LGB vs LGBTQI etc

[Whoistheexpert]

Why was the T (and others) ever added to the LGB acronym?

The T (trans) is surely related to gender and not ones sexual orientation?

Am I missing something 😵‍💫

It shows the one person can straddle 2 identities (or more) at different points in their lives.

According to the segregationist philosophy being touted here those people, at their most vulnerable points, should be made to feel unwelcome in their community.

You appear to want to 'ungroup' them at the time they are probably struggling the most.

You appear to want to pit them against their former or future identities.

If a person who previously identified as a transman now identifies as a lesbian do you think they suddenly care any less for other transmen and their rights? Or can only conceive that because they feel that a lesbian ID now fits them better that every transman out there is misguided?

Human groupings and their fights towards rights are not about reductive concepts but the varied and complex people that form them.

Yes, people can have different "identities" but we are not talking about identities.

We are talking, in this context, about people who are attracted to people of the same sex. As opposed to people's gender identity.

Someone could certainly relate to both of these things. A male person who feels a feminine identity - a transwoman - could be attracted to other male bodied people. In that case the person would be both homosexual and trans. This was, in the past, why transwomen were often found withing gay circles and lobby groups. A tranwoman attracted to women, however, would be heterosexual, and would really not have more relation to gay men or lesbians than any other male heterosexual.

Sexuality isn't about identity. Some gay and lesbian people do have a stronger sense that they see themselves within that kind of framework, but the identity isn't what makes them gay or lesbian. And lots of gay and lesbian people have no interest in their same sex attraction as type of identity - it doesn't change their attraction though.

There is no more logical reason to attach lesbian and gay social or lobby groups than there is to add disability or race. There isn't a logical connection, even though there are some people who may be black and gay or disabled lesbians. (And for that matter you could, and people sometimes, do, separate the lg and b, where the interests of each group are not aligned.)
.

There are some stupid men, and some who think very strangely. There are men who go to great lengths to abuse. Dating single mothers, becoming a priest or a gymnastics coach or scout leader....
Not all gym teacher / scout leaders etc do so to abuse. But we know that some do and have. Which is why we have safeguards in place.

I mean you've have to be pretty stupid / thinking very strangely as a man to be considering self IDing as a woman in order to abuse women at the moment wouldn't you? That's seems to be the first thought that is entering many people's heads about transwomen anyway, it's hardly a good disguise

You'd have to be pretty stupid and ridiculously naive to think men wouldn't do ANYTHING to access victims.
It's the perfect 'disguise'. People so fucking scared of being called 'transphobic' that all basic safeguarding and common sense is going out the bloody window the second a man says he's a woman.

Has anyone posted a pic of Danielle Muscato yet? Please, could one of the many posters who are fine with transwomen being lesbians, happy to share public toilets etc etc tell me how I'm supposed to recognise Danielle as a woman? What makes Danielle a woman?

@doublemonkey

I'm old enough to remember when the B got added. Before that it was just L&G.

And yes, lots of gay people now have a problem with the alphabet soup, which is why a seperate group has been set up to advocate for LGB people.

I am wondering a bit if some people are just too young to remember? Like, the late 90s was not the beginning of history, people.

@Skinnydogz

As a lesbian I'm totally happy with the T and I. No matter what a lot of people's opinions are trans people were some of the first to kick off the gay rights movement and I am thankful for that. Growing up I've met many trans people they have always been there, I don't feel hijacked or pressured to enter into relationships with the.

Well the I aren't happy with that at all. They do not want to be used as some kind of leverage for people who have no relation to them as a group.

Having a DSD is not in any way similar to being gay or lesbian. IN the same way that being gay or lesbian isn't related to gender identity.

What's the end-game with this? Add every group of people into the acronym?

Something that is maybe worth mentioning:

There is nothing stopping people from hanging out with, or having a social group for, or even a lobby group, composed of whomever they like.

Anyone could have a pub crawl, say, for gay and lesbian people, trans people, and short one-legged people.

If a group of people see themselves as having a common political cause, they can band together to take action on it.

