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 I was wearing a hat which said "Gays For Boris Johnson" and a gay man came up and snatched it off my head I'd assume he hated Boris Johnson rather than hated me because I am gay.

For goodness sake, the average three year old has managed to learn that you don't snatch things off other people in the street regardless of whatever reason you may feel you have for doing it.

You're right, the LGBA has very little influence as well! I am simply suggesting that people who think Stonewall controls what "TRA"s do and sets the policy agenda for the trans movement in the UK are mistaken

No. It's you who are mistaken. Either deliberately, or you have walked into a debate attempting to defend a position you know nothing about.

Which is it?

You're right, the LGBA has very little influence as well! I am simply suggesting that people who think Stonewall controls what "TRA"s do and sets the policy agenda for the trans movement in the UK are mistaken.

So why the fear of the LGBA and the concerted efforts to have it shut down?

If you think Stonewall are not influential throughout Government, public and private institutions you are seriously deluded.

@Quaggersx

If I was wearing a hat which said "Gays For Boris Johnson" and a gay man came up and snatched it off my head I'd assume he hated Boris Johnson rather than hated me because I am gay.

Yes that might be true. But following on from that, snatching the hat with the LGBA logo on it, from a gay man, would signify that the person hates the LGBA. Which is an organisation for same sex attracted people. Thus it would be more than reasonable to assume that the reason they did that is because that person has an aversion towards same sex attracted people.

But that isn't what it said. To many people, "LGB Alliance" means "against efforts to make trans people's lives easier". It doesn't simply mean "yay for gay people!"

Ignorance is no defence. It might be best if these individuals educated themselves if this is how they move through life, ignorant of the facts, yet aggressive. I hope that person presses charges against them for a homophobic hate crime / harrassment and at the very least, technical assault.

But if the person who snatched the hat knew about the LGBA and disagreed with them based on their focus on gender issues and thought that the LGBA was too dismissive of trans issues, the snatching would be on the grounds of political disagreement, not because the snatcher hated gay people.

@Artichokeleaves

If I was wearing a hat which said "Gays For Boris Johnson" and a gay man came up and snatched it off my head I'd assume he hated Boris Johnson rather than hated me because I am gay.

For goodness sake, the average three year old has managed to learn that you don't snatch things off other people in the street regardless of whatever reason you may feel you have for doing it.

I'm not saying the snatching was right – I don't know how many times I have said in this post, I disagree with the aggression of what happened. I am simply saying that it wasn't necessarily homophobic because it involved an LGB Alliance hat.

I can't believe this argument is still raging honestly. If a gay man can't assert hes gay and proud at Pride, then theres something fucked up at Pride. Maybe they need to start an alternative Pride and go back to the basics of standing up for the rights of homosexual and GNC people.

Let Pride keep its corporate floats, heterosexual queers and dog and baby fetishists to itself.

So if the exact same scenario happened to someone wearing a Mermaids t-shirt and hat you think it would just be reported as a 'disagreement on views'?

You don't think anyone on social media or in the press would call it a transphobic attack?

Everyone would just say " No big deal, just a political disagreement"

If you really think this then I have a bridge to sell you!

I know many of the people minimising this would do actually the same if the poor guy had been punched or kicked. Because they did it with Maria McLachlan's assault at Speaker's Corner. I'm not sure who certain people on this thread think they're convincing.

And that is why it is not inherently the case that anything that happens to someone who professes to support LGB Alliance is homophobic.

It can be! For instance if someone assaulted someone wearing an LGB Alliance hoodie who didn't know who LGBA were and simply attacked the person because they thought they were gay, that would be homophobic assault.

But if the aggressor knew who LGBA were, and yelled at the person because they disagreed with their support for the aims and focus of LGBA, that is not homophobic, because that comes down to a disagreement on views, not a hatred of the person for simply being gay.

If it’s down to interpretation, then why was this wearing of the hat being deemed by some as an act of transphobia? Why is supporting this group deemed by some as transphobic?

If someone is aware of LGB Alliance and interprets them to be supporting the rights of gay people rather than an attack on trans people, then by your own same logic, the wearing of the apparel or supporting the charity was not, and is not, transphobic. Have I understood you correctly or?

