LGB Alliance: 'Dont Call Me Queer' & Separate LGB and TQ+

[SoupDragonsFriend]

The LGB Alliance has just posted a short film on Youtube, launching their 'Don't Call Me Queer' report and, in parallel, are launching their campaign to separate LGB and TQ+ in law and policymaking. Links and info are here: https://lgballiance.org.uk/dont-call-me-queer/

What minority group?

If you subscribe to 'gender', this means everyone; gender is fluid and our genders are changing all the time, so everyone is bisexual and there is no minority sexual orientation, unless you mean some very niche and usually unsavoury paraphilias.

I never claimed that gay has been used as a pejorative for fifty years. I said that it has been used as a pejorative. Which is very clearly and demonstrably true.

I also never claimed that being queer and being gay are synonymous (I think you meant synonymous as analogous doesn't really work in that sentence). There are obviously queer people who are not gay (e.g. bi people, some trans people etc).

It is why the term queer is more accurately described as an umbrella term that encompasses many people who are gay, bi and lesbian as well as trans and non-binary people. Anyone is entitled to not identify with the term (just in the same way they should be entitled to not identify with the term gay or bi).

But they don't get to dictate how the community as a whole uses language, no more than someone who experienced homophobic bullying by being called gay can demand that LGB Alliance should change its name.

This is true, and your post struck a particular chord with me. Frankly, looking at what's currently being normalized under the 'queer' umbrella, it's a term I'd want to distance myself from as far as possible (I am bisexual, in case that's relevant at all). The normalization of fetish under that label and its quick assimilation into (and domination over) Pride has left a great many LTBT people feeling very uncomfortable. The more so, lest they be thought a 'bigot' if they say so. I teach young students and I listen to what they tell me.

'Queer' is a pejorative. At the time it was first used in a pejorative sense to mean those who were attracted to the same sex - around 1926 - it meant 'weird, strange, odd. Outside of what it means to be "normal"'.

Gay, on the other hand, had positive connotations even in its older meaning of bright and cheerful. Once it was co-opted from the context of 19th-century prostitutes, when it was used as an acronym standing for 'Good As You', its connotations for a much-maligned community clearly resonated.

The meanings couldn't be more diametrically opposed. Words matter.

People can call themselves what they wish. That's not the same thing as trying to impose particular labels on others, especially ones to which they object (cis, as oft-quoted upthread, springs to mind as a noteable example). Feminists might well have reappropriated and reclaimed the word 'bitch' in a supposed celebratory mode, but I'd no more call any woman by that particularly offensive word than I'd refer to a lesbian, gay or bisexual person as 'queer'.

The irony of the people trying to police the words that others are allowed to use about themselves, on a thread about an organisation whose conception was, in no small part, because women were told we couldn't have the word for ourselves.

Strange, I've not seen that at all. What people are acknowledging upthread is that others can refer to themselves precisely as they wish. What they can't do is force others to do likewise.

If some people want to call themselves 'queer' it has no effect on me whatsoever. I just personally wouldn't use it: and this is on the basis that there are some people who see that as a negative association and have expressly stated that they find it offensive. In fact, I wouldn't 'call' them anything - same as I'd engage in linguistic contortionism so as not to use wrong pronouns which might inadvertently offend. There is a vast difference between this and imposing arbitrary labels on another group against their will. Completely false equivalence.

You can call yourself whatever you want, and you can choose the meanings of words that suit your worldview, but that right applies to everyone and you cannot impose your definitions on someone else any more than they can impose their definition on you.

For me the definition of queer has changed over time. It used to be strongly associated with gay men, but in recent times it's straight progressives with brightly coloured hair trying to get some oppression points so they can tell people off for whatever infraction has been manufactured.

No one gay/lesbian/bi person or organisation gets to speak for all gay/lesbian/bi people or organisations. The LGB alliance is proof of this. "Well they don't speak for me!". OK, they don't speak for you but you don't get to speak for them either. Whatever your sexuality you don't speak for everyone of that sexuality and attempting to do so just makes you look like a fool. Leave them alone and they'll leave you alone.

Stonewall in their heyday is probably the closest there ever has been to a unified gay/lesbian/bi organisation that spoke for the majority, but that time is well and truly over. They seem to be outright homophobic now, and have too much sunk-cost fallacy in their new religion to be able to self reflect. That's fine, they get to do that. But they sure as hell need to open their eyes to the exodus of support from the people they once stood up for so outstandingly.

You can have a penis and call yourself a lesbian, but don't be surprised when lesbians without penises run away. Their definition of lesbian and your definition are very different, incompatible even.

It is why the term queer is more accurately described as an umbrella term that encompasses many people who are gay, bi and lesbian as well as trans and non-binary people.

Right, but what does it mean?

To make it simpler, how would a person know if they were queer or not? If the term applies to them or doesn't?

What are the collective characteristics of being queer?

You do know that the term Queer has been used by the LGBT community itself - in its reclaimed form - for well over fifty years?

I agree. LGBA can exist. As can Stonewall. They can leave each other alone and you're right that no one group speaks for all LGBT+ people.

But the problem arises when a fringe group like LGB Alliance is given the same level of influence and credence as the many other organisations representing LGB people and if anyone disagrees with them, they are told they are silencing 'LGB people'.

As long as our discourse can reflect that LGBA are a small fringe group who represent a small minority of lesbian, gay and bi people (plus, it seems quite a few straight people who just like to join in the anti-trans fun) then that's fine.

Yes.

That is, by some members of the LGB community, as was. There has only been an 'LGBT' community for about the past 10-15 years, and 'Q' (and the even more problematic IA+) for an even briefer duration than this.

You will never be able to attach a hive mentality to such a large and diverse community as this: same as feminism(s) are in direct, bitter contestation and The Sisterhood is nothing more than a myth.

the problem arises when a fringe group like LGB Alliance is given the same level of influence and credence as the many other organisations representing LGB people

So you want to rank some LGB people as more influential and credible than other LGB people. How do you work that out?

Nope, sorry. Trans people have always been part of this movement. And particularly among those parts of it that shunned the respectability politics of avoiding terms like queer.

You're never going to get an answer to this, because they'd have to admit it only makes sense as an umbrella term if the common denominator is same-sex attraction. And then boom - the hetero T and Kink types end up throwing hairy fits.

Not people - organisations.

An organisation which represents the views of a tiny minority should be afforded commensurate influence.

We do keep trying to push that homosexual people are a tiny minority compared to the massive number of TQ+ compliant people don't we?

Never any evidence of this anywhere. But it's like the 'doesn't matter if some women are raped and murdered so that TQ+ men can have absolute freedoms, so long as it's only a little number like 100'.

@PlanetJanette
if anyone disagrees with them, they are told they are silencing 'LGB people'But the problem arises when a fringe group like LGB Alliance is given the same level of influence and credence as the many other organisations representing LGB people
As long as our discourse can reflect that LGBA are a small fringe group who represent a small minority of lesbian, gay and bi people (plus, it seems quite a few straight people who just like to join in the anti-trans fun) then that's fine.

if anyone disagrees with them, they are told they are silencing 'LGB people'
I wonder what gave them that idea eh? Certainly not comments like yours where you use words like "fringe" "minority" "credence(negatively)" "straight people" "anti-trans". A complete mystery to me. Never going to be able to work that one out.

The tide is turning. If things continue the way they are heading maybe one day we'll get to use words like "fringe" "minority" "credence" to dismiss your concerns. See how it makes you feel. See if you feel your voice isn't being taken seriously when people instead of addressing your concerns just dismiss whatever you have to say.

There's a crowdfunder up right now doing very well. Seeking to clarify the definition of "Sex" in the Equality Act Perhaps you might want to reflect on why it's doing so well. Perhaps it might be worth wondering why the LGBA even exists in the first place? Why other charities tried to prevent it even existing. Because "no debate" doesn't work any more, it's time to put your big boy pants on now and engage in good faith.

Is that the same for organisations representing TW them, who by all accounts are a tiny minority? That they should have commensurate influence to their tiny size, and organisations representing women much more influence?

Or not?

I'm loving the TQ+ brigade complaining that their language is being policed, without a shred of self reflection.

Yes 😁. I'm just enjoying gender ideologues having to invoke sex based sexual orientations in order to even converse, have an opinion, or formulate a concept, whilst being completely unable to admit it.

If size of the group is now the criteria we can all look forward to seeing no more of this erasing women's language and identity. Putting the word woman back where it belongs in policy and practice everywhere - as befits over 50% of the population.

Planette Janette will be leading the way for proportionate influence 😅

I'm loving the TQ+ brigade complaining that their language is being policed, without a shred of self reflection.
Forcing preferred pronoun use As it is literal violence to mis gender someone.🤪

There you go again. Simplistic LGB v TQ false dichotomy that tells us you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and haven't even bothered to read the posts that have explained it.

No, lesbian, gay and bi people are not a 'tiny minority' of the LGBT+ movement. They are, in fact, the large, large majority of it.

The minority here are the people represented by the LGBA, which is not all LGB people or even close.

Conflating LGBA supporters with LGB people more broadly demonstrates you don't understand what you're talking about.

LOL - so now accurately reflecting that a particular group represents a small minority is 'silencing them'?

You're kind of undermining the whole idea of minority representation, Janette.

Effectively you're saying that straight people (the majority) should be given more power than same-sex attracted people. I think that's a highly questionable position.

Yes, of course. If an organisation is representing only trans women, it would be absurd to treat it as if it speaks for all women or a large majority of women.

The influence it should have as a voice for trans women rather depends on the extent to which it is representative of those it claims to represent.