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

I became a ‘terf’ when I realised that supposedly pro LGBT orgs were promoting ideas that would harm both LGB & T people in the long term via backlash/over course correction.

I think this is one of the key things. 'why do you hate trans people?' narratives are there to divert from the harms that lack of robust safeguarding and ethics that affects trans people most.

Stonewall puts T above everyone and everything, which is why it’s an identirian org, rather than a policy org.

I'm not sure that's true if you look at their current campaigns. But even if it were, campaigning for policy relating to T issues is still being "a policy org". It would basically be doing the opposite lobbying to Sex Matters.

Anyway look, I'm not a stonewall fan. I just can see the glaring inconsistency and a priori arguments being used to justify why some groups are good and some are bad.

I became a TERF when I was kicked out of a parenting group for saying sex was biological and told to "educate myself". Which I did by reading Reddit "peak trans" threads, Gender Trender and Rebecca Reilly Cooper.

Now I'm apparently a covert TRA shilling for Labour/Stonewall, despite still very much identifying as a TERF very strange times.

By way of nuance, just looking at Bradshaws twitter to see what people were saying about PMQs when I came across this

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1760656505458565587/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1760656505458565587&currentTweetUser=BenPBradshaw

Not the actions of a "misogynistic prick" and also very nice to see both MPs having a constructive conversation when it's not about an inflamed party political issue, but is about women.

It's very sad for those of us who back in the day were involved with Stonewall. More so for Simon Fanshawe, Bev Jackson & Kate Harris who were founder members of Stonewall or the GLF.
Depressing to see the reputation of what was once an ethical organisation destroyed in this way and their complete lack of insight into why..

Maybe she could get on with delivering the amendment to the EA.

It's not her sole decision, is it. She's not the PM.

Not the actions of a "misogynistic prick"

He is one though. It's not the only thing I base my opinion on.

I'm naturally a consensus builder.

You manage to hide it quite well @AdamRyan .

You can only build consensus with people who also want to do that. People who want to insist their wirld view is the only way are never going to be interested. In fact the cognitive dissonance of having to engage with uncomfortable ideas and questions is likely to make them withdraw or become aggressive.

Thats your perception, but cognitive dissonance is not the only reason people become irritated.

I'm not a 'Badenoch fangirl'. I pointed out the bias in the question directed at her in the HOC because I'm disgusted by the behaviour of many politicians over this issue and concerned about the overall quality of political debate.

Fair enough inebriati. You also haven't been making personal attacks on me or calling me bad faith/disingenuous so my "cognitive dissonance" comment wasn't aimed at you.

Politicians gonna politick. That's partly why I linked that other clip of them being constructive in another debate. I think the question was asked in PMQs because they know she was exaggerating and they are political point scoring because that's how politics works. See Sunaks quip to Starmer the week before.

I’m talking specifically about the Stonewall Equality Index and the Stonewall Champions schemes, where Stonewall gave training on EDI policy and then rated the org on how it was implemented, not Stonewall’s surface level PR campaigns, past or current.

It’s the unlawful policy stuff that is where Stonewall shit their own bed (oh, and in their suggestions to government re: Self ID and removing single sex exemptions entirely, which thankfully were rumbled before Penny Mourdant/Theresa May got them into law.

Yes, it must be utterly depressing to hand over the reigns to a new generation only for them to immediately give the horse, the stable and all the well-stored hay to an adjacent glue factory.

I’m reminded of Helen Joyce’s remarks re: how trans ideology doesn’t just change an existing org a little bit, it makes it do a complete 180, so ‘feminist’ orgs start demanding that men be allowed in women’s shelters and ‘gay rights’ orgs start promoting the castration of gay and lesbian teenagers.

@AdamRyan

If I were to do some reading, I expect I'd still be able to see the nuance in Stonewalls position because I'm naturally a consensus builder. So I doubt any view I'd have on it would be acceptable to you or others on this board, because even without reading i can pretty much say that I'm not going down the line of "Stonewall is a brainwashing death cult...."

The trap for reasonable, rational, consensus building people is to assume others are the same. This, after all, is how we got into this mess...no-one ever thought that the reasonable, well meaning acceptance of trans women as "women" socially would be used as a lever to demand all women-only provisions must be made available to trans-identifying males.

"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man.

To be clear, I'm not telling you Stonewall are a "Stonewall is a brainwashing death cult", I'm telling you even if your starting point is to assume SW (or LGBA or anyone else) are reasonable, you still need to check your assumptions because sometimes, just sometimes, they are not. Or their idea of reasonable is very different to yours.

Again, you contradict yourself.
In one post you demonstrate an understanding of Denton's and that the tra had influence over everyone.
Whilst being disingenuous about what captured means. It's not voluntary membership of stonewall champions. It's withdrawal of all gov and parstatal bodies like lotto funding unless you tie the stonewall way beyond the law line.
How you can say stonewall represents lgbt when most of it's own founders are appaled, when Nancy Kelly called lesbians sexual racists, all the court cases finding their guidance illegal. God knows.

