Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

[AdamRyan]

Apparently Kemi Badenoch is a bit confused about the difference, claiming wide consultation with LGBT groups but actually only meeting GC feminist groups.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1760281735990738972?s=20

It reminds me a bit of when Maria Miller did the consultation on trans rights and didn't consult any feminists.

I would expect MPs to be consulting both sides, but more than that I'm kind of offended to be described as LGBT for my GC stance . Seems unfair to both gay people and feminists and like the old anti-feminist "you are all hairy lesbians" trope

If they're lesbian or bi, yes. If straight, no. I'm assuming trans people are rather less likely to call themselves GC, but frankly who knows what words mean any more.

Not sure why you'd be 'offended', rather than just baffled.

lol that's not like any FOI request I've ever seen.

And is it now not working out for transactactivists that they've forced the T onto the LGB?

Sad.

Because of too many years of people implying I must be a lesbian if I'm a radical feminist. It really gets my goat. I face none of the challenges lesbians do. And there are plenty of lesbians who don't share my GC feminism. So it's shocking to me that Kemi would lump those groups together.

Are you thinking Ben Bradshaw was lying in Parliament? 😱

Where does it say she's lumping them together? It's not on those two tweets?

You shown two tweets. That tweet is not an FOI request.

Maybe she got confused?

Very good 😂

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1760307343126929467?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Here's his question in parliament today. I don't agree with his characterisation of the two groups, but its weird she gave those two as the answer to the question

The FoI request says 'engaged with', the posted response clearly says both 'annex' (so this is definitely not the whole response, and there's no way to tell whether it's even the whole annex) and 'meetings'. There are many forms of engagement that are not meetings.

OK so you do think BB is lying in parliament. Interesting

He described 'LGBT groups' as 'LGBT groups'.
He described groups that campaign to retain women's existing sex based rights as 'fringe groups that campaign against transgender rights'.

So he's definitely biased.

He is a gay man so I am not surprised he focused on LGBT. I am surprised by Badenoch. Just goes to show she's not the most reliable person. How can you "engage extensively" without actually meeting people?

Depends who you're speaking to. Many TQ+ captured organisations use the phrase LGBT (implying inclusive representation and acceptance of homosexuality) but actually mean 'TQ+ politically compliant people is the only unifying factor' where TQ+ compliant = homosexuality is wrong because it means sex matters over identity. And have largely got rid of non compliant homosexual women who won't 'learn to cope' with straight sex so as not to upset a man's wishes.

So as a homosexual female, I am VERY wary of anyone using the phrase LGBT, it often is something that is working very hard against me and my best interests, and absolutely not representing me at all. You can see this in action today on another thread where several men's rights activists are very busy telling homosexual women who want a female only group that they're alone, weird, normal lesbians never want to be away from men, or have a problem accepting that lesbians have penises.

I'm very glad that Badenoch is aware of this, because it's been successfully fooling people for a long time. This is the root of the rage against the LGBA: a group that use the letters and access the power of that group without being TQ+ politically compliant and controlled.

Kemi Badenoch knows the difference and didn't say anything you claim she said.
She talked to many LGB groups and women groups.

Your disingenuous posts are really tiresome.

How is me posting what an MP has said in parliament "disingenuous"? I can't help it if Kemi has stretched the truth.

I guess if BB is lying there will quickly be LGB groups coming forward to say she's engaged with them

Well hopefully, this will, once and for all, make people understand that the T doesn't belong with the LGB.

The T is in direct conflict with the LGB. It needs to be completely separate.

We need to clarify what these words mean.

A lesbian is not attracted to men, and no man is a lesbian. If one believes a man is a lesbian, the definition can only be for their personal use. It's irrelevant when it comes to policies and government guidance.

I'm sick to death of these people hiding behind LGB. Let's have it.

They really are.

Quite apart from anything else, no one here would be worried about Kemi clarifying what she means.

if people trip up, because of the deliberate mangling of language, there's only one thing to do about that, and that's unmangle it.

It's not a gotcha in any way shape or form.

I don't think in this case anyone is "hiding behind the T"
Neither "sex matters" nor "transgender trend" are groups representing gay or bisexual people. They are groups representing GC women.

Kemi is either exaggerating or lying when she says "extensively engaged with LGBT groups", or she genuinely thinks GC women are part of LGBT. Neither of which are great.

I'm curious. What do you think she meant when she said "extensive engagement with LGBT groups" that's being affected by deliberate mangling of language? I can't see it and would appreciate your insight.

What I find interesting about posters who see the world through a very tribal lens and are constantly on the lookout for even the most tenuous ‘gotcha’ they can attempt to use against those who they see as their opponents, is their total lack of awareness of the effect this behaviour has on those listeners and observers who are not in either tribe.

This seems to be the FOI request.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meetings_with_lgbt_groups

This is the reply.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meetings_with_lgbt_groups/response/2546627/attach/3/2024%2002%2007%20FOI2023%2014434.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

The request was refused and it's now gone to internal review.

Maybe there's another FOI request on the government equalities office website, but I have no idea how to find that.

Mm.

I'm not sealioning. I'm just not a Badenoch fangirl. If you don't want to discuss what's been raised in parliament today, feel free not to.