Page 6 | Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

AdamRyan · 2024-02-21T14:20:42+00:00

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 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

BackToLurk · 22/02/2024 20:13

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:35

You don't get to tell me what's good faith.
If I turned up and said all your (plural -posters on this board, not you specifically) various posts about labour/lib dems/capturing were "bad faith" you'd all collectively be outraged.

It's no secret I'm not a fan of Badenoch but in this case I genuinely want to see what people think about the fact Kemi has claimed extensive engagement with LGB groups but only met two GC groups. That's a contradictory claim.

What people appear to think on this board is Saint Kemi Can Do No Wrong. The two main explanations appear to be Bradshaw is lying and has falsified the FOI response. Or there are plenty of lesbians in GC groups so she has consulted LGB groups.

Those explanations are kinda weird in the face of the evidence and quite far from the "logical, measured debate" FWR is famed for. We didn't stand for that kind of rubbish as an argument for why GC feminists weren't consulted by Miller so I'm not sure why Badenoch is getting a free pass. I can only think there is a political motivation. But tell me if its not that. Just dismissing me as "bad faith" is lazy.

Show quote history

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think KB can do no wrong. What we have here though are some massive assumptions being made based on a, at best, partial response to an apparent FOI request. I'd query any 'evidence' like this didn't appear to be complete. Why just publish annex 1 and not the entire response?

OldCrone · 22/02/2024 19:12

Then their holding reply says they are looking into it and will respond so maybe they have done.

That seems unlikely. The person who made the request is notified at the same time as the reply is published on the site. You're not sent the information separately, you just get an email with a link to the reply.

Also, from my experience of dealing with government bodies, they tend to leave their response as late as possible. So it's unlikely to be there much before 6th March which is 20 working days after the request for the internal review.

Edit: This was a response to AdamRyan's post at 18:42

MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/02/2024 19:09

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:57

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.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean the LGBT groups are misrepresenting gay people or do you mean the public are outraged by the nature of gay people?
It sounds like we are straying out of this being about the T and more into LGB culture which I'm quite uncomfortable with. I don't know enough about broader LGB culture to have an informed opinion.

Show quote history

Meh. If you think lesbians and gay men are happy when representations of us revolve around kink, fetish, mental illness and abuse of women then I can't help you.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/02/2024 19:09

do you think Transgender Trend are lobbying? Or Sex Matters? Fair Play for Women?
What is the difference?

I didn't say there was one. Please stop projecting.

Original poster

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 19:06

Oneofthesurvivors · 22/02/2024 18:57

What does affect me is being sexually assaulted by men, being paid less and discriminated against at work, and having to hide the annoying impacts my biology has on my day (morning sickness, leaky breasts, period flooding and hot flushes have all been features affecting my performance at various times)

Are you not aware this also happens to same sex attracted women? plus the homophobia they experience.

This is what I actually said:
What does affect me is being sexually assaulted by men, being paid less and discriminated against at work, and having to hide the annoying impacts my biology has on my day (morning sickness, leaky breasts, period flooding and hot flushes have all been features affecting my performance at various times).Straight men know nothing about this
Talking about my experience as a woman, that I share with other women. And how that experience is not shared with straight men.

I'm not sure how you've managed to interpret that as me excluding lesbians

OP posts:

Original poster

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 19:01

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/02/2024 18:55

It's not "lobbying" to expect to expect equal treatment for humans at work. It should be a basic right. Human rights.

No, of course that's not "lobbying", and no one said it was. Lobbying is lobbying. It's a political campaign tactic that may or may not influence whether such rights are gained/maintained. It can also be used to make sure your particular special interests are treated as more important than other important groups'.

I really think 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

do you think Transgender Trend are lobbying? Or Sex Matters? Fair Play for Women?
What is the difference?

OP posts:

Original poster

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:57

MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/02/2024 18:36

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.

So much of this has been behind closed doors with all the deals / policy change with government happening via the trans captured civil service with their favoured and financially well - rewarded lobby groups. Involving additional groups with a specific perspective on women's rights and child safeguarding that's to date been relentlessly compromised by these groups, is a good thing.

Still surprised that anyone is so opposed to organisations advocating for women's rights and child safeguarding being heard by government? But as we've seen, the determination to silence women's views is pretty rampant at the moment.

Show quote history

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.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean the LGBT groups are misrepresenting gay people or do you mean the public are outraged by the nature of gay people?
It sounds like we are straying out of this being about the T and more into LGB culture which I'm quite uncomfortable with. I don't know enough about broader LGB culture to have an informed opinion.

