Gay man 'bullied' off Manchester Pride for wearing LGB Alliance hat and t-shirt

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

LibDem activist delighted by this. Here are two of her tweets. The gay man who turned up in an LGB hat and t-shirt was allegedly advised by police to leave for his own safety and seems to have had the hat stolen.

Another young fool tweeted that 'bullying the guy in the LGB Alliance shirt who came to the protest march is my favourit part of Pride so far xx'. He has since deleted this (possibly because he is now sober and/or has seen how many people had reported this to his employers) and now claims he was just chanting 'Trans lives matter!'. 'Bullying' is an odd choice of words for this. How could anyone think admitting publicly to 'bullying' was a good look?

The LGB Alliance man has been advised that people shouting at him is actually assault if he wants to take it further. Doesn't sound like he does, though.

Unedifying, to say the least.

If it were a charity whose purpose and founding principle were to support LGB people who face homophobia and discrimination in the workplace, to expand LGB healthcare such as PrEP etc, to improve LGB mental health services, etc, I would have absolutely no problem with it at all.

The reason it is controversial – and you know this as well as I do – is because it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier.

But the word "controversial" is not my point. My point is that the evidence in the video flatly contradicts the narrative on here. Any shouting or unwelcoming behaviour towards this man was because people disagreed with his support for an organisation. It was not "mostly straight people assaulting a man because he is gay".

This irresponsible scaremongering from the trans lobby about suicide is appalling
But it's very important for the 'most oppresses/marginalised/victimised' crybullying narrative.

As a gay man – how on earth did the former come from the latter? It is totally contradictory to the evidence I have seen.

Please somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think atleast one person who you may have perceived to be a gay man actually identifies as a woman.

@JustPassingThrough3

This whole debacle is utterly perplexing to me.

The video showed a man (gay man, straight man, whatever) being shouted at by gay men and women at a Pride march because he was wearing the logo of a controversial group. He was told that he was not welcome because of his views, and was subjected to a shout of "trans lives matter". None of them touched him.

On Twitter, people have contorted this into "mostly straight people have homophobically assaulted a gay man at Pride, because he is gay".

As a gay man – how on earth did the former come from the latter? It is totally contradictory to the evidence I have seen.

The video showed a man (gay man, straight man, whatever) being shouted at by gay men and women. How do you know the people shouting were gay men and lesbians? This is not my area, I've never been to Pride, but I gather that in recent years it's become very commercialised and a lot of people who attend are there as allies rather than because they're LGB (or T) or because they identify as Queer or Questioning, both of which seem to mean anything the identifier wants it to.

That’s a really important point that no sexuality should be or can be inclusive. Otherwise it’s not your own sexuality, it beings to everyone else. That’s a major flaw in the principle of consent that the ‘inclusive’ fuckwits are trying to ride roughshod over with their demands.
Always good to stand back and think about what some people might stand to gain from being able to tell other people who they ‘should’ be fucking.
Sexual ‘inclusiveness’ is a massively creepy and inappropriate rhetoric. It’s not surprising that it has initially been women raising the alarm about this because we are the group being constantly pressured around sex from a young age. Having boundaries around your sexual preferences and limits is healthy and necessary, being allowed no boundaries and being allowed no agency about who you fuck, (ie the actual reality of ‘being inclusive’) is an absolutely fucking terrifying position for anyone to be put in. Consent is everything, and it’s owed to nobody.

Andrea, I have no doubt that you are a worried mum and it is hard to know what is the best way to support your child.

There is a lot of misinformation and poor research into trans medical care. But please be reassured that The Tavistock/GIDS reports that suicide is in fact ‘extremely rare’ among the adolescents referred to it. gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base

Please also be wary of ‘transition’ as a panacea. It is easy to fixate on transition as the solution to all problems, but as Kiera Bell found, that is often not the case.

www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story

On Twitter, people have contorted this into "mostly straight people have homophobically assaulted a gay man at Pride, because he is gay".

As a gay man – how on earth did the former come from the latter? It is totally contradictory to the evidence I have seen.

You've seen evidence that he isn't gay?

Sorry, no idea how you quote on here, but @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g:

I think the allies thing is overstated – from my experiences at Pride, a good 95% of people who go are gay/bi/lesbian. So I think it's a fair assumption to make that the people at an anti-commercialisation protest at Pride (which is where the video came from) were themselves gay/bi/lesbian.

And why an organisation like LGB Alliance would tweet something that lumped Trans people in with bestiality is beyond me. But there we are.

Errm, their tweet about bestiality didn't mention trans people at all 👀🤨

They were objecting to bestiality being added in the + of the alphabet, because some very creepy ''queer theorists'' think that adding that is a good idea...

