Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

317 replies

AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 14:20

Apparently Kemi Badenoch is a bit confused about the difference, claiming wide consultation with LGBT groups but actually only meeting GC feminist groups.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1760281735990738972?s=20

It reminds me a bit of when Maria Miller did the consultation on trans rights and didn't consult any feminists.

I would expect MPs to be consulting both sides, but more than that I'm kind of offended to be described as LGBT for my GC stance Confused. Seems unfair to both gay people and feminists and like the old anti-feminist "you are all hairy lesbians" trope

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1760281735990738972?s=20

OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 21:45

I don't think that the government should only listen to GC women now to redress the historic balance. That would not be good.

OP posts:
Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 21:43

Yes that's right datun.

OP posts:
Datun · 21/02/2024 21:41

AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 19:48

If Badenoch had met any gay campaign groups (not trans ones) she would have said. It would have shown.
She didn't. And in fact seems to be taking a particular line like this board, which is there are no groups representing gay interests and they are all captured by the T.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that's true. And it's not good enough to not engage with a whole group you are meant to represent. How, for example, can she update the EA to protect gay people if she doesn't speak to them?

Show quote history

I can't speak for anyone else, because I'm not taking a line.

I was under the impression you felt she hadn't consulted trans people. I'm not on Twitter so can only see what you've posted.

So now I think you're saying she hasn't consulted LGB groups, only gender critical women.

Well they're not mutually exclusive, obviously. In fact there's a massive overlap.

But maybe she'll publish a list about how many trans groups the government have historically been listening to, how many LGB groups they've historically been listening to, and how many gender critical women they've historically been listening to.

I'd be more than happy if she adds them all up, and redresses any balance.

catduckgoose · 21/02/2024 20:50

If the FOI request only concerned groups that she had met, then the response wouldn't list groups that she had only exchanged letters or emails with, yes? All of which is engagement.

OldCrone · 21/02/2024 19:56

AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 19:48

If Badenoch had met any gay campaign groups (not trans ones) she would have said. It would have shown.
She didn't. And in fact seems to be taking a particular line like this board, which is there are no groups representing gay interests and they are all captured by the T.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that's true. And it's not good enough to not engage with a whole group you are meant to represent. How, for example, can she update the EA to protect gay people if she doesn't speak to them?

Show quote history

Can you post a link to the FOI request/response so that we can see what it actually says? Or just a screenshot of the whole thing would do.

Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 19:49

MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/02/2024 19:43

Well AR, that's cos the 6 of us (plus dog) are all (checks notes) pearl clutching right wing nazi aligned old bigots.

And of course, guilt by association means that anyone posting on this board is of course a pearl cl............. 😂😂😂😂

Edited

Well AR, that's cos the 6 of us (plus dog) are all (checks notes) pearl clutching right wing nazi aligned old bigots.
Stop that. I never called anyone Nazi aligned or a bigot. I really object to you putting words into my mouth.

OP posts:
Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 19:48

Datun · 21/02/2024 19:42

The question for the FOI wasn't about transgender rights. The question was about LGBT groups. She clearly hasn't met any.

Transgender trend? They deal with thousands of trans kids and their parents.

Given that identifying as trans covers autistic children, children from sex offender parents, middle-aged cross dressers, men with AGP, non-binary navel gazers and drag queens, i'm sure you would appreciate that the concept of 'not meeting people who identify as T', is a bit of a movable feast.

What I'm sure you won't acknowledge is - that's the whole bloody point.

If Badenoch had met any gay campaign groups (not trans ones) she would have said. It would have shown.
She didn't. And in fact seems to be taking a particular line like this board, which is there are no groups representing gay interests and they are all captured by the T.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that's true. And it's not good enough to not engage with a whole group you are meant to represent. How, for example, can she update the EA to protect gay people if she doesn't speak to them?

OP posts:
Datun · 21/02/2024 19:44

... oh and let's not forget eunuch proponents. Including kids.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/02/2024 19:43

Well AR, that's cos the 6 of us (plus dog) are all (checks notes) pearl clutching right wing nazi aligned old bigots.

And of course, guilt by association means that anyone posting on this board is of course a pearl cl............. 😂😂😂😂

Datun · 21/02/2024 19:42

The question for the FOI wasn't about transgender rights. The question was about LGBT groups. She clearly hasn't met any.

Transgender trend? They deal with thousands of trans kids and their parents.

Given that identifying as trans covers autistic children, children from sex offender parents, middle-aged cross dressers, men with AGP, non-binary navel gazers and drag queens, i'm sure you would appreciate that the concept of 'not meeting people who identify as T', is a bit of a movable feast.

What I'm sure you won't acknowledge is - that's the whole bloody point.

Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 19:08

No I mean groups of same sex attracted people.
I think its pretty weak to claim two GC groups can speak to all issues of same sex attracted people and personally was outraged when Miller didn't speak to any women before. It seems pretty hypocritical to now say that women can represent gay men, for example.

The question for the FOI wasn't about transgender rights. The question was about LGBT groups. She clearly hasn't met any.

I think its a pretty fucking big deal she said something untrue in a debate. And I think its a pretty fucking big deal she's not consulting wider as minister of women and Equalities.

And I do question her views on both feminists and gay people that she put forward a GC feminist group as evidence of her "extensive consultation".

Hadn't realised quite how far the Kemi love on this board went. The contortions to make out shes done nothing wrong are quite something.

OP posts:
Datun · 21/02/2024 17:47

Adam

Transgender Trend, who apparently you say she consulted, deal with thousands and thousands of emails from trans kids, and parents of trans kids.

Hence why Stephanie Davis Arai can confidently state the reasons why she thinks they identify as transgender.

