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

And as if by magic.....
I'm singling Kemi out because I think she has dangerous politics and is capable of deploying them.
I feel similarly about Farage. And Anderson. And Bim Afolami. And Donald Trump. And Bejamin Netanyahu.
It's nothing to do with her being female, or black, or from the Conservative party, and everything to do with her being populist and divisive. In my opinion.

No. I have long since learnt when it's pointless to argue the sky is blue when they are saying it's green with purple spots.

You are busy accusing everyone else of an agenda, then throw the far right one here.

It's just not true of FWR. It may have more truth elsewhere on MN but I'd like you to find the millions of posts supporting Braverman in FWR.

It's just more of this unhelpful partisan shite to distract from the actual subject and force team and shame women who might consider voting Tory.

If people want to vote Tory, that's up to them. If they want to vote Labour it's up to them. Or whoever else. I personally have a long track record of posting despair at all parties. I am grateful for any politician who gets to the heart of a subject and understands it regardless of political affiliation because they are few and far between.

What I despise is anyone shaming or villifying others on party lines as it's so unhelpful to everyone and let's politicians off the hook for accountability. Because it's us who has to deal with the consequences of poor lawmaking.

You don't offer anything to the conversation apart from an anti-tory string of gobshite.

There are plenty of reasons to be pro-labour and also supportive of Kemi because it's about holding labour to account internally.

If you don't want to see that, and you don't, that's your problem. I'm not pandering to it, but it's important to make it crystal clear to other readers what your game is.

Sorry, I should have explained.

I am not legally knowledgeable about the headings under which court cases take place, or the exact legal nuances under discussion, but I think it can be described that ‘For Women Scotland’ have been given permission to go to the Court of Appeal over the Haldane judgement & subsequent upholding of that judgement.

The Haldane judgement was that someone with a GRC really has changed their sex. So it is about clarifying the meaning of ‘Sex’ ( as opposed to gender).

This was why Parliament blocked the Scottish Parliament’s decision to go with self ID, and even self ID GRCs from a much younger age. So many more people would have had GRCs that it would have caused problems especially as they would go back and forth from Scotland to the rest of the U.K. I posted a link to Parliamentary Committee transcription where some aspects were discussed when I mentioned Dr Foran.

The really important thing people need to be aware of is that For Women Scotland need some gardening for the Court of Appeal case. The cliquey dinosaurs may be celebrating each vegetable that comes their way.

Oh come on. You know posting links to other threads gets deleted. There were a lot of pro Braverman posts when she wrote that disgraceful article in the Mail on Sunday about grooming gangs - the one the MoS had to apologise for. There was a whole thread and a half of it and if people read it it's pretty clear posters taking positions you'd expect. I include myself in that but I make no bones about my voting intentions, unlike the "I'm politically homeless so might be forced to vote Tory"brigade.

What I despise is anyone shaming or villifying others on party lines as it's so unhelpful to everyone and let's politicians off the hook for accountability.

How come you (and others) enthusiastically claim I'm pro labour, bad faith and disingenuous as soon as I post then? That's doing exactly what you claim to despise

Thank you yes, the
Thelnebriati Yesterday 23:40 already explained and quoted the law. I am glad it is clear that a transwoman can be a rapist.

I believe nevertheless from what I’ve read that a lot of lesbians are harassed and pressured by transwomen for sex with them because they are ‘lesbian’.

In practice too, in spite of the law the police, are inclined to record crime of a rapist as having been committed by a woman. Even the BBC, following the example of Greater Manchester Police recently recorded that a female (who was in fact a male) had aided and encouraged a paedophile in his crimes.
Isla Bryson the male was destined for a women’s prison for two rapes because he was a woman.

I have already written and linked to how an extremely knowledgeable person in the Gay Men’s Network has reason to believe the CPS is confused by sexual crimes committed where someone transgender is concerned.

So yes I do have reason to be worried and to believe that the current descriptions and guidelines in the GRA and the Equality Act need reviewing.

We are talking about an issue.

I'm not telling anyone to stop supporting a party. I'm telling them to focus on the issue and stop being a jack ass about politicians who have a grasp of those issues purely because of their rosette. And stop force teaming everyone into saying 'if x says this one day and then y another, we should stop listening to them completely'.

You can't see beyond the rosette. That's my issue.

It's fucking tiresome.

I believe nevertheless from what I’ve read that a lot of lesbians are harassed and pressured by transwomen for sex with them because they are ‘lesbian’.
In practice too, in spite of the law the police, are inclined to record crime of a rapist as having been committed by a woman.

