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.

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;

I think you have made a logical mistake here. Wanting an LGB group separate to trans groups does not mean trans groups should be excluded from pride. Simply that some people want to organise in smaller sections of the larger community.

Pride can and should be made up of many groups, LGB Alliance surely should be included.

The tone here is much more polite than in Fight Club AIBU.

It wants to put clear distance between identity matters and sexuality matters.

And the reason they overlap is….?

It wants to put clear distance between identity matters and sexuality matters

and that is a problem because?

@freddykreugerswife, that's simply not true.

Of course there are multiple subdivisions of marchers celebrating their unique identities within the larger community...they haven't formed in protest of a larger grouping of people, they have formed and they gather and march to highlight their interests, be that dykes on bike, armed forces, gamer communities etc...Theirs is a joyful promotion of the things that are relevant in their lives.

LGB Alliance formed in specific protest to the larger group, to divide and delineate and to say "your interests are not our interests".

None of these other groups have set out with a remit to ideologically segregate the larger community.

What did the LGB Alliance T shirt celebrate? Homosexuality? No. Not at all. EVERYONE was there celebrating homosexuality. That is a given at Pride, and probably the least salient feature amongst marchers. It's purpose was to separate the T from LGB, to exclude, to tell much valued members of our community they are not welcome. And the community stood up said no to that.

EVERYONE was there celebrating homosexuality.

By whose definition of homosexuality?

You keep twisting this to try to make out that LGB Alliance are hateful. No, they continue to represent the interests of those who are same sex and only same sex attracted. Not same gender.

And let us keep repeating, they welcome transpeople who wish to join to focus on those objectives.

It's purpose was to separate the T from LGB, to exclude, to tell much valued members of our community they are not welcome.

Can you please talk through the train of thought that led you to this conclusion? Do you accept that you are imposing your own 'purpose' on to this person, and that this might be incorrect?

Would you appreciate me assuming what your purpose is in your posts or actions in the same way that you have done so to this person?

And do you accept that there are ways of 'a community standing up and saying no' that don't involve harassment and theft, or is this the only option?

EVERYONE was there celebrating homosexuality.

Don't be silly - Pride hasn't been simply celebrating homosexuality for years. A large number at Pride go to celebrate their/other's trans / drag /queer / a /third spirit/ furry / pan/ whatever identities - a lot are NOT celebrating simply being gay. LGBA were. And what on earth is wrong with that. It's not more exclusionary than any of the other sub groups - and simply celebrates/campaigns for that sub groups interests.

Odd isn't it though. Sub groups are fine and to be celebrated. Except when they're a sub group of same sex attracted people. Very peculiar.

Just a very brief Google reveals: Trans Alliance, Trans Scottish Alliance, TELI, Trans Health Alliance. All trans specific interest and lobbying groups. Also Brighton trans Alliance, black trans Alliance.

Loads of them.

There were NO LGB specific interest groups until LGB Alliance was set up.

  In theory Stonewall speaks for the full community ( except it doesnt) and the sub groups speak for subsets of the community.

If LGBA is a hate group, then so are the trans groups. You can't have it both ways.

@merrymouse and @RedDogsBeg whereas conceptually issues of identity and sexuality can be clearly defined, the lived experience is a good bit more convoluted than that amongst the community.

There are people who have started out feeling their gender is what is different but later feel that it is their sexuality, and vice versa. The lived experience is complex for many (but not all of course, I have never questioned my gender identity despite fitting many of the stereotypes associated with the male sex better)

So we risk harming many amongst us when we seek to divide and segregate. It is better to foster an atmosphere of inclusiveness and openness where people are allowed to change minds and not feel that they have to double down on a gender identity for example, which they may later feel is not what was at stake, but rather their sexuality instead. The segregation of interests pushes people into boxes, it becomes harder psychologically to move out of those boxes as the 'us Vs them' mentality is trapping.

I'm old enough to remember the original lesbian and gay pride marches back in the 80s, which were entirely comprised of nervous and earnest lesbians and gay men in t-shirts. We had to travel to the meeting point on the tube with our badges in our pockets and our banners concealed in case we were beaten up.

Over the years they've been hijacked by straight people, adult babies, trans and queer people and every fetishist and narcissist under the sun. So much so that a great many of us dull homosexualists have decided that Pride is not for us. No one asked us if we were okay with what happened, they just stole our event.

Now that declaring yourself to be LGB incites bullying and threats we're clearly going to have to return to the 80s and have plain old fetish-free, glitter free marches for people who are happy to be lesbian and gay and want to stand up for LGB rights.

So we risk harming many amongst us when we seek to divide and segregate. It is better to foster an atmosphere of inclusiveness and openness where people are allowed to change minds and not feel that they have to double down on a gender identity for example, which they may later feel is not what was at stake, but rather their sexuality instead. The segregation of interests pushes people into boxes, it becomes harder psychologically to move out of those boxes as the 'us Vs them' mentality is trapping.

