LGB Alliance monkeypox tweets deleted

[pezdis]

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

4 out of 5 are lesbian/gay, the fifth did, as far as I am aware, resign sometime ago.

However the challenge to LGBAs charity status is being spearheaded by 2 straight people.

Not a good look.

How are any of the five founders 'straight' or did you mean 'lesbian'?

So, five 50+ lesbian / gay people calling for the temporary closure of ALL commercial sex venues.

Five lesbian and gay people who, if I remember correctly, were active in supporting the gay community through AIDS so perhaps have some experience to fall back on trying to raise the alarm that in this coming month, there may be some measures needed to be taken.

Whether they were right or over-reacting, these are people are actually within their right to have had their tweets stand and to let their supporters make the decision as to whether they supported this particular initiative or not.

Or was your 'straight' deliberate? And then your ignoring the lesbians who were significantly instrumental in bringing LGB Alliance together? Was it just more disinformation?

What reason do you think they have then??

Why do you think they are suggesting temporarily shutting places where this disease is being transmitted?

if you don't think it's to limit the spread of the disease, what do you think it is?

This thread is nothing to do with Stonewall

No. But the exact same thing can be argued about Stonewall supporters as well. 'The hardcore support of Stonewall by Mumsnet is terrible PR for them....'

Can you not see that?

I can of course understand people having different opinions - that is at the heart of a free society.

However, just like there were women who campaigned against the right to vote, there were LGB people who are against marriage equality.

I believe opposition to women voting is sexism and opposition to gay marriage homophobia.

Clearly, the LGB Alliance disagree and that's why they had at their conference Jackie Doyle Price - an MP who voted against equal marriage in England and Wales in 2013 and Northern Ireland in 2019. Clear homophobia. But the LGB Alliance thinks she's great. It's no wonder they have so little support in the LGBT community.

Jackie DP has explained her position

twitter.com/JackieDP/status/1458764937791213573

A number

twitter.com/JackieDP/status/1343906758717280258

Of times

twitter.com/JackieDP/status/1398341411548839941

Hearach15

Again you are missing the nuance that this is country where the parliament makes the laws and they are responsible for making sure those laws are the best they can be to protect the people they are intended to protect.

This exact same thing happened in other countries as well as the UK where some MPs voted down a specific wording of a bill. It does not always mean that the MP is voting against the concept. If they vote for a poorly written act of parliament, it is not going to be able to be changed for a long time. A voted down act can be retabled with stronger language or direction.

Isn't this what we want? MPs who will then keeping fighting to bring the Act until it is democratically passed, and made either more representative of the populations views (as gathered by individual MPs) or made stronger by knowledgable people who make amendments to strengthen it.

This exact same thing happened in other countries as well as the UK where some MPs voted down a specific wording of a bill

Specifically, 'a bill' for giving same sex couples the equal rights of a 'marriage'. The word marriage had issues in other countries too, not just the UK.

50+ hey? Well fancy ageism turning up too? Those wrinkled old hags should just step aside for young sexually attractive!

That's just shallow reductive thinking.

There are all kinds of reasons people might think that voting should be managed a particular way in a society, or that legal marriage should be structured a particular way, that are not based in fear or gatred of women or homosexual people. It's possible to think of them with just a little imagination or even better, some research. You might or might not agree with them but this insistence that they must be rooted in some kind of bigotry is intellectually stultifying.

The shit thinking our education systems are pushing out these days, and the rigid orthodoxy among the people that come out of them, is really disturbing and so fucking boring.

Not a good look.

I am coming back to this. Not a good look is the thing that is said when there is absolutely no argument that will be persuasive.

I have to laugh. Someone is telling MNers about how their support is Not a good look. Hellooooo? Wait4me welcome to FWR, the board that gives no fucks on whether posting here 'looks good'. In act, just stating that is like a challenge of some sort.

I mean.... Not a good look. Yet you then come out with such sexist and ageist trope. It is really quite outstanding the hypocrisy behind those four words on so many levels.

Maybe you need to post on the 'Style and Beauty board', some posters post on both, others not so much. But at least it is a board who gives a fuck about 'how something looks'.

I'm personally against marriage full stop. That doesn't make me marriagephobic. Or homophobic, or straight phobic. It just makes me a human with an opinion on marriage.

Not everything is against a certain set of people that you can shout 'phobic' at. Sometimes the actual concept or institution is the thing that is the issue. Not the people wanting or not wanting to do it. Honestly. What are they teaching people these days.

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.

Wait4me welcome to FWR, the board that gives no fucks on whether posting here 'looks good'. In act, just stating that is like a challenge of some sort.
This thread is about LGBA not FWR. Charities spend a lot of money on PR so as to appeal to their demographic and LGBA has a MASSIVE problem appealing to younger gay men which Mumsnet FWR only adds to.

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

So you would support living in a country where the state interferes with religion?

I'd go away and have a think about what kind of country that might be if I were you.

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.

What proof do you have of this claim?

Jackie Doyle Price voting against marriage equality is a matter of public record.

This sums up how clueless you are about everything the gay community has been through (even the whole world with coronavirus).

They have lived through the entire AIDS epidemic and seen many lives taken, they know how to manage such diseases when mainstream health organisations were unwilling to help.

They are simply calling for these places to close for ONE MONTH. Almost like a lockdown to flatten the curve.

It's not a good look to to try to help people not getting sick and preventing the spread of a virus? Where have you been for the past two years?!?

You are telling everyone that having MN support is 'not a good look' therefore you are making judgements based on your own prejudices about the posters on this board. That is not something that you can deny that you have done, it was done right there in your post.

You continue to be ageist and sexist in your posting. If you are representative of the 'younger gay men', it is pretty clear just how deep your prejudice runs.

I'm not being funny but how many gay men are on here nodding or shaking their heads at what we write?

This is such utter nonsense.

Exactly pronouns

and its not hard core support from mumsnet…loads of people won’t even have heard of them, it only seems to come up on this board which as pronouns said has gay people in it

I’m tired of the ‘mumsnet is this or that’ its not a monolith or hive mind

So.... Jackie Doyle Price is all you have got?

good to know.

Anyone got the bots and socks ready to make Stonewall uncool?

How do we make this work exactly? We are constantly told there are six of us in here and the rest is bots and socks.... So I am here. But am I a bot or sock?

LGBA has a MASSIVE problem appealing to younger gay men which Mumsnet FWR only adds to

id like actual evidence of that please…proper evidence not anacdata which im about to use

the young gay men i know have no interest whatsoever in mumsnet, they wouldn’t even know about it if i wasnt on it

theyve got no interest in stonewall or LGB alliance either

This thread is about LGBA not FWR.

You're not trying to tell us what you think we should talk about on FWR are you?