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

LibDems and the LBGAlliance

232 replies

ChristinaXYZ · 08/07/2022 20:41

twitter.com/mikedixn/status/1545468040711651329

Unbelievable: the LGBAlliance tweet that they're going to be at all the party conferences "we’ll be running a stand and a fringe event at the Lib Dems' annual bash in Brighton in September" and whoops the LibDems CEO tweets there has been an administrative error and there is no stand after all for the LGBA, "This is not correct. To confirm: you do not have a stand or a fringe at Lib Dem Conference. I have checked with the team and there has been an administrative error. Sorry for any confusion or inconvenience." A very half-heart apology there.

The LibDems have obviously been fielding complaints from teenagers again.

Why would anyone who is gay, or any woman, attend the LibDem conference with the intolerant attitudes they have?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 14:19

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 14:14

Your US-based biases mean you simply haven’t got a clue about the U.K. context, @Hearach15 . The US Supreme Court has no relevance here and interracial marriage has never been “banned” in the U.K.

I guess I am biased in favour of all LGBT people no matter where they live....

AlisonDonut · 10/07/2022 14:25

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 14:19

I guess I am biased in favour of all LGBT people no matter where they live....

But when you say L as in Lesbians, you mean males with penises who say they are lesbians right? So straight men?

The reason the LGB Alliance had to form is because of people like you, unable to clearly define terms, with a term contorted to mean the exact opposite.

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 14:33

Are you really this dim? Stop getting everything you know from random internet articles and start learning some actual history. Those were state laws in Australia, where the states were largely self-governing colonies even before federation; and legislative British rule in Australia ended in 1901, you dolt. Australian states were only able to implement laws like that because of this!

Your argument is the equivalent of blaming southern state segregation laws in the US on British rule. It’s ignorant and makes you look a fool.

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 14:40

That post above was to @Hearach15 , who is apparently biased in favour of all LGBT people wherever they live —except of course any of them who happen to disagree with @Hearach15, obvs, because in that case they can’t be real LGBT people.

Roseglen84 · 10/07/2022 14:59

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JJTribute · 10/07/2022 15:07

I doubt he made defamatory remarks, I suspect he just stated the simple truth that they are a transphobic organisation.

twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1535349212753317888

John Nicolson is a raging homophobe.

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 15:14

I’m starting to think that the genderist ploppers on these boards must be GC plants, because they’re invariably so unbelievably thick tbh.

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 15:16

But then, that’s what happens when you base all your opinions on rubbish circulating on social media, I guess. It’s the gen Z equivalent of mad QAnon stuff, all fake news and no knickers because no-one ever engages any kind of working independent brain, just sucks it all in like credulous fools.

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:22

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 14:40

That post above was to @Hearach15 , who is apparently biased in favour of all LGBT people wherever they live —except of course any of them who happen to disagree with @Hearach15, obvs, because in that case they can’t be real LGBT people.

Obviously I am not in favour of the small minority of LGBT people who wish to remove rights from other LGBT people.

Equally, I'm not in favour of women who wish to remove the rights of other women.

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:23

JJTribute · 10/07/2022 15:07

I doubt he made defamatory remarks, I suspect he just stated the simple truth that they are a transphobic organisation.

twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1535349212753317888

John Nicolson is a raging homophobe.

Haha, very funny.

AlisonDonut · 10/07/2022 15:26

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:22

Obviously I am not in favour of the small minority of LGBT people who wish to remove rights from other LGBT people.

Equally, I'm not in favour of women who wish to remove the rights of other women.

Again, when you say women, you mean you are not in favour of the old style vagina women who want to remove the rights of the new type of penisey women, don't you?

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:26

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 14:33

Are you really this dim? Stop getting everything you know from random internet articles and start learning some actual history. Those were state laws in Australia, where the states were largely self-governing colonies even before federation; and legislative British rule in Australia ended in 1901, you dolt. Australian states were only able to implement laws like that because of this!

Your argument is the equivalent of blaming southern state segregation laws in the US on British rule. It’s ignorant and makes you look a fool.

Yes and in the 19th century Australia was part of the British Empire and all states had a Governor appointed by London to represent the British Government and interests.

Do keep up.

By contrast British rule ended with the American Revolution in 1776.

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:28

AlisonDonut · 10/07/2022 15:26

Again, when you say women, you mean you are not in favour of the old style vagina women who want to remove the rights of the new type of penisey women, don't you?

So true!

LibDems and the LBGAlliance
theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 15:29

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:26

Yes and in the 19th century Australia was part of the British Empire and all states had a Governor appointed by London to represent the British Government and interests.

Do keep up.

By contrast British rule ended with the American Revolution in 1776.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re making yourself look increasingly foolish. Oh dear! Did you actually read the article you posted?

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:31

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 15:29

You really don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re making yourself look increasingly foolish. Oh dear! Did you actually read the article you posted?

You're saying Australia wasn't a part of the British Empire and the British Government did not appoint a Governor to each state???

