LibDems and the LBGAlliance

[ChristinaXYZ]

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?

The Government's current conversion therapies bill seeks to ban the practise for LGB people.

They define conversion therapy generally as follows (I've linked this numerous times above):

"The most common methods we identified involved a combination of
spiritual methods – for example, prayer ‘healing’ or exorcisms, and pastoral counselling
psychological methods – for example, talking therapies
"The boundaries between religious and psychological approaches are often unclear with many combining the 2 in a way that could be described as pseudo-scientific."

Originally the expectation was the bill would include trans people, the government then said it would only apply only to LGB people.

Other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, have a conversion therapy bill for all LGBT people.

Trans people want to the bill to include them as was originally promised.

Considering that various elements of the 'press' (I use the term loosely) jumped all over trying to smear a respected gender specialist psychiatrist as practising conversion therapy, I think the LGBA and many others' fears of ordinary NHS and private therapists and counsellors being accused and so shying away from offering therapy is very well founded.

sex-matters.org/posts/healthcare/conversion-therapy-or-just-therapy/

I believe that all anyone is campaigning for is for the legislation to be carefully drafted and to consider unintended consequences. Banning 'trans conversion therapy' has the very real prospect of allowing gay conversion therapy.

I spend most of my time outside of work hanging out with the LGBT community and funnily enough no one has ever had a problem with trans inclusion.

No wonder the GC new outlet Lesbian and Gay News folded - to be anti-trans is to be a very small minority in the community

A patient lodged a complaint against him:

“It should never be appropriate for a clinician to actively dissuade a person from transitioning,” a spokesperson for the Royal College of Psychiatrists told i.

“Psychological treatments to suppress or ‘revert’ gender-diverse behaviours… are not grounded in science and therefore unethical and unacceptable forms of treatment.”

Full account: web.archive.org/web/20220522161144/inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/trans-conversion-therapy-patient-speaks-out-psychiatrist-reported-1641330

And the complaint was immediately dismissed. But loads of outlets jumped all over it to say this was conversion therapy. Therapy is by its nature exploratory and therapists ask questions.

It's not, Ah yes , you're this. Right you are. Off you go. That's not therapeutic in any way at all.

So you’re not yourself gay? Yet you presume to lecture the many women on these boards who are?

What about all those gay people who aren’t “hanging out with the community”? Do we not exist, then? Sounds like you’re denying our existence tbh. And our “lived experience”.

Again Hearach - I've read what you've posted - I'm asking you to clarify what you believe it means, but it seems you are unable to.

Am I correct in saying that you are claiming that 'trans people want to ban talking therapies and counselling services'?

If not, please write down specifically what it is you think trans people want to ban, without pointing to or pasting the same piece of text again, which is unclear to me, hence the questions I have asked about that piece of text.

I assume you don't actually know but hey, feel free to surprise me.

You keep posting that they 'define conversion therapy' as: 'the common methods' (used to do it) but that doesn't really make sense. It's like saying you define a chocolate cake by 'mixing ingredients and putting in the oven'.

You keep posting the same cut and paste text.

If you think that the LGB Alliance want people to undergo Electric Shock Treatment or Exorcism to convert them out of being trans then you are completely and utterly off your rocker. You know it is about talking to people before they make lifelong decisions about their body so enough of this nonsense.

I don't think this is true. All the lesbians that I know (you know, normal women, with normal jobs and normal coloured hair, who don't actually hang out in a 'LGBT community', but have proper varied friends from work, childhood, running clubs etc) are all fucking sick of trans inclusion.

I can assure you I am very much a homosexual.

If that is true you clearly do not know many lesbians because the overwhelming majority are trans inclusive.

The Government is banning conversion therapy and trans people want to be included in the bill.

I've copied and pasted what the Government define as conversion therapy a couple of times now, if their definition is too difficult for you to understand I suggest it might be time for your to check out of this discussion.

I'm sorry the rather dry official language I copied directly from the Government's website "doesn't make sense to you". I thought it made perfect sense.

Perhaps you could write and suggest they use simpler terms so that you can understand this complex issue better?

I've copied and pasted what the Government define as conversion therapy a couple of times now,

No you haven't hearach. You've posted what the METHOD of doing the therapy is. Those were the words you pasted. ""The most common methods we identified....."

You have proved unable to explain the definition of the "therapy" itself. What is it? What would it look like? If you thought it made perfect sense, you would be able to explain it. You cannot. You keep copy and pasting and avoiding the question because you don't actually understand it!

Am I correct in saying that you are claiming that 'trans people want to ban talking therapies and counselling services'?

I asked this previously and you somehow ignored the question. I assume this is because you do not know the answer. Because you don't understand what you are talking about.

