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

No. You picked out the last sentence of a paragraph that clearly gave a context to that sentence. That is removing the context.

There's an irony in accusing me of not engaging in a thread where your opening post stated: "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"

My recollection is that my posts have been exploring issues in relation to your OP - what "both sides" looks like, the lengthy history of government funding and work with the trans lobby in stark contrast to groups concerned about the negative impact of trans ideology on children and women's rights and so on

But you don't have to engage with my posts on your thread if they're not to your liking😃

@AdamRyan

OK so KB is a duplicitous dissembling apology for a politician. Given that you are a Gender Critical Radical Feminist, do you think that the electorate of West Lancashire should vote for Ashley Dalton in the upcoming GE?

This seems like it must be some kind of weird gotcha. I don't live in West Lancashire and I don't know any of the candidates there. Its entirely up to the local electorate who they choose to vote for.

I picked out the sentence I didn't understand, I quoted your full post above and I said I didn't understand. You responded with a snarky straw man post. It's unpleasant and I'm done with it.

How could you possibly not understand?
It was very clear. Literally lines above, lgbt people don't really appreciate being portrayed as all into fetish, bondage and kink. Then you said you disagreed on the nature of gay people.

You said essentially you agreed with the portrayal using kink that John Lewis did
.

I mean heres your first post, opening with
Imagine rocking up on a feminist board and whining and ending with And the OP moans about Transgender Trend & Sex Matters being allowed a few meetings.

What an odd thing for a woman to complain about

With a bunch of straw men completely unrelated to my OP dancing around in between.

I don't tend to find the terms "whining", "moaning" and "complaining" that conducive to a constructive debate, personally.

Everyone can read what you post. Are you drunk? Reread the posts you are talking about and explain how anyone could interpret it in another way.

You must have missed the thread on Ashley Dalton (oh no you didn't). Disingenuous moi?

Are you drunk? I said nothing about "disagreeing on the nature of gay people". I don't even know what that could mean. Clearly if in your head my posts are saying something completely different to what I actually wrote then your interpretation is going to be different to mine
Weird. Almost like, not only can you not point out shortcomings with Saint Kemi, but also you can't ask a question of FWR royalty.

I have missed the thread on Ashley Dalton yes. I don't read every single one because they get a bit repetitive. I will have a quick look now.

Not very interesting. Someone overheard a call someone else was on where a labour candidate say labour want to do all the things their policy says they are going to do. Big shocker.

I've talked about my views on labour policy enough to not want to get back into it. Similar to the Equality Act. Again, kinda weird a board that claims to be about women's rights, not Conservatism, spends so much time hero worshipping St Kemi and so much time slagging off any labour candidate who dares to open their mouths. Especially the female ones. They are the absolute worst, for some reason I can't fully fathom.

Interesting that the 'proof of truth' is saying something in the Commons, where the rules specifically forbid anyone saying another member is lying.

Yes, bad things sometimes happen to people because of some group they in some sense belong to. Or other ways in which their commonality gives them an interest in common.

However, that often does not mean they see eye to eye on what the cause or remedy is. Or very often, even what the problem is.

This is just as true of women's groups. Many see themselves, honestly enough, of representing the best interests of women. But actually, plenty of women differ in how they see their interests.

So when a woman's group says that something is a problem, or advocates a policy position, whose interest are they actually representing?

They are actually representing the women who agree with them, while denying the validity of the viewpoint of those who disagree.

There was a time when many of the successful identarian lobbies tended to be very limited in policy demands, and often they were on very concrete things, because they avoided making pronouncements on things that were highly controversial in their membership. That's no longer the case though. (Incidentally, it's true of other lobby groups to, Amnesty International is a good example.)

And just to make it clear: there are a lot of ethical issues around the idea of lobby groups of any kind, in terms of a democratic state, but not really within the scope of this thread.

But relating to some of your questions above, there are two kinds of groups that are relevent.

Some are cause specific, like Greenpeace. They are supported by people who agree with what Greenpeace believes, and they lobby to achieve their aims. In fact, it is the members who tend to set policy direction, and people who disagree will tend to leave the group. They are arguing that what they believe is best, but they are only representing their own membership.

