Chair of LGBT APPG complains that deals worked out behind the scenes not adhered too

[Kit19]

“In privately agreeing a way forward with the wider LGBT+ lobby both in parliament & outside”

Nice to have it confirmed that this was all being sewn up behind closed doors

Is this why Liz Truss appeared to be dithering and reconsidering, because of blunt and the APPG? But then she forged on regardless, but may be amended the language?

@JamieLeeCurtains

Marsha de Cordova reaffirms Labour's commitment to 'self-declaration'

Fuck Labour, then. They will never get my vote again.

It must be Datun

She must have had a lot of pressure from them to include self ID

@DancelikeEmmaGoldman

Non-binary. The identity for people who don’t have a personality.

Dance, I am going to use this quote ad infinitum!!!

Blunt talked this morning about how it was Penny Mordaunt that got his instructions and apparently promised to do what he wanted and ignore the consultation. He went on at length about how Liz Truss has been too busy to do this properly. Patronising arsehole.

@Escapeplanning

Blunt talked this morning about how it was Penny Mordaunt that got his instructions and apparently promised to do what he wanted and ignore the consultation. He went on at length about how Liz Truss has been too busy to do this properly. Patronising arsehole.

Wow.

you have "community leaders" for each group. And each group gets exactly one lobbying voice, and it's far from clear what mandate they have ...........It's a cynical way of undermining democracy. Debate within identity groups is ignored, and debate across identity groups is frowned upon. @NecessaryScene1

the whole lobbying system needs an overhaul. Cameron's right, it is the next scandal.

I've always had my suspicions about Mordaunt.

@Escapeplanning

Blunt talked this morning about how it was Penny Mordaunt that got his instructions and apparently promised to do what he wanted and ignore the consultation. He went on at length about how Liz Truss has been too busy to do this properly. Patronising arsehole.

He sounds like an absolute fucking menace.

So many men heavily invested in stripping away women's rights. Never expected to see us going so backwards.

Liz Truss, Felicity Buchan, and Jackie Doyle-Price.

Jackie has been an absolute diamond on these issues.

@MichelleofzeResistance

Basically every identity group now demands that are the only ones who can say what is right and true in relation to their group.

With the absolute exception of female humans.

Who apparently should never be allowed to be involved in or consulted about anything directly affecting them, and should just shut up and do what they're told by male humans.

I knew all this. I'm still gobsmacked at the utter blatant extent of it being revealed yesterday and today. Greer had it right: male people hate women. It's really shocking to realise how much.

Women often don't get this kind of consideration, at the moment anyway. We're not the trendy identity group. But I don't think women's groups can say that over the past 20 years they haven't tried to make the same sorts of arguments or tried to say they represent the views of women, when really lots don't agree with them. And the groups that are making these arguments successfully now are doing so on the backs of other groups having done so in the past.

Every time someone says we should centre women in our thinking and other groups can take care of themselves they are making the argument for other groups to take the same approach. There is a real balancing act required in looking at special interest groups particular needs and balancing them with those of others.

@NecessaryScene1

partners that dismiss the views of of the community they claim to represent?

That's one of the key problems (politically at least) with identity politics in general.

In general politics we have multiple parties with opposing views. And we vote for them.

As soon as you then put identity politics into that, suddenly you have "community leaders" for each group. And each group gets exactly one lobbying voice, and it's far from clear what mandate they have. A cynic would suggest the powers that be would choose the most politically amenable/convenient group within any identity and selectively listen to them, rather than the other side.

It's a cynical way of undermining democracy. Debate within identity groups is ignored, and debate across identity groups is frowned upon.

Of course, and very often the interests of these leaders of identity groups are closer to those of the well off and powerful than they are with many of the people they are meant to represent.

We had a major controversy in Canada this past ear where certain people presented themselves as the leaders of an identity group, and that they were being ignored by the government. It fit right in with the media narrative and they splashed it everywhere. The story was clearly dodgy from the start but it took weeks for them to realise these leaders were not particularly representing the views of the whole community, and in fact were engaged in an ongoing power struggle within that community. They essentially used the media to ensconce themselves as the leaders the government had to deal with.