@RedDogsBeg

You're right, the LGBA has very little influence as well! I am simply suggesting that people who think Stonewall controls what "TRA"s do and sets the policy agenda for the trans movement in the UK are mistaken.

So why the fear of the LGBA and the concerted efforts to have it shut down?

If you think Stonewall are not influential throughout Government, public and private institutions you are seriously deluded.

Public and private institutions are running away from Stonewall like it is a sinking ship, and the Government is expressly changing course on things like the GRA and so on. So, no, I don't think it is particularly influential anymore.

And the "fear" of the LGBA isn't really a fear, it's just disagreement. And there are no efforts to "have it shut down", just efforts for it to be deregistered as a charity (because, as you will know, you can be an organisation without being a charity).

Public and private institutions are running away from Stonewall like it is a sinking ship

Why is that, do you think?

@TheWeeDonkey

I can't believe this argument is still raging honestly. If a gay man can't assert hes gay and proud at Pride, then theres something fucked up at Pride. Maybe they need to start an alternative Pride and go back to the basics of standing up for the rights of homosexual and GNC people.

Let Pride keep its corporate floats, heterosexual queers and dog and baby fetishists to itself.

But this is precisely the point – he did not assert he's "gay and proud". He asserted that he was a supporter of the LGBA, which says only that he supports the views and aims of a particular organisation.

@RedDogsBeg

Who sets this common "agenda"? Who is the leader of the TRAs and how were they appointed? What is their organisation? How do they set policy?

Stonewall.

Look up their definition of homosexuality, it is no longer based on sex but gender:

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.

Stonewall also decree that Transwomen are women and Transmen are men, therefore good luck with declaring you are only attracted to men because that includes Transmen who are by dint of their sex biological females.

Schools are teaching this too.

@OvaHere

So if the exact same scenario happened to someone wearing a Mermaids t-shirt and hat you think it would just be reported as a 'disagreement on views'?

You don't think anyone on social media or in the press would call it a transphobic attack?

Everyone would just say " No big deal, just a political disagreement"

If you really think this then I have a bridge to sell you!

This is actually a great example, and the most appropriate counter-example I've seen so far flipping this onto the "TRA" side. I mean this in all seriousness: I do not think that someone who knew what Mermaids were and disagreed with their methods, who shouted at someone in a Mermaids t-shirt, would be being transphobic. Because Mermaids, like LGBA, is an organisation which has a specific focus and set of political/etc aims.

He asserted that he was a supporter of the LGBA, which says only that he supports the views and aims of a particular organisation.

AND???

@plodalong12

And that is why it is not inherently the case that anything that happens to someone who professes to support LGB Alliance is homophobic.

It can be! For instance if someone assaulted someone wearing an LGB Alliance hoodie who didn't know who LGBA were and simply attacked the person because they thought they were gay, that would be homophobic assault.

But if the aggressor knew who LGBA were, and yelled at the person because they disagreed with their support for the aims and focus of LGBA, that is not homophobic, because that comes down to a disagreement on views, not a hatred of the person for simply being gay.

If it’s down to interpretation, then why was this wearing of the hat being deemed by some as an act of transphobia? Why is supporting this group deemed by some as transphobic?

If someone is aware of LGB Alliance and interprets them to be supporting the rights of gay people rather than an attack on trans people, then by your own same logic, the wearing of the apparel or supporting the charity was not, and is not, transphobic. Have I understood you correctly or?

Well, sort of. You are right that if someone genuinely thinks that LGBA exists only to support the rights of gay people and so on, it is perfectly legitimate to consider them non-transphobic and to support them and do whatever.

But the flipside of that is that it is perfectly legitimate for other people to think that LGBA's focus and methods are unnecessarily down on trans people. And if that is someone's view, then shouting at a person wearing an LGBA hat in the street is likely to be because of that disagreement over methods and aims, rather than because they hate that person for being gay.

I do not think that someone who knew what Mermaids were and disagreed with their methods, who shouted at someone in a Mermaids t-shirt, would be being transphobic.

I feel a lot of TRAs would disagree. Just a hunch.

But if the person who snatched the hat knew about the LGBA and disagreed with them based on their focus on gender issues and thought that the LGBA was too dismissive of trans issues, the snatching would be on the grounds of political disagreement, not because the snatcher hated gay people.

