Micheal Biggs analyses the shift in focus in LGBT organisations

[OrchidInTheSun]

users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/LGBT_figures.shtml

This is pretty stark - the shift away from supporting lesbians and gays and towards trans.

He's analysed how many times the word have been used and how much cash is being channelled towards supporting trans

Goodness - that's a massive shift and very indicative of how this miniscule percentage of the population has bullied its way to the centre stage.

Shows how the opposite this whole thing is to a human rights movement. I had to get my magnifying glass out to see mentions of ‘Lesbian’ in comparison.

I don't understand how grass roots activists and employees in orgs like Stonewall have allowed this to happen. I get the macro pressures, but surely at some point in your working week as a lesbian (for example) in an org headed by a lesbian, you'd notice that zero percent of what you, your team or your org were doing was related to lesbians?
Or is it another boiling frog scenario?
Or is it that there are fewer lesbians to assist as they are identifying as men now?

How would you not notice the change in focus? I can't believe all the employees and volunteers suddenly accept the premise that the gays are all sorted, and it's now time to move on.

It would be interesting to work out the funding per capita for each of the different groups (assuming there are far greater numbers of lesbian and gays as opposed to trans). Also interesting that the focus on bi has not diminished anywhere near as much.

OrchidInTheSun yes but although we could realistically expect it to be much higher per capita for trans (obviously not including medical costs met by the NHS) the counter would be that they are in need, and we wouldn't begrudge subsidising tiny schools in the highlands and islands or individuals with expensive medical needs.
Which of course is a disingenuous argument, as we are at least partly talking about funding for lobbying here, not just support groups and phone lines and the like. A disproportionate amount of money is spent on trans political issues, and it is received from sources that have committed to not contributing to political issues.
And those sources didn't go anywhere near the gays back when we had major political fights on our hands. Children in Need weren't contributing to campaigns against Section 28!

OrchidInTheSun You could put that diagram on the 'break it down for me' thread.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?pg=1

Children in Need weren't contributing to campaigns against Section 28

This is the problem: nice well meaning people in this day and age have no idea what kind of a dogma they are funding/supporting.

Yes - it's lobbying (which is not allowed in the terms of lottery funding) but dressed up as support.

And I do take your point about vulnerable but I suppose the question is whether the lesbian and gay community need less support than they did? I should imagine issues around isolation in youth and elderly communities, health issues and discrimination haven't gone away. And didn't the stats in Stonewall's own report say that all LGBT youth have high rates of depression and suicidal ideation? So even by their own research, there is no rationale behind diverting funds away from supporting the LG.

I do think - as has been said - it's about money. Stonewall's funding has increased exponentially since the explosion in trans rights. It's been said before that Ruth Hunt has political ambitions.

user - thanks for suggestion re putting this on the break it down thread - good idea. Will do that now :)

I don't understand how grass roots activists and employees in orgs like Stonewall have allowed this to happen.

The answer is that it – in common with other lobbying groups, charities etc – is not a democracy, it is a hierarchical organisation. Their grass roots don’t get a say.

A lot of that pro-trans money is against the interests of lesbians so it’s not just a matter of diverting money away from lesbian causes.

there is no rationale behind diverting funds away from supporting the LG
This

I do think - as has been said - it's about money. Stonewall's funding has increased exponentially since the explosion in trans rights. It's been said before that Ruth Hunt has political ambitions
And this. Hunt has a lot to answer for.

Political ambitions? I’m going to assume with Labour? Well, they’re already totally on board with dismissing women’s concerns so i’m sure Ruth Hunt will do well in today’s Labour party.

(I’m still shocked at her statement after the Get the L out protest at 2018 Pride in London..)

Well, they’re already totally on board with dismissing women’s concerns so i’m sure Ruth Hunt will do well in today’s Labour party

The only two things I can remember JC saying about women are that after work drinks discriminate against women because they want to go home to look after their children; and that there should be a female only train carriage for normal commuting. I don't think he elaborated on where non-binary people should sit.

He likes a bit of window dressing, but I don't think he cares about feminist, LGB or T causes.