Who do you think you're talking to here? We're the people who've supported and celebrated Keira Bell, a detransitioner who's come out as lesbian. And quite a few of us here are LGB. Please stop telling us what to do and think.

Suggestions are you suggesting that people's sexualities are choices and can change? Is that not the thinking of those who advocate gay conversion therapy?

Well that was a load of unintelligible waffle @suggestionsplease1, what you really saying and trying desperately to hide is that according to you there can be NO organisation that solely represents the interests of and celebrates Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people. How very liberal and progressive, or let's call it what it truly is - homophobia.

Are those organisations listed by CircularReasons anti-LGB? They must be going by the 'logic' in your screed because they act only in the interests of Trans, are all about Trans and therefore exclude LGB.

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're not, and no it isn't. What they are asked to do is substantiate their argument/s, which they rarely do.

The segregation of interests pushes people into boxes, it becomes harder psychologically to move out of those boxes as the 'us Vs them' mentality is trapping.

The only ‘us vs them’ mentality is fostered by those calling the LGB Alliance a hate group for focusing on LGB. Your entire explanation drips of control and manipulation and, infantilises trans people by saying they cannot simply change organisations when and if they want to. It is entirely flawed thinking that a mature adult can not simply change membership as their needs change.

And again it seems that someone has appointed themselves as a spokesperson for all trans people as well as all LGB people.

Who benefits from restricting choice here? Those who restrict choice are not serving the greater good when the ‘one supposedly inclusive organisation’ is the one that prioritises one group over the others but creates emotional barriers to leaving that membership.

And there is that deliberate use of hyperbole again. ’So we risk harming many amongst us when we seek to divide and segregate.’

‘Harmful’? Really? I would mention what type of organisation needs their members to feel that leaving would be detrimental to their very wellbeing to this extent, that no other group can love them like that group. All the while, the group is doing everything it can to remove any competitive group by any means, including labeling as a hate group and vexatious claims. But the very mention of that type of group risks a deletion. But I am sure others see what I mean.

What they are asked to do is substantiate their argument/s, which they rarely do.

How can they when their assertions are based on emotional manipulation and hyperbole?

@Shedbuilder

So we risk harming many amongst us when we seek to divide and segregate. It is better to foster an atmosphere of inclusiveness and openness where people are allowed to change minds and not feel that they have to double down on a gender identity for example, which they may later feel is not what was at stake, but rather their sexuality instead. The segregation of interests pushes people into boxes, it becomes harder psychologically to move out of those boxes as the 'us Vs them' mentality is trapping.

Who do you think you're talking to here? We're the people who've supported and celebrated Keira Bell, a detransitioner who's come out as lesbian. And quite a few of us here are LGB. Please stop telling us what to do and think.

On the subject of that, let's look at who didn't.

extract
As rainbow flags are being unfurled across the world for Pride month, spare a thought for Rebekah Wershbale. A proud “gobby lesbian” Wershbale has been frozen out of her local Pride march in Macclesfield, known as Macc Pride.

Wershbale is partnered with Keira Bell, the detransitioned young woman at the centre of the legal battle around the treatment of gender dysphoric youth. In January 2020, Wershbale attempted to raise the matter of the lack of support for detransitioners with Macc Pride. Firstly, she was ignored, then her social media comments were deleted and ultimately cast-out of community organising.

(Continues)

Her email went unanswered, so she wrote again this time politely offering to meet over a coffee to discuss “some of the issues potentially facing bians.”

In her email she explained:

“This is a topic that is affecting lots of young women… We [Wershbale and her partner Keira Bell] aren’t approaching with hostility, all we ask is for discussion of a possible outcome for lesbians who may feel unsupported in their choices if they choose to detransition… Can we go get a coffee and have a chat please? “

Rather than accepting the invitation, a board meeting was called to discuss how to exclude Wershbale and Bell [bold mine]. Chair Denise Hartley-Dickens responded by stating that as an organisation “committed to inclusivity across the whole LGBT+ community”, Macc Pride reserved the right “not give a forum to those who do not embrace the full diversity of this.”

Wershbale tells me “It’s not the most candid ‘fuck off’ I’ve ever received but it’s pretty high up there.” She is still keen to meet with Macc Pride organisers, and has written again outlining her concerns about the high numbers of lesbian and bisexual youth who undergo ‘transition’ before growing to adulthood and recognising themselves to be same-sex attracted.

lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/06/jo-bartosch-on-the-gobby-lesbian-challenging-macc-pride-over-transmen-who-wish-to-detransition-and-live-as-lesbians-and-she-should-know-shes-keira-bells-partner/

So a lesbian, partnered with a detransitioner, has been kicked out of her Pride, for asking if they could do more to support transmen who might feel they will be rejected if they detransition.

