There's a strange omission in this article

[lcakethereforeIam]

I'm not familiar with Ronan McCrea

https://archive.ph/MoccA

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/10/gay-rights-revolution-stonewall-set-back-decades/

He does touch, correctly imo, on other issues that are likely affecting gay acceptance but not a mention, even in passing, of the massive elephant in the room!?

Yes, that is odd. Could it even be construed as ‘transphobic’ by not mentioning the ‘TQIA+’ and their contribution to the community? Or is he shying away from mentioning them so he can’t be accused of ‘accusing’ them of contributing to the worrying reversal of gay rights? Quite interesting isn’t it?

That is an odd article. I do think the forced teaming of LGB with the TQi+ is what has led to pushback. I think we’re becoming increasingly polarised so you’re not allowed to express doubts about the rest of the alphabet soup without being a bigot.

Tbh it is up to the LGB to call the elephant by name. Women simply can't do all the heavy lifting. And if we are not the L or B we should not be speaking for them.

By not naming the elephant the author gives the impression that he is OK to be teamed up with the T and that is why he's baffled. He needs to pay more attention.

Its a promo for his book.

Julie Bindel has reviewed it, but forgot to keep the link.

But from memory I think what she thought was not that she agreed with everything he has written but his conclusion could be right.

If interested https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-gay-rights-movement-threatens-to-implode/

And at https://archive.is/aYEmE

I'm inclined to trust Bindel's judgement in this case. It's seems clear that McCrea is well aware of the problem forced teaming has had on gay advocacy and even addresses it in his book. But his broader critique is against the libertine, amorality streak within homosexual activism itself. The social contract that gays and lesbians proposed was that they were normal productive members of society like everyone else and 1) deserved equal rights and consideration and 2) that such rights and consideration were beneficial to gays and lesbians and to society as a whole. Instead the focus has changed.

The new LGBTQIA+ activism demands that various sexual appetites not be shamed, even if their heterosexual equivalent is considered shameful. Indeed, such heterosexual appetites are cause for membership in the LGBTQIA+ community in-and-of themselves - the trans issue is just a facet of this change in focus. Why would broader society want that? And if it strongly does not, sacrificing gay rights in order to put a stop to encroaching depravation might seem to be a worthwhile tradeoff even if the person in question is in no other respect homophobic. Similar observations have been directed against gay in the past on this very forum and while Bindel has been careful to stay in her (lesbian) lane, past conversations shows that she clearly agrees with that as well.

He also wrote this piece in the The Telegraph which just appalled me. Does anyone remember this – Henri Leconte mocking a ball boy (who turns out to be Ronan as a child)? I just can’t believe this ever happened -– poor, poor kid. I agree with the thread – some gay men seem to struggle to see what feminists can see clearly about the path gay rights has taken. But their perspective can nevertheless be helpful, I think. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/10/gay-rights-revolution-stonewall-set-back-decades/ Archive: https://archive.is/MoccA

But his broader critique is against the libertine, amorality streak within homosexual activism itself. The social contract that gays and lesbians proposed was that they were normal productive members of society like everyone else and 1) deserved equal rights and consideration and 2) that such rights and consideration were beneficial to gays and lesbians and to society as a whole.

As on the other thread about how did we get here, part of the change can be linked to the growth of queer politics.

And why it seems, that for some in what was the Gay and Lesbian community, this politics became the validation of what had always been fringe or complete deplored sexuality. eg exhibitionism through to paedophilia, remember Peter Tatchell.

And shows again how language, or the persistant use of slogans or words with non establishment meanings can be powerful.

ie Lesbian and gay, or homsexuality, being lumped in with "queer".

The first being about everyday people who just happened to be same sex attracted, and the last being about an in your face confrontational imposition. In some ways quite childish behaviour, but in adults intimidating and confusing as it uses the advancement of the right of people to be same sex attracted to say (some queer inc. trans) adults have the right to demand that you affirm their own personal choices at the expense of your own rights, and / or feeling comfortable and safe in the situations they invade.

Just listened to this podcast episode with Ronan McCrea and thought some here might find it interesting - https://open.spotify.com/episode/6CV0mZZsLTptUaGfDIdKBd?si=7OITUqAWTuGGhr6TQ7krBQ