FFS disability is now on the pride flag

Like any community, of course there are disparate voices within it.

That doesn’t render the community non-existent or null and void. There are multiple views and voices within the Jewish community - that doesn’t mean there isn’t a Jewish community.

No - you literally just made that up and it’s not even closely resembling what I’ve said.

Those are excellent questions

So what you’re saying is, is the only way LGB people aren’t going to be bigoted is to have them on a flag? If they’re not on the flag they aren’t worthy of being included. Suddenly the widespread misogyny from certain quarters makes sense! We’re not on the bloody flag!

The problem is the ongoing claim that there is a representative "LGBT community".

Because what you are actually talking about is just a group of people who have a certain political viewpoint. And - this is the important part - represent it as the viewpoint of the community.

It's the same in many other groups, there are certain people who set themselves up as representing a community and then use that claim for access to political influence.

No. That is precisely the point I've made - the original flag does and should encompass the whole LGBT+ community.

I think trying to represent all groups within that is probably not helpful - both because aesthetically it's unlikely to be pleasing, but also because it brings the (incorrect) implication that a group not explicitly represented is therefore excluded.

BUT I absolutely understand the view from certain groups within the community who have been historically marginalised that there is value in both symbolic as well as tangible inclusion. And I have certainly noticed a lot more discussion of racial inclusion within the community in the last few years, so it may well be that the changes to the flag have had some tangible impact.

Can anyone explain why the original rainbow flag excluded people of colour and the disabled?
Was it deliberately exclusionary? Have all the flags up till now been horrific bigoted?
And why have the disabled queers only been included now?

1. Setting up a helpline for LGB youth.
2. Filed amicus curiae brief supporting Fedotova & Others v. Russia.
3. Campaigning for pensions equality, finally resulting in regulatory change to force pension providers to treat same-sex married couples like opposite-sex married couples in late 2023.
4. Written to the Minister of State for Development and Africa to demand that Ugandan LGB and trans refugees have their asylum claims fast tracked after Uganda increased State persecution of LGB and trans people.
5. Supporting the campaign to have British Newspaper Archive digitise the entire publication history of Gay News.

They're a young charity who spent the first couple of years of their existence fighting to prevent other charities from shutting them down, so it's not surprising that they've not done huge amounts yet.

Who precisely is preventing you from doing so?

The people who issue rape threats, death threats, and would try to get me fired from my job.

No worries.

I suspect you don't know what sealioning is then.

To give you a hint - it involves repeatedly asking questions or making requests, feigning some sort of confusion or fence-sitting, to troll someone, by a poster who already has a firm but secret position on the issue they are pretending to be seeking clarifications on.

I make no secret of my views on attempts to split the LGBT+ community, nor my support for trans people. What's more, I've asked very few questions of posters here (not least because the answers can always just be copied and pasted from any number of threads on here).

By all means - let me know your top five things the LGB Alliance has achieved for LGB people that is not related to gender or trans people.

Charitable status isn't some sort of human right. It is a status granted based on specific legal criteria which some people - myself included - think the Charity Commission misapplied in this case.

That is the entire point of judicial review - to challenge public bodies if there is a concern that they have misapplied the law.

None of that determined whether LGB Alliance was allowed to exist or not. It was solely about whether they ought to have charitable status. I rather suspect that if the standing hurdle had been cleared, a court would have some sympathy that granting charitable status based on a mission that bears almost no resemblance to what the organisation does in practice is grounds to consider the decision-making by the Charity Commission flawed.

LGB Alliance are, of course, motivated by their campaign against trans people.

If you genuinely think that then there’s really no point trying to debate anything with you.

Did you miss the charity commission investigation? Did that pass you by? That there was a legal attempt to strip them of charitable status? Did you miss that? Were you asleep? The fact that it was "allowed" after a legal battle doesn't mean the attempt to make it "not allowed" didn't happen. It just failed.

Do you think the right to exist is the same as the right to be free from criticism?

LGB Alliance are, of course, motivated by their campaign against trans people. It's why they never have anything to say about LGB rights that aren't focused on trans people or gender.

Pointing that out doesn't prevent LGB Alliance from existing for those who object to being part of an LGBT+ community. The problem they have, of course, is that only a tiny minority of lesbian, gay and bi people actually want to break up that community.

Also, judicially reviewing charitable status when LGB Alliance do not do what their mission on which their status was secured says they do is entirely legitimate.

But it's not just criticising the aesthetics of the flag. If it were, I may well be on here agreeing.

What this thread is about has almost nothing to do with aesthetics.

But good deflection from your debunked claim that the LGB Alliance aren't allowed to exist.

Oh, and lesbians who’ve wanted to restrict their dating circles to biological women only absolutely have not been likened to “sexual racists” either.

What about the woman who wanted to have a “biological woman only” dating event? It was shut down by TRAs as I remember.

You can try and dress up the opposition to these efforts by LGB people to have their own spaces etc as “criticism” all you like but the bile and hatred heaped down on anyone who steps out of line goes far beyond “criticism” and straight into out and out efforts to oppress.

Like not welcoming tw into female shelters is "literal violence" and not giving kids pbs will lead to multiple suicides, as per Jolyon Maugham? That kind of nonsense? Like you claiming that us criticising ugly flags etc is asking you to throw other people under the bus? That kind of nonsense?

LGB people who do not want to be part of an LGBT+ community can do their own thing. They can have whatever say they like.

Yes, because when the LGB Alliance broke away to form a “LGB only” organisation, they absolutely weren’t denounced as a transphobic hate group because they excluded the TQ+, were they? And there absolutely wasn’t a sustained campaign to strip them of their charitable status?

When you say they weren't allowed, that's nonsense though isn't it?

They were - and are - allowed.

You seem to conflate the fact that a group is criticised as meaning they are not allowed to exist.

You say 'not allowed'.

Who precisely is preventing you from doing so? Your objection seems to be more that people disagree with you, since there is absolutely no barrier to you either making your feelings known to those charities or setting up your own organisations that match your own beliefs.

That is a long way from 'not allowed'.

But of course your BLM example is massively flawed - what you're describing is organisations or movements giving consideration to parts of the movement that might need particular inclusion, support or consideration. It is perfectly legitimate for black trans people to work within the BLM movement to try to ensure that the specific concerns of black trans people are heard and reflected in the movement. That's not forced teaming - black trans people are part of the black community, and they are part of the trans community. There is no forced teaming involved.

To be an example of 'forced teaming', it would have to involve, for example, white trans people insisting that the BLM movement should advocate for them. Which is not what has happened.

Similarly, autism charities choosing a particular approach to supporting trans autistic people isn't forced teaming. Because the people they are supporting are already 'on the team' so to speak.

To be an example of forced teaming, it would have to involve autism charities being compelled to provide support to neurotypical trans people.