Why is there 'no LGB without the T'?

[Righthandcider]

Something’s been going around my head in circles.

I’ve seen the mantra ‘No LGB without the T’ repeated in several places.

But exactly why have so many LGB organisations aligned themselves with trans hook, line and sinker? I mean one might argue that well-meaning LGB groups have been sucked in by TRAs who are blatantly piggy backing, borrowing the legacy of the gay liberation movement to shut down any debate by making it seem backwards and ‘phobic’ to question them in any way. But LGB groups themselves obviously don’t see the relationship this way. Most of them don’t seem to think they’re being used.

So what is it that they think they have in common with trans activists? Isn’t there a bloody huge elephant in the room? LGB rights are about ensuring nobody is treated differently because of their sexuality. That's literally what unites lesbian, gay and bi people.

I thought the party line for trans rights is that being trans is separate from and independent of a person’s sexuality. It’s simply about whether they feel they are male, female, neither or both.

So where’s the overlap? Why are LGB groups giving their energy to fighting for the ‘T’, to the point of saying there’s ‘no LGB without it’, if it’s not about sexuality?

Is it because they actually feel deep down that it IS about sexuality?

That it’s partly about same sex attraction, in that a lot of gay people still feel the pressure of homophobia and would rather be transed out of it?

That it’s partly about autogynaephilia, in that many cross dressers can now hold their heads high as stunning and brave better versions of 'cis' women, while enjoying the fulfilment of their ultimate sexual fantasy?

If it’s not either of those things, then where exactly is the natural connection between LBG and T? The only explanation I’ve seen anywhere is that ‘they are another marginalised group’. But there are many other marginalised groups, so why join with this one in particular?

I’m interested to hear people’s views.

I've been pondering this as yesterday my eminently sensible and educated boss posted a "No LGB without the T" thing on linkedin yesterday and I just can't fathom why a gay, married man in his 40s feels so passionate about linking his sexuality to people whose passion is celebrating how they are visually considered by others?

It makes literally no sense to me.

It feels like saying "no neurodivergent people without people who experience phantom limb syndrome" or something (I am ND, by the way).

@linewithoutahook did you read the comments under Rodericks tweet? 🤣 The lgb community weren't long putting him straight (pardon the pun!)

I did, yes, most of them seem to be from women commenting on women's rights.

Either way I was referring to the main thread content not that tweet.

Weren't the Stonewall riots started by a gay drag queen/transvestite who remained a prominent figure in gay liberation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_P._Johnson

Isn’t it said that a transwoman threw the first brick at stonewall?
I see trans say that without them, LGB wouldn’t be enjoying the rights they now have

Once gay rights were won there were a lot of organisations that required the next campaign otherwise they were defunct and out of business. Then along comes the Trans gravy train.

It is said.

Historic revisionism is a feature of this movement. Truth isn't necessarily the priority.

No, they weren't.

Marsha P. Johnson wasn't even there when it kicked off.

Storme de Laverie was the lesbian (a woman, not a trans woman, not queer, not non-binary) who led the fight-back against the police. Marsha P Johnson wasn't there. Google Fred Sargent, the last surviving member of the event, for the details. He was there, he knew those involved, he remembers exactly what happened. And stop spreading the anti-women lies, ffs.

When you realise nothing they say is ever true, you can start to come to your senses.

I think unfortunately lesbians suffer more from generalized and even internalized misogyny than other women. Those who voice concerns had them dismissed or were demonised.

I am a gay man, LGB was progressing well and without too much opposition, integrating well. Added T etc has sent LGB support back years. LGB is a sexual orientation issue, whereas T etc is a gender issue. LGB should have never become involved

I know this one! RTD once drunkenly slurred it at an awards ceremony!

It's because when you leave off the T, you can't speak properly. And also, apparently, you "kill". It "kills". It was very illuminating.

Follow the money.
When same-sex marriage was introduced Stonewall had nothing to campaign for. The Arcus Foundation (seriously, look it up) offered them a shedload of money to promote trans.
Jennifer Bilek has written a lot on this.

Zombie thread. But really interesting to read-read

I really hope no one reports this. Let it stand.

” "forced teaming" - go pick up a history book, or a brick, and please try and get it into your head.”

Good to see your fall back solution there Bobbymoore123.

The violence is constant.

There's another thread with links to the Strange Bedfellows podcast which discusses how the T was added to LGB

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5515807-former-president-of-glaad-says-we-should-admit-we-were-wrong

What exactly is retconning?

Oh well. Maybe Bobby reported their own post. Doubt it though.

It is rewriting history to fit a specific narrative whether that history actually happened or not and if it happened, did it happen the way and interacting with other actions etc as it is being framed now.

A simple version is saying that as a little boy someone liked to play with dolls, therefore they were always a girl.

The only accurate description of the event is 'a little boy liked to play with dolls' and there are many reasons for it. But if someone is retconning their history they might ascribe motivations to that doll play that were and are not true, but they are leveraging the event in any case to build support for something they want to be true, despite it maybe not being true.

Retroactive continuation. It's adding a new bit into an established narrative in order to change the direction of the story, even if it can't possibly be true.

For example, saying that a trans person started the Stonewall riots and threw the first brick when those who were there say this simply wasn't the case. But 'retconning' has been used to retroactively place trans people front and foremost.

Or, the last James Bond film had Bond die at the end (sorry for anyone who's not seen it!) but it states at the end that "Bond will return". So there will presumably be some plot twist to enable him to come back from the dead, or the scriptwriters will simply ignore it and carry on as if it never happened.

Nevermind, I see it was a zombie post.