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

Well, I don't think that was your point.

I think your point was a spot of Kemi bashing.

Instead of having a nonsense go at who she has or hasn't spoken to with regards to women's rights being undermined by trans ideology, why don't you start a thread about her "namely getting rid of equality legislation".

i'm sure people would engage with you over that. (And by engage I mean post on an anonymous forum, not meet at the House of Commons).

I don't agree with all Kemi's politics, but I think she's great as a politician. She completely gets what the problems with gender identity ideology are.

i'm sure people would engage with you over that. (And by engage I mean post on an anonymous forum, not meet at the House of Commons).

Haha @Datun

Well, I don't think that was your point.

I think your point was a spot of Kemi bashing.

I doubt there is a single poster on this thread who can't see through it, even if they agree with Adam on it. The disingenuousness is nauseating.

I've talked about it lots and cba thanks.

One thing though, I think it's a massive achievement that Kemi Badenoch, the minister for women and equalities, is sitting in the houses of Parliament, broadcasting across the entire country her total understanding of, and attitude towards, gender ideology.

Time was, we couldn't even get a tiny headline five pages into a daily newspaper.

And I know we couldn't understand it. Why weren't they reporting this terrible scandal? But the fear tactics of no debate were long and bloody.

I can't believe it's gone from that, to one of the most talked about topics in the media.

Yay women.

So unlike Peter Tatchell & Pink News, you don't consider Mermaids an LGBT organisation

One thing though, I think it's a massive achievement that Kemi Badenoch, the minister for women and equalities, is sitting in the houses of Parliament, broadcasting across the entire country her total understanding of, and attitude towards, gender ideology.

100%

But going back to the original tweet, and the debate you linked to, this was not to do with same-sex attracted people. The exchange related to trans people. You're handily highlighting a major problem with lumping the T in with the LGB, so thanks for that I guess.

Is it likely that anyone in the country doesn't know what Stonewall wants? Their entire workforce is "engaged" in selling their rubbish far and wide. They have actually managed to get mugs to pay them to tell them rubbish in exchange for a pat on the head.. I think everyone in the government has had plenty of engagement with Stonewall LGBTl guff. How does Ben Bradshaw think we all know what the problems are with if we haven't "engaged" with LGBT groups.

I guess logic from Labour on this is impossible.

They have actually managed to get mugs to pay them to tell them rubbish in exchange for a pat on the head..

A sublimely perfect explanation of the Stonewall "Diversity Champions" scheme!

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 will try this once more in small words.

BB posted 1 page of a document.

It had no title. It had no page numbers. It had no link to a source.

It did have words in it that showed it was part of a larger document.

We do not know what is in the rest of the document.

We do not know that the document was a response to the claimed FoI. It seems unlikely, because a very similar FoI had been refused as too big to answer.

If it was a response to the FoI, we do know it was not the full response.

The limits of identarianism for lobbying is becoming evident.

Not that it isn't effective. It is great for the people who control the agenda in these groups.

But it's been very clear to me for many years that the majority of gay men and lesbians I know differ from their so-called representatives in these groups about various matters. Some only somewhat, but quite a few on many issues, and often very strongly.

So in what sense do these groups actually represent the people they are saying they do? And, I would add, whose political power they are claiming as their own?

And it's not much different with other identity groups, although I would say the LGB "community" is by far the most divided in opinions on politics, in my experience. But I see much the same thing here in the black community, you can break it down somewhat by where the individuals come from, but it's still all over the place even within those sub-groups.

I really think that when the government, or workplaces, consult with LGB or other lobbying representatives, they often aren't getting a very accurate idea of what people who share that identity grouping actually think.

They have actually managed to get mugs to pay them to tell them rubbish in exchange for a pat on the head.

i'm sure this will form part of a syllabus in some future course.

You pay thousands of pounds a year, and have to complete forms that run to 30 or 40 pages I believe, to get what?

Higher up a list that no one reads!!

When the world ends, it will be cited as one of the reasons.

I've got a feeling the list isn't even published now. Is that right?

