Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

LGB Alliance monkeypox tweets deleted

427 replies

pezdis · 30/05/2022 21:44

The LGB Alliance tweets from yesterday about gay men and monkeypox have been deleted by twitter for either homophobia or misinformation.

LGB Alliance monkeypox tweets deleted
OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
Hearach15 · 31/05/2022 22:29

MaudeYoung · 31/05/2022 22:18

If you scroll up just one tweet in that thread, Kate Barker's response says that of those who answered that question it was calculated that about 7% responded as lesbian. There is no evidence for those who did not answer the question.

"IO: were all details filled in?
KB: some did and some didn't complete Q"

So, you cannot say that supporters of LGB Alliance only amounts to 7% as lesbians because the number of respondents who failed to answer the question is not known. The same applies to gay men.

So you're offering me no facts, mere speculation as to the sexuality of those who did not reply?

Most like they are overwhelmingly straight like those who did reply.

Datun · 31/05/2022 22:30

Hearach15 · 31/05/2022 22:27

A desperate attempt to stay relevant and curry favour with people who do not like LGBT people and so give them press coverage.

🤣🤣🤣

I honestly thought you might find something. Seriously. Anything. Lol.

AlisonDonut · 31/05/2022 22:36

Yes, no fact can be gathered from people who do not tick a box. Due to the box not being ticked. Well figured out, have a gold star. Star

Hearach15 · 31/05/2022 22:40

AlisonDonut · 31/05/2022 22:36

Yes, no fact can be gathered from people who do not tick a box. Due to the box not being ticked. Well figured out, have a gold star. Star

Yes, they could all be straight. That's far more likely than them be an overwhelmingly lesbian backed group.

MaudeYoung · 31/05/2022 22:41

Hearach15 · 31/05/2022 22:29

So you're offering me no facts, mere speculation as to the sexuality of those who did not reply?

Most like they are overwhelmingly straight like those who did reply.

I am offering you the facts of the response given by Kate Barker.

What you offer is pure speculation: that those who did not reply are likely to be "straight". On what factual evidence do you base this speculation?

AlisonDonut · 31/05/2022 22:50

MaudeYoung · 31/05/2022 22:41

I am offering you the facts of the response given by Kate Barker.

What you offer is pure speculation: that those who did not reply are likely to be "straight". On what factual evidence do you base this speculation?

Straight people can't tick boxes as well as the gay and lesbian community?

nightwakingmoon · 31/05/2022 22:58

Hearach15 · 31/05/2022 13:09

Well this is nonsense. "I don’t support the state interfering with religious sacraments. All Civil marriages should be styled civil unions."

A number of religions (both in 2013 and 2019) want to marry gay people - e.g. Quakers and liberal Jews.

She's either ignorant - in which case she shouldn't be voting on an issue she knows so little about - or a homophobe. Possibly both. Possibly both those things and against religious freedom as well.

Either way the LGB Alliance are happy to have people at their conference who vote against gay rights because (at the very best) they're not actually bothered about LGB rights.

@Hearach15

There was a long-standing opposition to same sex marriage in many gay communities - largely gay male communities but not exclusively so (equally there was a long tradition of lesbian Marxist thought that was against gay marriage). Many of the arguments rested on the premise that marriage, as a tradition fundamentally rooted in religious thought, property rights and the subjugation of women, was a patriarchal and heteronormative structure which same/sex relationships ought to be free from and shouldn’t seek to replicate. In fact, many who argued from this position also argued that marriage should be fundamentally abandoned as institutionally and inherently oppressive, and that gay and lesbian couples should be leading the way in encouraging the abandonment of marriage as a social contract.