Then next post you berate Kemi when Oenny Mordant and others have just as much power in the party! You flit to whatever argument supports the nasty tory narrative. And look for offence.
Red Tooth Brush is personally affected by this issue yet still speaks with fairness and compassion and you even accuse her of being aggressive on here. But she is not.
You perceive it that way but people here are just responding to your posts. No agenda other than men are always men.

Or letters! 🙄

It's withdrawal of all gov and parstatal bodies like lotto funding unless you tie the stonewall way beyond the law line.
The government don't support stonewall. So this is just not true.

I'm not into conspiracy theories. I prefer facts.

Meh. You have no idea about my personal circumstances. I'm a feminist so yes I'm clear sighted about male behaviour. This is a feminist board apparently so it shouldn't be a shock.

It isn't necessarily all that easy to change this kind of legislation.

This seems to be a real failure particularly for people at the moment who think of themselves as progressive. There is this idea that it is pretty simple and straightforward to deal with these kinds of very complicated and technical laws and acts, which have very far reaching consequences not only on society, but within the law itself.

Which is perhaps part of how we have ended up where we are, not only in the UK but across many countries. People pushing through this sort of well-intentioned, but poorly crafted, and sometimes quite radical legislative actions, that change the way so many laws will have to work, and so many systems will work - employment, education, access to health support.

Often it seems that there is very little sense of the long term, deep implications these will have, but anyone who wants to talk about them, or voices a note of caution, is accused of not supporting the vulnerable or minorities or whomever. In very much the way the GRA was treated. There is this weird naive assumption that nice legislation to help the poor people must be a good thing, and fair, and won't create any conflicts because that just wouldn't be nice.

I think that we may have entered a period where a lot of this is going to begin to unravel and in fact we are already seeing some of that in society, and it will be rather ugly.

It's that "luxury belief" isn't it @TempestTost? An irrelevant and often anti social, anti community and anti women belief that's imposed by a privileged class and works to destroy rather than support communities. Usually enforced with a mix of fervent bullying, contempt and exclusion of anyone who protests.
Currently seen running through most political parties who will shortly demand that we give them our vote as they work against our interests.

I do't even think that "T" should be in with the "LGB", because it isn't a sexuality.

But I'm only a woman, biologically determined by my chromosomes and anatomy, so what the fuck would I know?

The legislation was written with the concept that all makes who present as females are good law abiding individuals who have nothing but respect for women and have the same social issues as women.

It was written from a position of huge privilege and naivety.

It hasn't helped that activists have deliberately tried to campaign to exploit this naivety to its fullest and to redefine words to remove some of the protections explicitly detailed in the legislation.

The biggest issue has been the failure to address the point about human rights being a balancing act not a hierarchy.

The legislation is about doing impact assessments involving all vested interest parties

The problem we have seen is women's groups have been deliberately and systematically excluded from this and there has been an effective monopoly on who is said to represent the interests of the LGB community. One organisation dominated and was seen to have legitimacy in this area.

The trouble is, it had an internal conflict of interest from the very beginning because it was supposed to represent the interests of both those to whom sex and sexuality was an essential part of their identity as well as those who rejected the very concept of sex. They totally failed to do so. They'd already had a unilateral internal decision to only represent the latter group with a total disregard to the former.

And here we are, due to the naivety, privilege, lack of foresight and ongoing dereliction of duty of politicians to recognise the principles of balance and multiple interest groups.

The original trans orgs (eg Beaumont Society/ Northern Concord/Full Personality Expression/ Society for the Second Self etc) didn’t want to be associated with homosexuals (because they saw gay men* as undesirable degenerates). It was only after the LGB gained full legal rights that the T glommed on.

it’s annoying that the T have recently beatified Marsha P Johnson because the early T orgs wouldn’t have touched Marsha (an effeminate male prostitute who wore bits and pieces of ladies wear in a look he**described as ‘partial drag’) with a barge pole.

That Marsha was likely unlawfully killed and someone got away with it/the current Queer movement never even mention it infuriates me. They use Marsha as a way to claim the Stonewall Riots as a T event (‘Gays owe their rights to the transgender people at Stonewall!’) but they don’t give a shiny shit about Marsha the person nor what happened to him.

*I don’t imagine they gave much of a thought to lesbians in the 50&60s beyond making their heterosexual wives roleplay as such, but willing to be corrected. I know that by the 70s some were trying desperately to barge their way into the women’s movement generally, and obvs a lot of the key players in that movement were lesbians.

**Marsha is on video saying ‘I’m a BOY!’ in footage taken shortly before his untimely (and mysterious) death, so don’t smite me for using male pronouns, MNHQ!

"Nice legislation to help the poor people" is why women no longer can be sacked for getting pregnant, or paid less than men.

It's why landlords can no longer put "no blacks, no Irish" on adverts for rentals.

It's why employers can't sack people for being diagnosed with cancer.

The problem with the EA is not that it's hard to amend the wording so sex means bio sex. It's the fact that actually Kemi wants to rewrite the whole thing because she, like you, believes it's "nice legislation to help poor people" and isn't interested in being nice or helping poor people if it hinders UK PLC.

I don't support her for precisely that reason. We are all benefitting from the EA and it would be very short sighted to support it's removal.

🦃🎅🌲🌽