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.

@potniatheron I didn't say it was right or good or in any way a positive thing. T is inherently a homophobic ideology. T puts huge pressure on L women to accept corrective rape. I just have a scenario that might enable a L woman to escape that pressure, and therefore embrace T as being part of her LGB.

I agree with you. LGB are all sexual orientations. T is a totally different kettle of fish.

The ‘trans umbrella’ was about forced teaming part-time cross dressers/transvestites/drag queens with full time ‘transsexuals’ and gender non-conforming people.

Being gender conforming is often about performative heterosexuality- ie- the extreme sex stereotypes are men ogling, harassing, posturing and getting into fights over women, and women acting helpless, submissive and decorative, hoping to be claimed as a prize by a big strong man.

By lesbians and gay men opting out of those heterosexual stereotypes, they are immediately under the gender non-conforming part of the ‘umbrella’.

On the other hand, lots of gay men and lesbian women want to opt in to those stereotypes, but of the opposite sex ie- lesbian women dressing up and acting like Danny Zuko and gay men dressing up acting like a beauty pageant queen.

Since there isn’t a clear definition of what trans actually is, it’s pretty easy to attach it to anything. In the same way the vague word ‘queering’ can be attached to anything too, even causes like disabilities, etc. Society needs to be ‘queered’ and the ‘oppressive’ notion of normal, which disadvantages those who are different, needs to be ‘smashed’.

It’s the deliberately vague, all-encompassing language is what confuses people into accepting it as their own cause.

Here we go again, messages deleted because they reference the cause of heterosexual men deciding to transition.

Out of interest, has mn ever stated that we are not allowed to discuss fetishistic transvestism or is it just through consistent deletions we can infer the topic is forbidden? Is there any indication of the acceptable way, inferring MN’s policy, to discuss it?

Sort of a mix of it being a sexuality of sorts (to fancy yourself as the opposite sex) and also money as PP have said, for example transitioning is a heavily commercialised thing, not only do you need to invest in clothes and the rest of it to be accepted at the opposite sex, some people ultimately make medicine a LOT of money, particularly in the US which by no coincidence gave birth to the trans movement.

Sucks to be them: transphobic bigots.

See also: trans widows.

Because...

Launching an unpopular ideology on an unsuspecting public has to be done stealthily...
So you look around for an organisation with a good reputation that you can team with to smuggle you in under the radar...
And you find Stonewall, whose job as a lobby group was done and was feeling a bit redundant...
And they're not a membership organisation, they don't need to consult their members before changing their remit, so one day in a pub or hotel bar a deal is done and a strategy decided...
Because they know that women and lesbians won't like this and that they'll kick off when they realise what's going on...
So Stonewall works quietly behind the scenes with all their high-level supporters and sympathisers in Parliament and the House of Lords, in the NHS, in the BBC and in the Guardian and in Pride and similar groups...
And because they know that the moment this issue is openly discussed anyone with any sense will go 'You're having a laugh' they decide that debate cannot be allowed. So they train up Diversity and Inclusion trainers and managers to start quietly adding T to the LGB. And after seeding all the queer and NB and trans corners of the internet where most people don't venture with new phrases and facts to use — sex assigned at birth, TWAW, sex is a spectrum, children denied transition will kill themselves, Be Kind, etc — they choose TWAW, No Debate as their mantra...
And all their carefully nurtured enforcers in the Commons and the Lords and the media parrot TWAW No Debate and tell anyone who wants to discuss it that they're transphobic and need to be sacked...
And because it's Stonewall most people decide, despite their gut feeling that there's something wrong going on here, it must be a good thing because it's Stonewall and surely all these people speaking out (even if many of them are gay and lesbian people) must be transphobes if Stonewall says so...
And when Ruth Hunt, who ran Stonewall during this process, realises it's not working and resigns, she gets a seat in the House of Lords...
And on and on and on...

Yes, that's absolutely why trans issues attach themselves to LGB.

But why do many LGB groups remain so passionately defensive of the T?