What's wrong with objecting to it? Bestiality is a criminal offence. I think everyone, not just LGBA, should be shutting that shit down, making it clear that that sort of shit is not welcome in the alphabet...

it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier.

Allowing people to change their legal identity from male or female to a self-identified gender - F, M or Non-binary - with no medical or other gatekeeping at all might make the lives of trans people easier, but it would not make other people's lives easier at all.

Women and girls need single-sex spaces and services for reasons of safety and privacy, principally because of male violence and because the vast majority of sex offenders of all types are male.

Many religious groups will only let women and girls out in public if they can be guaranteed single-sex spaces and services. A change to gender instead of sex would mean many women and girls from those groups would not be able to get out. We can argue separately about the need for these religions to modernise, but right here and now that is what would happen in those groups.

Protections for same-sex attracted people depend on the legal recognition of sex and sexual orientation in the Equality Act. If that changes to gender, homosexuality is no longer a protected characteristic.

Women's sport needs to be single sex for reasons of fairness.

There are more, but that will do for a start.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

On Twitter, people have contorted this into "mostly straight people have homophobically assaulted a gay man at Pride, because he is gay".

As a gay man – how on earth did the former come from the latter? It is totally contradictory to the evidence I have seen.

You've seen evidence that he isn't gay?

Ah, discovered the quote button.

Sorry, I don't understand this question –I haven't said the guy isn't gay. Me saying "as a gay man" is me saying that I myself am a gay man.

@JustPassingThrough3

If it were a charity whose purpose and founding principle were to support LGB people who face homophobia and discrimination in the workplace, to expand LGB healthcare such as PrEP etc, to improve LGB mental health services, etc, I would have absolutely no problem with it at all.

The reason it is controversial – and you know this as well as I do – is because it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier.

But the word "controversial" is not my point. My point is that the evidence in the video flatly contradicts the narrative on here. Any shouting or unwelcoming behaviour towards this man was because people disagreed with his support for an organisation. It was not "mostly straight people assaulting a man because he is gay".

It?

The driving force behind the LGB alliance are two women. They have gone from an idea to Charity registration to holding their first conference in just two years. For two women in their 70s to have achieved that at the same time according to you spending the majority of their time doing something else is superhuman.

Maybe rethink your stupid exaggeration and lying about "it".

Alex was walking along with the rest of the protest, a protest he supported, talking to a friend. Some transactivists took issue with him wearing a hat and t-shirt with the logo of the LGB Alliance, a charity set up specifically to campaign for the issues of note to LGB people, and set upon him, stealing his hat and intimidating him to the point he approached some police officers and asked to be escorted away because he was being prodded and poked, which you can clearly see is still happening by the time the filming started.

As a gay man, I don't know why you wouldn't be appalled by that. Many of the gay men I know are, as I am from a lesbian perspective, having seen similar things happen to lesbians at pride.

The only twisting happening is that gay men like Owen Jones are celebrating this as some sort of moral high water mark for inclusion and progress. I think that's about as twisted as it gets.

@JustPassingThrough3

If it were a charity whose purpose and founding principle were to support LGB people who face homophobia and discrimination in the workplace, to expand LGB healthcare such as PrEP etc, to improve LGB mental health services, etc, I would have absolutely no problem with it at all.

The reason it is controversial – and you know this as well as I do – is because it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier.

But the word "controversial" is not my point. My point is that the evidence in the video flatly contradicts the narrative on here. Any shouting or unwelcoming behaviour towards this man was because people disagreed with his support for an organisation. It was not "mostly straight people assaulting a man because he is gay".

It was a group of people harassing and shunning a gay man for wearing the tshirt of an organisation that campaigns to support and protect same-sex attracted people. This organisation and its many supporters feel that trans people have a different cause (however valid) to fight, as the rights they seek are often in direct conflict to gay rights. They are also in direct conflict to the rights of other groups of people but that's a conversation another thread.

Pride was once for same-sex attracted people. Now it is for an ever expanding umbrella of "identities" that don't necessarily have anything to do with being gay. Many people in the footage will not be gay. They will be trans, pan sexual, demi-sexual, non-binary, queer, questioning, agender, grey gender... and on and on ad infinitum... a list of identities that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

This man is not the only homosexual person feeling pushed out and replaced by straight people who identify as various flavours of "queer". They turn to LGBA for support.

The reason it is controversial – and you know this as well as I do – is because it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier.

It campaigns for the rights of LGB people.

And as you well know, the rights of which you speak to make trans lives easier, remove the rights and safeguards of women and children.

