Compelled speech - Croydon pride

[Cheeseandtomato72]

Croydon pride will only accept applications from stall vendors who agree to state they believe:

trans women are women. Trans men are men and non binary identities are valid.

vendor applicants need to ‘join in a public display of support’ affirming these principles.

This is discrimination against anyone who does not accept biological males as women. Total disregard for the Supreme Court judgment.

The following companies sponsor Croydon pride. I’ve added their complaints email. You know what to do Mumsnet 😉

Unilever - https://www.unilever.co.uk/contact/

superdrug [email protected]

London Southbank University - no complaints email for non students but you can call this number to find out who to report activity to tel:+44 (0)20 7815 7500 +44 (0)20 7815 7500

I'd very much not want my council tax to go towards this, does anyone know if our not lovely 3 times bankrupt muppets are funding it in any way?

It used to be fun, a decade ago. I had a few good afternoons out at it. I imagine it's a hellscape this year.

You what now? It’s a complaints email. Not everyone threatens as TRAs do.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but if they don't believe that or want to agree to say it why would they want to have a stall there?

You are a such card CA. 🤣🤣

(that means you have made a funny joke in case you got very confused and somehow drastically misinterpreted my post).

Because they might be gay or lesbian and believe in same sex attraction.

Because a lesbian organisation might want a stall, for example. And lesbians are same sex attracted.

Of course genderists shouldn't be able to exclude people from employment, or discriminate against them. But are we really saying that they can't have a parade without having to include (as stallholders, not mere attendees) those whose views they fundamentally oppose? Then how could an LGB Alliance rally claim that same right? It would be the worst kind of state force-teaming, surely? Freedom of association has to mean freedom to associate with who you choose, not to have the law require you to include in your advocacy those who fundamentally oppose the political goals you advocate.

(I do see solid arguments the other way too. Like I say, I think it's a tricky area).

Ah yes sorry, I knew I was being stupid!!

Thank you, yes I think I'm overtired 🤣 I should go to bed!

It really hammers home that pride is all about the T and the LGB can sod off.

@GeneralPeter - I would say that's also a false equivance. The equivalent of an LGB alliance would be a trans March/event - in those circumstances it would make sense that people attended adhered to the philosophy of the event. Pride isn't (just) about Trans it's a wider event celebrating a cross section of the LGB (as well as T) community. So to prevent people with different views within that community engaging in the event is to my mind very much discrimination.

Because once upon a time Pride was about people who are same sex attracted, not just about people who want to be the opposite sex.

The LGB Alliance only exists because people who are same sex attracted and use a biological sex based definition of gay and lesbian have been excluded from the LGBTQ+ movement, including Pride.

Edited because my fucking phone autocorrects LGB to LGBT 🤬

Ooh, does this mean that our dear Chris can give us sneak peeks on Sonichu's next adventure and maybe give us advanced warning of when the dimensional merge will happen?

I think Chris got a happy little shiver at being able to tell on Mumsnet. It seems to be a favourite pastime 🤷‍♀️🙄

Maybe. That's why my mind went to the Catholic-organised Christmas analogy. Catholics don't own Christmas. But to them it really means something, and it means a specific thing. And if (say) it was important for some deeply-held belief reason that only those in Catholic communion played some specific role in the ceremony, do we really want a state that says no, it may be your belief and your event, but you don't get to choose like that.

Or just the LGB Alliance Pride. They've seen how mainstream Pride has been overtaken by authoritarian genderists. It's their Pride too. They are putting on the event, organising it, inviting stallholders to participate. And now the state should force them to host TRA stalls at their event? That doesn't seem right to me.

(Actually where I come down on this I think is when this is an event with some sort of official public endorsement. Once it becomes the town's Pride, basically. To me that's the thing that moves it from a private-organised event where freedom of association should win out, to a public shared space where we demand pluralism. So, sure, the Catholics should be able to run their Catholic Christmas event. But once it's the town's Christmas event, different rules apply).

Yes, I agree with you. But I don't see how you can have law and policy that tries to work out which belief is the oppressed minority and gives it special status that other beliefs don't have. I think we can predict how that kind of thinking would be (has been) abused. So the rules have to be neutral. What set of rules strikes the right balance between requiring pluralism in our public spaces while protecting freedom of association and belief. Not, which side started it and deserves to have its wings clipped.

Interesting comparisons.

What I take from this story is proof that Pride has gone from Lesbian and Gay Pride to Gay Pride to Pride to Trans Pride.

Being lesbian/gay, and being transgender, are two different things, as has been pointed out many times - the former being about same-sex attraction, the latter about changing sex/gender/identity. Hence the LGB✂T movement.

This report demonstrates that Pride = Trans Pride.

So a better comparison might be a long-established Catholic event which started demanding that stall holders had to swear allegiance to a different religion altogether.

What about lesbians? Are they prevented from having a stall? Oh dear, are they discriminating on grounds of sexuality because the nasty lesbians won't agree with them.

They might be lesbians who don’t want to be called transphobic for not sleeping with transwomen?

Or gay men who fancy male bodied people and identify as homosexuals rather than homogenderals?

For example?

They might just want to sell well made artisan pink cowboy hats much in demand by Croydon LBGT people who really want to buy them.

Remind me again which "side" need to grift almost daily because they got fired, charged or sued for harassment of gay or trans people?

Remind me again, which side almost always win their legal cases after being fired, charged or sued for what turns out to be vexatious and bullying claims of harassment of gay or trans people?

Jolly Boy is the biggest grifter out there!

Did you ask him what he did with the donations?

Remind us again which side wins their court cases for harrassment on the basis of their perfectly legal beliefs?

Just try to stop telling lies Chris, it really does neither you nor your argument any favours whatsoever.

Edited because my fucking phone autocorrects LGB to LGBT 🤬

Now that really IS compelled speech!!