You think it's acceptable to do this because the person is ignorant of the facts and thinks that the LGB has to include trans people? Even though trans people have lots of organisations that support just trans people. But LGB can't have directed support for themselves? Just listen to yourself.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I do not think that someone who knew what Mermaids were and disagreed with their methods, who shouted at someone in a Mermaids t-shirt, would be being transphobic.

I feel a lot of TRAs would disagree. Just a hunch.

Many might, but that's down to them.

@Quaggersx

But if the person who snatched the hat knew about the LGBA and disagreed with them based on their focus on gender issues and thought that the LGBA was too dismissive of trans issues, the snatching would be on the grounds of political disagreement, not because the snatcher hated gay people.

You think it's acceptable to do this because the person is ignorant of the facts and thinks that the LGB has to include trans people? Even though trans people have lots of organisations that support just trans people. But LGB can't have directed support for themselves? Just listen to yourself.

Let's frame this another way. Do you think that it is a legitimate point of view for a gay person to disagree with LGBA on the grounds that their methods and focuses are too focused on the trans/sex/gender debate?

And the "fear" of the LGBA isn't really a fear, it's just disagreement. And there are no efforts to "have it shut down", just efforts for it to be deregistered as a charity (because, as you will know, you can be an organisation without being a charity).

Just disagreement, you really love to minimise and dismiss don't you?

Why are there efforts to have it deregistered as a Charity? If it has no influence and little support what's the problem?

I'd definitely say it is fear that is driving the rabid attacks on it otherwise why not just ignore it?

Stonewall has no more fundamental influence than any other person or organisation in law, they just choose an activist approach.

They have huge amounts of influence on policy and have encouraged organisations to ‘go beyond the law’ even when that means breaking the law. Their advice is taken (e.g. by the BBC) on legal matters even when it is clearly erroneous and based on a doctrine (e.g. sex assigned at birth) that is fundamentally flawed.

As a lawyer, if a gay person suffered discrimination at work, what comparator would you use if gay is now ‘queer’ and most of the company identify as queer despite being in what would be called ‘heterosexual’ relationships in the olden days?.

Maybe you are assuming this wouldn’t be a problem because in this alternative universe where everyone is queer we are all equal. I can however assure you that the inconvenient egg producing type people would still need specific rights and services and require language and legislation to protect those rights and services.

He asserted that he was a supporter of the LGBA, which says only that he supports the views and aims of a particular organisation.

Which is clear that it supports gay, lesbian and bisexual people. That an organisation supporting this group of people and by default same-sex attraction has become the 'enemy' is symptomatic of the batshit situation we're in. One that denies biological reality and exists because of countless academics postulating, in order to earn a crust and feel self important, and organisations like Stonewall trying to keep the funding flowing in.

After the Forstarter case I have been being much more open about talking about what I believe about what is going on right now in society. I have been talking to people at work mainly, very average none political people.
They were all shocked, but, and this but is important. Almost all of them linked the issue with gay rights, even though I was quite direct that I was talking about trans issues.
My point is that in the minds of very everyday people, gay and trans are linked, and I believe this is going to be a disaster for gay men when all is said and done.

@merrymouse

Stonewall has no more fundamental influence than any other person or organisation in law, they just choose an activist approach.

They have huge amounts of influence on policy and have encouraged organisations to ‘go beyond the law’ even when that means breaking the law. Their advice is taken (e.g. by the BBC) on legal matters even when it is clearly erroneous and based on a doctrine (e.g. sex assigned at birth) that is fundamentally flawed.

As a lawyer, if a gay person suffered discrimination at work, what comparator would you use if gay is now ‘queer’ and most of the company identify as queer despite being in what would be called ‘heterosexual’ relationships in the olden days?.

Maybe you are assuming this wouldn’t be a problem because in this alternative universe where everyone is queer we are all equal. I can however assure you that the inconvenient egg producing type people would still need specific rights and services and require language and legislation to protect those rights and services.

If a gay person suffered discrimination at work on the grounds of their sexuality, that would be protected by ss. 12 and 39 of the Equality Act, which I wouldn't change.