JJTribute · 10/07/2022 15:41

I doubt he made defamatory remarks, I suspect he just stated the simple truth that they are a transphobic organisation.

twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1535349212753317888

John Nicolson is a raging homophobe.

Haha, very funny.

I don't find a man trying to take an LGB supporting organisation's charity status away very funny.

BloodyHellKen · 10/07/2022 15:56

Dancingwithhyenas · 08/07/2022 23:04

This another blow. I’m still really angry that I can never vote Green because they lost the plot.

Yes, me too. Environmental issues have always been very close to my heart and I voted Green for year (after I'd chucked Labour because of their love of identity politics that is).
I voted Tory last time in protest. Made me feel a bit dirty, but I'd do it again.

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 15:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 16:01

@Hearach15 the very article you posted yourself about this, is based on a longer article by the author (I flicked through and read it in its entirety) that acknowledges that Australian state laws against interracial marriage were first introduced in Victoria in the 1860s, and in Queensland, codified in 1897 (as British internal governorship was being withdrawn - but it had been long withdrawn in practice for decades by then), and these laws were the province solely of the Australian state governors and not the British — and also that the ideology behind them varied massively between individual governors.

The article also acknowledges that these varied dramatically between different Australian states and territories, not colonial rule; and that the peak of these state laws regulating interracial marriage were introduced in the 1930s. You don’t even read the links you throw around!

I’m afraid you need to know a lot more about history before you prance about making massive sweeping generalisations about this that and the other somehow being down to the U.K. “because, like, the British Empire”.

Start educating yourself on global history, and then you can stop making yourself look foolish by somehow attempting to justify plopping in a point about the US Supreme Court, with a random statement about Australian history of interracial marriage — which makes no sense at all.

Better to educate yourself on actual history rather than throw around half understood random links that aren’t remotely related to your point.

overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-203/feature-rodney-croome/

“Like his counterparts in Queensland and Western Australia, the Northern Territory Protector controlled every aspect of the lives of Aboriginal people, including who they married. Government control over Indigenous marriage dated from the 1860s, when the Victorian government passed laws allowing the expulsion of Aboriginals from reserves if they married across racial lines, ostensibly to reduce the numbers claiming government assistance. Fears of racial contamination more clearly motivated the passage of the first law assuming direct control over marriages involving Indigenous people in Queensland in 1897.14 As Federation heightened white Australia’s fears for its racial integrity, Western Australia and the Northern Territory followed Queensland’s example. South Australia passed an Aboriginal marriage law for the territory it then governed, but not for itself. Like New South Wales and Victoria, it felt its Aboriginal problem would soon be solved by extinction.15

Beginning as controls on the marriage of black women to white or Asian men, the laws grew steadily in scope until, at their peak in the 1930s, they regulated the marriages of all Aboriginal people of all ancestries to all other people and to each other.

As legislation grew more intrusive, so it also began to be employed – like the marriage controls endured by convicts – to implement official ideologies. These ideologies often diverged dramatically between the Australian states, even though the laws remained remarkably consistent. In Queensland, the Chief Protector generally used his power over Aboriginal marriages to bar the unions of whites with Aboriginals of both full and mixed descent. This was predicated on the belief that Europeans and Aboriginals were at either end of the racial ladder, and their unions inevitably disruptive of the social order and damaging for the resulting children. Concern was not infrequently expressed that mixed race children combined the worst features of their parents’ races, were physically and mentally weaker, and more prone to alcoholism, sexual aberration and communism.16

On the other side of the continent, Western Australia’s Chief Protector, AO Neville, held the more ‘modern’ view that Aboriginals were second only to Europeans in the racial hierarchy. Because whites and blacks were racial kin, the latter could be quickly absorbed by interbreeding with the former, without the risk of throwbacks or degeneration. As the ultimate guarantee of a white Australia, interracial unions were to be encouraged, and same-race marriages between Aboriginals, especially those of mixed descent, forbidden.17”

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 16:10

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 16:01

@Hearach15 the very article you posted yourself about this, is based on a longer article by the author (I flicked through and read it in its entirety) that acknowledges that Australian state laws against interracial marriage were first introduced in Victoria in the 1860s, and in Queensland, codified in 1897 (as British internal governorship was being withdrawn - but it had been long withdrawn in practice for decades by then), and these laws were the province solely of the Australian state governors and not the British — and also that the ideology behind them varied massively between individual governors.

The article also acknowledges that these varied dramatically between different Australian states and territories, not colonial rule; and that the peak of these state laws regulating interracial marriage were introduced in the 1930s. You don’t even read the links you throw around!

I’m afraid you need to know a lot more about history before you prance about making massive sweeping generalisations about this that and the other somehow being down to the U.K. “because, like, the British Empire”.

Start educating yourself on global history, and then you can stop making yourself look foolish by somehow attempting to justify plopping in a point about the US Supreme Court, with a random statement about Australian history of interracial marriage — which makes no sense at all.

