LGB Alliance calls for the disaggregation of LGBTQIA+, in all realms of public life, and we object in the strongest terms to its introduction in law.

[IwantToRetire]

Lord Hanson of Flint has announced that the government will accept an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to classify hate crimes targeting LGBT and disabled people as aggravated offences.

Here’s what the letter from Lord Hanson says:

In our manifesto we committed to “protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence” …This new clause does just that. Indeed, it goes further and extends the ambit of the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 not just to cover hostility related to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity but also hostility motivated by a person’s sex.”

A laudable aim it seems. But the casual use of the acronym LGBT+ conflates Sexual Orientation, a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, with ‘transgender identity’, a concept which does not exist in the law.

It is right that transphobia, like homophobia, should be properly tackled by the police, but without even the loosest definition of what a transgender identity ‘is’, that simply isn’t possible.

It’s instructive to ask who advised the proposers of this amendment to replace the actual protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment with the nebulous notion of identity. Who benefits from this concept creep?

And to consider why has it been tacked onto LGB? It would be unthinkable to refer to DisabilityT+, or ReligionT+ but the open house of gay rights is expected to welcome all-comers, even if those new arrivals hold views which are antithetical to the homosexuality of its unwilling host.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Lesbians and gay men have long had to deal with heterosexual cosplayers in our spaces. They are hostile to same-sex attraction and attack our community from within.

Statement continues at https://lgballiance.org.uk/gay-rights-are-not-for-everyone

The primary reason the 'T' was ever added LGBT was to make Pride welcoming to gay men who had transitioned, i.e. even though you call yourself a woman, you're always welcome in gay men's spaces (because you're still homosexual!). It was never meant for heterosexual men who called themselves lesbians. The idea has always been offensive, and for a long time lesbians kept them out. The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival is a paradigmatic example.

Trans people in general need their own advocacy groups - the conflation with the gay and lesbian community harms both communities in the long rum.

It was also a very clever PR move that played on residual guilt from Section 28 & the fight for LGB rights.

IMO the longer the acronym the more likely it is to be anti-lesbian. I stay well away from anything calling itself LGBT, let alone adding the rest of it on.

I seem to remember that initially, there was an attempt to tack T on to Black Lives Matter - firmly rebuffed!

Edited to add: the needs of the LGB community share almost nothing with the needs of trans people, and I’m glad to see further efforts to disaggregate this forced teaming

Good, I'm glad the LGB Alliance are speaking out, it will be harder to dismiss their objections with the usual 'homophobic' tropes.

Good to see this. We're watching conversion therapy in real life with young lesbians and gay men being the target ot trans extremist activism.

Well done LGB Alliance, it's good to see this.

How does Lord Hanson think the law will protect “+” people? How would you argue that you’d been the victim of a crime because you are “+”?

Thank you LGB Alliance!
The bolting on of the T to LGB has done huge harm to the status of LGB people in society - we are assumed to be on board with even the most outrageous TRA claims, and our 'public image' as part of the LGBTQA++ community is kink at Pride and drag in the media. Male kink and male drag of course.

The ploy of co-opting lesbian and gay history and campaigning is illustrated by the situation here in Ireland: after decades campaigning by lesbian and gay people, we were given the same rights as any other citizen, and allowed to enter into the civil contract of marriage, in 2015.
The trans lobby managed to take advantage of the atmosphere of acceptance and equality for lesbian and gay people to get a Gender Recognition Act through the parliament and onto the statute books with zero due diligence - the attitude was very much 'We've corrected a long-standing injustice to one minority, so why not transgender people too while we're here?'

The trans lobby appears to have followed to the letter the 2019 'how-to' guide for
advancing trans rights, produced by a law firm called Dentons, it is analysed here:
Analysis of the Dentons Document: A How to Manual - Women Speak Tasmania

Some of the strategies recommended by Dentons sound very familiar, particularly 'Piggybacking on other causes: Attach trans rights to broader equality, diversity, or anti-discrimination initiatives to normalise them'.

