Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

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.

I've got a feeling the list isn't even published now. Is that right?

So are they getting higher up a list that not only no one reads, but no one could read it, even if they tried?

Yes I think they made it private, because the organisations were getting FOIs from GC feminists. Heaven forbid!

They have actually managed to get mugs to pay them to tell them rubbish in exchange for a pat on the head.

i'm sure this will form part of a syllabus in some future course.

You pay thousands of pounds a year, and have to complete forms that run to 30 or 40 pages I believe, to get what?

Higher up a list that no one reads!!

When the world ends, it will be cited as one of the reasons.

I've got a feeling the list isn't even published now. Is that right?

So are they getting higher up a list that not only no one reads, but no one could read it, even if they tried?

😁

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.

I don't understand why Kemi's office released two meetings with gender critical groups in response to a question about how many LGBT groups she'd met.

I will try this once more in small words.

BB posted 1 page of a document.

It had no title. It had no page numbers. It had no link to a source.

It did have words in it that showed it was part of a larger document.

We do not know what is in the rest of the document.

We do not know that the document was a response to the claimed FoI. It seems unlikely, because a very similar FoI had been refused as too big to answer.

If it was a response to the FoI, we do know it was not the full response.

They have actually managed to get mugs to pay them to tell them rubbish in exchange for a pat on the head..

A sublimely perfect explanation of the Stonewall "Diversity Champions" scheme!

Is it likely that anyone in the country doesn't know what Stonewall wants? Their entire workforce is "engaged" in selling their rubbish far and wide. They have actually managed to get mugs to pay them to tell them rubbish in exchange for a pat on the head.. I think everyone in the government has had plenty of engagement with Stonewall LGBTl guff. How does Ben Bradshaw think we all know what the problems are with if we haven't "engaged" with LGBT groups.

I guess logic from Labour on this is impossible.

But going back to the original tweet, and the debate you linked to, this was not to do with same-sex attracted people. The exchange related to trans people. You're handily highlighting a major problem with lumping the T in with the LGB, so thanks for that I guess.

One thing though, I think it's a massive achievement that Kemi Badenoch, the minister for women and equalities, is sitting in the houses of Parliament, broadcasting across the entire country her total understanding of, and attitude towards, gender ideology.

100%

So unlike Peter Tatchell & Pink News, you don't consider Mermaids an LGBT organisation

One thing though, I think it's a massive achievement that Kemi Badenoch, the minister for women and equalities, is sitting in the houses of Parliament, broadcasting across the entire country her total understanding of, and attitude towards, gender ideology.

Time was, we couldn't even get a tiny headline five pages into a daily newspaper.

And I know we couldn't understand it. Why weren't they reporting this terrible scandal? But the fear tactics of no debate were long and bloody.

I can't believe it's gone from that, to one of the most talked about topics in the media.

Yay women.

Well, I don't think that was your point.

I think your point was a spot of Kemi bashing.

I doubt there is a single poster on this thread who can't see through it, even if they agree with Adam on it. The disingenuousness is nauseating.

I don't agree with all Kemi's politics, but I think she's great as a politician. She completely gets what the problems with gender identity ideology are.

i'm sure people would engage with you over that. (And by engage I mean post on an anonymous forum, not meet at the House of Commons).

Haha @Datun

Well, I don't think that was your point.

I think your point was a spot of Kemi bashing.

Instead of having a nonsense go at who she has or hasn't spoken to with regards to women's rights being undermined by trans ideology, why don't you start a thread about her "namely getting rid of equality legislation".

i'm sure people would engage with you over that. (And by engage I mean post on an anonymous forum, not meet at the House of Commons).

Well, when your posts are too vague to wade through, and end up relating to fuck all, you might want to reconsider your communication skills.

Might I suggest you do learn to spell things out when you're using the written word. Clarity is generally held to be pretty useful if you're expecting people to read what you write.

lol, she absolutely petrifies you, doesn't she!

The great thing about Kemi is that she's not coming from any of this in ignorance, or from an ideological point of view.

She knows aaall a-fucking bout it.

She knows about the indoctrination of children in schools, the guides cross-dresser, the toilets issue, she knows all about the targeting of lesbians. She knows all about why mermaids is being investigated and all their safeguarding failures, and she knows all about stonewall's hopelessly and irresponsibly wrong legal advice.

She's got all the facts and she's confident in what she's saying, because she knows she's right.

It's very hard to trip up someone who knows they're right.

So the only option is to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Which, despite being irritating, fairly warm the cockles of my heart.

"She didn't specify if she meant meeting with, engaging, or talking on the phone, she didn't clarify what she meant by LGBT (good luck with that!), she met the wrong sort of lesbians, gay men don't count. Wait, wait, I don't think there was an R in the month."

I bet she sleeps easy at night.

Ben Bradshaw is the political equivalent of a number of posters here. Blatantly party political, cares about trans rights to #bekind, and has no care for women.

I would far as to say Kemi Badenoch is one of the very few people in government who actually understands the issues because of her extensive engagement with them, regardless of whom she did or did not meet in person.

It's not particularly related to this incident.

Nor was mine.

She and her office are likely to have engaged with a very wide variety of groups, including engaging with their written manifestos/presentations over quite a period that likely extended beyond the FOI requested timings.

It is also possible she may have used the umbrella term LGBT when she meant Gay, just as it is used by others to mean Trans - in common language it can mean both, or one rather than the other.

That is not to say trans concerns would not have been presented to her and her office extensively.