The question though, is whether it is legitimate to also have more exclusive groups. Because people are arguing that it is illegitimate to have, say, a group for lesbians without including heterosexual men who feel they have a feminine gender identity. Or a sports team for women which does not include those same males. Or even a group therapy group for men without including female people who feel like they have a masculine idenity.

So absolutely zero people on this thread have made a rational explanation of how gender identity is the same thing as sexuality,that they are not two different things, but only one thing. So their interests are identical.

Even gay men and lesbians will be up front that there are times when their interests aren't all that similar and wouldn't naturally group together. A dating club for lesbians wouldn't include gay men. Gay men had an interest in AIDS related things that didn't really apply to lesbians in anything like the same way.

If SW wanted to include transperson, that might be one thing, though they might have had a clue it could be problematic to many to actually change the definition of homosexuality. But to then claim that a group that reflects the interests of only homosexual people is inherently transphobic - that only makes sense if you believe sex and gender are the same thing. It's difficult to imagine they would have objected in the same way to a lesbian only political lobby in the past.

There is something quite different going on with this, and all this talk of being mean, people's feelings, or preferring inclusion, is just noise. Because the real question is, on what basis can they claim that sexuality and gender identity are identical?

"What's the end-game with this? Add every group of people into the acronym?"

P

@MangyInseam

Something that is maybe worth mentioning:

There is nothing stopping people from hanging out with, or having a social group for, or even a lobby group, composed of whomever they like.

Anyone could have a pub crawl, say, for gay and lesbian people, trans people, and short one-legged people.

If a group of people see themselves as having a common political cause, they can band together to take action on it.

The question though, is whether it is legitimate to also have more exclusive groups. Because people are arguing that it is illegitimate to have, say, a group for lesbians without including heterosexual men who feel they have a feminine gender identity. Or a sports team for women which does not include those same males. Or even a group therapy group for men without including female people who feel like they have a masculine idenity.

So absolutely zero people on this thread have made a rational explanation of how gender identity is the same thing as sexuality,that they are not two different things, but only one thing. So their interests are identical.

Even gay men and lesbians will be up front that there are times when their interests aren't all that similar and wouldn't naturally group together. A dating club for lesbians wouldn't include gay men. Gay men had an interest in AIDS related things that didn't really apply to lesbians in anything like the same way.

If SW wanted to include transperson, that might be one thing, though they might have had a clue it could be problematic to many to actually change the definition of homosexuality. But to then claim that a group that reflects the interests of only homosexual people is inherently transphobic - that only makes sense if you believe sex and gender are the same thing. It's difficult to imagine they would have objected in the same way to a lesbian only political lobby in the past.

There is something quite different going on with this, and all this talk of being mean, people's feelings, or preferring inclusion, is just noise. Because the real question is, on what basis can they claim that sexuality and gender identity are identical?

Thank you @MangyInseam. You’ve explained how I’m feeling about all of this very eloquently and covers the original (genuine) questions.

It seems fairly clear ‘how’ things have got to this stage, but it certainly doesn’t seem clear where things are going right now.

For me personally, there seems to be a huge gap between what ‘identifying as..’ means versus what one’s sexual orientation/preferences are.

I’m also very confused regarding the TRA position in general, which appears to be one of oppression and public shaming of anyone with questions. Surely it’s absolutely obvious that shaming ANYONE for anything never works as a method to bring people inside to your POV.

I’m also struggling with the concept of ‘identifying as..’ - how does one genuinely, sincerely identify as another sex, something they have never been. Also, surely you can only want to be seen as a ‘gendered stereotype’ - because you feel different from or uncomfortable to what you consider to be the stereotypes available to you.

Does this literally mean that trans individuals literally just ID’ing with another gender stereotype?

No male can be a female, even with reassignment surgery. No man can ever know how it feels to be female, to have grown up as a female, to have periods, puberty, actual breasts, pregnancy…

It feels like female erasure. Wtaf is going on in society right now? Have I just woken up in The Handmaids Tale?!

Am still trying to get my head around all of this.

@MangyInseam

Something that is maybe worth mentioning:

There is nothing stopping people from hanging out with, or having a social group for, or even a lobby group, composed of whomever they like.

