Backlash

[LastnightIdreamtofsomebagels]

I found out today on the Glinner interview with G Gluck that Section 28 happened as a reaction to PIE.

Which of you think homosexuals are going to have to deal with another huge backlash once the trans thing is exposed for what it is?

I am really hoping that the conversation goes in a more nuanced direction than did section 28. The issue in the 21st century isn’t the “promotion of homosexuality” banned by s.28 (although personally I think it’s weird to “promote” any kind of sexuality 🤷‍♀️ since when did sex need an advert?!)

The issue is the easy collapse of children’s safeguarding. Of course paedophiles want to give presentations about sex in schools and run GirlGuide groups. Course they do, none of that is new. But why aren’t there stronger laws in place about who gets to teach children? Teachers go through strict security checks and exams - great - and then schools allow any self-declared “expert” into the building to lecture on sex. Why? Why can’t children’s education, including sex education, be provided 100% by qualified teachers?

That the taxpayer actually pays for these “experts” to preach their sex-obsessed ideology to children is just adding insult to injury.

The attack on children’s safeguarding by trans activists has nothing to do with the LGB community and I think everyone can see that.

Not LGB people, I don't think.

But yes, there's a risk of backlash against Trans people, which is really sad for those Trans individuals who do genuinely just want to live their life peacefully.

Possibly a backlash against aggressive activism of all sorts too, but worryingly I think that's still in the ascendant.

I suspect having met Graham and bought him a few drinks that he's not entirely neuro-typical — and his tenacity and the tremendous strain he's under (blacklisted, blocked, divorced, regularly sued by TRAs whom we must not name or they'll sue us) sometimes shows. Wouldn't it with anyone?

I cut him a lot of slack, but sometimes I just can't deal with the energy and the constant flitting about from one thing to another.

I mean, there won't be another sec 28..and what am I being 'exposed' for? Existing? Being a woman in the world?

Your attempts to split us from the rest of the community have always been rather silly and shows that you don't know how the LGBTQ community is..or that the trans community is also mostly LGB, whichever way. When I talk to LGB ppl IRL or online, the ones that were around in the 80's / 90's recognise the themes, the tropes, the recycled homophobia. It's not subtle - calling us perverts, groomers, the 'trans lobby', that we're a danger etc

Thankfully this time you're not doing it whilst we're dying from a disease that you blamed on us

Your attempts to split us from the rest of the community have always been rather silly and shows that you don't know how the LGBTQ community is..

How come the T happily splits off whenever it suits?
Lots of T only charities but only one LGB…
New Trans Pride events springing up but threats made against the L over Lesbian Strength Leeds.

Your version of events is very inconsistent.

If it’s ok for the T to have separate stuff then it’s pure hypocrisy to deny the same to the L, the G and the B.

‘Forced Teaming’

uncommongroundmedia.com/forced-teaming-feminism-lgb-and-trans-rights/

I tend to agree with this.

There is certainly room in what became the gay rights movement for some rethinking - and I don't mean the TQ specifically. But some of the widely accepted tropes need to be rethought - stuff like "love is love" or anything innate is ok. It would be good to get rid of ideas like being critical o surrogacy or gameete donation is homophobic - that kind of attitude is one of the things that really enabled gender ideology to get a pass but it has always been a poor kind of argument. And although I think same sex marriage is here to stay it would be good to have a more nuanced understanding about that which doesn't just negate the relevance of biological sex in society.

All of that could ultimately leave gay rights in a stronger position. And also would not leave these dangerous wrong ideas around to be picked up by just anyone to use for their own ends.

Will it go further than that? My own feeling is that there may be an increasing distrust of gay men, in particular. A lot of more conservative people I see, including younger people, are now wondering if maybe it was not the case all along that gay men are more inclined than the rest of the population to engage in damaging sexual activities. And mostly these were people who were surprised to find themselves thinking that way.

I suppose the other area it may come into play, especially I think in the US, is in terms of how it is treated in schools. There may be an increased emphasis on the idea that schools shouldn't push social and moral agendas on kids which parents aren't on board with. Which is interesting in terms of thinking about Section 28. In that case I don't think it's just trans ideology, it's also going to come out of the racial politics that seems to be prevalent there.