Second wave lesbian Marxist feminists in particular rejected the history of women’s legal and economic oppression rooted in marriage; and gay men often rejected the religious roots of marriage as a monogamous contract in favour of polyamorous relationships. Many gay people objected to the fundamentally Christian structure of marriage as a contract/social institution in the West, because of the church’s history of homophobia. You may not be aware (especially if you’re in the US), that England has an established church, and that civil marriage was extremely limited in how it could be performed until the early 2000s (only in a registry office by a registrar, and the civil marriage “ceremony” basically followed a truncated version of the Christian marriage service). It was only very recently, historically, that even straight couples could get actually married in a random event location, write their own vows, etc. etc. In that context what you call “marriage equality” looked very different. A faux Christian marriage that symbolised being absorbed into the dominant centre-right-wing Establishment culture was not what many gay people actually wanted. (NB “marriage equality” is very recent American term, not used here even during the period before the legalisation of same sex civil partnerships in the U.K. - which preceded legalising same sex marriage).

Now, as a young lesbian I did tend to come down on the pro same sex marriage side; but I was reasonably undecided, and actually had a lot of sympathy for those who argued against it — particularly for those who objected on the grounds of adopting a cultural symbol of women’s oppression and legal enslavement. The gay community was pretty evenly split at the time to be honest. But I never ever thought such arguments homophobic. I appreciated where they came from, and why. These are longstanding and fully reasoned objections to same sex marriage; and it’s both historically deeply ignorant and offensive to just call them “homophobic” when you have clearly taken no time at all to learn and educate yourself about why many gay people might have opposed it.

FWIW I was delighted when one of my friends had a civil partnership ceremony the first month it was legalised, but I was not at all keen on having one myself. I’ve never wanted to be married; lots of people actually feel that way, both straight and gay.

nepeta · 31/05/2022 22:59

What does it mean to be a 'subscriber?' Is it people who donated money to the Alliance or people who have signed up for receiving periodic communications from them? Or something else?

Tanith · 31/05/2022 23:02

Aren't they gender fluid, if they don't tick a box to indicate their sexuality? The TRAs should be full of praise.

MaudeYoung · 31/05/2022 23:20

Hearach15 · 31/05/2022 13:09

Well this is nonsense. "I don’t support the state interfering with religious sacraments. All Civil marriages should be styled civil unions."

A number of religions (both in 2013 and 2019) want to marry gay people - e.g. Quakers and liberal Jews.

She's either ignorant - in which case she shouldn't be voting on an issue she knows so little about - or a homophobe. Possibly both. Possibly both those things and against religious freedom as well.

Either way the LGB Alliance are happy to have people at their conference who vote against gay rights because (at the very best) they're not actually bothered about LGB rights.

Referring to your comment about Jackie Doyle-Price: "She's either ignorant - in which case she shouldn't be voting on an issue she knows so little about"

Pursuing your logic here, it would seem that you suggest that gay men should never make pronouncements about the lives of women, given that the lives of gay men do not include any real knowledge of women [ie: the sex class that is female] in any way. That is, that gay men are ignorant about the lives of women.

Lovelyricepudding · 31/05/2022 23:25

Sorry to go off topic again, but in England only the Church of England, Catholic Church, Quakers and (I think) Jews can marry people themselves. All other denominations and faiths marry under civil laws - the minister also needs to be a registrar to carry out a wedding.

Lovelyricepudding · 31/05/2022 23:32

Stonewall actively curry straight 'aĺlies' through their schemes. Do you think this is wrong?

Lovelyricepudding · 31/05/2022 23:35

I also note Hearache keeps referring to the LGB community. What ha's T got to do with LGB? Why should they be included in groups representing LGB?

Lovelyricepudding · 31/05/2022 23:36

*LGBT

nightwakingmoon · 31/05/2022 23:39

Lovelyricepudding · 31/05/2022 23:25

Sorry to go off topic again, but in England only the Church of England, Catholic Church, Quakers and (I think) Jews can marry people themselves. All other denominations and faiths marry under civil laws - the minister also needs to be a registrar to carry out a wedding.

