New chair of Stonewall Iain Anderson says he wants “less shouting” in the debate around LGBT rights

[WallaceinAnderland]

“I want to get this conversation off Twitter, I want to stop debating people’s lives”

I bet you do mate. Not going your way at the moment is it.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1586673996967604225

Fake news alert!

lgballiance.org.uk/facts/

If you go to the LGB Alliance website and look at the page entitled Myths you will see that in fact only 20% of their subscribers are straight.

Are they though? Do you have percentages of their membership? How many are L or B or S?

This sort of thinking could kinda fuck up the dogs trust and well...any charity, really 🤔

You are maybe getting confused about the different uses of the word “represent”. Even we’re you right about the statistics (and you are not), you don’t have to share any characteristics of a group that you are representing when the discussion is about lobbying, legal work etc. My lawyer often represents me, but doesn’t need to look like me, think like me, act like me or share my sexuality to do so.

The England football team represents England the nation at the World Cup, but that doesn’t mean that they should have 63% of the squad being obese.

LGB Alliance are not a membership organisation. There are no "members". So on what basis are you making this claim?

I want to stop debating people’s lives

So says a man ... Do you think the men will EVER stop debating WOMEN'S lives?

No.

'In August 2022 we commissioned a survey of our subscribers to help us plan to deliver services and support to LGB people. One of the questions we asked was about sexual orientation. That data showed that 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay men, 12% are bisexual, 20% are heterosexual and 1% preferred not to say.'

lgballiance.org.uk/facts/

THIS.

There's been a relentless attack debate on women's lives / language /identities and rights carried out by countless men and their useful idiot "allies".

And finally women are speaking out and saying NO.

Straight people can be attracted to either sex according to gender theory. So even if there was any truth in your claim, such people could be included by LGBA.

Unless you define "straight" as heterosexual regardless of how feminine or masculine someone feels - but that would make you GC to some extent.

Does that mean heterosexual people shouldn't be supporting stonewall then?

What about non trans people running trans charities?

It means a charity claiming to represent LGB people should have in its membership a majority LGB people.

Before they said 6% of subscribe

6% were lesbians - in their court case

Read the link. It’s all there.

Thanks for that. Okay much better than they said in the court case.

Does that apply equally to all charities or just LGB ones?

All charities. Would you think a woman's charity was valid if most of its members were men?

@antelopevalley if you want a thread about whether the LGBA is a membership organisation or is for straight people or whatever your agenda is, please make another thread.

This thread is about the new Chair of Stonewall saying he wants conversations off Twitter.

@ResisterRex You are not the thread police.
I have already thanked another poster for clarifying the situation.

If they were simply members who supported the aims of the charity then why is it a problem?

If the men were engaged in devising influencing policies against the aims of the charity then thats an issue.

If the men's role was to amplify the voices of women and not to set the agenda in any way shape or form, then yes.

"I want to stop debating people's lives."

Hmm. Isn't that what politics is about? Debating people's lives. Its not just something that happens to be on this topic. This is about how people live together in a society. In a democratic society we have political discourse to constantly talk about our lives and how we interract.

I thought we had passed 'no debate' as a concept some years ago, because it was draconian authoritarian bullshit in a democratic society.

Trying to reframe that idea and resurrect it as a serious position for Stonewall at a moment where Mermaids and Stonewall are under scrutiny for behaviour which puts vulnerable people at risk and discriminates against them, is one hell of a ballsy move.

Its also unsustainable claptrap of the highest order.

More sunlight please. Can we expose the dictatoral gambit that Stonewall made to erase women from society put them at risk and expose LGB people, particularly children, to convertion medicialisation please?

This sort of thinking could kinda fuck up the dogs trust and well...any charity, really

excellent point

Sigh

Anyway yes I’m sure the new Chair of stonewall would like to go back to quiet off the record chats in the bars of the Houses of Parliament or Whitehall or portcullis house where annoying people with opposing views are kept out. Isn’t going to happen though!