LGB Alliance is now a registered charity

[OhHolyJesus]

It took over a year...

"LGBA applied to register as a charity in March 2020. Its purposes are to promote equality and diversity and human rights.
The test of charity status is set out in law. A charity is an organisation with exclusively charitable purposes for the public benefit, that is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales. If it meets these legal tests, it will be entered on the charity register.
It is not the Commission’s role to make value judgements about the aims or ideas put forward by any organisation. Instead, its role is to decide whether an organisation’s purposes fall within the legal definition of charity.
The Commission received a number of objections to the registration of LGBA as a charity. It carefully considered these as part of making its decision. In handling this application, the Commission has had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Registered charities fall under the Commission’s regulation, and their trustees must continuously meet the legal duties and responsibilities set down under charity law. A charity can promote the rights of one or more specific groups, but may not do so whilst demeaning or denigrating the rights of others, including on social media – and the Commission will consider taking regulatory action where that occurs.
The full decision, explaining the grounds for registering the organisation and the objections that were considered, can be found on GOV.UKK_"

www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-commission-confirms-registration-of-lgb-alliance

Oh my first deletion. I wonder what I said as nothing in the talk guidelines enlightened me. I’m just going to try posting in sections to see if I can figure out what the problem with my post was.

Firstly. Wonderful news. Congratulations to all at LGBA.

Secondly, good luck to tinsel

And finally a huge thank you to Sugar and pals. They’ve inspired me to do plenty of digging this morning.

@AvantGardening

Oh my first deletion. I wonder what I said as nothing in the talk guidelines enlightened me. I’m just going to try posting in sections to see if I can figure out what the problem with my post was.

You can report the post to MNHQ (report button still works after deletion) and ask why.

Oh thank you. I didn’t know that. I’ll go ask.

@AvantGardening

Oh my first deletion. I wonder what I said as nothing in the talk guidelines enlightened me. I’m just going to try posting in sections to see if I can figure out what the problem with my post was.

If you click report on your deleted post you can ask MNHQ why it was deleted. When I have done this I have had a fairly quick reply from them.

@yourhairiswinterfire

If that's what you wish to do, feel free. However Stonewall has forever been inclusive and actually provides support for LGBTQ+ groups and communities across the UK.

A few weeks ago, a gay man stated he was same-sex attracted and that heterosexual females are not gay men. For that, he was reported to the police. I don't recall hearing anything from Stonewall on this? I'd have thought the main LGBT charity would be absolutely horrified by that?

The same Stonewall that is being taken to court by a lesbian for alleged discrimination. Judge Stout was 'satisfied there is sufficient evidence to suggest there was discriminatory action', and she also described SW's communication as a threat.

Lesbians are told that they're not same-sex attracted, they're same-gender attracted, should learn to accept penis, that they should get therapy to overcome their ''genital preferences'', that they're not allowed to be vocally proud of their sexual orientation, not even at PRIDE of all places! The same is now happening to gay men. Where have Stonewall condemned this bullying and sexual harassment of lesbians? Have I somehow missed their statement?

Why won't SW listen to the lesbians that are distressed by all of this? You'll probably have heard the term 'lesbian erasure' used by women to sum up how they're feeling...The chief executive of SW tweeted this:

Contrary to rumours of the impending lesbian extinction 😉, younger people are MORE likely to identify as LGBQ, not less than older people. APS data shows the same pattern on much larger and higher quality sample.

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1362051494225313794

''Impending lesbian extinction''. Hilarious. Thanks for listening and understanding

No wonder LGB Alliance formed. There's clearly a need for them. Shame on anyone trying to take this charity away from the LGB people who do appreciate and need them.

Shhhh!!!!!

Inconvenient facts! Don’t look at them... look over here at my cute little puppy.

Hardliners openly strategise ways to make life tougher for trans people

tbf, FWR was part of strategising the funding of a judicial review of Census decisions by the ONS that were adjacent to undermining provisions of the GRA2004 and EA2010. I think it was here that I learned about the challenge around coercive control and the need for its recognition as part of DA - so FWR prompted a donation to Sally Challenor's campaign.

FWR did encourage people to take part in the democratic process and return a personalised response to various surveys on topics ranging from PHSE, the virtual erasure of sex classes in sports to safeguarding, women's health, VAWG and things that loom large in the lives of everyday citizens.

A number of FWR have written letters to MPs about the plight of women with no recourse to public funds when they are the subject of DV.

I see these (and more) as strategising ways to enforce the rights of women as a sex class rather than overlook and erase them.

Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

Good to know on both counts.

Sorry pressed too soon

Good to know on both counts.

Scarf and donation!

A few weeks ago, a gay man stated he was same-sex attracted and that heterosexual females are not gay men. For that, he was reported to the police. I don't recall hearing anything from Stonewall on this? I'd have thought the main LGBT charity would be absolutely horrified by that?

Stonewall had no problems with calling the police on lesbians when we demonstrated outside their conference on Lesbian Visibility Day, defending the definition of lesbianism as same-sex attraction. Very carceral of them.

Ooh, this is curious.

I've just been for a check and Stonewall have been playing with their definitions page once again. It really is extraordinary how frequently core definitions around human sexuality need to be changed.
Might be worth a look over the way back machine to see when the changes were made, if anyone has the time?

