me pointing out that it is a false comparison will be ignored because it doesn't fit with the demonisation agenda that some posters have going on here on this thread.

Some really confused and maybe even propagandist thinking coming through on this thread. I cannot use a word that other PP's have also hinted at because it is a deletable word. But it isn't 'cuntish' behaviour that I am worried about.

For anyone reading, starlee, citrus, whoever. I personally am not too concerned if you can't explain the things you claim to believe. You wouldn't be the first, for sure. But when you scroll by the question addressed to you, and you think internally 'I'm going to ignore that' - ask yourself why? Is it a knotty one? Something that might challenge what you think? Does the question itself make me feel uncomfortable?

Bigoted people would not care. Bigoted people would be so keen to cling to their pre-existing ideas that anything challenging it is brushed off without examination - usually the logical fallacy that 'the person asking it isn't nice' or something makes them feel ok about it.

But open-minded people would grapple with it. Hmm. Why can't I answer? Is it ok if this is something I'm not settled on? What does it mean about me if I deeply believe that certain bodies 'match' or 'align with' certain types of souls or psyches? Would I believe that Black and white bodies have certain types of minds? Perhaps it isn't the individual's mind or body that's wrong - it's society's expectations of that person? Should a body be changed to fit society's expectation? Should a soul be changed?

These ^^ are suggestions, not anything I'm asking directly or expecting an answer about. I would be happy to answer any non-flippant question in return - in fact, I thought that was sort of the point of discussion forums.

Other questions that never get a response:
What is a woman?
Can you set out what you think gender critical people believe, in a way that those people would agree accurately reflects their beliefs?

I do believe that without having some sort of common understanding of what each other means by these things, it's pointless talking about sex, gender, gender critical people, etc.

I have had a look on their website for campaigns that LGB Alliance have been heavily engaged in.

First one was EHRC action:

One of our first actions when LGB Alliance was formed was to start to engage with EHRC about the public confusion on issues relating to sex and gender identity, and the misrepresentation by some organisations of the specifics of the Equality Act 2010.

That guidance has now been issued.

Second one was Census action:

With a month to go until the census on March 21, campaigners have launched the Sex in the Census campaign to protest the last minute decision by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) not to ask people to answer accurately with their biological sex.

LGB Alliance was one of 15 small grassroots organisations in the coalition that delivered this as a success.

There are other campaigns that are still active and not finished.

The group seems to have had their voice heard in the Hate Crime Bill (Scotland), The GRA Reform consultation, and most recently ensuring LGB peoples rights are maintained in the 'End Conversion Therapy' bill.

Hardly a zero report card I must say.

The most significant thing to me at the time is that we were holding our heads up high - remember this was in the wake of Section 28. And we were getting organised.

The LGB Alliance is serving the same kind of purpose now - its helping LGB people find each other, it's helping us hold our heads up high as same-sex-attracted people, and it's enabling us to get organised.

Stonewall now has something like 160 staff, and more money than god. It makes me weep to think what good those kinds of resources could do. As one of Stonewall's founders said at the launch of the LGBA, he really didn't want to set up another organisation for LGB people, because he thought he'd already done that. But there was no choice, as that first organisation was largely no longer working to further the interests of LGB people.

The question (you know this, of course, I'm just trying to get it clear) is a subordinate question to that involved in the well-known mind/body problem ('mbp'): how do (non-material) minds relate/interact (causally and otherwise) with (material) bodies?

Tbh I was trying to ask at a much more basic level than this - starlee states that certain types of soul/mind/psyche "match" certain types of body. Indeed, starlee's whole understanding of what it is to be trans (and their insistence that some people have wrong bodies) is based on this.

I had assumed this meant 'people with XX bodies have a certain type of mind/soul, and people with XY bodies have a different type' - otherwise I don't know how you can have discrete types to 'match' with the discrete types of body.

Yet again, though, Starlee has said something they can't explain or clarify. I am open to seeing which kinds of minds they think match with female people , and which kinds of minds match with male people.

They don't know. They are pretending to know what trans people say but haven't even bothered to find out what they mean.

I can only conclude that there is no such thing as a type of mind (personality, soul, psyche, character, whatever you want to call it) matching a type of body.

The more voices pointing us in the right direction the better really.

If you don't mind, could you point us in the direction of the significant successes that Stonewall won in the first 3 years?

I'll wait with interest and respect for Annie's reply as someone who was there from the start!

I'd suggest one of the biggest however was 'managed to stay afloat without being stamped out', due to the risks Annie mentions.

You seem incredibly muddled - you genuinely don't know the answer to this question?

(It was a question I asked citrus, because there seemed to be lots of confusion about what being 'heterosexual' was and they were saying it was a problem that heterosexual people supported the LGBA.)

As you also displayed the same confusion, I was hoping to clear up whether you believe a heterosexual person could be gay. Your subsequent answer suggested that yes, you do.

And your inability to say 'yes I believe that' or 'no I do not' suggests you are disrespectful enough to start using words - that people on this board describe themselves as - that you can't even define.

That's what I've always loved about Pride events, it's always such a wonderful inclusive celebration and protest, based on love, inclusiveness, unity, community, LGBTQ+ all happy together and supported by the general public, just how it could always be

Yes. And the government is run entirely by kittens and the Queen gave birth to triplets yesterday. Yay!