LBQ+ women and girls included by UK Government in Violence against women strategy

[IwantToRetire]

Quote:

... The report makes clear that lesbian, bisexual and queer women and girls, and trans and gender-diverse people face unique and disproportionate exclusion, discrimination and violence – often at the hands of those seeking to uphold gender stereotypes and norms.

... The UK is steadfast in its commitment to ending gender-based violence against women and girls in all their diversity, both at home and overseas.

... Our approach is underpinned by the UK’s International Strategic Framework on Women and Girls will guide our efforts to ensure that all women and all girls, in all their diversity, can realise their rights and potential.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/un-human-rights-council-62-uk-statement-for-the-interactive-dialogue-with-the-independent-expert-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity

Ffs.

So a mixed sex group, undefined, because women and girls alone aren't enough to warrant a focus of their own despite being half the bloody population.

There is no such thing as 'gender based violence', the whole phrase is to deny women as a sop to men.

What it made me think is they are just 2 faced.

I don't think I have ever seen a Government statement about violence against women and girls as part of a UK strategy use this sort of wording.

Which indicates to me they use it in an international scenario, which shows which ever way to look at it, they are 2 faced.

Lesbian, bisexual women and any women (clarified in U.K. law now as meaning female) who might identify as Q or + whatever the heck that means obviously should be included in the VAW strategy.

Violence against women and girls (regardless of their sexual preferences) is a specific problem. The whole point of identifying VAWG separately from other violence is that it’s not random aggression but is a built-in facet of patriarchal societies all around the world. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s the ugly, visible side of keeping the female half of the population under male control.

Men fight among themselves and attack mixed-sex groups for many reasons, but they are not VAWG. Equating any other manifestation of male violence with VAWG simply weakens the analysis and reduces the possibility of finding solutions to this huge, specific and widespread problem.

Including transmen, absolutely fine and appropriate. Transwomen, not at all.

The UK is steadfast in its commitment to ending gender-based violence against women and girls in all their diversity

Sorry but that bit made me not want to bother reading the whole piece. 'Diversity' is such a magic word, isn't it?

I'd also rather they used sex based than gender based, but I know I'm asking for the moon on a stick there.

It's a shibboleth really, isn't it? As soon as you see, 'sex' replaced with 'gender'.

tbh I think this may be one of the times where it’s not unreasonable to use ‘gender’ (which really is still often simply meant as a euphemism for sex) because ‘sex based violence’ may be taken to specifically mean sexual violence.

I see what you're saying, and its a good point, but I still object to gender. Maybe biological sex based violence would cover it without it just meaning sexual crimes.

It shouldn't include men just because they have decided their gender is female.

Absolute prats. No surprise, though.

Sure, but I think those who seeks to pervert the English language, quite deliberately, by inserting 'gender' rather than 'sex' know exactly what they are doing.