Or did you just mean transactivist groups?

BackToLurk · 21/02/2024 17:40

AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 17:27

I assume Bradshaw was referring to this exchange:
Christine Jardine: Could she tell us which organisations in this country concerned with LGBT rights and with human rights generally she consulted on this statement, and what their responses and recommendations were?

Badenoch:...We have engaged with numerous LGBT groups, but the fact of the matter is that many of them support self-ID. That is not this Government’s policy. Stonewall does not decide the law in this country—

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-06/debates/E7306EC2-EFCB-4331-BD82-F01FDF67CCBF/GenderRecognition

So Bradshaw has asked which groups, turns out none.
I don't support self ID but I do support all parties being consulted and to me this is just as bad as when Miller tried to introduce self ID without consulting women. With the added bonus of Badenoch actually appearing to tell fibs.

Like I say though, I'm sure the LGB groups she has engaged with will pop up if she's being misrepresented

Good link that appears to show that BB's focus was on transgender people and not, as you suggested, same-sex attracted people

HeartofSaturdayNight · 21/02/2024 17:33

LoobiJee · 21/02/2024 16:21

What I find interesting about posters who see the world through a very tribal lens and are constantly on the lookout for even the most tenuous ‘gotcha’ they can attempt to use against those who they see as their opponents, is their total lack of awareness of the effect this behaviour has on those listeners and observers who are not in either tribe.

Yup. This.

OP posts:
Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 17:27

I assume Bradshaw was referring to this exchange:
Christine Jardine: Could she tell us which organisations in this country concerned with LGBT rights and with human rights generally she consulted on this statement, and what their responses and recommendations were?

Badenoch:...We have engaged with numerous LGBT groups, but the fact of the matter is that many of them support self-ID. That is not this Government’s policy. Stonewall does not decide the law in this country—

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-06/debates/E7306EC2-EFCB-4331-BD82-F01FDF67CCBF/GenderRecognition

So Bradshaw has asked which groups, turns out none.
I don't support self ID but I do support all parties being consulted and to me this is just as bad as when Miller tried to introduce self ID without consulting women. With the added bonus of Badenoch actually appearing to tell fibs.

Like I say though, I'm sure the LGB groups she has engaged with will pop up if she's being misrepresented

OP posts:
NoBinturongsHereMate · 21/02/2024 17:24

BackToLurk · 21/02/2024 17:16

That's not true. Her full tweet relates to self id, specifically the question of the legal sex of people who have been recognised as transgender in other countries..

Edited
Show quote history

Whereas the meetings spreadsheet is meetings about schools and a letter to the education minister. Totally different topic.

Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 17:17

I don't even know what to say without getting told I'm following TRA tropes.

That reads to me like you are saying LGB people don't need specific representation in government policy making? That's not what you mean is it? Confused

OP posts:
BackToLurk · 21/02/2024 17:16

AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 16:49

Yes, but in this case Badenoch was specifically asked which groups she had met regarding same sex attracted issues, and only named two GC groups (if you take what Bradshaw said at face value).
It's a very strange response, I can only assume she didn't want to leave the whole spreadsheet blank.

Ministers diaries are a fact of record so it should be easy for her to prove if he's lying. Obviously she's also got other priorities right now though

That's not true. Her full tweet relates to self id, specifically the question of the legal sex of people who have been recognised as transgender in other countries..

MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/02/2024 17:10

AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 16:58

I'm not complaining about that. At all. I think its great she's meeting them. At risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm complaining she appears to have lied when she said she'd "extensively" consulted LGB groups and I'm complaining she's tried to shoehorn GC feminists into LGB because I'm fed up with the "feminists are all lesbians" trope.
As a mum/stepmum to LGB children (bi and lesbian before anyone starts) I'm worried she is not actually taking the time to understand gay people's issues. Not great for the "Minister for women and equalities"

You're missing the point. LGBT groups / activists are completely embedded in government - in the civil service, health, education, the MoJ, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, parliament , the police, the fire service etc.

They're already in the meetings alongside their numerous allies. Not a paper comes out from any government source that isn't Stonewalled. Rarely a policy is allowed to emerge using the word woman. Countless organisations are Stonewall diversity champions. They're completely embedded.

I can't help you if you're bothered about a "feminists are all lesbians" trope. 🤔
I believe the response is "we're lesbians, we're here, so get over it" (or similar)

OldCrone · 21/02/2024 17:06

AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 16:59

The two statements are contradictory. Bradshaw has evidence, Kemi doesn't.

Show quote history

How do you know? Have you seen his evidence? If so, please post it here.

How do you know KB doesn't have evidence?

NoBinturongsHereMate · 21/02/2024 17:05

It's assumptions all the way down.

(Yes, I know these are tortoises not turtles - the GIF library is lacking.)

way turtles GIF
Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 17:03

I assume MWE = minister for women and Equalities aka KB Confused

OP posts:
NoBinturongsHereMate · 21/02/2024 17:02

I also note that the 'evidence' of who Kemi met states that the minster present was 'MWE'.

Not KB.

Original poster
AdamRyan · 21/02/2024 16:59

NoBinturongsHereMate · 21/02/2024 16:58

if you take what Bradshaw said at face value

Which clearly you are very keen to do, while absolutely refusing to take what Kemi said at face value.

If indeed she said anything at all - so far we have a clip of somebody else speaking, a refused FoI, and a screenshot of 1 page of an incomplete document that is claimed as the answer to an FoI but with absolutely no source or evidence to back up that it is - or if it is, that it is the answer to that FoI.

Perhaps this chap can provide some hold music while we await something a bit more robust.

The two statements are contradictory. Bradshaw has evidence, Kemi doesn't.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread