Why it’s time for LGB to divorce T and Q - New York Post

[IwantToRetire]

I'm sure for many on FWR there isn't much new in this article, but thought it worth noting for being published in the New York Post. (I'm not familiar with US papers so not aware of its "status".)

Also interesting that it covers quite a lot at what is happening here in the UK, eg court cases, Tavistock and LGB Alliance.

And looks at the cancelling of those who say T&Q are not the same as LG&B.

... the LGBTQ mash-up and community-wide obsession with trans issues is sowing confusion and chaos within politics and popular culture — eroding much of the progress sexual minorities have fought to achieve.

Their nascent efforts have led to a swell in both online and IRL activism that’s pushing back against gender ideology and fueling a movement increasingly known as “LGB Without the T.”

“We feel shackled into this ‘umbrella term’ by organizations that are supposed to serve us but have actually turned against us,” explained Kate Barker, CEO of the London-based LGB Alliance, which was established in late 2019 to “advance the interests of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.” “It has come to a point where many of us find ourselves forced into a relationship we never consented to and feel we cannot leave.”

The conflict, as activists like Barker see it, is not merely about nomenclature.

The rising prominence of transgender and queer issues has resulted in a backlash against “middle-of-road” gay and lesbian political wins such as marriage equality and parental rights.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/18/opinion/why-its-time-for-lgb-to-divorce-tq/amp/

My understanding was that loose parallels are:

New York Times = Guardian (though even more so)
New York Post = Daily Mail

The NYP has run some good articles in the past. This one is good as well.

Good article, and good to see this sunlight getting into the US press. It is sadly right that as the public's patience is exhausted, and the western world learns afresh that tolerance without boundaries is a gift to those who would take advantage, other groups will lose the acceptance they had gained.

Glad to see this

New York Times = Guardian (though even more so)
New York Post = Daily Mail

Thanks for this. I am going to have to have a talk with my "identity" and why I seem to respond to articles in right wing papers!

Keep in mind that this is generally true. But the New York Post comes up with some really good articles at times. This is one of those. I believe it represents most of the people who have no problem with LGB.

I should have added to my above post. The Washington Examiner is to be avoided at all times.

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
That should answer any lingering questions about the veracity of the New York Post.

Yes. It is populist like the Mail. But, surprise, surprise, they are likely to cover stories their readership is interested in and in line with the views of their readers.

The weirder thing is the transformation of papers like the NYT and Guardian from providing information to 'educating'. The NYT also has a curious anti-British bias which makes it an even more challenging read.

So if the New York Post put up an article say, that gravity is a thing, or that water is wet, would you argue that this information must be discarded?

This is all getting a bit desperate now. The facts are there. I don't honestly care who finds the owner of the paper too smelly for their sensibilities, I want the information shared. Widely. Fussing about this sort of thing just enables the ongoing ending of women's rights by keeping the veil drawn over it.

Is this the same as all those people saying "a daily mail link, ugh"

Shall we just read all sorts of papers to find what we need instead of shunning certain publications as being too far right/left, not inline with current year zeitgeist?

I mean - this is also true of the DM - they have some good articles, and even some award winning journalism from time to time.

One differernce I find between populist stuff like the DM or NYP, and the left stuff like the NYT or Guardian, is the former seem to publish "facts" from time to time that are either bat-shit or really deliberately misleading, whereas the latter manipulate views by not mentioning certain things at all.

So is the Times, which is one of the more reliable media outlets in the UK.

Good article thanks OP. I'm reassured by their references to various surveys, particularly the overwhelming support for equal rights/no discrimination at work etc but much more caution with the various trans demands and fetishes. Fits in well with the Igmum patented people-aren't-daft theory.

This.

It's yet more virtue signalling, isn't it? 'I am a good person who is (and lets everyone know about my being) above That Kind of Thing.'

It's pernicious. I've started to become painfully aware that I'm catching myself subconsciously doing the 'I'm a good person who thinks the right things' signals in conversations. And when younger often did the 'look at how aware and abreast of all the new and upto date information' thing at meetings and in conversations. Much of which is what's got us into the mess we're in: people being useful idiots in the name of signalling that they're good/nice/right thinking/ and/or better than you.

I don't care which news outlets pick this stuff up and print it - sunlight of any kind is good. All this transgender stuff was snuck in under the radar, riding on the coattails of the already established LGB rights movement. The whole point of doing that was to avoid questions and scrutiny, to make it appear that it had been there all along, and to silence anyone who questioned it with claims that they were just bigoted right wingers who shouldn't be listened to. It worked brilliantly for years, but now the genie is out of the bottle and I'm delighted to see articles like this appearing in the US press, the home of gender identity politics, the nest where it was spawned. The brainwashing runs deep over there and it will take years to flush it out.

Shall we just read all sorts of papers to find what we need instead of shunning certain publications as being too far right/left,

When reading online I really appreciate being able to read articles from a number of sources.

A while ago on another thread there was talk of supporting papers that are covering GC issues as being of importance. For a while I bought the Sunday Times, but in the end felt my £4 was giving me nothing that advertising supplements. So thought okay will try the Sunday Telegraph a pound cheaper, no stupid glossy supplements.

But was astonished and genuinely shocked, as when I was very young, the Telegraph was always said to be the heavy weight "news" paper ie reliable coverage of the new, and in depth. Not sure what the daily paper is like but the sunday version makes Guardian reporting look balanced. Most "news" articles are opinion pieces and make GB news looks middle of the road.

I'm partly posting because I think I have said on other threads that it is meant to have good news coverage. Well I apologise. It might once have been but no more.

Should I go back to the Observer (different editor to the Guardian) but realise some of my money will go to prop up the unreliable, woman hating Guardian?!

I would say the Observer is better than the Guardian, but at the moment if I wanted to pay for a national paper I'd likely go for the Times. Overall I find it has the most well written articles and reasonable journalistic standards. That's across a variety of topics.

if I wanted to pay for a national paper I'd likely go for the Times

Well it was more I got caught up in the we should try and support papers who are printing articles about women's sex based rights.

And £4 for one paper seems a lot, especially (putting on my environment identity) I dont bother with about 2/3 of it. Glossy magazines about property, fashion. Then supplements on sport and something else. I just read the main paper and one other bit I've forgotten.

Maybe I should look into getting an online sub. First world problems (blush)

Perhaps would could find a more reliable source than the NYP for the dampness of water or gravity.
The NYP is almost as reliable as a random poster on this forum. They might be right, but not a good basis for getting accurate information.