Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence & Fox killer launch appeal against Charity Commission over LGB Alliance charity status

[FindTheTruth]

www.scotsman.com/news/people/lgbt-charities-launch-appeal-against-charity-commission-over-controversial-groups-status-3257923

"In April, the LGB Alliance was made a charity after the commission decided the group benefitted the public through its educational and awareness-raising activities about discrimination based on sexual orientation."

"On Tuesday, transgender children’s charity Mermaids launched an appeal against the decision at the first tier tribunal, supported by other charities and groups including Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and the Good Law Project."

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

I'm hearing rumours that Lesbian Labour are saying that Channel 4 have dropped Stonewall...

Confirmed on other threads.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

I'm hearing rumours that Lesbian Labour are saying that Channel 4 have dropped Stonewall...

That was mentioned on twitter last night.

We, the country’s leading LGBTQ+ charities and organisations, speak with the single voice of a single community

Except for all the members of the community who don't agree with us and want an organisation of their own that speaks for them.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Yeahbutnaw, you say the LGB Alliance are not doing literally anything that benefits the lives of LGB people.

Their list of principles and policies states the opposite. However, I know that people don't always do what they say they will do.

So could you tell me of any way in which the LGB Alliance fails to do what it claims to do? Allowing for the fact that they focus solely on non-trans LGB people.

It's probably best that you hear it directly from the Charity Commission.

@Artichokeleaves

We, the country’s leading LGBTQ+ charities and organisations, speak with the single voice of a single community

Except for all the members of the community who don't agree with us and want an organisation of their own that speaks for them.

Indeed. And Nancy Kelley said the other day that they don’t represent everyone.

Screenshot failed to load in last time. @thinkingaboutLangCleg

Gosh, it feels like things are starting to move quickly now. More people feeling brave enough to speak up.

Magdalen Berns would have been pleased to see it.

@yeahbutnaw

Screenshot failed to load in last time. *@thinkingaboutLangCleg*

and you've, as usual, failed to answer the question put to you.

Robert Wintemute was one of the drafters of the Yogyakarta principles, but has come out saying that they failed to consider the collision with women's rights.

The Trans Rights That Trump All

Having considered the Principles’ implications for women, Wintemute says he should have challenged references to “self-defined gender identity” and to “changes to identity documents [being] recognised in all contexts” in Principle 3. “If I had thought through the implications of Principle 3,” says Wintemute, “I would have had to consider the potential for conflict with women’s rights, but I didn’t.” Neither, so far as he knows, did anyone else at the meeting at which the Principles were drafted. “Women’s rights weren’t raised.”

Given the number of human rights experts at the meeting, including a dozen former UN special rapporteurs and committee members, this was a surprising failing, Wintemute admits. The European Convention on Human Rights makes very clear that certain rights may be restricted if they impact on “the rights and freedoms of others”.

He explains: “There was a feeling that transgender people have suffered and they are saying this is what is needed — the implications of no surgery and self-ID had not dawned on us back in 2006. So far as I remember nobody was thinking about males with intact genitals gaining access to women’s spaces.”

Despite the fact that Principle 3 specifically rejected requirements for medical treatment before legal transition Wintemute says he assumed that most trans women would want to have surgery. “I see now that Principle 3 was silent on whether a diagnosis, a waiting period, or any other safeguards could be required.”

We, the country’s leading LGBTQ+ charities and organisations, speak with the single voice of a single community

Could they sound more like the Borg?

And all the Charity Commission did @yeahbutnaw was agree that some might see LGBA SM as objectionable and so they had a polite chat and LGBA not only removed some SM postings but also made sure that all staff, volunteers, had training to ensure that it did not happen again.

Not a dicky bird about LGBA failing to support the community it says it does!

Maybe a different screenshot was intended, both times?

@merrymouse

Being trans is about embracing gender conformity, rejecting sex based reality and 'living as' the gender stereotypes of the opposite sex.

That certainly seems to be the Mermaids approach, but the Stonewall definition of trans is so large that it can cover pretty much anyone including people who are completely gender conforming.

The main goal seems to be to establish a right to be affirmed by society, because what could be worse than a lack of status and respect? To be fair, I think increased visibility and a change in public perception did lead to many of Stonewall's early successes.

The problem is that the model is limited and doesn't work when you try to apply it more widely. In particular it can't cope with any conflict of rights.

This isn't exactally a response to your comment, but t made me think of something I've been wondering about in a disconnected way.