With identarian groups, like Stonewall, they are typically lobbying on behalf of an identarian group. Maybe gay and lesbian people, maybe women, maybe immigrants, or Muslims.

The problem is that in most cases, not all these people are actually members, and may or may not support what the group is advocating. So the group is in effect claiming that they should be accorded a status and importance reflective of the whole population they say they represent. and they also directly or by implication say that other viewpoints about said group are not valid.

This is why Stonewall is so upset about the LGB Alliance. What is reveals is that SW, while it may represent the views of certain people who are gay or lesbian, it does not in fact represent the views of that group as a whole - it is very much a partisan organization. If people realize that, it loses a significant element of it's political power.

There are lobby groups which have big pockets and serve the interests of wealthy individuals or corporations for the benefit of a small minority. They have pre-existing links to power (perhaps old boy network) and access to power than ordinary people do not have. It isn't uncommon for the MPs they are connected to, to have a conflict of interest with the group, their personal life and the wider public interest.

This is where there are multiple concerns and issues over lobbying.

Then there are lobby groups which struggle much more to get listened to. They tend to arise from scandal or controversy. They are formed from grassroots movements. Because they don't have connections to power they often fail to get taken seriously until the issue reaches a level that can not be ignored. They are the mercy of the former group who will often use their power to block access to power as it undermines their existing, institutionalised power or precisely because the grassroots group is trying to hold the power of the Established Lobby group to account and they don't want that.

This is where there is a massive imbalance of power against the people and the type of lobbying that is essential in a democracy to represent the interests of the wider public.

Now let's play a little game of 'Can you spot which is which? and What's happening here?' on this thread.

Can we spot the disengenous manipulation of the concept of lobby groups = a very bad thing?

Hmmm. Yes.

Yes the very height of cynicism. And the very opposite of democracy principles. Yes let's FOI it.

We see you.

Ooh. I like games where people make up stories and you have to try to spot the liar. 2 truths and a lie type thing.
OK. My turn.

There are shadowy organisations in this country spreading far right extremist propaganda and influencing the government by way of donating money and giving early career wannabe MPs jobs. They like to manipulate the common people through misinformation and lies, using social media and fear tactics to get people to buy into their agenda.

One of their aims is to sow discord with previously trusted information so people believe them, not impartial sources. So they set themselves up as "free speech" charities and research institutes.

Can we spot the people who use disengenous manipulation of the concept of lobby groups = the only reliable source if information?

Hmmm. Yes.

Yes the very height of cynicism. And the very opposite of democracy principles.

We see you.

Fun! Whose turn is it next?

If you distrust the groups, you take away any chance those people have of getting their issues heard.
We've seen that with the success of GC groups at getting self ID removed. GC groups are groups of women united around a core "identity" which is that sex is important.

By arguing against "identarians" you are arguing against a very powerful tool available to people who are being silenced. I'm not sure why you would do that.

‘GC groups’ aren’t all identity groups though, they are mostly policy groups.

Anyone of any identity can join them as long as they support the aims of the group - eg LGB Alliance evens has trans members. Transgender Trend is more like Greenpeace than Stonewall.

My thoughts exactly.

What's the difference between an identity group and a policy group?
Mermaidsfor example lobbies for policy change. Yet I think this is the kind of group tempest would call an identitarian group?

I worry that people are going too black and white and actually damaging the "free speech" they claim to uphold by trying to silence certain groups for "wrongthink". A far better strategy is to engage with the ideas those groups are pushing and calmly criticise the idea, not the group.

That is how GC feminists managed to kill off self ID.

The current approach of refusing to listen at all to anything Mermaids say is somewhat understandable (although I'd still listen and critically analyse their ideas) The extension of that to refusing to engage with politicians or public organisations because "there's no point, they've been captured" is not. It is essentially cancel culture by another name.

I think anyone can join stonewall. Isn't that precisely why so many people feel there has been "capture"? Just going to have a look

The difference is outlined by a poster above.