To think that releasing crickets at a gay rights conference, specifically to shut them down, should be considered a homophobic hate crime? Somehow these people are crowdfunding to do it AGAIN

[Zahariel]

The optics of having to fumigate a hall after gay people used it to speak about their rights being eroded should not be lost on anyone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13950839/Trans-activists-release-bags-insects-LGB-Alliance-conference.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/suspected-trans-rights-activists-disrupt-lgba-conference-with-live-crickets/ar-AA1s9JHH

This is CLERLY A HATE CRIME - yet it's being reported as trans rights activists, not anti gay hate mongers, I can't really understand why not

It boils down to the definition of transphobia

exactly this. A huge swathe of mumsnet have decided to define transphobia such that excludes all kinds of hatred, fear, prejudice , etc against trans people , support of policies that exclude trans people from public life, erode their access to healthcare, and prevent them from living a tolerable existence, etc etc.

Then, having done so, they declare that there is nothing definitionally transphobic about any of this and continuously berate people like me about how we haven’t shown any “evidence” of transphobia.

Well I can't see them, and I can't see anything transphobic.

Big Claims need Big Evidence - and you don't have any unless you show me some

And you still haven’t.

Provide examples of wanting to exclude trans people from public life, erode their access to healthcare, prevent them from living a tolerable existence.

And yet, despite their motivations, the outcomes are homophobic

this is interesting. So you accept that their motivations weren’t homophobic. What do you think was homophobic about the “outcomes”. ?

You have shown no evidence of transphobia.

Nobody here is excluding anyone from public life, saying they should not get health care or say people should have an intolerable life.

They are saying that nobody can compel them to say black is white, and they are saying that sometimes sex does in fact matter - around private spaces for females, sports and a tiny number of other examples.

Nobody is putting trans people in camps.

Nothing above is transphobic

Back your assertions up or be called out on them

So nothing that you will produce to support your claim.

Just another round of endless accusations based on your own personal definition of ‘anti-trans’. The LGB Alliance is not anti-trans. It is open to and has supporters who identify as transgender.

Their motivations were homophobic. They were expressly aimed at stopping gay people getting together with other gay people and talking about issues which affect gay people. They did that because the wrong type of gay people were talking to each other, the sort of gay people who are same sex attracted.

But… but… the LGB Alluance oppose medically based transition for children.

That statement acknowledges that the option to take medical interventions later in life was a comfort. The LGB Alliance have not opposed measures for adults.

Show us one single screenshot where it has not been, one.

No. I can believe though that they believe their motivations were not intended to be homophobic. It doesn’t mean that the motivations were not homophobic though.

The outcome was the disruption of homosexual and bisexual people meeting freely, discussing their needs and hearing others speak. It was a silencing tactic.

Read the statement by protesters and the LGBA website- what they stand for is plane as day. It’s literally there- point 2 - under “why we exist”. (Point 1 is about criminalisation of homosexuality in law and is a legitimate aim that many lgbt groups campaign on - point 2 covers the unique contemporary “threat” that the LGBA were set up to appose).

on the other thread I repeatedly did the admin work for you of pulling out specific quotes , linking them on the website, and explaining them, and you still are insisting that I didn’t , so what’s the point?

Show us one single homophobic or transphobic thing. One.

They weren’t protesting LGBA people meeting to discuss their needs; they were protesting a small group of LGB people (who’s views do not represent the wider community) meeting to discuss their transphobic agenda and policies

I have.

No you have not.

Show us one single transphobic or homophobic thing.

Of course they shouldn't have done what they did but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that they were attacked just for being homosexual or promoting the rights of homosexuals. From the daily mail article: "The charity says it 'promotes the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men, as recognised by biological sex'." They are excluding trans people and I think it is pretty clear that is why they were attacked.

Please note that I'm neither saying that this makes them a fair target or that they should be forced to include trans people. I think it's important to be accurate.

Having said that throwing insects on anyone is absolutely horrific and sinister.

Show us how the LGBAlliance has a transphobic agenda and policy

One single example will do taken from their website perhaps.