Is there a limit to the degree which an organisation can represent a group, or claim to represent the interests of a group, and speak on their behalf? And if so, what is it, and how should we approach that?

Clearly there is a real split in terms of the LGB community on how to manage trans issues. But there are other examples, there are disagreements about things like surrogacy, even how to handle birth certificate of adopted kids or donor conceived children. There was a group, a minority but with a thought out opinion, who didn't think same-sex marriage was a great idea.

You see somethig similar with BLM where there is a claim that their views or approach race questions should be taken as representing the black community, or even as a kind generalised anti-racism. Yet there are plenty of differing viewpoints within the black community, even in the US, about defunding the police, about identity politics, about things like affirmative action programs.

It seems like when one organisation starts to be seen as THE group representing a constituency, it can actually end up silencing a fair number of people within that community who have a different perspective than the majority over some issue. And it ends up flattening the public discourse.

Yeahbutnaw, I’m interested why you find this case so compelling. I looked through the grounds and thought they were weak, given the case law. Which grounds do you think are particularly strong and why?

@yeahbutnaw

Screenshot failed to load in last time. *@thinkingaboutLangCleg*

Relying too heavily on the idea that LGBA are offensive/denigrate the rights of others could prove rather tricky for Stonewall. Not surprising that they seem to have pulled out.

I can think of any number of charities that say inflammatory things. Not to say that is great but it's common. It happens a lot in the environmental sector.

Is there a limit to the degree which an organisation can represent a group, or claim to represent the interests of a group, and speak on their behalf? And if so, what is it, and how should we approach that?

I think yes. Organisations can obviously speak on behalf of their members, but that doesn't mean they can speak on behalf of everyone with a particular characteristic.

It seems like when one organisation starts to be seen as THE group representing a constituency, it can actually end up silencing a fair number of people within that community who have a different perspective than the majority over some issue. And it ends up flattening the public discourse.

This has been seen in the Overseas Aid Charity Sector whereby charities funded and largely run by countries in the West and staffed by people from those Western Countries feel they have the right to speak for and represent the people and countries on the receiving end of their aid. Very much a we know best attitude and completely shutting down and ignoring people within the countries and communities who see what's going on day to day who voice either disagreement or dissent.

@WeeBisom

Yeahbutnaw, I’m interested why you find this case so compelling. I looked through the grounds and thought they were weak, given the case law. Which grounds do you think are particularly strong and why?

“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".

It's quite obvious to anyone not being facetious that LGB Alliance spend their energy on trans issues, particularly on the erosion of trans rights and acceptance. The fact that the commission had to specifically state this condition is evidence in its own right.

I'm expecting the usual few dozen replies insulting me for saying that. Understand that it's in bad faith because you know your position is indefensible.

So cry out into the ether!

Well, this seems like a huge outpouring of hatred when you read the comments on the crowdfunder.

Considering how through the work done by the charity commission in addressing the appeal points already, I don't think this is going to change anything.

Thorough.

It has just been pointed out on Twitter, that although the grounds for appeal list Mermaids as the appellant, the grounds for appeal list "Mermaids, Stonewall and other orgs" quite a lot - it seems that it wasn't a typo and that Stonewall were originally involved.

It's quite obvious to anyone not being facetious that LGB Alliance spend their energy on trans issues, particularly on the erosion of trans rights and acceptance.

It's so odd that you think wanting to maintain the definition of same-sex attraction is about trans, and not homosexuality.

I can think of any number of charities that say inflammatory things. Not to say that is great but it's common.

I can think of a couple right now, Stonewall and Mermaids .....

It's quite obvious to anyone not being facetious that LGB Alliance spend their energy on trans issues, particularly on the erosion of trans rights and acceptance. The fact that the commission had to specifically state this condition is evidence in its own right.

And Stonewall, Mermaids etc? Would you report them if you saw them demeaning or denigrating the rights of others on social media?

Because LGBA listened to the CC and didn't shirk its responsibility, excuse itself etc. Just listened agreed and webt a little bit frther than had been asked for!

Surely, if Stonewall is in the right of this, there can be no problem in pointin gout simialrfailings by them and expecting them to abide equally quickly by those same rules? So would you report them if you were made aware of such a failing?

It's quite obvious to anyone not being facetious that LGB Alliance spend their energy on trans issues, particularly on the erosion of trans rights and acceptance

What rights are being eroded by fighting fir the rights of thise who are sake sex attracted.

What rights have been removed?

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. You can marry and not be fired for being transgender..

So what rights are lacking?