Yes; as I mentioned above, the laws for civil marriage were very strict until the early 2000s. The civil ceremony could only be performed in very limited conditions/locations, and it was basically a teeny truncated and rather bland faux version of the traditional marriage vows, with the registrar serving as a symbolic faux priest. This wasn’t liberalised until the early 2000s for straight couples even - remember the rush for venues to obtain licences? And even today how you can perform it is much more strictly regulated than in North America, say.

Historically in the U.K. civil marriage was seen as subordinate to “proper” religious marriage. Also bear in mind that until the late 90s the C of E didn’t ordain women, and was (still is, but less obviously so) a hugely patriarchal, traditional, heteronormative institution. Many gay people simply didn’t like the symbolic (and literal) Establishment nature of marriage, civil or religious. Civil partnerships were seen by some as more progressive than marriage. Others wanted full same sex marriage in the same terms as straight couples.

I think there’s a temptation to now see it as a non-debate, and be a little puzzled about why these questions were fraught — a bit like women’s ordination or minimum wage or the ban on smoking in public, a sort of 90s blip that we can’t understand why anyone ever made a fuss about it now that it’s in the past. But these were nuanced debates, with a lot of historical weight behind them, and shouldn’t be reduced to just slurs.

nightwakingmoon · 31/05/2022 23:40

(My last paragraph was for @Hearach15 there!)

MangyInseam · 01/06/2022 02:47

The other argument about marriage, which is almost the opposite of the marxist version, was that fundementally it was predicated on the uneven nature of the reproductive roles in an effort to obligate men to provide for mothers and their children when otherwise it would be easy for them not to. Also not an uncommon POV among gay men, at least.

But predicated on an acceptance that differing reproductive roles has an impact that is significant, which no longer seems as intuitive or obvious to many people. And a different approach to the idea that equality means sameness.

Helleofabore · 01/06/2022 09:37

Hearach15 · 31/05/2022 20:20

This is the same Malcolm Clark who today provided incorrect information to the Scottish Parliament?

twitter.com/thekieranaldred/status/1531607839474651137

www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/percentage-lgbtq-adults-us-doubled-decade-gallup-finds-rcna16556

It's almost as if he has no idea what he's talking about....

I find it interesting the projection that hearache continues with.

it’s almost as if has no idea what he’s talking about…’

And yet, you continue to post misinformation about same sex marriage votes, and posted an article about the number of TV characters being LGBT going up.

You seem very determined to ignore that you are posting articles and statistics that don’t show what you are positing.

Yes ‘LGBT+’ numbers are going through the fucking roof! Imagine if all the people in the world who did not feel they were the western stereotyped ‘men’ or ‘women’ declared their identities? Most of the world’s population would be non-binary. So what?

The statistics for those with same sex orientation are now not comparable to previous stats. You are either deliberately continuing to ignore this, or incapable of understanding how statistical analysis works.

With the forced definition change of same sex to include same ‘gender’, of course the figures will increase. Only a fool would suppose otherwise.

If you expand the definition of any active segment to include other active segments with a previously separate population it will increase.

It is false logic to declare that any current statistics for homosexual and bisexual people are directly comparable with previous statistics. How many times does it need to be stated?

You are attempting to monster people you seem to despise with false claims.

Datun · 01/06/2022 10:12

nightwakingmoon · 31/05/2022 22:58

@Hearach15

There was a long-standing opposition to same sex marriage in many gay communities - largely gay male communities but not exclusively so (equally there was a long tradition of lesbian Marxist thought that was against gay marriage). Many of the arguments rested on the premise that marriage, as a tradition fundamentally rooted in religious thought, property rights and the subjugation of women, was a patriarchal and heteronormative structure which same/sex relationships ought to be free from and shouldn’t seek to replicate. In fact, many who argued from this position also argued that marriage should be fundamentally abandoned as institutionally and inherently oppressive, and that gay and lesbian couples should be leading the way in encouraging the abandonment of marriage as a social contract.