And how did this local Pride react? By confirming that there is less than no support for people like Keira Bell and showing any local transmen that they too can get expelled by the LGBT community if they detransition to live as lesbians.

So @suggestionsplease1, I agree that you're addressing the wrong people here. Talk to that Pride committee.

A bit got snipped.

"Her email went unanswered, so she wrote again this time politely offering to meet over a coffee to discuss “some of the issues potentially facing transmen in the community who wish to detransition and live as lesbians.”

lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/06/jo-bartosch-on-the-gobby-lesbian-challenging-macc-pride-over-transmen-who-wish-to-detransition-and-live-as-lesbians-and-she-should-know-shes-keira-bells-partner/

Another good point there Purgatory. And a very clear example of the illusion of inclusivity that must be perpetuated at all costs. That ‘we represent everyone’s needs’ until it is pointed out repeatedly that actually the organisation doesn’t.

Just like the glee and celebration of the abuse and assault of a lone gay man for simply wearing a LGB Alliance shirt doesn’t serve as a warning for anyone thinking to find representation elsewhere, does it? The more posts that I read about supposedly why Alex ‘deserved’ his abuse and assault, the clearer the emotionally manipulative side of these organisations becomes. Under the illusion of ‘most inclusive’ which in turn gives the illusion of most caring and supporting when actions of the members and leaders seem to be the antithesis of these things.

[quote suggestionsplease1]@freddykreugerswife, that's simply not true.

Of course there are multiple subdivisions of marchers celebrating their unique identities within the larger community...they haven't formed in protest of a larger grouping of people, they have formed and they gather and march to highlight their interests, be that dykes on bike, armed forces, gamer communities etc...Theirs is a joyful promotion of the things that are relevant in their lives.

LGB Alliance formed in specific protest to the larger group, to divide and delineate and to say "your interests are not our interests".

None of these other groups have set out with a remit to ideologically segregate the larger community.

What did the LGB Alliance T shirt celebrate? Homosexuality? No. Not at all. EVERYONE was there celebrating homosexuality. That is a given at Pride, and probably the least salient feature amongst marchers. It's purpose was to separate the T from LGB, to exclude, to tell much valued members of our community they are not welcome. And the community stood up said no to that.[/quote]
Again, re-read my post, @suggestionsplease1 . What you said is simply not true. LGB focusses on SEXUALITY. Not gender. It is no more wanting to 'exclude' transgender than Bears want to 'exclude' clean shaven gay men, or Dykes on Bikes want to 'exclude' gay men, or bi-sexuals.

You are wrong. And looking for an argument where there is none, because you want to exclude LBG people. You are the one who is being exclusionary.

None of these other groups have set out with a remit to ideologically segregate the larger community.

Yes, they very much have by imposing an ideology and insisting that those who disagree must be banished.

All this forced teaming is a bit desperate, really.

It’s also ahistorical as can be. There has always been tension, sometimes conflict between the L, G and B since long before the T was appended- lesbians feeling that there’s too much focus on issues relating to gay men, bisexuals feeling that they’re being treated as second class, the tensions that shedbuilder mentioned above over whether Pride is for “mainstreaming” LGB people by emphasising the everyday activities we all share, or whether the point is to celebrate the differences by focusing more on diverse aspects of sexual expression (leather, kink etc) and a whole host of other differences of opinion.

It’s just bollocks to suggest there is one big happy family with united aims and there always has been. There have always been a multitude of different groups within, who agree to set aside differences to work together on important issues, acknowledging the strength in unity.

I completely agree that we should not be setting people against each other, but the point of this thread is that doing so would mean that it was completely unacceptable for people to bully a gay man off a Pride March for wearing a t shirt from an organisation that he feels affinity to on account of his sexuality!

And as purgatory says above, you can’t demonise de transitioners and then waffle on about how disparate organisations prevent people from changing sides. As you say, it’s not always that clear cut. We have to allow for people to change their minds. But there can be no forgiveness in this current expression of social justice, which is depressing as hell.

There are people who have started out feeling their gender is what is different but later feel that it is their sexuality, and vice versa.

You seem to be describing people who are same sex attracted, but who feel or have felt they might be a heterosexual in the wrong body.

You should be able to understand why for some gay people this seems like conversion therapy. I agree that people who are same sex attracted experience prejudice regardless of how they identify, but it should be easy to understand why ‘I thought I was gay but actually I’m a man’ could be troubling. At the very least it should be possible to acknowledge concerns without accusing people of hatred or phobia.

What you haven’t explained is the overlap with TQ+ which is such a broad category that it is difficult to know who it would exclude.