The LGB Alliance (who I assume you refer to) are not "an organization that focuses on LGB people and puts their needs first though".
I was referring to any organisation that represents the L or the G or the B separately or together and without centring any other letter and certainly focusing on the sexual orientation of their members....
But it seems to me that you are rather obsessed with LGB Alliance. It really does rankle that you cannot control other people who are part of the LGB community and don't do what you want. You really are a great ambassador for Stonewall, I would say that they lucked out when they found you.
They were launched not to promote LGB rights but to oppose trans rights or "gender extremism" as Allison Bailey calls it:
twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1186767223555272719?s=20
Let's have a look at that tweet, shall we?
*This is an historic moment for the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual movement.
LGB Alliance launched in London tonight, and we mean business.
Spread the word, gender extremism is about to meet its match.^
11:12 PM · Oct 22, 2019
Meaning that a group of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people have felt that Stonewall no longer represented them and that they felt the reason for that was the redefining their sexual orientation to be centring 'gender' and not the 'sex' of the people who fit that sexual orientation.
And, you think that this tweet is some kind of 'gotcha'?
They rarely campaign on LGB issues e.g. They didn't even put out a tweet to celebrate lesbians getting free IVF the other day.
They do campaign for LGB issues. They also were founded by lesbians. Females. Who, by nature of being female, also realise that there is that other side of 'getting free IVF' that you don't seem to be able to acknowledge even though it was explained to you pages ago.
You know, that there is another probably more greater concern about fertility equality - that of hyper stimulating the eggs of women and even very young adults to 'harvest' eggs for IVF use, plus the demand to have access to surrogates.
You know, the issues that exploit females and have huge potential to cause females harm. And remember, I also pointed out that the children of donor conception and surrogacy are raising ethical alarms about this too.
But, this is yet another example of an activist who simply cannot acknowledge that there is quite often a harmful side to females to the demands of Stonewall.
And they host people who actively oppose LGB rights because they agree with them on trans rights e.g. Baroness Nicholson who thinks lesbians getting married "degrades women" and thinks two women having kids is "neither normal nor natural". She also wanted gay men who have consensual sex with 20 year-old men to be chucked in jail.
And the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues. You cannot have it both ways hearache.
Plus, again, you don't seem to ever be able to understand how good and robust acts are passed through the Westminster system. If any MP can see a conflict with another group for a bill that is before them and to be voted on, they have to feel certain that protections are in place to protect those people.
In the case of the Baroness, she felt that the protections of women and children were being risked in the wording of that particular bill. And she has been working to protect women and children since the 1980s and has worked with the UN and the EU courts to protect women and children. So, she couldn't support that particular wording of the act.
Let's have another look at the tweet you refer to. The 'degrading one'.
twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1270703409931452416?s=20&t=CSagMWOpQkNQxFn-BjV0OQ
Because I foresaw (with some justification) that it would lead to degrading the status of women and of girls. This as we now see has happened and is continuing, so my sex are as a binary class in difficult now.
So, you have put a little bit of your own twist there, as usual.
She was discussing the protections of women and girls in conjunction with the wording of a particular bill that was being voted on.
And as far as the 'neither normal nor natural', to be clear, two people of the same sex cannot biologically have children. Or are you saying that they can? And are you saying that a family where the children have an active relationship with BOTH biological parents who care for the wellbeing of those children is not better than a family where the children do not know one of their biological parents, even if they are loved and cared for by the people, one of which may be a biological parent, they live with?
Can you please provide proof of this? Because that is not what we are hearing from those children who are now adults of families where they did not and may still not know, one or both of their biological parents.
I look forward to seeing that proof. Otherwise, you have repeated your slurs against Baroness Nicholson from Pink New. It is getting repetitive, but hey, I am sure someone reading along here will have not come across this attempt of yours before.
So, are you really happy with everything previously said and advocated for by actual spokespeople of Stonewall:
Peter Tatchell .... are you really comfortable about his writings on paedophilia? Really? Shall we post them for all the readers to see.
Why are you comfortable with Peter Tatchell being a spokesperson for Stonewall?
Shall I continue? We have plenty of examples collected here on MN.
Or shall I simply repost the quotes from actual transitioned males. You saw them on another thread. I am very happy to do this if it is helpful to make you actually start thinking about just where your constant attempt to discredit people via ad hominem attacks.
And attempts to discredit organisations via totalitarian tactics and misrepresentation.
Now, this. Yet again.
As someone who is "not an expert" on LGBT issues I do not expect you to know this but the above are all examples of homophobia.
Yes, attempting to monster LGB Alliance the way you are probably does speak of homophobia on your part. Posters have been through this with you on thread after thread by now. Lesbians and bisexual people have explained that they want no part in supporting a group that redefines their sexual orientation.
So... good pick up on that. You may well have been very homophobic in your efforts there.
Thank you for explaining.