How LGBTQIA was turned into a global Geopolitical tool

[IwantToRetire]

It is crucial that we understand how a private sexual behavior that has lasted centuries suddenly became converted into a global political tool to reshape society, education, policy, medicine and population outcome.

If this were organic, such extensive institutional international pressure would not be necessary.

The scale, coordination, and persistence of enforcement reveal that this is not a spontaneous social evolution, but a managed policy project.

The reliance on treaties, funding, education systems, media, and medicine to enforce acceptance exposes it as a top-down ideological project with long-term societal consequences & goals.

When an idea requires sustained pressure on laws, education systems, families, and children, it ceases to be a matter of rights but should become a concern for a Nation. The pressure itself is the evidence.

This is what we must all realize.

https://www.shenaliwaduge.com/how-lgbtqia-was-turned-into-a-global-geopolitical-tool/

NB I have no idea who the author of this is, but thought it interesting that this has been written as the same time as the blog post that a recent thread** was created about the money behind the trans movement. But dont hold it against her, is listed by the Guardian https://slguardian.org/author/shenali-d-waduge/ . Wonder if they know she thinks this.

(** Sorry much too late at night to find thread, as search didn't bring anything up. Must have got the name wrong)

It is interesting regarding the essentially colonialist way in which 'international' rules and structures emanating from the west can set the agenda for other countries. But it is also homophobic, seeming to regret the fact that being gay is no longer treated as a psychiatric condition.

It seems just to be a blog post on a website provided for the international Sri Lankan community (and the link is to the Sri Lankan Guardian, nothing to do with the UK Guardian). Not sure that it brings anything new?

I have always suspected that the gender woo was funded and pushed by the Christian right (think American billionaires) specifically to push the liberal pendulum so far that it hit a wall and began the return swing to more conservative positions. People broadly accepted LGB; the majority think trans ideology is horseshit.

So ironically the left began working for the far right, while accusing GC feminists of being far right. Muppets and puppets the left became.

Interesting article, I like the close analysis of process, it is very useful to do that.

BUT it conflates homosexuality with gender ideology, and starts off by listing the removal of discriminatory laws etc against lesbians and gays as part of the process.

It then slips in 'gender ID' in step 2, without taking into account that the adding of T to LGB was in itself one of the major steps towards where we are today, and it was without the agreement of the lesbian and gay community.

Nobody ever asked us, there was never a referendum about deciding to change the very foundation of the lesbian and gay movement i.e. same sex attraction, to include people who think they can change their sex.

And it misses the point that the development of 'LGBTQIA' has extended the category which used to be lesbian and gay to include just about anybody - from people with medical conditions to so-called 'spicy straights'.

As we have found with the category 'woman', if you extend a definition beyond its original meaning, it loses any specific meaning. Turning the lesbian and gay community/movement into LGBTQIA+++ was a homophobic act, just as TWAW is anti-women, which the writer of the article doesn't seem to grasp.

It seems just to be a blog post on a website provided for the international Sri Lankan community (and the link is to the Sri Lankan Guardian, nothing to do with the UK Guardian)

Yes you are right! This is the consequence of posting late at night.

Not sure that it brings anything new?

Just interesting that this has been written now from a totally different perspective, especially when there was a recent thread (which I just cant find) written by an American, but in terms of it being a capitalist (?) commercial conspiracy.

This one maybe?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5463477-is-the-gender-critical-movement-bound-to-remain-rudderless

I just bought the book ("Transsexual Transgender Transhuman") by the woman who owns the site where that article was posted. I've only read the intro so far, but she makes a chilling case for a very deliberate agenda.

Starting off describing homosexuality as a 'private sexual behaviour' does not bode well for any discussion of sexuality. It's no more or less inherently 'private' or 'adult' than heterosexuality.

No its not that one. It was very like this article, very much focused on how institutions had promoted the transgender agenda.

I thought it was from something promoted by Jennifer Bilek (?) showing how the corporate state had been so influential.

But no amount of searching on FWR has found it.

I forget to book mark.

ie not talking about how queer politics spread out from universities to become part of popular culture. But more as in this article, about institutional and commercial interests had turned something that in fact is only relevant to a tiny minority into a universally (well almost) accept "norm".

BUT it conflates homosexuality with gender ideology, and starts off by listing the removal of discriminatory laws etc against lesbians and gays as part of the process.

Well in a way she is right.

That is exactly what Stonewall did. And everybody accepted it.

This false pairing is exactly what has given the trans agenda power.

Both the left and the right in the UK pair them.

And is why, as we often hear, GC arguements are said to be right wing.

Its about what happened. ie the false agenda. And how they did it.

