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.

Yourstupidityexhaustsme

Whilst excluding his support for trans rights.

As I said above. Pride isn't a 'celebration' it's a protest. It's a protest that members of the LGBT community died for. To cut trans out the title and refuse to express support for the cause undermines everything the stonewall riots originally stood for.

Some of these trans people believe that a gay man should want to have sex with a transman and that a lesbian should want to have sex with a transwoman and their lady penis, or they are transphobic and genital fetishists.

How is that standing up for gay and lesbian rights

If you had read my posts you'd have seen that I thought what happened was over the top and aggressive, but not a homophobic assault

You supposedly a legally trained man cant see the homophobia in the actions?

Are you the same poster who hilariously wrote owness?

Why the hell are you harping on about it? The CPS will decide in due course about prosecuting or not until then it really doesn't matter, unless your going to be defending? Which I seriously doubt.

I was also there today, and the TRA came into the women’s protest with a flag and a loudhailer, disrupting the speeches. The police stopped them coming further in but just contained them. People just ignored them mostly or tried to block their flag with pro women ones. To be honest it just made them look obnoxious and pathetic. There was never any threat of violence from the women, it was really striking how different the two camps are in that respect.

It was a great protest, loads of people and a positive atmosphere.

@BilindaB, @NoNotMeNoSiree and @JustPassingThrough3,

Do you think the women's rights protesters should have stolen this man's flag? Do you think the police should have removed him for being provocative?

As I said above. Pride isn't a 'celebration' it's a protest. It's a protest that members of the LGBT community died for. To cut trans out the title and refuse to express support for the cause undermines everything the stonewall riots originally stood for.

Stonewall was started by a lesbian, Storme Delarverie. And, funnily enough, wasn't the driver of change for lesbian and gay people in the UK. That was effected by lesbian and gay people.

How many people died at Stonewall? Or is this the usual hyperbole?

Have we had any comments yet from those who supported or denied the abuse and assault against a lone gay man wearing the logo'd apparel of an alternative LGB rights group about how those counter protesters in Edinburgh should have been similarly abused and assaulted and need to be escorted away.

oh.... I can hear chirping is building.

Keep on denying that abusive behaviour has been enabled by the lack of censure from groups that claim to support women and LGB people, but actually are complicit in causing them harm. It becomes very clear when you pull it all together.

Can I have a go?

The disruptive trans rights protestor was subjected to violence at the protest, because being in the presence of women talking about women’s rights is, by virtue of the power differential, inherently violent against them, because it denies their existence. The assault is right there in plain sight!

Did I get it?

I would like to think that there’s no one so dim and malevolent as to make Alex being a Tory into any kind of justification of what he was subjected to, but I see that I’ve been disappointed again.

Just linking this thread here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4324076-Womens-Rights-Demo-Scottish-Parliament-11am-2nd-Sept

It is entirely relevant as a comparator.

Stop enabling abusive behaviour under the guise that 'it doesn't happen', 'the vast majority don't do that' and 'well that person deserved that abuse because they provoked the more marginalised, more vulnerable group' (who can abuse with impunity under that guise).

And there were women wearing purple and waving purple things around, Sophocles. So, you are right.

By some poster's logic those trans rights counter-protesters would have been absolutely righteous in abusing and assaulting any of those women who were deliberately provoking them.

Everyone has every right to shout out about values they hold dear, and I would say as much for the Edinburgh protest as well. It seems hard to get comprehensive video footage of all that occurred in either case. But as far as I'm concerned the women had every right to shout to the tops of their lungs about what is important to them, and yes, to do that in front of counter protesters. As long as the speech does not conflict with any laws then that is just what freedom of speech is.

These boards operate in pretty much the same way on Mumsnet, there are some lone voices that attempt to stand against the tide of GC feminism, and they are often ridiculed, misrepresented, hounded, treated with contempt - is that bullying or not? The effort is designed to undermine or to make those voices go away, and it often has that effect. Just like the LGB Alliance person walked away. I don't know that people on these boards can complain when others operate in the same way that they do themselves.

Obviously no one has the right to take property from someone, or to lay hands on someone and that is to my mind where a line is crossed.

Pride is about inclusion, solidarity, support for each other, including trans people, and the LGB Alliance is in opposition to those themes - it was established to oppose the inclusion of trans rights within LGB issues. It wants to put clear distance between identity matters and sexuality matters.

Wearing apparel that supported that, on that particular day, seems a very clear message that people who are trans should not be present during Pride marches; it appears as an attempt to exclude deeply valued members of our community, and it looked like the community as whole stood up and said 'Hang on, we're not ok with that.'