So are they getting higher up a list that not only no one reads, but no one could read it, even if they tried?

😁

I guess the point is Kemi can't talk about anything but the T either.

It used to be women got ignored in favour of the T. Now it's gay people get ignored in favour of the T. Both wrong in my book.

My point was never about what bradshaw said - I said I disagreed with his characterisation. My point is purely about Badenochs apparent confusion about what LGBT includes. Not T. Definitely GC women. Unsure about lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Maybe only GC lesbians? Who knows.

I've got a feeling the list isn't even published now. Is that right?

So are they getting higher up a list that not only no one reads, but no one could read it, even if they tried?

Yes I think they made it private, because the organisations were getting FOIs from GC feminists. Heaven forbid!

My point is purely about Badenochs apparent confusion about what LGBT includes

You haven't got a point. People have patiently explained to you what's wrong with this characterisation and you haven't engaged with it, because this isn't a good faith discussion.

He also said she'd only met two groups.
It boils down to four options:

1. Kemi lied when she made the original statement and tried to cover up by listing GC groups so they didn't have to say "none" in the response
2. Kemi exaggerated and by "extensively engaged" she meant read some emails, maybe replied, and read some stuff. Then tried to cover up by listing GC groups so they didn't have to say "none" in the response.
3. Kemi or her office genuinely think GC feminists are covered by LGBT groups.
4. Ben Bradshaw lied when he asked the question and misrepresented the FOI response. Which would just be stupid as the full document would just get leaked.

I was going option 3 as the only one that doesn't involve lying/misrepresenting.

Kemi exaggerated and by "extensively engaged" she meant read some emails, maybe replied, and read some stuff.

You don't have to meet people face to face to "extensively engage".

Which would just be stupid as the full document would just get leaked.

Link to it.

Considering the current climate, why would a female politician who doesn’t believe men can become women agree to meet transactivists in person?
How much armed security do you think Kemi has?

What makes you think KB is confused about what LGBT is? Do you have any evidence for this?

You don't get to tell me what's good faith.
If I turned up and said all your (plural -posters on this board, not you specifically) various posts about labour/lib dems/capturing were "bad faith" you'd all collectively be outraged.

It's no secret I'm not a fan of Badenoch but in this case I genuinely want to see what people think about the fact Kemi has claimed extensive engagement with LGB groups but only met two GC groups. That's a contradictory claim.

What people appear to think on this board is Saint Kemi Can Do No Wrong. The two main explanations appear to be Bradshaw is lying and has falsified the FOI response. Or there are plenty of lesbians in GC groups so she has consulted LGB groups.

Those explanations are kinda weird in the face of the evidence and quite far from the "logical, measured debate" FWR is famed for. We didn't stand for that kind of rubbish as an argument for why GC feminists weren't consulted by Miller so I'm not sure why Badenoch is getting a free pass. I can only think there is a political motivation. But tell me if its not that. Just dismissing me as "bad faith" is lazy.

Perhaps a different FOI, not linked to in the thread, was narrow enough to be agreed to and was more along the lines of “which groups did KB meet with between this date and this date”. It would make sense in that case.

Engage with is not the same as meet with. It would include letter writing, etc and would be broader in its reach.

Such a good point - as the batshit "representatives" of the LGBT community working at John Lewis demonstrated. Centring fetish, bondage gear, men who abuse women, evidently mentally unwell individuals and openly promoting physical harm to girls. As soon as that was in the open the public protested vehemently at what was being implied about the nature of lesbians, gay men etc.

So much of this has been behind closed doors with all the deals / policy change with government happening via the trans captured civil service with their favoured and financially well - rewarded lobby groups. Involving additional groups with a specific perspective on women's rights and child safeguarding that's to date been relentlessly compromised by these groups, is a good thing.

Still surprised that anyone is so opposed to organisations advocating for women's rights and child safeguarding being heard by government? But as we've seen, the determination to silence women's views is pretty rampant at the moment.

Actually I think it might be the FOI crone linked to and Bradshaw has seen the answer before its on the site. The original requester was quite insistent on a response. 2 ticks and I'll post it