Every time someone says we should centre women in our thinking and other groups can take care of themselves they are making the argument for other groups to take the same approach.

Sorry, I'm confused since you quoted me - please do show me where on this thread or any other, any poster has said - in the way as is said to women in debates like this - that any other group doesn't matter, should not be heard or should not have a voice?

Or did you mean the good old female socialised belief that it is wrong for women to centre their own needs in feminism and to try to hold on to essential existing rights for women until they've assured the happiness of all other groups first, and this is the only acceptable good example?

If we're just nice enough will we be allowed some rights?

With the absolute exception of female humans.

No, female humans are represented by outfits like the Fawcett Society. What are you complaining about?

Just to clarify: I do not expect any male focused lobby groups to give a damn about women's rights, or how possible campaigning may negatively affect them, and I think that lack of sensitivity, awareness and interest in impact on women often noticed within such groups is part of the reason for conflict of rights we keep pointing out to our elected representatives.

I do expect, fully, properly, that elected representatives do their job as they are paid for in thinking of and representing the interests of all members of their constituency instead of acting as if they are just a member of a lobby group with a narrow agenda. They are two wholly different roles.

Marsha de Cordova wants the EHRC and GEO to publicly clarify the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 - I don't think she does really....

she also mentioned banning transphobia and misogyny - that will be a challenge.

Every time someone says we should centre women in our thinking and other groups can take care of themselves they are making the argument for other groups to take the same approach.

I don't think the problem is centring a particular group, its pretending that other groups and opinions don't exist.

she also mentioned banning transphobia and misogyny - that will be a challenge. [ smirk ]

@Winesalot

she also mentioned banning transphobia and misogyny - that will be a challenge. [ smirk ]

That's going to need a bigger lockdown than Covid 19

without the faintest thought that those women should actually have a voice themselves in this as key stakeholders? They couldn't be much clearer in their utter disrespect for female people and their utter unfitness due to this open prejudice to be in anyway involved in national policy that will affect females

Absolutely this. Old fashioned, patronising sexism in action.

Do you know what? I'm not a f*cking interest group, I am one of 51% of the population and I feel that alone should carry some weight.

@MichelleofzeResistance

Just to clarify: I do not expect any male focused lobby groups to give a damn about women's rights, or how possible campaigning may negatively affect them, and I think that lack of sensitivity, awareness and interest in impact on women often noticed within such groups is part of the reason for conflict of rights we keep pointing out to our elected representatives.

I do expect, fully, properly, that elected representatives do their job as they are paid for in thinking of and representing the interests of all members of their constituency instead of acting as if they are just a member of a lobby group with a narrow agenda. They are two wholly different roles.

I think these are probably opposed wants, in terms of a society. Unless you want legislators to simply ignore those kinds of organisations altogether.

Personally I absolutely expect trans rights organisations and men's rights organisations to consider the effect of their ideas and policy recommendations on other members of society, and I tend to think poorly of them when they don't. My impression is that many people feel similarly.

@merrymouse

Every time someone says we should centre women in our thinking and other groups can take care of themselves they are making the argument for other groups to take the same approach.

I don't think the problem is centring a particular group, its pretending that other groups and opinions don't exist.

Yes, I would agree with that, but in practice I find when people say the former they often mean the latter. The idea is that a group for men's rights, for example, should simply think in terms of men's needs, men's opinions, and what would be good political policy for men. The effects on other people of those ideas or policies being for other people to consider and advocate for.

Unless you want legislators to simply ignore those kinds of organisations altogether.

Legislators are in paid posts of public responsibility to act to a code of impartiality, of representing all the populace equally and with accountability for this, and of following standards in place such as the Nolan Principles. Whatever organisations they talk to or even belong to, this remains their paid role and responsibility.

The effects on other people of those ideas or policies being for other people to consider and advocate for.

And why wouldn't they - aren't they best placed to advocate for their own rights? That doesn't mean any group should disregard other people's rights.

In the example we are talking about, (and generously giving him the benefit of the doubt) Crispin Blunt seems to think that he has considered women's rights. Unfortunately he doesn't have a clue.