Better to educate yourself on actual history rather than throw around half understood random links that aren’t remotely related to your point.

overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-203/feature-rodney-croome/

“Like his counterparts in Queensland and Western Australia, the Northern Territory Protector controlled every aspect of the lives of Aboriginal people, including who they married. Government control over Indigenous marriage dated from the 1860s, when the Victorian government passed laws allowing the expulsion of Aboriginals from reserves if they married across racial lines, ostensibly to reduce the numbers claiming government assistance. Fears of racial contamination more clearly motivated the passage of the first law assuming direct control over marriages involving Indigenous people in Queensland in 1897.14 As Federation heightened white Australia’s fears for its racial integrity, Western Australia and the Northern Territory followed Queensland’s example. South Australia passed an Aboriginal marriage law for the territory it then governed, but not for itself. Like New South Wales and Victoria, it felt its Aboriginal problem would soon be solved by extinction.15

Beginning as controls on the marriage of black women to white or Asian men, the laws grew steadily in scope until, at their peak in the 1930s, they regulated the marriages of all Aboriginal people of all ancestries to all other people and to each other.

As legislation grew more intrusive, so it also began to be employed – like the marriage controls endured by convicts – to implement official ideologies. These ideologies often diverged dramatically between the Australian states, even though the laws remained remarkably consistent. In Queensland, the Chief Protector generally used his power over Aboriginal marriages to bar the unions of whites with Aboriginals of both full and mixed descent. This was predicated on the belief that Europeans and Aboriginals were at either end of the racial ladder, and their unions inevitably disruptive of the social order and damaging for the resulting children. Concern was not infrequently expressed that mixed race children combined the worst features of their parents’ races, were physically and mentally weaker, and more prone to alcoholism, sexual aberration and communism.16

On the other side of the continent, Western Australia’s Chief Protector, AO Neville, held the more ‘modern’ view that Aboriginals were second only to Europeans in the racial hierarchy. Because whites and blacks were racial kin, the latter could be quickly absorbed by interbreeding with the former, without the risk of throwbacks or degeneration. As the ultimate guarantee of a white Australia, interracial unions were to be encouraged, and same-race marriages between Aboriginals, especially those of mixed descent, forbidden.17”

"Australian state laws against interracial marriage were first introduced in Victoria in the 1860s"

Yes, Victoria was a British colony in the 1860s. So the ban on interracial marriage was signed off by a British Governor who had the power of veto.

"I’m afraid you need to know a lot more about history before you prance about making massive sweeping generalisations about this that and the other somehow being down to the U.K. “because, like, the British Empire”."

I can't believe you're trying to tell me the United Kingdom had no responsibility for things that happened in the British Empire....

Roseglen84 · 10/07/2022 16:17

Hearach15
They are not an LGB organisation, they are an anti-trans organisation.

That's like saying the Dog's Trust is an anti-cat organisation.

I would argue that trans charities are anti-reality organisations, since they push a belief system I don't agree with, but I still think they have the right to exist.

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 16:20

Roseglen84 · 10/07/2022 16:17

Hearach15
They are not an LGB organisation, they are an anti-trans organisation.

That's like saying the Dog's Trust is an anti-cat organisation.

I would argue that trans charities are anti-reality organisations, since they push a belief system I don't agree with, but I still think they have the right to exist.

If that is the case why did they come out against the inclusion of trans people in the Government's upcoming conversion bill? Why did they compare being trans to being a vegan cat?

theclangersarecoming · 10/07/2022 16:34

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 16:10

"Australian state laws against interracial marriage were first introduced in Victoria in the 1860s"

Yes, Victoria was a British colony in the 1860s. So the ban on interracial marriage was signed off by a British Governor who had the power of veto.

"I’m afraid you need to know a lot more about history before you prance about making massive sweeping generalisations about this that and the other somehow being down to the U.K. “because, like, the British Empire”."

I can't believe you're trying to tell me the United Kingdom had no responsibility for things that happened in the British Empire....

Then I think you need to radically educate yourself on Australian history, instead of trying to defend a random error you’ve made:

Plopper: But US Supreme Court interracial marriage!
MN: That doesn’t have any relevance to the U.K. context
Plopper: But British Empire! <plops in random misunderstood link about Australian interracial marriage laws from an article that actually says this was a policy of individual Australian state governors and not the British>
MN: that article does not say what you think it does
Plopper: doubles down 🤦‍♀️

TOP TIP: No-one has ever been on the right side of history by making up historical fact.

Time to educate yourself on another bit of fundamental U.K. political history, @Hearach15 — Denis Healey’s First Law. You will find it will help you out.

AlisonDonut · 10/07/2022 16:34

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 16:20

If that is the case why did they come out against the inclusion of trans people in the Government's upcoming conversion bill? Why did they compare being trans to being a vegan cat?

What exactly IS 'trans people' 'conversion' that could have been included in the bill?

Conflictedunicorn · 10/07/2022 17:02

Hearach15 · 10/07/2022 16:20

If that is the case why did they come out against the inclusion of trans people in the Government's upcoming conversion bill? Why did they compare being trans to being a vegan cat?

They actually compared trans toddlers to vegan cats. If you’re going to malign someone at least get your facts right. You’re coming across as very foolish, dim and a homophobic bigot.

Swipe left for the next trending thread