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

Also the reason for both meetings seems to relate to schools. Quite narrow.

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.

This is possible. Bradshaw said that it had been published this week. Where is it? The whole point of FOIs is that the information is released to the public. Why hasn't anyone (except Bradshaw) seen it?

Dear Government Equalities Office,
I am writing to firstly request a formal complaint into the handling of my request. You stated you needed extra time to consider the public sector duty but you have subsequently stated that you are exempting the information under section 12. Determining a section 12 denial should not have required additional time.
Further in your rejection, you have stated that there are too many departments the work stream would involve. To be clear, as is clear in my original request, I requested information relating to the GEO only. It was only this department that the request was made. Inflating the nature of my request in order to reject it is not in keeping with the FOIA and I am concerned if this is your normal practice, and would be grateful for your response prior to me raising this with the ICO.
To be clear, I have requested information that is clearly time bound- as I have stated I am requesting information that the minister referred to, but if the minister is not clear what she meant by that, I would suggest a maximum of 24 months prior to my request.
You will note that I made clear where my request may be limited should the financial limit not allow, and this response is entirely unacceptable.
I therefore request your urgent and senior review of my request, and I will expect a full response within 20 working days.
Should you continue to not fulfil your legal responsibilities, this will obviously need to be raised externally.

Then their holding reply says they are looking into it and will respond so maybe they have done.

I mention that they relate to schools because the office for Women and Equalities would have had meetings around the conversion therapy ban and other live topics, not just schools.

I would suggest a maximum of 24 months prior to my request.

This person doesn’t seem to understand that the information requested needs to be time-bound, not how long they expect it to be before they get a response.

They need to say “what meetings were held between such and such date and the other” - this can’t be too broad a time period or too broad a subject for information.

This is a good case in point.
Gay people still get beaten up. There are still terrorist attacks on gay venues. In some parts of the world you can be imprisoned or killed for being gay. That doesn't affect me as a straight woman in the UK.
What does affect me is being sexually assaulted by men, being paid less and discriminated against at work, and having to hide the annoying impacts my biology has on my day (morning sickness, leaky breasts, period flooding and hot flushes have all been features affecting my performance at various times). Straight men know nothing about this.

"Identarianism" is being used to shut people up from talking about how they are discriminated against. Badenoch is a proponent of that, which is one reason I don't like her.

It's not "lobbying" to expect to expect equal treatment for humans at work. It should be a basic right. Human rights. You know that boring thing that gets portrayed as bureaucracy but is pretty helpful to anyone finding themselves in dire straits for a variety of reasons.

She probably met with them specifically to talk about the schools guidance on how to deal with gender distressed/gender questioning teens?

Obvs that was a department of education project so the DoE would’ve spoken to the big LGBT orgs and Kemi would’ve then been looking at how the equalities office balances competing ‘rights’?

It's not "lobbying" to expect to expect equal treatment for humans at work. It should be a basic right. Human rights.

No, of course that's not "lobbying", and no one said it was. Lobbying is lobbying. It's a political campaign tactic that may or may not influence whether such rights are gained/maintained. It can also be used to make sure your particular special interests are treated as more important than other important groups'.

She probably met with them specifically to talk about the schools guidance on how to deal with gender distressed/gender questioning teens?

Yes, that definitely sounds plausible. She's mentioned before that most of things she is across are managed by other departments and people don't seem to know what her role is.

What does affect me is being sexually assaulted by men, being paid less and discriminated against at work, and having to hide the annoying impacts my biology has on my day (morning sickness, leaky breasts, period flooding and hot flushes have all been features affecting my performance at various times)

Are you not aware this also happens to same sex attracted women? plus the homophobia they experience.

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.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean the LGBT groups are misrepresenting gay people or do you mean the public are outraged by the nature of gay people?
It sounds like we are straying out of this being about the T and more into LGB culture which I'm quite uncomfortable with. I don't know enough about broader LGB culture to have an informed opinion.