Anyone could have a pub crawl, say, for gay and lesbian people, trans people, and short one-legged people.

If a group of people see themselves as having a common political cause, they can band together to take action on it.

The question though, is whether it is legitimate to also have more exclusive groups. Because people are arguing that it is illegitimate to have, say, a group for lesbians without including heterosexual men who feel they have a feminine gender identity. Or a sports team for women which does not include those same males. Or even a group therapy group for men without including female people who feel like they have a masculine idenity.

So absolutely zero people on this thread have made a rational explanation of how gender identity is the same thing as sexuality,that they are not two different things, but only one thing. So their interests are identical.

Even gay men and lesbians will be up front that there are times when their interests aren't all that similar and wouldn't naturally group together. A dating club for lesbians wouldn't include gay men. Gay men had an interest in AIDS related things that didn't really apply to lesbians in anything like the same way.

If SW wanted to include transperson, that might be one thing, though they might have had a clue it could be problematic to many to actually change the definition of homosexuality. But to then claim that a group that reflects the interests of only homosexual people is inherently transphobic - that only makes sense if you believe sex and gender are the same thing. It's difficult to imagine they would have objected in the same way to a lesbian only political lobby in the past.

There is something quite different going on with this, and all this talk of being mean, people's feelings, or preferring inclusion, is just noise. Because the real question is, on what basis can they claim that sexuality and gender identity are identical?

I mean as far as I'm concerned people can knock themselves out pigeonholing themselves into ever increasingly-policed identities - to my mind the people who are attracted to that are not the sort of group that many others would want to belong to, so it's really no loss to people they want to exclude.

Unfortunately of course these exclusionary groups do tend to operate with animosity in mind of the people they are trying to exclude; they perceive them as an outgroup and devalue them accordingly - just have a ready about ingroup / outgroup psychology

Or as a good demonstration of this have a look at how people within LGB Alliance have behaved, just in news today:

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/jen-ives-lgb-alliance-video-b2042053.html

I have also explained quite clearly how one person could ID as transman at one point and lesbian at another...the FWR boards know this quite well, in fact they shout from the hills about it. Because they have switched in ID do you think they suddenly hold different values or want to support social causes differently? Why would you think that?

There seems to be more to that story in the Independent than meets the eye.

Thank you @suggestionsplease1. You've explained that really well. What a disgusting video. (Don't worry they're not transphobic though. No hate. No hate. )

There seems to be more to that story in the Independent than meets the eye.

Can you explain on which basis its okay to record a person, and call them a disgusting autogynophilic pervert, as well as disrespecting their preferred terms of address?

(Love how 'cis' is harmful but perfectly okay to completely ignore transpeoples preferred pronouns!)

I must have missed the part where anyone posting here was responsible for that one man's behaviour, nor where anyone posting here thought it was acceptable to call someone a pervert without cast iron provable evidence. But women do tend to get blamed for the behaviour and words of men, so plus ca change there.

@Ijustreallywantacat

There seems to be more to that story in the Independent than meets the eye.

Can you explain on which basis its okay to record a person, and call them a disgusting autogynophilic pervert, as well as disrespecting their preferred terms of address?

(Love how 'cis' is harmful but perfectly okay to completely ignore transpeoples preferred pronouns!)

Entrapment.

The victim of the entrapment is an autistic man who has been hounded by Jen who was deliberately provoking people in the venue.

This was a conference for the LGB Alliance, trans people have their own groups yet Jen saw fit to attend wearing a camera and microphone. Almost if they wanted to film an 'incident'.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4512162-jen-ives-lgb-alliance-twitter-row

This was a conference for the LGB Alliance, trans people have their own groups yet Jen saw fit to attend wearing a camera and microphone. Almost if they wanted to film an 'incident'.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/25/lgb-alliance-conference-trans-jen-ives/

She didn't film the incident. He did. Her crime was going to the toilet. Which she'd already done several times. He came up to her and began filming. You can hear others joining in.