Second wave lesbian Marxist feminists in particular rejected the history of women’s legal and economic oppression rooted in marriage; and gay men often rejected the religious roots of marriage as a monogamous contract in favour of polyamorous relationships. Many gay people objected to the fundamentally Christian structure of marriage as a contract/social institution in the West, because of the church’s history of homophobia. You may not be aware (especially if you’re in the US), that England has an established church, and that civil marriage was extremely limited in how it could be performed until the early 2000s (only in a registry office by a registrar, and the civil marriage “ceremony” basically followed a truncated version of the Christian marriage service). It was only very recently, historically, that even straight couples could get actually married in a random event location, write their own vows, etc. etc. In that context what you call “marriage equality” looked very different. A faux Christian marriage that symbolised being absorbed into the dominant centre-right-wing Establishment culture was not what many gay people actually wanted. (NB “marriage equality” is very recent American term, not used here even during the period before the legalisation of same sex civil partnerships in the U.K. - which preceded legalising same sex marriage).

Now, as a young lesbian I did tend to come down on the pro same sex marriage side; but I was reasonably undecided, and actually had a lot of sympathy for those who argued against it — particularly for those who objected on the grounds of adopting a cultural symbol of women’s oppression and legal enslavement. The gay community was pretty evenly split at the time to be honest. But I never ever thought such arguments homophobic. I appreciated where they came from, and why. These are longstanding and fully reasoned objections to same sex marriage; and it’s both historically deeply ignorant and offensive to just call them “homophobic” when you have clearly taken no time at all to learn and educate yourself about why many gay people might have opposed it.

FWIW I was delighted when one of my friends had a civil partnership ceremony the first month it was legalised, but I was not at all keen on having one myself. I’ve never wanted to be married; lots of people actually feel that way, both straight and gay.

Thanks for all that comprehensive detail. I did know that quite a few people, including many who are gay, and Stonewall, of course, were not necessarily in favour of same-sex marriage.

Lots of people appear to think that it is some sort of gotcha. Without, as you say, understanding any of the reasons behind it.

A lack of interest in, or knowledge of, gay history, whilst berating women as being homophobic, in order to attempt to undermine the LGB alliance, seems quite common.

This isn't the first time we've seen the exact same arguments. Directed towards the exact same organisation

Ironic, in a fairly tragic way, when you consider that the people making them can't even define lesbian, gay, bisexual, homosexual, or indeed, homophobia.

miffine · 01/06/2022 10:49

Ironic, in a fairly tragic way, when you consider that the people making them can't even define lesbian, gay, bisexual, homosexual, or indeed, homophobia.

Luckily we've got a straight man on our side to explain that it's gay men who are homophobic

LGB Alliance monkeypox tweets deleted
Ereshkigalangcleg · 01/06/2022 10:51

Like all the men who think they know what misogyny is?

Datun · 01/06/2022 11:02

miffine · 01/06/2022 10:49

Ironic, in a fairly tragic way, when you consider that the people making them can't even define lesbian, gay, bisexual, homosexual, or indeed, homophobia.

Luckily we've got a straight man on our side to explain that it's gay men who are homophobic

You don't have to be gay to know what homosexuality is, or straight to know what heterosexuality is. You just have to understand words.

ScreamingMeMe · 01/06/2022 11:02

Although this is regarding the US, this is an interesting breakdown of the increase in LGBT+ people.

twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1531264150231470080?t=l_7K5g9fPxUEeAvAJTOMGw&s=19

Helleofabore · 01/06/2022 11:23

Screaming

That is really interesting thanks for posting it. I had seen something like it before, but not that one.

AlisonDonut · 01/06/2022 12:12

Not to be a cynic but if you move from LGB to LGBTQ+++ and the TQ+++ can mean anyone who says words then of course it will increase. Like all the heterosexual people in heterosexual relationships and marriages that call themselves 'queer', I mean of course numbers will go up.