Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

122 replies

SoupDragonsFriend · 16/02/2024 19:13

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/

Don’t Call Me Queer - LGB Alliance UK

https://lgballiance.org.uk/dont-call-me-queer

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 19/02/2024 17:22

Froodwithatowel · 19/02/2024 17:09

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'.

Yes, the unspoken assumption is that 'queer' people are the majority and the minority of inconvenient same-sex attracted people should shut the fuck up.

PlanetJanette · 19/02/2024 17:24

ArabellaScott · 19/02/2024 17:20

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.

No. I'm not.

I am accurately pointing out that it is a nonsense to treat a group that purports to represent a group, but in actual fact represents only a fringe view within that group, as anything other than a fringe group that does not speak more broadly for that group.

It would be nonsense to treat an extremist muslim organisation as being representative of muslims generally (no matter what the group itself might claim about who it represents).

It would be nonsense to treat the Provisional IRA in the 1980s as representing Irish people, or Catholics of NI, generally (despite frequent claims by the IRA that that is who they represented).

SerafinasGoose · 19/02/2024 17:25

PlanetJanette · 19/02/2024 17:06

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.

Either you're very young, or have selective myopia. The old-school transsexual was a different breed entirely from the transgender umbrella. And some of this ilk deeply resent their identities being coopted by a particularly aggressive brand of male rights activitism, and have spoken out vociferously against it.

Many trans people do, indeed, just want to live in peace. The incendiary nature of so much debate and rhetoric surrounding their identities is actively harmful to them and their interests.

The hive mind 'community' you seem to believe exists oddly enough seems curiously deaf to those needs; or indeed to any form of individualism or independent thought or argument. Or to the requests of members of their own community: to the extent that a non-trans woman actually attempts to sue an actual trans woman for transgender 'hate' crime (the laughable irony). Or to those with DSDs who have repeatedly and respecfully requested that their own medical situation not be coopted into other people's identity politicking; or, indeed, to refer to them as 'Intersex'.

Your posts indicate a painful lack of awareness with any of the nuances surrounding these movements. They are pluralist and are not, and never have been, a monolith.

TempestTost · 19/02/2024 17:27

I don't know, I wonder if they will find that focusing on the word queer might be a strategic error. It's probably a minor thing in and of itself, but is likely to be somewhat divisive.

The separating sexuality and gender identity stuff, to my mind, is very arguable, it makes sense to a lot of people, it's not saying that anyone cannot advocate for their own interests. But will potentially alleviate a lot of problems that come from treating the two as if they were the same.

I appreciate that many may see the two as linked, but I am not sure that will be very clear to those less involved. And I think if the gender and sexuality issues are separated out it will tend to lead to a lessening emphasis on the idea of queerness anyway.

TempestTost · 19/02/2024 17:30

Gay men who presented as women were part of the gay rights movement because they were gay men. Everyone knew they were gay men, including themselves.

Straight transvestites were not the same thing and not part of the gay community.

ArabellaScott · 19/02/2024 17:30

I think they (LGBA) have every right to ask that a derogatory slur not be used to apply to them.

As said upthread, people can choose to use slurs for themselves, they can't apply them to others with impunity.

popebishop · 19/02/2024 17:52

Are people essentially arguing that all sexualities matter? I'm not sure I have followed the logic here.

thatsthewayitis · 19/02/2024 18:14

@PlanetJanette :
I am accurately pointing out that it is a nonsense to treat a group that purports to represent a group, but in actual fact represents only a fringe view within that group, as anything other than a fringe group that does not speak more broadly for that group.

Well you are working very hard to sideline the opinions and desires of Lesbians, a tiny minority! Our 'fringe view' is we're a bio-woman only and penis, XY exclusionary zone.

Runningwildish · 19/02/2024 18:16

PlanetJanette · 19/02/2024 17:21

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.

An organisation which represents trans women does not represent women

Datun · 19/02/2024 18:19

I am accurately pointing out that it is a nonsense to treat a group that purports to represent a group, but in actual fact represents only a fringe view within that group, as anything other than a fringe group that does not speak more broadly for that group.

I couldn't agree more. Especially when they share absolutely zero of the characteristics of that group. Like their sex, or their sexual orientation.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/02/2024 18:30

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.

It doesn't speak for any women.

Datun · 19/02/2024 18:35

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/02/2024 18:30

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.

It doesn't speak for any women.

I wonder what a transwoman only organisation could possibly have to say on behalf of women?

Other than fishnet tights reviews.

Froodwithatowel · 19/02/2024 18:35
Rachel Brosnahan Thank You GIF by The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

Homosexual people are a tiny fringe of the LGBT?

😂

And now I've heard it all...

Datun · 19/02/2024 18:38

Froodwithatowel · 19/02/2024 18:35

Homosexual people are a tiny fringe of the LGBT?

😂

And now I've heard it all...

When raging heterosexuals are not only included in the T but in the L, G, and B as well, it's not really surprising, I guess.

BobsyaRuncle · 19/02/2024 18:45

Datun · 19/02/2024 15:08

So is it a collective term for bisexuality and homosexuality?

I'm still no nearer what it actually is.

L, G annd B are all sexual orientations. Where does the Q fit into that?

Sorry this may have been answered earlier and I missed it.

Edited

It can be, yes. Plenty of younger people prefer it because for them it indicates a questioning aspect which is particularly helpful when you're exploring these things without pressure.

Personally, I don't like it, I don't use it as an umbrella, but I've had to accept that a decent amount of my fellow homosexuals use it for reasons that are perfectly reasonable.

As to the objection that some people use it when they're not, I'm not entirely sure what relevance that has for never using it at all in official settings, which is what the LGB Alliance campaign seems to be focused on.

Both lesbian and bisexual are self-determined. There can be lesbians who came out in later life, there can be lesbians who realise they're bisexual, heck, some well known GC campaigners are known for being political lesbians who chose to eschew relationships with men even if they may have felt attraction at one point. I doubt any of you would require a grading system for someone to use the word lesbian, beyond the accepted view here that it cannot be used by a trans woman. You'd just take them at their word if they said they use lesbian to describe their sexual orientation towards women.

So I don't really see why a lesbian, gay or bi person preferring the term queer is the rubicon which cannot be crossed because there might be someone who uses it who isn't in good faith. The UK law regarding orientation says homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual. But LGB is the shortened acronym, not HB. So you're already conceding that folk can use words that have a slightly looser application than that. This is why the arbitrary designation of the Q word as the big problem seems like bad faith outside of GC settings.

EnfysPreseli · 19/02/2024 18:51

The 2021 census figures show that it's the pro-Qs who are the fringe group. They're a loud group based mainly in cities and uni campuses, but they aren't the mainstream by any stretch. I posted upthread that only a tiny fraction of a percentage point of people described themselves as queer. Most non-straights use L, G or B. I suspect some L, G and B people skipped that question because they felt it was nobody's business too.

Just because only some of those feel strongly enough, or bothered enough, or brave enough to complain, it doesn't mean everybody else who is L,G or B is happy with it. Nobody seems to be putting the positive case for using 'queer' in acronyms and policy at all. What are the benefits supposed to be, other than validating a tiny minority's imprecise identity label? Its defenders just seem to be stubbornly determined to stick with it and dismiss the concerns and objections of others. What do its defenders think will be lost by dropping the Q+?

Justwrong68 · 19/02/2024 18:58

@PlanetJanette I'm pretty sure queer has been a gay slur for over a century. We tried to reclaim it in the 90s but I was never comfortable with it.
I don't see why it's considered offensive to want to separate from the TQ+ when most of us were happy to be LGB for years.
The folk who call themselves queer now are referring to queer theory, Foucault and such like. It's an intellectual posturing. Histrionic personality disorder has a lot to answer for.

PlanetJanette · 19/02/2024 19:36

BobsyaRuncle · 19/02/2024 18:45

It can be, yes. Plenty of younger people prefer it because for them it indicates a questioning aspect which is particularly helpful when you're exploring these things without pressure.

Personally, I don't like it, I don't use it as an umbrella, but I've had to accept that a decent amount of my fellow homosexuals use it for reasons that are perfectly reasonable.

As to the objection that some people use it when they're not, I'm not entirely sure what relevance that has for never using it at all in official settings, which is what the LGB Alliance campaign seems to be focused on.

Both lesbian and bisexual are self-determined. There can be lesbians who came out in later life, there can be lesbians who realise they're bisexual, heck, some well known GC campaigners are known for being political lesbians who chose to eschew relationships with men even if they may have felt attraction at one point. I doubt any of you would require a grading system for someone to use the word lesbian, beyond the accepted view here that it cannot be used by a trans woman. You'd just take them at their word if they said they use lesbian to describe their sexual orientation towards women.

So I don't really see why a lesbian, gay or bi person preferring the term queer is the rubicon which cannot be crossed because there might be someone who uses it who isn't in good faith. The UK law regarding orientation says homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual. But LGB is the shortened acronym, not HB. So you're already conceding that folk can use words that have a slightly looser application than that. This is why the arbitrary designation of the Q word as the big problem seems like bad faith outside of GC settings.

There are also other, admittedly less prominent situations where we respect different forms of identity. For example, health services often use terms like 'MSM (men who have sex with men)' rather than just 'gay' or even 'gay and bisexual', because they know that some men who have sex with men don't identify as gay or bi, and it's generally not any of society or public services' business how someone describes themselves - what matters is whether they can access the information and services needed.

ArabellaScott · 19/02/2024 19:40

BobsyaRuncle · 19/02/2024 18:45

It can be, yes. Plenty of younger people prefer it because for them it indicates a questioning aspect which is particularly helpful when you're exploring these things without pressure.

Personally, I don't like it, I don't use it as an umbrella, but I've had to accept that a decent amount of my fellow homosexuals use it for reasons that are perfectly reasonable.

As to the objection that some people use it when they're not, I'm not entirely sure what relevance that has for never using it at all in official settings, which is what the LGB Alliance campaign seems to be focused on.

Both lesbian and bisexual are self-determined. There can be lesbians who came out in later life, there can be lesbians who realise they're bisexual, heck, some well known GC campaigners are known for being political lesbians who chose to eschew relationships with men even if they may have felt attraction at one point. I doubt any of you would require a grading system for someone to use the word lesbian, beyond the accepted view here that it cannot be used by a trans woman. You'd just take them at their word if they said they use lesbian to describe their sexual orientation towards women.

So I don't really see why a lesbian, gay or bi person preferring the term queer is the rubicon which cannot be crossed because there might be someone who uses it who isn't in good faith. The UK law regarding orientation says homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual. But LGB is the shortened acronym, not HB. So you're already conceding that folk can use words that have a slightly looser application than that. This is why the arbitrary designation of the Q word as the big problem seems like bad faith outside of GC settings.

Some people don't want to be referred to as 'queer' and don't agree with queer theory.

ArabellaScott · 19/02/2024 19:41

PlanetJanette · 19/02/2024 19:36

There are also other, admittedly less prominent situations where we respect different forms of identity. For example, health services often use terms like 'MSM (men who have sex with men)' rather than just 'gay' or even 'gay and bisexual', because they know that some men who have sex with men don't identify as gay or bi, and it's generally not any of society or public services' business how someone describes themselves - what matters is whether they can access the information and services needed.

Surely the NHS isn't still using the outdated 'MSM' term. Five minutes ago they were trying to tell us some men have vaginas.

ArabellaScott · 19/02/2024 19:47

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/2021-census-what-do-we-know-about-the-lgbt-population/

'1.5% of respondents identified as gay or lesbian (around 748,000) while 1.3% (628,000) identified as bisexual.
A further 0.3% (165,000) people identified with a different sexual orientation. The most common ‘other’ orientations given in the write-in box were: pansexual (112,000 people), asexual (28,000 people), and queer (15,000 people).'

Hepwo · 19/02/2024 20:08

TempestTost · 19/02/2024 17:30

Gay men who presented as women were part of the gay rights movement because they were gay men. Everyone knew they were gay men, including themselves.

Straight transvestites were not the same thing and not part of the gay community.

This gets to the point.

We have young heterosexual girls now "identified" as gay men.

Hepwo · 19/02/2024 20:17

I am accurately pointing out that it is a nonsense to treat a group that purports to represent a group, but in actual fact represents only a fringe view within that group, as anything other than a fringe group that does not speak more broadly for that group.

Young women identified as gay men epitomise this statement made by @PlanetJanette

These women and girls are a tiny fringe identity group and in my experience are those using queer prolifically in the HE sector. They are attracted to men sexually but their adopted male identity needs validation from gay men.

This is a driver of queer as an identity. It's a fringe that doesn't speak broadly for gay men but is at the core of the alphabet group that use the in group term cisgender to "other" and abuse actual same sex attracted people.

It does usually come back to people and their allies that want to redefine others to suit their transgender positions.

PaperWalkAndTalk · 19/02/2024 20:59

I apologise to @PlanetJanette I now realise that the term queer is used to describe anyone within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual community.

Swipe left for the next trending thread