I'm not sure many LGB groups feel a great deal of passion for the T, but the biggest online 'lesbian' community (basically anyone who says they are a lesbian can join) is probably the Diva online group set up by Diva magazine — because once you start letting men joining a lesbian group all kinds of marketing opportunities open up, don't they? For every visible group advertising local or national events for LGBT people, or lesbians and bi women and anyone who identifies as a lesbian or bi woman, there will be other underground groups of gay men and lesbian women which require you to be vouched for before you get an invite. There are also an increasing number of 'biological women/ lesbians only' groups starting to advertise publicly again, like the old days, as women decide to take control of the situation.

I'm told that the person who heads the local Pride committee is extremely rude and dismissive about the TQ+ in private after a few drinks and doesn't believe any of it, but they make a living in the Diversity and Equality sector and heading the Pride committee means that they pick up a lot of work. Where there's money to be made integrity goes out of the window. I don't think this kind of hypocrisy is particularly unusual. I know a lesbian someone who works in the Student Union at their university who is all Team TQ+ at work and scathing when it's safe to be so.

Lots of lesbians fell for the line that Trans people are a persecuted minority, just like lesbians used to be. That and all the brainwashing on social media means that lots of younger lesbians, in particular, either believe it or have fallen into line and now can't escape. But in the lesbian group I'm involved with we're finding that lots of lesbians who a few months ago might have gone along passively with TWAW are now really pissed off and are willing to speak out against trans ideology.

Arrive by stealth, stay by bullying, rule by fear.

By the time LGB groups realised what they had aligned themselves with it was too late. Who would have ever predicted that Stonewall would turn their back on LGB.

Arrive by stealth, stay by bullying, rule by fear.

Yes, precisely. So much better put than me. It was like a military coup. LGB people woke up and discovered they had to believe in gender ideology or there would be consequences.

The T has been in there for ages because groups facing discrimination do better banding together. It’s not all cut and dry, not everyone agrees with everyone else (there’s a lot of biphobia in the L/B/T groups for example).

Most Ts want to live in peace, most L, G and Bs support them in that and don’t feel threatened by them. A couple of Ts have been arsey and said stupid shit online that’s been blown out of proportion, a couple of the others have as well, and a number of straight men have taken advantage of the system to claim they are Ts when they aren’t (in prison etc) and loooooads of straight mumsnetters seem to think they speak for the LGBs. What a bloody mess.

Just let people be, FFS. The threat to women’s rights does not, repeat does not come from genuine Ts. It comes from men. It’s more likely to be your husband, your father, your brother that’s a danger to you or other women, by an absolute country mile, but that’s too awkward for anyone to admit.

Agree with this reasoning

This is disingenuous tosh. The game is up. Nicola Sturgeon has made sure of that.

A couple of TRAs have been arsey? Women have been raped and killed. Posts like yours just underline how the whole gender ideology edifice is built on lies and deception. There's nothing there and everyone knows it and are now starting to speaking openly about it. It's over.

Ok, but considering that the numbers of trans women convicted of sexual assault mirror those of men, please do explain just how we can tell which trans women are genuine? And in what way do we challenge those who aren’t, without being called bigots?

Although cult of Brexit ideology doesn't really fit with young people. Generally speaking.

@AssumingDirectControl every single one is horrific and should of course never be dismissed. But frankly the numbers are minuscule compared to the numbers committed by men. It’s a false equivalence. You can talk proportion if you want (and still numbers are conflicting, because it’s become a tactic of atrocious people in the US in particular to get convinced and then pretend to be trans) but the numbers are tiny.

I am, however, all up for practical solutions - which Mumsnetters aren’t. Why is no one lobbying their MP for separate trans prisons? We have the money as a country, we found it to give billions for fake PPE to the tories’ mates. Trans people would benefit as well, they’d likely be safer. Also would deter the aforementioned opportunists. So come on, let’s all band around that rather than tearing chunks out of each other about something that won’t otherwise go away. They aren’t just going to disappear, like some posters on here think, just because the Scottish legislation doesn’t go through.