Can you imagine a campaign to promote women's sex based rights being able to work through the stages she lists?

There is a good analysis of the Denton's document here
Analysis of the Dentons Document: A How to Manual - Women Speak Tasmania

'In 2019, a guide produced by global law firm Dentons with activist partners revealed how trans rights were advanced across Europe. The strategy? Incremental reforms, political gatekeepers, friendly media, and avoiding open debate on controversial issues like children, prisons, and sport.
Far from grassroots change, the document shows a carefully managed campaign designed to frame self-ID laws as harmless “paperwork updates” while sidelining public scrutiny.'

The rise of gender ideology and the 'capture' of so many aspects of society seem to have followed the Denton's strategy, to the letter in some cases.

Patriarchy is a hierarchy and women don't have the power - either institutional or financial - to pull off this kind of thing.
I do wonder if societal collapse is the inevitable outcome to equality, because men can't cope with equality and would rather burn it all down out of spite.

I have always suspected that the gender woo was funded and pushed by the Christian right (think American billionaires) specifically to push the liberal pendulum so far that it hit a wall and began the return swing to more conservative positions. People broadly accepted LGB; the majority think trans ideology is horseshit.

There is a distinct whiff of Reductio ad absurdum about the whole trans nonsense of the past decades ....

This is almost exactly what I've long thought as well.

I don't know anything that makes me say it's explicitly the Christian right, but certainly the American right.

I've always thought Steve Bannon was in there somewhere too, not just because he's a powerful, cynical, manipulative operator, but specfically because of his comment re MeToo, viz: "Look at all that anger by women. If only we could harness that." (approx wording)

And shortly after, as if from nowhere, sprang this mass TRA movement complete with funding and slick websites.

I'm not sure which thread you're referring to (so I'm perhaps missing the context), but I found the linked article (or conspiratorial mood board) to be profoundly homophobic, and the type of tabloid moralism that TRAs try and link us with.

Setting the graphic chart aside, the piece isn’t simply taking aim at gender-identity ideology, NGO capture, or technocratic pressure. It’s saturated with fairly old-school homophobia, wrapped up in the language of 'geopolitics' to give prejudice an air of administrative gravitas. Grand claims, no sources or citations, a prefabricated STEP 1-8 escalation ladder, an unbroken chain of insinuation where the conclusion is transparently built in from the start... It reads very much like an AI-generated opinion piece to me, which would make me reluctant to even give the site any traffic at all.

There are undoubtedly legitimate debates to be had about policy being pushed via soft-law mechanisms and donor-funded NGOs and the muddling of distinct categories (sex, sexual orientation, gender identity) into one political branding scheme; school policies that bypass parents and democratic scrutiny and medical interventions for minors, safeguarding failures, top-down incentives created by institutional capture... but a serious writer would cite documents, specify jurisdictions... this article does none of that. Instead, it uses those controversies as a lure and then drags into a wholesale attack on the LGB, not just the TQ+.

To clarify I'm not reading anything into your motives, OP, but if it was the specific passages you quoted that stood out to you, it might be worth looking at some of the many other quotable articles and literature out there that make the case about institutional capture by the trans lobby without also dragging along claims about homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder or demographic threat like this 'article' does.

As I keep saying, I am not promoting the article because I agree with it, but because it analyses how societal change can be made.

ie think how Stonewall and others worked.

We all know the danger that those on the right who are homophobic can still make points that GC feminists about the impact on women and children.

For instance, in the UK, how is it that so many institutions bought into what on one level is a fringe movement.

From schools to health services to commercial companies - let alone politicians.

The stages in the charts are fairly similar.

Although not sure that we are heading for social breakdown!

Sadly most of the UK doesn't care about the loss of women's rights.

Whether or not anyone thinks the changes in law and society around homosexuality were ultimately right and just, I think it's fair to say they were perused with quite a canny political strategy from fairly early on. ANd I personally don't think it was always done in a way that was honest, it's often seemed to me that it was very ready to use arguments that were effective, without worrying too much if they were true or what the other implications were.Ideas like "love is love,' that if a kind of sexual desire is inborn and innate it is bigoted for society not to accept it, arguments from emotion, a tendency to brand anyone who disagreed even in part as homophobic, just as examples.

And every one of those arguments, I have seen TRAs at some point pick them up like they are tools left lying around, and used them for their own purposes.

Were the early campaigners simply unwise and so wiling to accept whatever seemed to move people? That idea has the virtue of simplicity and certainly has enough explanatory power to account for what happened, however, we also have some evidence that there were people embedded from early on who may have had ulterior motives. So I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether those kinds of people may have been waging a very deliberate campaign from very early on.