And unless I've missed a memo, trans people can be LGB, right? Why can't they join or go to events?
Hardly fair to have an event ABOUT trans people without allowing trans people to attend. It's akin to a 'men's alliance' having a conference and discussing the 'problem with these wimmin' without women being allowed to attend!

Sorry Roses, it appears that people DO swoop in to defend people being called nonces and perverts without evidence....

Absolutely, and quite telling that the LGB Alliance, in the statement that they provided to The Independent about this incident, couldn't even bring themselves to say along the lines of ... that they regretted this occurred / this abuse wasn't acceptable / apologise to this person for their experience.

Instead they say "We are of course aware that issues such as sex-segregated facilities provoke very strong feelings on both sides of the debate, and we would like to thank the conference attendees and security team who stepped in to defuse the situation.”"

I mean as far as I'm concerned people can knock themselves out pigeonholing themselves into ever increasingly-policed identities - to my mind the people who are attracted to that are not the sort of group that many others would want to belong to, so it's really no loss to people they want to exclude.

You've avoided teh question again. How is gender identity the same thing, with identical interests, as sexuality.

No one minded, in the days of GBL or even GL, if lesbians had a group just for lesbians, a woman only festval, a group for gay male AIDS patients. Those are interest groups, not "smaller and smaller" subgroups.

You know what you get when you don't have any "sub-groups"? You just have everyone. SW then would represent everyone, including the straightest manly man you could find.

Unfortunately of course these exclusionary groups do tend to operate with animosity in mind of the people they are trying to exclude; they perceive them as an outgroup and devalue them accordingly - just have a ready about ingroup / outgroup psychology

That's BS. If it were true, and group for transpersons, Stonewall, groups for the disabled, ant-racism groups, the WI, would all be about othering and exclusion. All you are arguing for here is that no group should have any criteria for membership at all.

Are you really prepared to say that a group for people of black African descent to lobby about political issues should include white people? Well then how is a group that exists to lobby on issues around sexuality "othering" and exclusionary if it doesn't include gender identity?

And I will just point out that a transman could joing a lesbian group, generally speaking, if said transman is attracted to women. By virtue of being a lesbian. If that was felt to be undesirable by said person, that's ok too.

Oh please, this is a male in a single sex space.

Whilst Alex may not have used language and tone that many women agree with the point is that if spaces are single sex then Jen shouldn't have been in there. And Jen certainly shouldn't have been in there with a concealed recording device, from which they have been putting excerpts on twitter .

So those people joining in in the background are those posting here then? I missed that. Do we know for a fact that Ives was not recording audio or video at this event?

Honestly, the efforts people go to in order to avoid the addressing the real rational substance of the claim is pretty staggering.

Sorry should say Alex used language and tone that not all women would agree with.

But many women do think that single sex spaces for women should not be accessed by males, which includes transwomen.

Whether it's 'hijacking' depends on how it's used. Either can quickly become erasure when they're used to just treat us all as a lump.

While at times a handy shorthand when discussing multiple groups, I dislike either acronym when it's used without any clarification or acceptance of how limiting it is - even within one 'letter', there are dozens of communities and obviously many individuals with a wide variety of opinions so questions like "Don't LGB community feel" erases we're not and have never been one community and each one has people who aren't going to agree. I hate how we're treated as if it means we're meant to be one politically or of one mind.

It's one thing when either have been used by people who are working in solidarity and are choosing to identify together (much as POC started as) or in some demographic data analysis when it's open how limiting that kind of lumping is, but that's rarely how it's used, especially in the media where it's more used as a marketing ploy or used to beat how we should feel or act about something.

And trans has become a catch-all for so many different groups, that it's meaningless to make any sort of generalization whether it's in the shared history of homosexual and bisexual what we would now call trans people or how they feel and act or want to be seen. The random teenager who identifies as trans doesn't have the social power to 'hijack' anything. That's not where my ire on these changes lie. I do think Stonewall and other groups with more political sway have a lot to answer for in their attempts to remain relevant as society has changed.

Jen told Katy Montgomery about the wire.

twitter.com/MegaSausageHead/status/1506683238261133321?t=dUmmHbhEUKYS4l42WJ5MAw&s=19