The prevalence is much higher in men who identify as trans compared with men who don’t, recent stats reveal. So the only reason why there are fewer in total is because the majority of men don’t identify as trans. It does indicate that a trans identity in a man is a heightened risk factor that vulnerable people who could be victimised should be aware of.

The threat to women’s rights does not, repeat does not come from genuine Ts

How do you tell a male 'genuine T' from an abusive man? You cannot.

Allow one male to bypass sensible safeguarding and you have to allow all males to do so.

Oh, and BTW, women are not service humans for distressed, disturbed or disaffected males.

Regarding the above post, here is a thread about the census stats which reveal that men who identify as trans are upward of five times more likely to be convicted sex offenders than men who don’t identify as trans.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4714523-1-in-585-trans-women-are-convicted-sex-offenders

*My above post

I don't hate trans people, and there are some really lovely trans women on my Twitter.

But claiming that we should ignore the issue just because it's a "minority" is not right imo.

Trans women seem to retain the male pattern of criminality. And there are strong suggestions that a greater proportion are sexually deviant and in prison for sexual crimes.

The numbers are only so minuscule because the number of trans women in prisons is currently low. What happens as these numbers increase? We've already seen women raped in hospital and in prison by trans women - are these women just collateral? Because they were supposed to be in a safe space and these assaults were 100% preventable if the single sex exemption had been enforced.

I accept it's a small number at the moment, but it's the precedent, isn't it? Once the right is established, then we're screwed. Women are not a shield. If men are the danger to trans women then deal with the men - don't put women at risk to protect the trans women. That's literally prioritising the safety of trans women over biological women.

I liken it to the general male population. The number who will sexually assault or rape is tiny compared to the number of men overall in this country. The chances are that most men would be safe sharing a public toilet with women. The problem is there's a tiny minority who represent a danger to women and we can't tell who they are. It's exactly the same argument about trans women - setting aside issues such as religion, privacy and women who have been previously traumatised and don't want to share a space with a male-bodied person - the actual physical risk will only be from a small number. But we don't know who they are. Why do women have to step aside to accommodate feelings when doing so increases our risk?

I genuinely don't care how someone wants to live their life. But I'm nonplussed by the idea that women should just suck up the increased risk - and the number of assaults and rapes starting to trickle through suggests there IS a risk. This will only increase.

I am fine with the idea of trans wings/prisons. And we do need practical solutions because this isn't going to go away. And just saying "no, you can't have access to our spaces" won't be sufficient. And I agree with you that the Tories found the money when it was to give to their mates for doing fuck all. It's abhorrent. But actually right now I'd rather the billions was pumped into the NHS rather than build a whole trans prison. Trans prisoners can stay in the high security wings of the male prisons unless they're post op and have no male genitalia. If we weren't in such a crisis with the NHS I'd agree with pumping money to provide separate trans areas.

But it's worth mentioning that lots of the trans community - and by that I mean trans women as it seems to be driven by them rather than trans men - they won't accept being "other". It's complete and total acceptance that they ARE a woman that they want. And that means that trans facilities are not enough. They want into women's single sex spaces. They don't want their own.

Look at the rape crisis centre JKR set up. Her local rape centre is run by a trans woman who said that woman should accept a trans woman counsellor and needed to "reframe their trauma". So the feelings of trans women counsellors were centred over and above the raped victims. Trans women said if you don't like it, go and create your own space. So that's what JKR did. She's co-founded a rape crisis centre for biological women only - if trans women turn up they will be signposted to the place where they can get support.

The should be fine, right? Trans women have their rape crisis centre and biological women now have theirs. Nope. Bloody uproar. Plenty of TW talking about sneaking into the rape centre and tricking them. If that doesn't prove that it's not about their safety and just about taking possession of safe spaces that women have created, I don't know what does.

The whole argument is just about power. And it's about women being expected to step aside to keep male-bodied people happy. As per fucking usual.