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

Neither of which are LGBT organisations by any definition.

Transgender Trend is literally focused on gender questioning children. So that's not true. Just because you don't approve, doesn't mean it isn't an "LGBT organisation by any definition".

I have done. I've not seen any indication of Kemi Badenoch meeting with any LGBT organisations while she has headed up the GEO.

By all means point me to the posts if I've missed them.

I wonder if Ben Bradshaw has ever met with a young lesbian or gay man who has been subjected to unnecessary, irreversible medical trauma in the name of gender identity ideology?

Kemi met with Keira Bell

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/06/gender-affirming-care-for-children-form-of-conversion-therapy-says-badenoch

Why any minister would meet with Stonewall, Mermaids, Peter Tatchell et all when their past ‘advice’ has led to a big ol mess that is taking hundreds of hours of court time to even begin to unravel is beyond me.

Even by that (nonsense) definition, Transgender Trend isn't an LGBT organisation - being an organisation for 'parents and professionals' is no more an LGBT organisation than a group concerned parents against homosexuality would be.

LGB

not

LGBT.

The point here is that Badenoch said, on the floor of the House, that she had engaged extensively with LGBT organisations.

If she hasn't, however you justify it, that is just a flat out lie.

Lying to the House of Commons should have consequences for Ministers.

LGBT doesn’t all have to be in one org for that comment to be accurate.

and ‘engaged with’ isn’t the same thing as ‘met with’.

And ‘engaging with’ doesn’t mean ‘agreeing with’.

I bet the W&E office is constantly engaging with the emails of very cross discredited LGBT orgs 😂

No. She specifically referred to engagement 'with numerous LGBT groups'.

But that seems to be a lie.

LGBT doesn’t all have to be in one org for that comment to be accurate.

and ‘engaged with’ isn’t the same thing as ‘met with’.

And ‘engaging with’ doesn’t mean ‘agreeing with’.

This.

She's engaged with any organisation that she's written back to or answered a social media post from. There are probably quite a few included.

Bradshaw is a misogynistic prick.

Badenoch is a lying dick.

I know I can be a bit slow at understanding on this board so I usually just read but this thread is making my head hurt. I have no understanding of what the OP is trying to convey or what point they are arguing, it's almost as though they are angrily punching at the air. Very confusing tbh.

Do you count GC feminists (I should have said feminist groups probably) as LGBT?
I think the whole point of being GC is that the T has nothing to do with the LGB so your sentence, and on that basis your whole thread, does not make any sense at all.

*goes back to sitting in the corner

She's not lying here though, he is. Engagement isn't just meeting. The weird "evidence" you are claiming is clearly part of a larger document.

As @NoBinturongsHereMate told you right at the start of this silly thread.

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.

I'm confused too, to be honest. I don't understand why Kemi's office released two meetings with gender critical groups in response to a question about how many LGBT groups she'd met.
I started the thread giving her the benefit of the doubt that she counts GC feminist groups as LGBT, and was wondering why

I was just following your example and saying what I think. It's not particularly related to this incident. She seems to be getting a reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts

She and her office are likely to have engaged with a very wide variety of groups, including engaging with their written manifestos/presentations over quite a period that likely extended beyond the FOI requested timings.

It is also possible she may have used the umbrella term LGBT when she meant Gay, just as it is used by others to mean Trans - in common language it can mean both, or one rather than the other.

That is not to say trans concerns would not have been presented to her and her office extensively.

It's not particularly related to this incident.

Nor was mine.

I would far as to say Kemi Badenoch is one of the very few people in government who actually understands the issues because of her extensive engagement with them, regardless of whom she did or did not meet in person.

Ben Bradshaw is the political equivalent of a number of posters here. Blatantly party political, cares about trans rights to #bekind, and has no care for women.

lol, she absolutely petrifies you, doesn't she!

The great thing about Kemi is that she's not coming from any of this in ignorance, or from an ideological point of view.

She knows aaall a-fucking bout it.

She knows about the indoctrination of children in schools, the guides cross-dresser, the toilets issue, she knows all about the targeting of lesbians. She knows all about why mermaids is being investigated and all their safeguarding failures, and she knows all about stonewall's hopelessly and irresponsibly wrong legal advice.

She's got all the facts and she's confident in what she's saying, because she knows she's right.

It's very hard to trip up someone who knows they're right.

So the only option is to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Which, despite being irritating, fairly warm the cockles of my heart.

"She didn't specify if she meant meeting with, engaging, or talking on the phone, she didn't clarify what she meant by LGBT (good luck with that!), she met the wrong sort of lesbians, gay men don't count. Wait, wait, I don't think there was an R in the month."

I bet she sleeps easy at night.

😂
This board. LGB does not mean trans. I'm not asking about trans. I don't want to see Kemi throw gay people under the bus because she can write them off as being "captured". By gay people I mean same sex attracted people. And I shouldn't have to spell that out on this board.

Lol - not at all.
I don't like her brand of right wing politics. And i think she's using GC feminists as a way to push a dangerous agenda - namely getting rid of equality legislation. Luckily i doubt she'll get anywhere near government after this election.

My point of this thread was purely if I assume she isn't lying and trying to cover up a lie, she obviously counts GC groups under the LGBT umbrella and I don't like that.

Well, when your posts are too vague to wade through, and end up relating to fuck all, you might want to reconsider your communication skills.

Might I suggest you do learn to spell things out when you're using the written word. Clarity is generally held to be pretty useful if you're expecting people to read what you write.