Trans people already have rights. Human rights. They don't get to remove the rights and safeguards of other protected characteristics.

There are ways to make their lives easier which don't involve eroding women's rights. But generally this is rejected. Because. Validation.

Sorry, I don't understand this question –I haven't said the guy isn't gay. Me saying "as a gay man" is me saying that I myself am a gay man.

You said it was "totally contradictory to the evidence you'd seen". You said you couldn't understand why people's viewed it as a homophobic attack and indeed insinuated in your opening paragraph that you felt he could be straight. So I ask again, what is this "evidence" that you find so compelling?

Owen Jones has completely lost it.

Yes, @Fitt, "it". "It" being the correct word to describe an inanimate object in the third person, such as an organisation.

Your point about the effort involved in setting it up is of no relevance to discussing what their aims are. All six of the campaigns they list on their website are to do with trans issues and the sex/gender debate. If they are an organisation set up to advance the interests of LGB people, then why do they have no campaigns that are genuinely about improving our lives and our welfare?

@GromblesofGrimbledon: your post just demonstrates my point though. He wasn't shouted at because he was gay, he was shouted at for the organisation he supports. That is not homophobic. Nor is it "assault". Unless you think I, a gay man, am homophobic because I don't support LGB Alliance.

The reason it is controversial – and you know this as well as I do – is because it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier

No, LGBA is campaigning for the the legally enshrined rights of L, G & B people to be upheld and not to be removed.

If the measures you speak of to make the lives of trans people easier remove rights from others or impact them negatively do you not agree that those who are affected are entitled to raise awareness of this?

@Quaggersx

The reason it is controversial – and you know this as well as I do – is because it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier.

It campaigns for the rights of LGB people.

And as you well know, the rights of which you speak to make trans lives easier, remove the rights and safeguards of women and children.

Trans people already have rights. Human rights. They don't get to remove the rights and safeguards of other protected characteristics.

There are ways to make their lives easier which don't involve eroding women's rights. But generally this is rejected. Because. Validation.

@Quaggersx, all six of the campaigns it lists on its website are to do with trans issues/sex and gender issues. There is nothing there about improving the welfare of gay and lesbian and bi people, such as expanding access to physical and mental health services, combatting homophobia in the workplace, etc.

What do waiting times at gender clinics have to do with LGBA?

@RedDogsBeg

The reason it is controversial – and you know this as well as I do – is because it seems to spend the majority of its time campaigning against new measures to make the lives of trans people easier

No, LGBA is campaigning for the the legally enshrined rights of L, G & B people to be upheld and not to be removed.

If the measures you speak of to make the lives of trans people easier remove rights from others or impact them negatively do you not agree that those who are affected are entitled to raise awareness of this?

@RedDogsBeg As I've said to a few people now, the only campaigns on the LGB Alliance's website concern trans issues and issues of sex and gender. They do not include anything to substantively improve the welfare or legal position of LGB people.

I simply don't see that improving access for trans people to health services, making it easier for those who wish to to transition, and allowing trans people to adopt their chosen identity without having to undergo medical treatment infringes upon my rights as a gay person.

@JustPassingThrough3

Yes, *@Fitt*, "it". "It" being the correct word to describe an inanimate object in the third person, such as an organisation.

Your point about the effort involved in setting it up is of no relevance to discussing what their aims are. All six of the campaigns they list on their website are to do with trans issues and the sex/gender debate. If they are an organisation set up to advance the interests of LGB people, then why do they have no campaigns that are genuinely about improving our lives and our welfare?

Because the current push for gender ideology and self-ID is damaging to gay men and lesbian women.

The LGBA have this currently at the forefront of their campaign the same way women's rights groups do. There are groups of people who's hard fought for rights are being swiftly eroded by the trans push for special privileges afforded to no one else.

A great many people, and most who frequent this board, agree that this is the fight of our time. No one wants to erase trans people. We want to defend our rights.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Sorry, I don't understand this question –I haven't said the guy isn't gay. Me saying "as a gay man" is me saying that I myself am a gay man.

You said it was "totally contradictory to the evidence you'd seen". You said you couldn't understand why people's viewed it as a homophobic attack and indeed insinuated in your opening paragraph that you felt he could be straight. So I ask again, what is this "evidence" that you find so compelling?

My use of a hyphen was to introduce the question. I said "as a gay man" simply to indicate that I myself am a gay man and don't understand how the actions of the people in Manchester were "homophobic". It was not a comment on the sexuality of the person in the video.

The "evidence" is the video of the incident, which includes no assaults, and no homophobia.