You're mistaking Stonewall's catchphrases and campaigns for the ordinary daily lives and beliefs of LGB people, Mangy. I can't think of a single LGB person I know (and I know many for reasons I'm not going into here) who has ever uttered the words 'love is love'. Not even those who are trans allies.

The LGBA doesn't have any catchphrases like that. It doesn't promote surrogacy. Forget Stonewall, forget the cliches, and take your information from the LGBA.

Stonewall is completely irrelevant to most LGB people and it always was. Very few LGB people were actively involved in Stonewall even at its peak success because it wasn't a membership body. It was a lobby group aimed at changing policy at government level. It often showed an astonishing lack of interest in what ordinary LGB people felt — evidenced by its decision to manacle the TQ+ to the LGB without any discussion with the LGB.

There is a backlash coming for the TQ+. Let's just hope the LGB (and the I) are not caught up much.

I really would like to know more about Queer Theory, the history of LGB rights 1960 to now, and, in particular, whether there is any merit in Glinner's new friend Barry's assertion that (if I paraphrase correctly) Section 28 wasn't bad at all - much better than the much bigger anti LGB backlash that might have come their way as a result of all sorts of things happening in the previous 10 years, not least PIE, and it's motives were anti paedophilia and anti-QT, not so much anti LGB.

For clarity it is only the last week or two that I have ever heard someone (other than right wing bigots) having anything positive to say about S28. This Barry guy clearly knows a lot and certainly knows more about LGB history than I do, and he makes a lot of sense. But, of course, that doesn't make him right on everything.

There are absolutely people who believe that stuff, I was at an city-wide art installation about just before covid and it was a theme for several of the artists. Who presumably believe it - are they influenced by lobby groups, probably, some are probably members. But they are still individuals.

And for that matter groups like SW use these arguments because they work for some people. They have been very very successful with them.

Not everyone is good at thinking rationally. There are a fair number of people who seem to believe that if a particular idea or slogan seems to support something they think is good, then the slogan must be good. And for some reason the idea that something being innate means it is good/healthy is very compelling to some people.

I am aware that a great many people who are LGB have never been that involved with groups like SW or Pride. But those organizations have dominated a lot of the discussion and influenced a lot of people. Someone like my supervisor, or other managers at work, who wants to make an inclusive workplace, gets most of her thinking on these issues from another manager who is a lesbian, and vey very involved in all the lobby groups. She really believes all this stuff and is very much the face of LGB+ for everyone else.

It's interesting to think about it in terms of the role of education.

It's great when your kids go to school and the school teaches them the values you believe in.

It's not so good when your kids go to school and get taught about something you don't believe in, and that people who don't believe it are bad.

Gender ideology has made it clearer to many that if we think it is ok for schools to do that, anyone could find themselves on the wrong side of it unless they are sure they will support any social-political agenda schools might ever have.

I guess the question is, to what extent do people want schools to teach values, but just their ideas about them (the "right" ones,) and to what extent do people think it's important to respect the views of parents with different ideas than themselves?

I think it's not going to be a simple calculation either way.

@TransRawr u ok hun?

😃

See @TheClogLady i can be nice 😀😀.

❤️🥰❤️

… middle-aged white gays trying to police people’s bodies too.

See, you talk about GC people being hateful, and yet your post is absolutely dripping with hate. As far as I can see, middle-aged gays don’t give much of a shit about what other adults do with their bodies - whereas there are serious concerns over safeguarding vulnerable adolescents and children. Oh, and we’re not accepting the genderist takeover of our words - you can live your life however you choose, but the words woman, man, lesbian, homosexual already have definitions. If you’re going to create new categories, create some new words: you’re not having ours.

Yours sincerely, a moderately happy lesbian.

You'll find your bullshit and lies don't work on this board. We all know the truth.

@pattihews , thanks for your response to my OP, back there.

Forced teaming has been a very helpful concept in understanding what is so toxic about this situation. The idea that the moderate, balanced and well-adjusted lesbians will pay for the wide-eyed lunacy of the TQ+ is chilling.

I'm glad it was useful. Yes, please discard any idea that the LGB and the QT+ have anything in common. The misogyny and homophobia at the heart of trans ideology mean that we are chained to people who would destroy us. If they go down while the chains are still intact, they may drag us down with them.