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.

[quote JustPassingThrough3]@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.[/quote]
He was shouted at, and a threatening mob whipped up around him, because he is supporting an organisation that supports gay people. Such as himself. Ffs. That is homophobic.

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.

That's nice. But many gay, lesbian and bisexual people disagree, so this group is for them.

@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?

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. We will ensure that the voices of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are heard in all public and political discussions affecting our lives.

We amplify the voices of lesbians and highlight the dual discrimination experienced by lesbians as women who are same-sex attracted in a male-dominated society.

We work to protect children from harmful, unscientific ideologies that may lead them to believe either their personality or their body is in need of changing. Any child growing up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual has the right to be happy and confident about their sexuality and who they are.

We promote freedom of speech and informed dialogue on issues concerning the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. We assert that different opinions, even those we may disagree with, should be heard as part of the public debate.

lgballiance.org.uk/about/

Taken right off their website. Sounds pretty concrete to me. Where does it mention trans here?

@GromblesofGrimbledon: Do you honestly think that this is more harmful to gay and lesbian and bi people than poor access to LGB health services, or homophobia in the workplace or in society, or a whole host of other genuine barriers to equality?

As a gay man, I really truly do not see how making it easier for trans people to simply live their lives erodes my rights as a gay man. Which rights does reducing gender clinic waiting times or counselling waiting times remove from me?

And what special privileges are trans people asking for?

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.

If someone was harrassed or assaulted for waving a rainbow flag or trans flag, would you accept that was homophobic/transphobic?

Or would you insist there was no evidence of that - that they were just being hassled for being part of a controversial group?

JustPassingThrough3 and if you want to be supported by the likes of stonewall / Pride etc then that's up to you. It doesn't mean other people don't have the right to be supported by an organisation of their own choosing. Such as LGBA.

[quote JustPassingThrough3]@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.[/quote]

I don't think anyone should be harassed in such a manner for wearing the tshirt of a legitimate charity that supports gay people. He did nothing wrong. It's an event supposedly inclusive of gay people and yet he was hounded out.

LGBTQIA+ has become a nasty club that turfs out all wrongthinkers.

This is how people operate now. Goodies and baddies. And they saw him as nothing more than a caricature bad guy.

We're sympathetic to that on this board because, even for those of us who aren't gay, we get the same treatment for being women who stand our ground and try to salvage our rights from the tide of self-ID.

And what special privileges are trans people asking for?

Seriously? 🤨🧐

Your point about the effort involved in setting it up is of no relevance to discussing what their aims are.

So your unfound exaggeration has now switched to a complaint about aims?

I'm never in a million years going to pretend that a gender identity makes a man a lesbian, and it's therefore a legitimate aim of a new charity begining with L to reach out and support women damaged by the past decade of charity work that has mandated quite abusively that I must.

You are a man on a feminist chat board moaning about two lesbians prioritising looking after lesbians. Maybe there's other places you can whine about not being at the front of the queue.

@Quaggersx: I'm sorry but that is just absurd. He was shouted at for supporting an organisation whose views and campaigns and focus people disagree with – not because he was gay. It was not homophobia, unless the definition has radically changed since I was last called a slur in the street.

Plenty of women don't see the need for feminism. That doesn't mean that feminist organizations aren't legitimate.

As a gay man, you don't see the need to counter the Genderist ideas. As a lesbian I do, and therefore completely support the LGB Alliance. Feel free to carry on supporting Stonewall, but I won't because Stonewall have redefined homosexuality as being attracted to the 'same gender' and are campaigning to remove access for women to single sex spaces.

And as I have already pointed out, Alex is being poked and prodded on the video, and was subjected to worse before the filming started.

It is homophobic to redefine same sex attraction to same gender attraction & then shout, bully & harass gay men who don’t want to have sex with transmen on account of them being female & not biological men

@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?

They were set up in response to Stonewall redefining same sex attraction as same gender attraction.

All the founders and founding members had repeatedly over a long period of time tried to engage with Stonewall who refused to acknowledge their concerns.

So having come to the end of the road with Stonewall they set up on their own as an organisation for LGB people who do not wish their sexuality be redefined for the benefit of others.

So to call them a hate group is basically saying it's hateful to to want to define your sexuality as same sex attracted.

I'm sure at some point they will expand on their primary purpose to wider LGB issues but they are less than two years old, have very limited funding and have had to spend most of their time since inception battling against those who want them shut down and denied charitable status.

The LGBA didn't just appear in a vacuum. They are a direct response to Stonewall blanket reversals of what they originally stood for.

combatting homophobia in the workplace, etc.

How can you combat homophobia anywhere when you remove the right of people to be same sex attracted?

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.

Well good for you, how nice to be able to dismiss the negative effect it has on others because I'm alright, Jack.

@NecessaryScene

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.

If someone was harrassed or assaulted for waving a rainbow flag or trans flag, would you accept that was homophobic/transphobic?

Or would you insist there was no evidence of that - that they were just being hassled for being part of a controversial group?

The rainbow flag is simply a catch-all symbol of being gay or lesbian or bi or whatever. So yes, it would be homophobic, because it goes directly to their sexuality, not to their views. If someone shouted at someone for wearing a Stonewall cap or an LGB Alliance cap, though, it would not be homophobic.

@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.

A controversial group?

So, are you saying he was asking to be assaulted, based on what he was wearing?

This is a twitter statement from the man.