Marking to read later

I agree that the term 'homophobic' was used sometimes to describe people who opposed civil rights for lesbians and gays, and I felt it was counterproductive.

Alongside the 'love is love' 'born this way' arguments there were also strong legal arguments, made over the many many years of the multifaceted campaign for lesbian and gay rights, though these were quieter and less newsworthy.

I'm not sure I see what is wrong or dishonest about
it's often seemed to me that it was very ready to use arguments that were effective, without worrying too much if they were true or what the other implications were.Ideas like "love is love,' that if a kind of sexual desire is inborn and innate it is bigoted for society not to accept it.

that seemed reasonable at the time, and still does.

Every rights movement borrows from history, picking up campaign strategies 'like they are tools left lying around '- 'boycott' derives from the Irish Land League's non-violent ostracising of the British land agent Charles Boycott in the 1880s; the Irish examples of both non-violent non-cooperation, and the case for an armed war of independence influenced the Indian independence movement; the civil rights for Catholics campaign in Northern Ireland in the 1970s borrowed from the African-American civil rights campaign in the US.

It is not surprising that the transgender movement draws on aspects of previous movements - they are also claiming to be modern-day suffragettes, FFS🙄 - and I don't think there is a case for retrospective blame about how the tools used by the women's movement or the lesbian and gay movement are now being used by TRAs.

Well said, @MarieDeGournay

Even if one grants that parts of gay-rights campaigning used over-simplified slogans, it does not follow that decriminalisation, anti-discrimination law, or equal treatment were some kidn of duplicitous scheme. Nor does it follow that today's gender-identity lobby is the inevitable product of that history. Category confusion in policy can be criticised without retroactively delegitimising gay people's civil rights.

If the point is simply “certain persuasive techniques later got repurposed”, fine; that's banal and true of almost every reform movement. But I don't think it's fair to vaguely cast the gay rights movement as a template for dishonest manipulation tactics and social coercion, and a shadowy precursor to today's trans rights activism.

Noboy's complaing about using a strategy or steps.

The article isn't saying that.

The article is saying this is how what the author sees as a "private matter" has been taken up or accepted by society as a whole.

Not all readers would be aware of this progression whether currently with TRAs or in the past with the Gay Movement

And neither does it cover how this happened. Or at least in the UK the trans movement piggy backed on the gay rights movement, which in fact raises a different issue. ie the cooption of a rights movement, that did over decades achieve its aim (mostly ) then allowed itself or activiely collaborated with another one.

But maybe this rebadging has been universal. ie trans being the cuckoo in the gay rights movement.

Which now that I have said that means I dont agree with the steps as promoted in the article because in most parts of the west, trans did piggy back on gay rights.

It's a problem because when you spend years telling people that they need to accept people's innate sexual desires - whatever that means and it's always going to be hard to pin down - or they are bigots, they will learn to accept that idea, and it will become a measure for other issues.

If you tell people "love is love" and they come to believe it, they will apply it to all kinds of other situations.

If you tell people who think the institutional purpose of marriage is fundamentally about balancing reproductive roles with differernt best interests, and it becomes an effective way to shut people up, using similar accusations to shut people up will be seen as a legitimate tool in other campaignes.

It may seem nice when bad arguments lead people to embrace ideas you like, but it leads to poor axioms, and sloppy habits of thinking. It's ultimately lazy, making the real arguments may not make people feel as easily motivated, but they will be solid and create good thinking more generally.

It's not that confusing, because fortunately, it's easy to make a distinction between the lesbian and gay movement[s] and the transgender movement, using these two indisputable facts:
1.Some people are attracted solely to people of the same sex.
2.No people can change sex.

It's not LGB, they never had any power until the T (Q) came about.

Well you and I and others on FWR might say that, but as I tried to say in my last post, the actual "brilliance" of the rainbow campaign has been to sell the falsehood that being trans is the same as being same sex attracted.

And in fact, although I am sure someone who is a historian may no different, I cant think of any campaign that suceeded, not by having an impact on people itself but by piggybacking on an existing campaign about something different.

Just about every body apart from FWR, LGB Alliance (and others of course) have totally brought into the arguement that trans and same sex attraction are the same thing.

And in getting people to believe that, they have actually won the trans campaign, because (like the cuckoo) it has taken over someone else's home and pushed them out.

And of courseinriding in on the success of Gay Liberation is has the added political message that only old reactionary religious right winger are opposes to same sex attraction, and so of course anyone who questions the trans narrative is a right wing reactionary.

This aspect of the twinning of trans with gay, has had the most impact politically, particularly with young people.

If trans had been labelled as reactionary and conservative as it enforces gender stereotypes, rather than freeing people from them, maybe fewer young people would have been less taken in.