The vast majority of people attending Pride naturally do not want to march alongside someone that attacks values that they hold dearly. They do not want to represent values of division and antipathy to the public as they walk through communities.

The vast majority of people attending Pride naturally do not want to march alongside someone that attacks values that they hold dearly.

And here we again have it implied that LGB Alliance is 'attacking'. No, they campaign on behalf of their growing membership to ensure that the interests of LGB people are centred which they identified was not happening the Stonewall, an organisation some had been part of from the start.

If people cannot accept that a group campaigns to support the needs of LGB people separate to the other letters, how are they operating in the real world where they have to sit with people at work or in their family that have differing opinions.

Disagreement is not bullying. But good point, with words no longer meaning what they used to, it is probably hard to find a word to convey your meaning.

it looked like the community as whole stood up and said 'Hang on, we're not ok with that.'

Just like the tone you have used here. No. They did not stand up and say 'Hang on, ....', that would imply that someone took the man aside and had a civil chat or that even if they all stood back and shouted something and left him well alone and untouched. But, no they abused, assaulted and harassed one single gay man to the point he sought police protection.

As I said, with words meaning whatever someone wishes them to, it must be really hard to convey your meaning accurately.

This use of language ultimately gives the actions of the group credibility.

Wearing apparel that supported that, on that particular day, seems a very clear message that people who are trans should not be present during Pride marches

Does it, though? Supporting one cause doesn’t necessarily mean that you oppose people who support another one. It’s a big old leap. There are trans members of LGB Alliance. As helleofabore says, it caters to people who don’t feel that stonewall are representing them. One could as well say that any of the trans charities that are no doubt represented there are saying that gay people shouldn’t be there- and I really don’t think that they are. But by your logic, if LGBT issues can only ever be addressed together, then there shouldn’t be any trans organisations that don’t also campaign on LGB issues, no?

there are some lone voices that attempt to stand against the tide of GC feminism, and they are often ridiculed, misrepresented, hounded, treated with contempt - is that bullying or not?

No, they just fail to answer simple questions like ‘how do you protect the rights of a group that you can’t name or define?’

Perhaps you could answer that question.

it appears as an attempt to exclude deeply valued members of our community, and it looked like the community as whole stood up and said 'Hang on, we're not ok with that.'

The ex naval officer who lives in my street is a deeply valued member of my village community. That does not mean we have anything in common or need the same rights. You are confusing the rights that people need because they have a specific characteristic and value.

To be clear.

Downplaying what is a genuine physical and verbal attack of a single gay man for wearing a shirt that a group did not like as being that the community as whole stood up and said 'Hang on, we're not ok with that.' and then stating the attack is when someone has different values to you and therefore you should not be expected to act like a mature adult and accept that others have different needs to you , even in the SAME community shows how far language has been destabilised to the point of hyperbole being the norm.

Maybe those who organise Pride should be very clear then that they will ONLY allow participation from the right kind of LGBT+ people. And that anyone who does not agree wholly with every part of whatever their objectives are should consider themselves forever excluded.

Plus, they need to disclose this fact to all the corporate sponsors and all those who mention the organisation as one to celebrate in their diversity documentation and courses.

I wonder how that would play out...

At least it would be honest.

I thought he was waving an argentina flag

@suggestionsplease1

Everyone has every right to shout out about values they hold dear, and I would say as much for the Edinburgh protest as well. It seems hard to get comprehensive video footage of all that occurred in either case. But as far as I'm concerned the women had every right to shout to the tops of their lungs about what is important to them, and yes, to do that in front of counter protesters. As long as the speech does not conflict with any laws then that is just what freedom of speech is.

These boards operate in pretty much the same way on Mumsnet, there are some lone voices that attempt to stand against the tide of GC feminism, and they are often ridiculed, misrepresented, hounded, treated with contempt - is that bullying or not? The effort is designed to undermine or to make those voices go away, and it often has that effect. Just like the LGB Alliance person walked away. I don't know that people on these boards can complain when others operate in the same way that they do themselves.

Obviously no one has the right to take property from someone, or to lay hands on someone and that is to my mind where a line is crossed.

Pride is about inclusion, solidarity, support for each other, including trans people, and the LGB Alliance is in opposition to those themes - it was established to oppose the inclusion of trans rights within LGB issues. It wants to put clear distance between identity matters and sexuality matters.