On the surface they now read better because they simply talk about men and women rather than people being oriented towards the same or opposite gender (sic) not sex. Many pdfs exist of various iterations of the old definitions.

However, and this is key, Stonewall do not actually define the words 'man' or 'woman'.
Stonewall are firm believers in TWAW and TMAM so the use of these words is as gender not sex based terms. That's all sexuality redefined.

Interestingly, I don't think they have yet rewritten their definition of homosexual so it reflects the old style... Catch it while you can.

"HETEROSEXUAL / STRAIGHT
Refers to a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women or to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men.

(Used to be
HETEROSEXUAL / STRAIGHT
A person who is attracted to people of a different gender to their own e.g. a man who is attracted to women.)

HOMOSEXUAL
This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.

SEX
Assigned to a person on the basis of primary sex characteristics (genitalia) and reproductive functions. Sometimes the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are interchanged to mean ‘male’ or ‘female’."

Yeah, Stonewall, they really shouldn't be - hence the need for the LGBAlliance who express with clarity:

"We advance the interests of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, and stand up for our right to live as same-sex attracted people without discrimination or disadvantage".

Sorry, should have included a link to the glossary

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms

The glossary is nonsense. Two men fellating each other could be lesbians. A woman and a man having PIV could be homosexual.

"HETEROSEXUAL / STRAIGHT
Refers to a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women or to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men.

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

As "Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'" therefore surely a male of any age may thus, and should for clarity, be described as a man and likewise for human beings who are female?

@R0wantrees

"HETEROSEXUAL / STRAIGHT Refers to a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women or to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men.

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

As "Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'" therefore surely a male of any age may thus, and should for clarity, be described as a man and likewise for human beings who are female?

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is. However it isn't an accurate representation of how everyone would define their sexuality or how they identify.

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is. However it isn't an accurate representation of how everyone would define their sexuality or how they identify. Then post a specific definition of sexuality to correct it then! Not a bored or blase comment. Not a shoulder shrug, an "It's too compex, you wouldn't understand" comment.

An actual, in print, black and white definition!

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is

...and the government

@Datun

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is

...and the government

Which is why the charity commission have seen the legitimacy in the LGB alliance and give them the status they deserve.

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is

It's the law, as passed by Parliament.

@PronounssheRa

And sure, you can believe that. For yourself that is

It's the law, as passed by Parliament.

Okay that's great. Doesn't mean someone sexuality is invalid because you or the government believes it to be. Some people are same sexual attracted. Some are same gender. Some don't really care. But at the end of the day its down to the couple to decide who they are. Not for others.

People can identify however they want. They may struggle when people go with the recognised definitions from the dictionary though. Which the majority of people do. Rather than just making things up because they want to.

Words matter. Meanings matter. Facts matter. I'm going with the dictionary.

@Erkrie

People can identify however they want. They may struggle when people go with the recognised definitions from the dictionary though. Which the majority of people do. Rather than just making things up because they want to.

Words matter. Meanings matter. Facts matter. I'm going with the dictionary.

Then again the dictionary defines a trans woman as "a transgender person who has transitioned from male to female" meaning they are female meaning they are a woman. According to the dictionary.

I just want to look at some facts.

There are lesbians and gay men whose sexual orientation is exclusively same-sex.

Those lesbians and gay men no longer feel represented by Stonewall or any other “LGBT” charity/org because of genderist ideology that only recognises same-gender attraction.

Some bisexual people are also alienated by this genderist approach and similarly don’t feel it accurately reflects or represents them/their sexuality.

All these people felt marginalised and silenced within what was supposed to be their community.

A number of these people attempted to initiate a dialogue with Stonewall. They wanted to address the issue so that they too could feel represented by an organisation that was ostensibly for them.

Stonewall refused point blank to entertain this dialogue.

Having tried, and failed, to effect change from within, these people decided it was time to create their own organisation that would indeed reflect and represent them. One that would be founded on an understanding of homosexuality being literally same-sex attraction.

The LGB Alliance was born. Many other LGB people who felt similarly marginalised and silenced within the “LGBT community” were hugely relieved at this, and were very happy to be able to support this new venture.

Many from the “LGBT community” did their best to thwart this venture, despite the fact it was serving large numbers of people who felt unrepresented by Stonewall. They apparently wanted those people to be left without a voice, without a means of collectively organising, without any representation.

They tried to stop the LGBA from gaining charitable status, smearing it as a “hate group”.

They failed, as there was no substance to their allegations.

So now we have a group of people who weren’t represented or heard within Stonewall or other “LGBT” orgs who have created their own org.

And Stonewall and others who are happy to be under the LGBT umbrella are absolutely sick about it, and have now set about trying to get the group’s charitable status revoked. They would probably like to have the group banned altogether if that were possible.

Those are the facts.

What is this about if not control?

ASugarr, you have organisations that represent you and how you see/experience your sexuality. You are happy with them. That’s great. No one is trying to take that away from you.

So why do you want to stop other people, who experience their sexuality differently from you, from having the same thing? An organisation that centres and supports them. Why do you want to take that away from them? How is that not homophobic towards those people whose sexual orientation is exclusively same sex?