FFS disability is now on the pride flag

Oops, misspelled your name Planet, sorry.

This is off topic a little but in relation to the LGB buggering off and forming their own group. They did. LGB Alliance.

That's apparently a "hate group" according to the TQ+ segment of the alphabet, presumably because they did exactly what PlanetJanet advocates.

Wasn't allowed according to TQ. Exclusionary. Hateful. Blah blah blah. Charities regulator involved and everything.

I think they won the right to their own space but hey, they were taken to court first.

Is that the "bus" you're referencing?

👏

Who said they get no say.

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.

But they don't get to insist that people like me throw trans people under the bus or demand that the majority of LGB people who support trans people only form the communities that they approve of.

Firstly, the false distinction between LGB and trans or queer people. Many trans people are LGB. Many LGB people - myself included - embrace the term queer.

Secondly, trans and queer people are not forcing anything on LGB people. Trans people are part of the LGBT+ community. LGB people who object to that community are free to do their own thing - some of them do, they're just a small minority of LGB people.

Like every other forced teaming there's ever been. Like the appropriation by white genderists of "Black Lives Matter" into "Black Trans Lives Matter" as if the non-trans Black people who make up the majority of victims of racialised police brutality don't matter to genderists. Forced teaming, "these people are like you so you should work with them for liberation", is then followed by "these people are more oppressed than you and you should subordinate your own concerns to support theirs".

But, I'll talk about something personal to me: autism charities are all captured by genderism. I want to fill in a survey run by such a charity to help other autistic people, I'm asked for my "gender identity" not my sex, even though my sex is why I was targeted for sexual assault and my sex is why I was subjected to female socialisation as a child and my sex is why my autism wasn't diagnosed until adulthood. Their survey data is useless because so many autistic people experience gender discomfort of some sort that the number of males choosing "woman" will distort the data about autistic women.

Forced teaming means never being allowed to say "hang on, this other group's interests and our interests are actually in conflict here". Forced teaming means not being allowed to say "hang on, just why are so many autistic girls being referred to gender clinics?" Forced teaming means autistic people being called on to denounce Cass, and autism charities actually doing so, because "transphobia" even though the puberty blockers ban will protect a disproportionately high number of autistic girls from medical abuse.

Lots of LGB people disagree, they get no say? And no trans have not always been part of the community.

Straight people - disabled or able bodied - do not get to tell the LGBT+ community whether or how to symbolically represent LGBT+ disabled people on a flag.

Yet trans and ‘queer’ people (mostly straight) get to tell the LGB community that? Why?

Because most LGB people, myself included, recognise that trans people have always been part of this community and consider that we are stronger as a community together. And because ethically, I refuse to throw trans people under the bus of people using similar tropes that were used about people like me forty or fifty years ago.

Examples of 'forced teaming' disabled people with trans people?

There are good reasons to think it's not a great idea to try to include various elements of the LGBT+ community symbolically within a flag.

Why do you constantly refer to it as LGBT+ community not LGB community? And why include T and ‘+’ as part of that community?

But yes - to be clear, if you are not part of the LGBT+ community, how that community chooses to represent itself symbolically is a matter for that community itself, no one else. And in this case, specifically for those within the community who are disabled.

Straight people - disabled or able bodied - do not get to tell the LGBT+ community whether or how to symbolically represent LGBT+ disabled people on a flag.

I'm asserting that they are:

1. Forced teaming disabled people with trans people.
2. Throwing disabled people under the bus by, for example, declaring accessible loos to be also all-gender loos without building any extra accessible loos so that disabled people with continence problems end up waiting whilst an able person with special non-binary gender feelz uses the only accessible loo. Or, another example, telling someone autistic who struggles with lying that they are "transphobic" for using accurate and truthful sexed pronouns.
3. Coining it by doing so.

Sorry, replied to the wrong person during that bit of playground tit-for-tat.

The rebuttal is that the entire premise of the thread is ludicrously wrong.

The premise of the thread is that this is about co-opting disabled people, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity, under the queer umbrella.

But that premise is utterly wrong.

There are good reasons to think it's not a great idea to try to include various elements of the LGBT+ community symbolically within a flag. But the idea that this is broadening who is considered queer or LGBT+ is nonsense - LGBT+ disabled people have always been part of the LGBT+ community. This is purely about whether or not they should be visually depicted on the progress flag.

You can't demand that people rebut arguments based on a nonsense premise.

Shades of #nodebate here with all the 'if you're not LGBT and disabled then it doesn't concern you".

Sounds a bit like TWAW - if you're not trans it doesn't concern you (ie women have no say in the matter).

I get that there is more than one point of view here, bit telling other people to shut up because it doesn't concern them is so 2021.

If you've got a decent rebuttal to all the reasonable concerns raised about funding, rainbow washing as opposed to actual accessibility adjustments, ideological forced teaming etc then perhaps make it.

If you haven't.....

And you think these EDI consultants are trying to claim that straight disabled people are really queer because of their disabilities?

Why not. He it was who started the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and his eldest son started the Prince's Trust. Both have helped many young people.

Nice work if you can get it though, and absolutely no chance of being pulled up on anything because many have become too afraid to question the narrative

The self-appointed EDI "experts" coining it as trainers and consultants are absolutely grifting.

I'm not the one talking about imaginary grifters who are apparently forcing straight disabled people into the queer community.

If I was being cynical, which I'd never do I'd maybe put forward that this might be about being inclusive of all those women who will end up in wheelchairs due to the osteoporosis that they are going to get pretty soon, if not already.

And the funding associated of course! Can't forget that.

Eh?

I don’t know you, so why would I have any knowledge about your mental health?

You should know.