I wasn't "kicked out of @ManchesterPride". Still very much attending and welcomed. Police acted proportionately in the face of assault and theft. Officer advised to report the incident by calling 101 and action was to protect me. Police don't take sides and didn't here.

I was assaulted and property damaged. Was entirely peaceful and respectful of everyone’s rights and personal space. The police were exceptional and professional, clear it was for my personal safety.

Someone grabbed his hat off his head before the police escorted him away from the mob. Unless trans activists have telekinesis, someone clearly touched him, didn't they?

@GromblesofGrimbledon: I certainly agree with you that it was too aggressive and I don't support that aspect of it. But there has to be a distinction between aggressive behaviour and "homophobic assault". This was not the latter. It makes a mockery of those of us who have been homophobically assaulted to say so.

The video showed a man (gay man, straight man, whatever)

Justpassingthrough

Please stop being so disingenuous. Can you manage to make whatever point you imagine you have to make without it? The video was homophobic because the man was showing that he supports the LGB Alliance, and as has already been discussed at length in this 700 odd post thread that you just happened upon, the LGB Alliance are a registered charity catering for lesbian, gay and bisexual people who don't agree that gender identity issues should be lumped together with sexual orientation by default and that LGB people can't advocate on their own behalf without the unrelated issues of the T taking priority, as they often do. Much like gender critical feminists don't believe gender identity issues should be the focus of feminism/women's rights.

[quote JustPassingThrough3]@Quaggersx: I'm sorry but that is just absurd. He was shouted at for supporting an organisation whose views and campaigns and focus people disagree with – not because he was gay. It was not homophobia, unless the definition has radically changed since I was last called a slur in the street.[/quote]
He was shouted at - and assaulted - for supporting an organisation that supports gay, lesbian and bisexual (and trans) people who are same SEX (not gender) attracted. It is woke homophobia. If you’re too blind, or unwilling, to see it, that’s your choice. However, the fact remains that a gay man was assaulted at gay pride for supporting a charity that supports gay people. In 2021.

As an aside, do you think Trans Pride and trans charities are homophobic for not cantering gay people?

@Fitt

Your point about the effort involved in setting it up is of no relevance to discussing what their aims are.

So your unfound exaggeration has now switched to a complaint about aims?

I'm never in a million years going to pretend that a gender identity makes a man a lesbian, and it's therefore a legitimate aim of a new charity begining with L to reach out and support women damaged by the past decade of charity work that has mandated quite abusively that I must.

You are a man on a feminist chat board moaning about two lesbians prioritising looking after lesbians. Maybe there's other places you can whine about not being at the front of the queue.

I have been complaining about their aims all along. That is the ground on which I say it is controversial.

I am saying that their "prioritising looking after lesbians" isn't in improving access to healthcare, reducing homophobia in society, or doing anything that substantively improves their lives (or my life as a gay man) – it is simply focusing on trans issues. That is inherently controversial at the moment.

allowing trans people to adopt their chosen identity

This is the problem.

Nobody needs rights because of an identity which is an amorphous subjective concept.

However people really do need specific rights and services because of sex. (I can explain more if you can’t think of an example).

Because of this it is essential that legislation and policy recognise sex.

I honestly don’t understand why this is a difficult point for people to grasp. I do understand that trans people find reference to their sex distressing, but that doesn’t mean it is right or harmless to insist that trans women are women in all situations, or to silence any discussion of gender.

It is homophobic to redefine same sex attraction to same gender attraction & then shout, bully & harass gay men who don’t want to have sex with transmen on account of them being female & not biological men

Quite.

Several posters on here seem to think that I support Stonewall and that it's an either/or situation. As it happens, I don't agree with a lot of what Stonewall have done recently (and, importantly, they don't definitively define what the definition of 'gay' or 'lesbian' or whatever is).

If you disagree with Stonewall, it doesn't mean you have to agree with LGB Alliance. I would love an organisation that actually grapples with the real issues gay and lesbian and bi people actually face, without thinking that it has to be a battle against people who want to improve, for example, access to trans healthcare services.

[quote JustPassingThrough3]@GromblesofGrimbledon: Do you honestly think that this is more harmful to gay and lesbian and bi people than poor access to LGB health services, or homophobia in the workplace or in society, or a whole host of other genuine barriers to equality?

As a gay man, I really truly do not see how making it easier for trans people to simply live their lives erodes my rights as a gay man. Which rights does reducing gender clinic waiting times or counselling waiting times remove from me?

And what special privileges are trans people asking for?[/quote]

I don't see why people think they can police what others see as the most pressing issues they want to campaign for.

TRAs are fighting for rights when they already have the same human rights afforded to them as anyone else.

Of course, this is not good enough. They want children to be allowed to self-ID without parental consent. A move currently being pushed here in Scotland by the SNP. They demand access to "healthcare" which amounts to cosmetic surgery when other people are waiting in the same queues of a crippled NHS for life-saving treatment and surgeries. They throw around bogus statistics of suicide. They demand access to women's spaces: refuges, rape crises centres, domestic abuse shelters, changing rooms, etc. When women fight to keep these spaces they are branded bigots.

Trans "rights" are in direct conflict with the rights of other groups and they are not willing to budge or compromise. They have no interest in campaigning for third spaces and would rather push and push and push into the spaces of others who now find themselves clawing back what they once had.

I've been homophobically assaulted, JustPassing and I disagree with you. He was attacked for wearing a logo of a charity specifically for LGB people. That is a homophobic attack. Just because you personally think an LGB organization should only have a focus you agree with doesn't change that.