OP posts:

Oneofthesurvivors · 22/02/2024 18:57

What does affect me is being sexually assaulted by men, being paid less and discriminated against at work, and having to hide the annoying impacts my biology has on my day (morning sickness, leaky breasts, period flooding and hot flushes have all been features affecting my performance at various times)

Are you not aware this also happens to same sex attracted women? plus the homophobia they experience.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/02/2024 18:57

She probably met with them specifically to talk about the schools guidance on how to deal with gender distressed/gender questioning teens?

Yes, that definitely sounds plausible. She's mentioned before that most of things she is across are managed by other departments and people don't seem to know what her role is.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/02/2024 18:55

It's not "lobbying" to expect to expect equal treatment for humans at work. It should be a basic right. Human rights.

No, of course that's not "lobbying", and no one said it was. Lobbying is lobbying. It's a political campaign tactic that may or may not influence whether such rights are gained/maintained. It can also be used to make sure your particular special interests are treated as more important than other important groups'.

TathingScinsel · 22/02/2024 18:52

BackCats · 22/02/2024 18:39

Also the reason for both meetings seems to relate to schools. Quite narrow.

She probably met with them specifically to talk about the schools guidance on how to deal with gender distressed/gender questioning teens?

Obvs that was a department of education project so the DoE would’ve spoken to the big LGBT orgs and Kemi would’ve then been looking at how the equalities office balances competing ‘rights’?

Original poster

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:51

TempestTost · 22/02/2024 17:57

The limits of identarianism for lobbying is becoming evident.

Not that it isn't effective. It is great for the people who control the agenda in these groups.

But it's been very clear to me for many years that the majority of gay men and lesbians I know differ from their so-called representatives in these groups about various matters. Some only somewhat, but quite a few on many issues, and often very strongly.

So in what sense do these groups actually represent the people they are saying they do? And, I would add, whose political power they are claiming as their own?

And it's not much different with other identity groups, although I would say the LGB "community" is by far the most divided in opinions on politics, in my experience. But I see much the same thing here in the black community, you can break it down somewhat by where the individuals come from, but it's still all over the place even within those sub-groups.

I really think 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.

Show quote history

This is a good case in point.
Gay people still get beaten up. There are still terrorist attacks on gay venues. In some parts of the world you can be imprisoned or killed for being gay. That doesn't affect me as a straight woman in the UK.
What does affect me is being sexually assaulted by men, being paid less and discriminated against at work, and having to hide the annoying impacts my biology has on my day (morning sickness, leaky breasts, period flooding and hot flushes have all been features affecting my performance at various times). Straight men know nothing about this.

"Identarianism" is being used to shut people up from talking about how they are discriminated against. Badenoch is a proponent of that, which is one reason I don't like her.

It's not "lobbying" to expect to expect equal treatment for humans at work. It should be a basic right. Human rights. You know that boring thing that gets portrayed as bureaucracy but is pretty helpful to anyone finding themselves in dire straits for a variety of reasons.

OP posts:

BackCats · 22/02/2024 18:48

I would suggest a maximum of 24 months prior to my request.

This person doesn’t seem to understand that the information requested needs to be time-bound, not how long they expect it to be before they get a response.

They need to say “what meetings were held between such and such date and the other” - this can’t be too broad a time period or too broad a subject for information.

BackCats · 22/02/2024 18:43

I mention that they relate to schools because the office for Women and Equalities would have had meetings around the conversion therapy ban and other live topics, not just schools.

Original poster

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:42

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:37

Actually I think it might be the FOI crone linked to and Bradshaw has seen the answer before its on the site. The original requester was quite insistent on a response. 2 ticks and I'll post it

Show quote history

Dear Government Equalities Office,
I am writing to firstly request a formal complaint into the handling of my request. You stated you needed extra time to consider the public sector duty but you have subsequently stated that you are exempting the information under section 12. Determining a section 12 denial should not have required additional time.
Further in your rejection, you have stated that there are too many departments the work stream would involve. To be clear, as is clear in my original request, I requested information relating to the GEO only. It was only this department that the request was made. Inflating the nature of my request in order to reject it is not in keeping with the FOIA and I am concerned if this is your normal practice, and would be grateful for your response prior to me raising this with the ICO.
To be clear, I have requested information that is clearly time bound- as I have stated I am requesting information that the minister referred to, but if the minister is not clear what she meant by that, I would suggest a maximum of 24 months prior to my request.
You will note that I made clear where my request may be limited should the financial limit not allow, and this response is entirely unacceptable.
I therefore request your urgent and senior review of my request, and I will expect a full response within 20 working days.
Should you continue to not fulfil your legal responsibilities, this will obviously need to be raised externally.

Then their holding reply says they are looking into it and will respond so maybe they have done.