For someone who a few posts back was complaining about the British Empire, you now seem to have a touching faith in our “Government”. Do you even know anything about the U.K. “Government”?

—Also, lots of us on this board actually are lesbians. You’re talking to us, so now you’ve met a fair number of lesbians who don’t agree with you. How does that factor in?

If that is true you clearly do not know many lesbians because the overwhelming majority are trans inclusive.

Please could you give us your evidence for this? The 'overwhelming majority' of lesbians I know (and I know a fair few) wish nothing but good things for trans people, but would not be described as trans inclusive by TRAs such as yourself.

Now of course that might be just those I know, but I'd love to see what leads you to make such a bold statement.

"The constituency of GC LGB activists is still small," wrote the GC news outlet, Lesbian and Gay News, when it shut down.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/03/28/lesbian-gay-news-shut-down-david-bridle/

"Small" is one word of describing the amount of GCs in the LGB community, I would say it is "miniscule".

I'm quite comfortable that the civil service can gather reliable information on a subject area and present it in a readable report.

I'm also quite comfortable that this is does not conflict with my view that British colonies in the 19th century were wrong to ban interracial marriage.

LaughingPriest,

I've posted multiple times what conversion therapy is. If this conversation is too intellectually challenging for you I'm afraid I cannot help you.

I know this isn't directed to me but I posted something similar so I'll bite.

I spend a lot of my time socialising in the LGBT community and my work also involves a lot of engagement with LGBT in educational settings, so I can't provide evidence as such but it is manifestly clear to me that 'on the ground', in these inhabited spaces the sentiment of lesbians is hugely supportive of trans people.

I think that's because we are part of each other's worlds. Our clubs, bars, pubs, events etc involve us sharing space together, getting to know each other and when you have that connection, familiarity and shared understanding of plights you are more inclined to be supportive of each other and inclusive and to want to facilitate the well-being of each other.

The only lesbians that I'm aware if that aren't supportive and inclusive seem to inhabit online worlds, like this one. Of course it is hard to know for sure how many are actually lesbians and how many are claiming to be and misappropriating causes and claims. This is a genuine fear of the lesbians I know who are keen to dissociate themselves from GC feminism.

I would guess the sentiment exists more readily in online worlds because these people have inoculated themselves from the lived realities and potential for personal understanding of trans people. So it is far easier to get to a place of hostility and desire for exclusion because they have chosen to isolate themselves from those experiences with others and that distance makes it easier to other trans people.

Of course those lesbians (if they are actually all lesbians) can appear to be on a mission to spread this psychology to the more inclusive lesbians by berating them for accepting trans lesbians in their spaces. If they were successful in creating that physical segregation and isolation then the damaging pattern would increase, with more hostility towards trans people and more psychological segregation and isolation. But luckily, on the ground, in the community, there is huge mutual support and respect, and awareness of these attempts and they hold no truck with the vast majority of lesbians (and gay men and bisexual people.)

The dissembling.

Men can never be women.

The end.

Why the hell do political parties ever consider seriously that men can be women? AGPs in charge, perhaps?

It is an actual fact, men can never be women, because they have male biology and are therefore men. They do not have female biology.

Am I allowed to say this, or will I now be banned?

Men are not women, and can never be women, because they are men. Gender identity is immaterial, irrelevant.

Supportive and inclusive is one thing and I'm really sure that few people would wish to see trans women discriminated against etc.
But I don't understand how a lesbian could accept a trans lesbian as a sexual partner unless they were bisexual.
And I struggle with twaw as we have different struggles - trans women have benefitted from male privilege until the point they transition and that cannot be erased, hence the misogyny we see from the trans activists.

This thread has veered off topic so I'll just add that for all the wittering of the libdems do about freedom, liberty equality etc, as a former member of +25 yrs with experience at almost all levels of the party the misogyny always shone through.
Look at Rennard and the way he was protected?

Christ, everyone thinks banning interracial marriage is wrong. The entire point is that you made a basic error in what you claimed about this, and then just kept doubling down on it. Do no gender ideologues have any basic reading comprehension? Are you all just totally thick as mince?

We are more than familiar with genderists (a) linking to articles that not only don’t say what they claim, but often say the reverse; and (b) displaying a unique kind of bullheaded inability to understand argument on a basic level, but also doubling down on basic errors once they’ve made them. It’s not new. But the inability to adjust your argument in the face of getting something wrong is not a mark of intelligence. Being able to change your view when new evidence is presented is what real intellectual inquiry is about (as opposed to believing any random rubbish that agrees with your ideas that you can Google in a few seconds).

Bone-headed clinging to a bad argument and bad evidence does not make the rest of your points look convincing, either.