Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

There are lobby groups which have big pockets and serve the interests of wealthy individuals or corporations for the benefit of a small minority. They have pre-existing links to power (perhaps old boy network) and access to power than ordinary people do not have. It isn't uncommon for the MPs they are connected to, to have a conflict of interest with the group, their personal life and the wider public interest.

This is where there are multiple concerns and issues over lobbying.

Then there are lobby groups which struggle much more to get listened to. They tend to arise from scandal or controversy. They are formed from grassroots movements. Because they don't have connections to power they often fail to get taken seriously until the issue reaches a level that can not be ignored. They are the mercy of the former group who will often use their power to block access to power as it undermines their existing, institutionalised power or precisely because the grassroots group is trying to hold the power of the Established Lobby group to account and they don't want that.

This is where there is a massive imbalance of power against the people and the type of lobbying that is essential in a democracy to represent the interests of the wider public.

Now let's play a little game of 'Can you spot which is which? and What's happening here?' on this thread.

Can we spot the disengenous manipulation of the concept of lobby groups = a very bad thing?

Hmmm. Yes.

Yes the very height of cynicism. And the very opposite of democracy principles. Yes let's FOI it.

We see you.

And just to make it clear: there are a lot of ethical issues around the idea of lobby groups of any kind, in terms of a democratic state, but not really within the scope of this thread.

But relating to some of your questions above, there are two kinds of groups that are relevent.

Some are cause specific, like Greenpeace. They are supported by people who agree with what Greenpeace believes, and they lobby to achieve their aims. In fact, it is the members who tend to set policy direction, and people who disagree will tend to leave the group. They are arguing that what they believe is best, but they are only representing their own membership.

With identarian groups, like Stonewall, they are typically lobbying on behalf of an identarian group. Maybe gay and lesbian people, maybe women, maybe immigrants, or Muslims.

The problem is that in most cases, not all these people are actually members, and may or may not support what the group is advocating. So the group is in effect claiming that they should be accorded a status and importance reflective of the whole population they say they represent. and they also directly or by implication say that other viewpoints about said group are not valid.

This is why Stonewall is so upset about the LGB Alliance. What is reveals is that SW, while it may represent the views of certain people who are gay or lesbian, it does not in fact represent the views of that group as a whole - it is very much a partisan organization. If people realize that, it loses a significant element of it's political power.

Yes, bad things sometimes happen to people because of some group they in some sense belong to. Or other ways in which their commonality gives them an interest in common.

However, that often does not mean they see eye to eye on what the cause or remedy is. Or very often, even what the problem is.

This is just as true of women's groups. Many see themselves, honestly enough, of representing the best interests of women. But actually, plenty of women differ in how they see their interests.

So when a woman's group says that something is a problem, or advocates a policy position, whose interest are they actually representing?

They are actually representing the women who agree with them, while denying the validity of the viewpoint of those who disagree.

There was a time when many of the successful identarian lobbies tended to be very limited in policy demands, and often they were on very concrete things, because they avoided making pronouncements on things that were highly controversial in their membership. That's no longer the case though. (Incidentally, it's true of other lobby groups to, Amnesty International is a good example.)

Interesting that the 'proof of truth' is saying something in the Commons, where the rules specifically forbid anyone saying another member is lying.

You must have missed the thread on Ashley Dalton (oh no you didn't). Disingenuous moi?

Everyone can read what you post. Are you drunk? Reread the posts you are talking about and explain how anyone could interpret it in another way.

How could you possibly not understand?
It was very clear. Literally lines above, lgbt people don't really appreciate being portrayed as all into fetish, bondage and kink. Then you said you disagreed on the nature of gay people.

You said essentially you agreed with the portrayal using kink that John Lewis did
.

@AdamRyan

OK so KB is a duplicitous dissembling apology for a politician. Given that you are a Gender Critical Radical Feminist, do you think that the electorate of West Lancashire should vote for Ashley Dalton in the upcoming GE?

No. You picked out the last sentence of a paragraph that clearly gave a context to that sentence. That is removing the context.

There's an irony in accusing me of not engaging in a thread where your opening post stated: "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 . Seems unfair to both gay people and feminists and like the old anti-feminist "you are all hairy lesbians" trope"

My recollection is that my posts have been exploring issues in relation to your OP - what "both sides" looks like, the lengthy history of government funding and work with the trans lobby in stark contrast to groups concerned about the negative impact of trans ideology on children and women's rights and so on

But you don't have to engage with my posts on your thread if they're not to your liking😃

According to Pink News, she met with The LGB Alliance. https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/02/05/kemi-badenoch-lgb-alliance-meeting-anti-trans-backlash-transphobia/

But that would have been when she was a junior minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Women_and_Equalities

The small extract of my comment that you have selected was one of 3 paragraphs in response to TempestTost who was pointing out that "when the government, or workplaces, consult with LGB or other lobbying representatives, they often aren't getting a very accurate idea of what people who share that identity grouping actually think"

Part of my response was "Such a good point - as the batshit "representatives" of the LGBT community working at John Lewis demonstrated. Centring fetish, bondage gear, men who abuse women, evidently mentally unwell individuals and openly promoting physical harm to girls. As soon as that was in the open the public protested vehemently at what was being implied about the nature of lesbians, gay men etc"

You have removed the context of my comment by focussing on the last section. I think my paragraph is perfectly self explanatory - as long as you're aware of this week's John Lewis debacle which I assumed you were given the regularity of your posting on this board. It's no wonder so many posters complain about your lack of good faith when you selectively quote like this.

As I said, if you don't understand the point that fetish, bondage gear, men who abuse women, mentally unwell individuals and promoting physical harm to girls does not represent the LGB or T communities then I can't help you.

Why just publish annex 1 and not the entire response?

Or at least link to it.