OP posts:

OldCrone · 22/02/2024 18:39

Perhaps a different FOI, not linked to in the thread, was narrow enough to be agreed to and was more along the lines of “which groups did KB meet with between this date and this date”. It would make sense in that case.

This is possible. Bradshaw said that it had been published this week. Where is it? The whole point of FOIs is that the information is released to the public. Why hasn't anyone (except Bradshaw) seen it?

BackCats · 22/02/2024 18:39

Also the reason for both meetings seems to relate to schools. Quite narrow.

Original poster

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:37

BackCats · 22/02/2024 18:35

Perhaps a different FOI, not linked to in the thread, was narrow enough to be agreed to and was more along the lines of “which groups did KB meet with between this date and this date”. It would make sense in that case.

Engage with is not the same as meet with. It would include letter writing, etc and would be broader in its reach.

Actually I think it might be the FOI crone linked to and Bradshaw has seen the answer before its on the site. The original requester was quite insistent on a response. 2 ticks and I'll post it

OP posts:

MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/02/2024 18:36

TempestTost · 22/02/2024 17:57

The limits of identarianism for lobbying is becoming evident.

Not that it isn't effective. It is great for the people who control the agenda in these groups.

But it's been very clear to me for many years that the majority of gay men and lesbians I know differ from their so-called representatives in these groups about various matters. Some only somewhat, but quite a few on many issues, and often very strongly.

So in what sense do these groups actually represent the people they are saying they do? And, I would add, whose political power they are claiming as their own?

And it's not much different with other identity groups, although I would say the LGB "community" is by far the most divided in opinions on politics, in my experience. But I see much the same thing here in the black community, you can break it down somewhat by where the individuals come from, but it's still all over the place even within those sub-groups.

I really think 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.

Show quote history

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.

So much of this has been behind closed doors with all the deals / policy change with government happening via the trans captured civil service with their favoured and financially well - rewarded lobby groups. Involving additional groups with a specific perspective on women's rights and child safeguarding that's to date been relentlessly compromised by these groups, is a good thing.

Still surprised that anyone is so opposed to organisations advocating for women's rights and child safeguarding being heard by government? But as we've seen, the determination to silence women's views is pretty rampant at the moment.

BackCats · 22/02/2024 18:35

Perhaps a different FOI, not linked to in the thread, was narrow enough to be agreed to and was more along the lines of “which groups did KB meet with between this date and this date”. It would make sense in that case.

Engage with is not the same as meet with. It would include letter writing, etc and would be broader in its reach.

Original poster

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:35

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/02/2024 18:16

My point is purely about Badenochs apparent confusion about what LGBT includes

You haven't got a point. People have patiently explained to you what's wrong with this characterisation and you haven't engaged with it, because this isn't a good faith discussion.

You don't get to tell me what's good faith.
If I turned up and said all your (plural -posters on this board, not you specifically) various posts about labour/lib dems/capturing were "bad faith" you'd all collectively be outraged.

It's no secret I'm not a fan of Badenoch but in this case I genuinely want to see what people think about the fact Kemi has claimed extensive engagement with LGB groups but only met two GC groups. That's a contradictory claim.

What people appear to think on this board is Saint Kemi Can Do No Wrong. The two main explanations appear to be Bradshaw is lying and has falsified the FOI response. Or there are plenty of lesbians in GC groups so she has consulted LGB groups.

Those explanations are kinda weird in the face of the evidence and quite far from the "logical, measured debate" FWR is famed for. We didn't stand for that kind of rubbish as an argument for why GC feminists weren't consulted by Miller so I'm not sure why Badenoch is getting a free pass. I can only think there is a political motivation. But tell me if its not that. Just dismissing me as "bad faith" is lazy.

OP posts:

OldCrone · 22/02/2024 18:35

AdamRyan · 22/02/2024 18:03

I guess the point is Kemi can't talk about anything but the T either.

It used to be women got ignored in favour of the T. Now it's gay people get ignored in favour of the T. Both wrong in my book.

My point was never about what bradshaw said - I said I disagreed with his characterisation. My point is purely about Badenochs apparent confusion about what LGBT includes. Not T. Definitely GC women. Unsure about lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Maybe only GC lesbians? Who knows.

Show quote history

What makes you think KB is confused about what LGBT is? Do you have any evidence for this?

TathingScinsel · 22/02/2024 18:31

Considering the current climate, why would a female politician who doesn’t believe men can become women agree to meet transactivists in person?
How much armed security do you think Kemi has?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/02/2024 18:29

Which would just be stupid as the full document would just get leaked.

Link to it.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/02/2024 18:29

Kemi exaggerated and by "extensively engaged" she meant read some emails, maybe replied, and read some stuff.

You don't have to meet people face to face to "extensively engage".