Yes, you are absolutely right about that, and IMO there is no excuse for it because the Gender Recognition Act makes it crystal clear with the language it uses - people change their legal gender presentation, not their sex; and not for all purposes.
Also in the Equality Act, 'sex' and 'gender reassignment' are different protected characteristics. And lesbians and gay men are defined by their sex and sexual attraction, not their gender presentation or their gender attraction.

And lesbians and gay men are defined by their sex and sexual attraction, not their gender presentation or their gender attraction.

This needs neon lights attached. It's a point that can't be said loudly enough.

If sex ISN'T biological in law, lesbians have no protection in law.

They are probably losing protection because of fewer and fewer people understanding.

Unfortunately, even the OUP App ( see screen shots from those posted here a year ago) has followed the sort of law as understood by lots of people now by saying Homosexuality means attracted to the same sex or gender; and has a description of Gender showing this is by no means necessarily an alternative for sex.

No doubt many school children use the App and think this is true.

The OUP scans thousands of texts to find how language is being used currently, then follows it.

It is a vicious circle.

I find it fascinating that wiki STILL hasn't been edited out of existance of saying the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

When you have that phrase about homophobia still being a thing, regardless of how you identify it means a lot.

If the state fails to recognise the point about 'regardless of how they identify' and understanding that homosexuals are reliant on sex based protections, they leave themselves wide open to being institutionally homophobic.

Official work place policies should NEVER replace the word sex with gender for this reason because they ARE NOT interchangable within law REGARDLESS of how people might use the words in common use. They CAN NOT be prudish about the use of the word sex, because it has legal implications.

How Stonewall of all people have got away with doing so is mind boggling.

Who was asleep at the wheel?

Yes, it is a mercy Wikipedia still says that ‘regardless of how they identify’. If the law even says,, as TheInebriati showed, that transwoman identity cannot remove rape (penis) it is simultaneously showing that trans identity cannot remove biological sex I would have thought.

Yet people really do say, including the Scottish judgements, that GRC legal ‘sex’ can trump sex in many instances. Service providers behave as though even more general Gender Reassigment does too. The EA law is unclear.

Example interpretations of Sex in the Equality Act by influential legal people who think that it is not necessarily biological:
from Sex Matters June 2022:
sex-matters.org/posts/the-legal-system/male-and-female/

Newbegin said that Section 7 (Gender reassignment) “talks about the physiological or other attributes of sex” and that this suggests that “the Equality Act recognises sex as being more than purely biological”.

Robin White criticised the EHRC for publishing new non-statutory guidance on single-sex and separate-sex serviceswhich clarifies upfront that “sex” is understood as a binary, meaning biological sex, saying:

“Understood by whom, and where?… This concept of biological sex appears, apparently from nowhere. It isn’t in the Act. It hasn’t appeared in the guidance, it doesn’t appear in the statutory code, it just seems to have popped up from nowhere.”

'Popped up.' 'From nowhere.'

Does anyone have an argument that isn't disengenous anymore?

Whatever
I think its "fucking tiresome" to have words put in my mouth. I'm not forced teaming anyone and as I said on another thread I find that extremely offensive given the history of it.

How on earth is me giving reasons why I don't like Badenoch or trust the Tories "not seeing beyond the rosette"?

And how is it any different to what posters do about Labour?

So current favourite possible leader of the Conservatives is Penny "TWAW" Mordaunt. That's a bit surprising isn't it? Are posters going to be similarly up in arms about the risks of her being PM if Labour win?

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-tory-leaders-poll-2918986

Badenoch not doing well. Second last, the only person less popular is Braverman

This thread is getting really boring.

This is an older post but I'm catching up and just want to say this is absolutely 100% something I agree with. And it's pervasive. This thread talks about people appointing themselves the voice of LGB people. You liken it to how the same is done for you as a Black person. I might observe how as one of a large number of pro-nuclear environmentalists, we get shut out of representation of our views and find a lobby speaking on behalf of environmentalists. It's everywhere both large and small. And well organised! These people - whether its "LGBTQ2SI++", Black communities, environmentalism, socialism, anything - have a game plan, funding and always seem to swoop in, become the ones media goes to for soundbites or interviews, and top-down tell those they "represent" what their views are.

It's why I love to see movements like "Get the L Out". People saying - no, actually, you don't speak for me. I accept that there's some simplification. Like you say - there are lots of different views. To organise and achieve something there has to be an element of 'well most of us think this' but that should be a bottom up thing and it rarely is that I see. We have an entire professional class of spokespeople who find a group and somehow position themselves as its leaders. And I don't think that's by accident.