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

do you think Transgender Trend are lobbying? Or Sex Matters? Fair Play for Women?
What is the difference?

This is what I actually said:
What does affect me is being sexually assaulted by men, being paid less and discriminated against at work, and having to hide the annoying impacts my biology has on my day (morning sickness, leaky breasts, period flooding and hot flushes have all been features affecting my performance at various times).Straight men know nothing about this
Talking about my experience as a woman, that I share with other women. And how that experience is not shared with straight men.

I'm not sure how you've managed to interpret that as me excluding lesbians

do you think Transgender Trend are lobbying? Or Sex Matters? Fair Play for Women?
What is the difference?

I didn't say there was one. Please stop projecting.

Meh. If you think lesbians and gay men are happy when representations of us revolve around kink, fetish, mental illness and abuse of women then I can't help you.

Then their holding reply says they are looking into it and will respond so maybe they have done.

That seems unlikely. The person who made the request is notified at the same time as the reply is published on the site. You're not sent the information separately, you just get an email with a link to the reply.

Also, from my experience of dealing with government bodies, they tend to leave their response as late as possible. So it's unlikely to be there much before 6th March which is 20 working days after the request for the internal review.

Edit: This was a response to AdamRyan's post at 18:42

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think KB can do no wrong. What we have here though are some massive assumptions being made based on a, at best, partial response to an apparent FOI request. I'd query any 'evidence' like this didn't appear to be complete. Why just publish annex 1 and not the entire response?

Why just publish annex 1 and not the entire response?

Or at least link to it.

I don't think that and I'm not sure why you are implying I do.
Would you like to answer the question rather than build straw men of what you imagine I mean? Or you know, we can leave it. I would have thought your response rather Implies why it is important for Badenoch to engage with a wide range of people.

Yeah it's a good question. If Bradshaw hadn't specifically said the same thing in parliament I'd think it was a smear. But because he raised it in PMQs and referenced the answer I feel it must be true.
I also get the sense from Jardine's original question in December, the FOI request and Bradshaw's question that everyone in parliament knows she hasn't met any other groups and are showing her up. That's how politics works, isn't it.
That's why I'm surprised so many people are just so adamant it isn't true.

I was copying a quote from a previous poster so you could see what I was replying to and why I said what I said, as you seemed to have missed the person claiming equal rights groups were lobbying 🙄
Do you think LGB groups are lobbying and if so whats the different between that and what Fair Play for Women are doing (just as a random example)? What is lobbying and what's representing a particular need or viewpoint from a particular group?

Personally, I think its about transparency and financial motivations. Most LGBT groups are open about their agenda and financial affairs. Lobbying groups try to hide their agenda behind a facade, and are simultaneously making political donations.

Although I just googled it and that was wrong! Turns out anyone can do lobbying!

Not sure what that means about any of the previous posts mind 🤔

The small extract of my comment that you have selected was one of 3 paragraphs in response to TempestTost who was pointing out 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"

Part of my response was "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"

You have removed the context of my comment by focussing on the last section. I think my paragraph is perfectly self explanatory - as long as you're aware of this week's John Lewis debacle which I assumed you were given the regularity of your posting on this board. It's no wonder so many posters complain about your lack of good faith when you selectively quote like this.

As I said, if you don't understand the point that fetish, bondage gear, men who abuse women, mentally unwell individuals and promoting physical harm to girls does not represent the LGB or T communities then I can't help you.

According to Pink News, she met with The LGB Alliance. https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/02/05/kemi-badenoch-lgb-alliance-meeting-anti-trans-backlash-transphobia/

But that would have been when she was a junior minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Women_and_Equalities

OK whatever. I quoted your whole post and picked out one para I didn't understand to ask about specifically, which is not "removing context". I have lost interest now in trying to engage someone clearly more interested in telling me I'm disingenuous than actually engaging in the thread, so let's just leave it there.