Wearing apparel that supported that, on that particular day, seems a very clear message that people who are trans should not be present during Pride marches; it appears as an attempt to exclude deeply valued members of our community, and it looked like the community as whole stood up and said 'Hang on, we're not ok with that.'

The vast majority of people attending Pride naturally do not want to march alongside someone that attacks values that they hold dearly. They do not want to represent values of division and antipathy to the public as they walk through communities.

@suggestionsplease1 LGB marchers in a pride parade are not more excluding of transgender than 'Dykes on Bikes' excludes gay men. Or the Bear marchers exclude non-hairy gay men. They are marching for their subdivision, their particular branch of cause.

@Helleofabore

And there were women wearing purple and waving purple things around, Sophocles. So, you are right.

By some poster's logic those trans rights counter-protesters would have been absolutely righteous in abusing and assaulting any of those women who were deliberately provoking them.

New excuses just dropped.

A prolific twitter trans activist has accused a mixed-race woman of having a scary skin colour (trans activist thought it was fake tan and devoted tweets to making fun of it. The public figure and white transwoman Jane Fae joined in on the mockery of a mixed-race woman's skin), appropriating twerking, and oppressing the counter-protestors by twerking at them.

twitter.com/NehandaMusic/status/1433558838003712007?s=19

For some strange, unknown reason, the trans activist has chosen to delete these posts while claiming she really definitely isn't racist. But we all took screenshots.

The trans rights movement in the UK is so white that they don't even know what mixed-race people look like.

So there you have it. The women's rights protestors may have committed literal violence despite not touching the counter protestors, because they had a mixed-race woman with them, being non-white in front of the delicate trans activists.

Right side of history, my arse!

That’s shocking purgatory. As well as incoherent. Standing for women’s rights is wrong, therefore everything that women do while doing it is wrong, and all women doing it have ulterior motives and are wrong ‘uns. And if you’re inadvertently racist while you’re scolding women, well, that’s just how it is.

Fucking hell.

The more I read on forwarding the trans cause - from the extracts of RMW's book to this nonsense - the more it seems everything is in some way based on policing people's appearances.
It's grim.

That is very shocking purgatory!

@suggestionsplease1

Everyone has every right to shout out about values they hold dear, and I would say as much for the Edinburgh protest as well. It seems hard to get comprehensive video footage of all that occurred in either case. But as far as I'm concerned the women had every right to shout to the tops of their lungs about what is important to them, and yes, to do that in front of counter protesters. As long as the speech does not conflict with any laws then that is just what freedom of speech is.

These boards operate in pretty much the same way on Mumsnet, there are some lone voices that attempt to stand against the tide of GC feminism, and they are often ridiculed, misrepresented, hounded, treated with contempt - is that bullying or not? The effort is designed to undermine or to make those voices go away, and it often has that effect. Just like the LGB Alliance person walked away. I don't know that people on these boards can complain when others operate in the same way that they do themselves.

Obviously no one has the right to take property from someone, or to lay hands on someone and that is to my mind where a line is crossed.

Pride is about inclusion, solidarity, support for each other, including trans people, and the LGB Alliance is in opposition to those themes - it was established to oppose the inclusion of trans rights within LGB issues. It wants to put clear distance between identity matters and sexuality matters.

Wearing apparel that supported that, on that particular day, seems a very clear message that people who are trans should not be present during Pride marches; it appears as an attempt to exclude deeply valued members of our community, and it looked like the community as whole stood up and said 'Hang on, we're not ok with that.'

The vast majority of people attending Pride naturally do not want to march alongside someone that attacks values that they hold dearly. They do not want to represent values of division and antipathy to the public as they walk through communities.

Its as if you didnt bother reading the whole threa....oh.

Well then let's clear some things up.

Why thank you so much for your permission of women to shout loudly. Not sure we asked you mind.

These boards ask hard questions that seemingly never get a clear, defined answer. Its usually garbled undefined words in some incoherent writings. Let's see if you can answer any

What rights do trans people not have?
The staniland question?
Do you believe that the wispa incident was a TW or was that person faking being trans?
And finally is it homophobic to demand lesbians have to sleep with girl dick ?

The LGBa wants sexuality matters to actually matter, not gender.

You appear to be saying what he wore is the reason he was attacked, now where have I heard that before? Do you even make the connection about clothes wearing and being attacked? Can you see the issue here?

These boards ask hard questions that seemingly never get a clear, defined answer.

Certainly the tone is no more aggressive than discussions on private schools or breast feeding.

Or Covid or Brexit.