• Incremental change: Introduce reforms step by step rather than all at once, to avoid backlash.
• Piggybacking on other causes: Attach trans rights to broader equality, diversity, or anti-discrimination initiatives to normalise them.
• Strategic framing: Use language that resonates positively (e.g., “equality,” “human rights”) and avoid terms that may provoke opposition.
• Youth mobilisation: Position young people as the face of reform efforts, emphasising innocence and urgency to gain public sympathy.
• Litigation and legal tools: Where possible, bring test cases to courts to compel governments to adapt laws.

It was very clever and very successful. It's worth reading the Dentons Document, because it reveals that the turning upside down of so many areas of society - the law, education, medicine, language - didn't just happen, it was planned.

I suspect politicians double down on trans 'rights' because they fear that opening things up to analysis and scrutiny would show that they were 'played' by TRAs, following the Dentons strategy.

LGB✂T

edited to remove an apostrophe - these things matter

I agree with the above, I also think the left have been following a playbook of their own, which is why they're been so susceptible to manipulation from others who are working to a playbook of they're own. We need more free minds in positions of power and authority, not captured minds.

Hear hear!

I think and former members of Stonewall have admitted it, is that the T was added because on one level Stonewall / the gay right movement had achieved many of its aims.

And in looking round for another revenue source (not for individuals suffering any sort of discrimination) they decided that T was the money spinner.

Some LGB members voted against Stonewall doing this, but the Directors etc., who all needed their salary level to be kept up, got it accepted.

(I think some of the founders of Stonewall have spoken, written about this.)

The includsion of those who had transitioned, or maybe just like fetishised clothing (lack of) had long been welcome on Pride marches which is one of the reasons so many lesbians stopped supporting it. Why would any self respecting lesbian want to be on a march with men who if dressed at all, were just wearing belts and chains?!

Gay Liberation was always a bit male dominated, but never had such a visual almost agressive public exhibitionist nature when it became "Pride" and rainbows and unicorns and ... which is also when this rather distasteful angle of try to appeal to children through images and icons.

Just gross.

To think the height of Gay Liberation Marches was to see police marching in their uniforms, and nurses etc.. ie very much saying to onlookers people who are same sex attracted are just as normal as everyone else, just getting on with doing a job etc..

When did being same sex attracted mean you were into fancy dress, and in appropriate messaging at children?

But yes, to add, part of how it became such a financial sucess is that the addition of the T became seen as "obvious" but allowed all those how had taken on accepting gay and lesbians rights, feel they had to now support trans rights.

@GallantKumquat excellent username

Do you have a source for that, please? I can't see the logic in someone who has fully transitioned, i.e. a transsexual, wanting to be welcomed in the space of the sex they used to be.

Thinking of the transsexuals that I know, they just wouldn't want to do that.

How true this is:

It would be unthinkable to refer to DisabilityT+, or ReligionT+but the open house of gay rights is expected to welcome all-comers, even if those new arrivals hold views which are antithetical to the homosexuality of its unwilling host.

Note that heterosexual trans identified males, who are the large majority of the transwomen, generally disliked any association with the gay community and especially gay men - so we are talking about a small segment of the trans community of the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Why would a heterosexual woman want to be admitted in to a space dominated by gay men (as a member of that that community as opposed to a tourist)? They wouldn't.

Why did homosexual trans identifying males hang out in gay men's spaces? (This is so well documented that it doesn't really require citation.) Because they were: a. male and b. homosexual.

Why did trans identifying females hang out in lesbian spaces (and why do many still identify with the term lesbian even while being 'men'?) because they were a. female and b. homosexual.

The entire 'queer' construct is a later invention to try and explain away this very obvious phenomena with verbal mystification, i.e. being a trans woman made you truly a woman but also made you 'queer' which was a constructed super-set of the gay and lesbian community.

I posted a strip from the 90s of Dykes to Watch Out For a Lesbian comic that provides a fascinating glims into the gay and lesbian community as gay and lesbian spaces were being recontextualised. (in part due to the massive impact of Judith Butler's Gender Trouble on women's studies of the time)

Strip: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5422838-what-is-trans-and-why-does-it-justify-undoing-sex-in-law-society-culture-and-history?page=6

Transcipt (due to MN poor image quality) https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5422838-what-is-trans-and-why-does-it-justify-undoing-sex-in-law-society-culture-and-history?page=7

I would disagree slightly on the technicality about when the T was added. Stonewall pivoted hard toward trans rights after marriage equality in the US/UK (early-mid 2010s), that's true. But the T was bolted on to the LGB in the mid 90s while gay and lesbian rights were still the primary focus of gay rights organisations.