You cannot make accusations without evidence. You seemingly have none.

if you do have any SHOW US

I believe piggle thinks stating that only women give birth is transphobic?
Stating that only men can be transwomen is transphobic
Saying that mentally vulnerable children should be protected from believing their bodies are flawed but a sex change will fix them is transphobic?
That women meeting without the express permission of piggle / piggle's mates is transphobic?
That all thoughts about sex and gender must be run past piggle / piggle's mates for permission before being uttered - all unapproved conversation is transphobic?
That women / lesbians / gay men may not congregate, talk, lobby or engage in any political action with permission from piggle / piggle's mates?

Seems very regressive to me but what do I know?

This post is rather hyperbolic.

But this part is really just highlighting the polarisation and absolutism that some extreme transgender activists use.

“support of policies that exclude trans people from public life, erode their access to healthcare, and prevent them from living a tolerable existence,”

Feminists and women’s rights campaigners support policies that allow equitable solutions to be found that allow female people to maintain the single sex spaces and opportunities they need to collectively and individually overcome the negative sexist discrimination of the past and provide safe and fair sports (ie making that the equal opportunity to participate in fair sport).

And why should a philosophical belief receive public medical funding to make extreme body modifications now that we are told that being transgender is not a medical condition?

You are supporting a group to demand additional rights or privileges over all other people.

It's just a new trans imposed version of Section 28.

Section 28 or Clause 28[a] was a legislative designation for a series of laws across Britain that prohibited the "promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities. Introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, it was in effect from 1988 to 2000 in Scotland and from 1988 to 2003 in England and Wales. It caused many organisations such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student support groups to close, limit their activities or self-censor.[2]

We got over the last one, we'll get over this one and we'll do it a lot sooner.

They have no idea just how deranged they are.

Repeatedly done. Read the website, other thread, and statement by protestors. All covered for you.

Here’s just one statement- under “why we exist” - presents recognition of trans people, and use of language to describe trans experience , as a fundamental threat to the rights of LGB people. This is both wrong headed and wildly transphobic:

*Now there is a new type of homophobia in the UK that the established LGBTQ+ groups are failing to tackle and, in many cases, are actually making worse.
They promote the idea that gender, the way you feel or dress, is more important than biological sex. As lesbians, gay men and bisexuals whose orientation is sex based, we believe that replacing sex with gender means that we can no longer name or describe the discrimination we face and, therefore, that our hard-won rights can be dismantled.
*
lgballiance.org.uk/about/

@ToyFace do lesbians, gays and bisexuals not have right to have a charity to campaign for issues affecting them without including other unrelated groups of people?

No, you haven't. You've made a lot of assertions. You've not actually shown anything at all.
Saying that something is true doesn't suddenly make it true when it isn't.
You are losing this argument and not just on mumsnet. Wider society is becoming more and more aware that the trans movement has serious homophobia and misogyny problems. This kind of little stunt doesn't do anything to stop the LGBA from getting their message out. It just proves they're right.
If you really want to support trans people, then stop attacking gay rights and organisations. It's damaging your own cause.

People, trans or otherwise, are allowed to be excluded from groups that don't include them. I'm not allowed into groups for 18-21 year olds despite what my inner age feelings may be. It's not 42 anyway. I'm not insisting anyone treats me as an actual 21 year old.

The LGBA don't say that trans people aren't welcome but it's for same SEX attracted people. Trans people reject sex in favour of gender feelings. That isn't in alignment with this ethos.

If you disagree with anything that TRA's say, you are labelled transphobic. It's meaningless twaddle now and frankly embarrassing.

Refusing to serve a trans person in a shop on the basis of being trans, or being allowed on a bus = transphobic.

A lesbian not including a male in their romantic dating pool because that male feels like they are a woman = not transphobic. Same for gay males.

It's ok to be exclusive.

And yet, the outcome was that they attempted to silence a group of homosexual and bisexual people who were meeting to discuss their needs.

You class it as transphobia, have I missed your detailed explanations and evidence for such a claim on this thread? If so apologies. But I don’t believe I have missed it.

You, personally categorising it as transphobia doesn’t make it so.

And please show us where Jamie Reed is transphobic? A lesbian who is advocating for evidence based medical care for children and is in a relationship with a female person with a transgender identity.