You can see it in the ngram viewer: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=lgbt&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

It would be essential to define exactly what is meant by LGBTQ+

Because if it is 'all people who define as lesbian, gay, etc' that is already problematic because men who identify as lesbians are not lesbians, and women who identify as gay men are not gay men, Q/T are frequently straight but identify as homosexual....

but let's be honest, activists use it NOT to mean 'all' people from these groups, but 'all within those groups who are compliant to trans identity'. In effect it's the political 'T' group, with the enablers, and all the LGBT people who were not compliant and submissive to this, and said things like 'I am homosexual and want to be able to meet with other lesbians without men harassing me to agree that their ladydick will have a different mouthfeel to straight men's dicks and I need to learn to cope with it as a moral duty' were pushed out. They have left. They have gone. (Any minute now an activist will pop in to affirm all this by claiming there are no lesbians in their clubs and groups who have a problem with sex with men, and amazingly, that all surveys run exclusively through those clubs and groups return the same results). That acronym represents a political grouping and NOT all who have a protected characteristic, as usual because of the lousy behaviour and intolerance of the political T.

And they like to use the long acronym because it's very useful to have the LGB as human shields and historic sympathy PR and to disguise this. And there's the magic thinking that saying it makes it real/if you disappear the voices, the people are disappeared too, and you can have it alllll your own way.

So fixing it in law - either be honest it's the T and supporters of who have no other characteristic held in common except T politics - or separate the groups. Otherwise this is going to fix T activism in law. And we are going to see the edifying spectacle of a straight man in court trying on 'homophobia and misogyny' against a lesbian woman for saying 'no' to him.

"It would be unthinkable to refer to DisabilityT+, or ReligionT+"

This!

Please would everyone make a point of asking “Which do you mean?” if you hear someone say ‘a person is LGBTQ’ and say ‘There is such community, which do you mean?’ If you hear someone refer to ‘The LGBTQ+ Community’.

That's a really good question to ask, I'll remember that!
I think you left out a 'no', there is no such community. But the meaning was clear

First of the two links seems not to have worked properly. here it is again.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5422838-what-is-trans-and-why-does-it-justify-undoing-sex-in-law-society-culture-and-history?page=6

Thanks for telling me, @MarieDeGournay! I didn't know about the document.

You're welcome. I always add a link to it because when I was new here people were talking about 'The Dentons document' and I didn't know what it was.
When I found it and read it, it was incredible how familiar it all seemed.
It's disturbing how well it worked in real life.

But knowing about it is helpful to opposing the 'genderwoo' juggernaut - you can spot the individual strategies -
Youth mobilisiation? tick.
Litigation? tick.
Piggybacking on other causes? LGB - tick.
And so on.

While it's really disturbing to think that society can be turned upside down in such a short space of time by an ideology which is so manifestly based on untruths and inaccuracies, knowing that it didn't 'just happen', that there was a campaign based on the Dentons strategy, makes it seem less inevitable and irresistible.

It's still bad, but the more people who know about the cynical ploys, the sooner the wheels will come off the bandwagon.

Sorry, you are right. There is no such community.

Thank you.

When they decided to bolt on the TQ+ to the LGB though, they must have calculated that most of the LGB wouldn't qubble about that too much. Which I suppose held true for a while; nowadays, not so much, thankfully, it seems. Maybe the same questions about how representative orgs are of grass-roots opinion are fair here too? 😀If I was same-sex attracted, I'd be horrified at being bracketed with these people. Didn't gay people spend long enough telling the public, we're not kiddie-fiddlers, it's OK for us to be teachers etc? And it seems just at the point where the public said, fine, all good, along came these goons over the horizon...

Sorry that is a bit of a ramble. It is not meant to be cogent analysis, and as a moment's reading of the text would confirm, I have no specialist knowledge on the topic! 😃