LGB Alliance

Dante7

Hi, straight guy here, but just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the new LGB Alliance group that has been set up in the UK.

"Welcome to our page, which has been set up a group of women and men who understand that homosexuality is same-sex attraction, and that gender is a social construct which reinforces stereotypes. We are not anti-trans. We are pro-LGB. We are advocating for LGB rights. Our profile picture shows Stormé DeLarverie, the butch lesbian whose scuffle with police in Greenwich Village was widely credited (by those who were actually there) with sparking the Stonewall uprising. She died in 2014, and she is our Rosa Parks. Thank you for your support. Remember we are officially launching in January so we don’t even exist yet! Please bear with us as we develop our website and mailing list."

https://www.facebook.com/LGB-Alliance-UK-114018070020816/

Goodshape

Seems unnecessarily exclusionary and hurtful. Not a fan.

Annasopra

Transphobic hatred and bigotry only designed for exclusion and trans bashing. Its basically a trans hate group.

Dante7

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Transphobic hatred and bigotry only designed for exclusion and trans bashing. Its basically a trans hate group.

That's pretty much the reaction I expected, but just wanted to be sure.

Annasopra

Dante7 wrote: »

That's pretty much the reaction I expected, but just wanted to be sure.

Sure of what?

Dante7

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sure of what?

Sure that you would brand it as transphobic and bigotted.

Ten of Swords

How would you brand it?

Padre_Pio

Goodshape wrote: »

Seems unnecessarily exclusionary and hurtful. Not a fan.

Are they?

It seems that sexual attraction and gender identity are two separate issues that are often lumped together.

Dante7

Ten of Swords wrote: »

How would you brand it?

I would brand it as a group of mainly lesbians who have been told by Stonewall that they are not welcome because they refuse to accept that they now have to suck male dicks.

Stonewall told them that they are no longer welcome for holding such views, so they decided to set up a new group for themselves. Go girls.

Annasopra

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Are they?

It seems that sexual attraction and gender identity are two separate issues that are often lumped together.

Noone claimed they are not separate. They are interlinked to be fair. Whether they are separate or not doesnt change the fact the lgb alliance is an anti trans group.

Annasopra

Dante7 wrote: »

I would brand it as a group of mainly lesbians who have been told by Stonewall that they are not welcome because they refuse to accept that they now have to suck male dicks.

Stonewall told them that they are no longer welcome for holding such views, so they decided to set up a new group for themselves. Go girls.

:rolleyes:

A group to do what?

Goodshape

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Are they?

It seems that sexual attraction and gender identity are two separate issues that are often lumped together.

You can split things up a myriad of ways if you choose to but doing so often, and certainly in this case, seems unnecessarily exclusionary and hurtful.

I'm not lesbian, female, bisexual, or trans. We're lucky to have each others support and attempting to exclude people due to some imagined set of rules or criteria is daft. I don't see what anybody gains.

Annasopra

Goodshape wrote: »

You can split things up a myriad of ways if you choose to but doing so often, and certainly in this case, seems unnecessarily exclusionary and hurtful.

I'm not lesbian, female, bisexual, or trans. We're lucky to have each others support and attempting to exclude people due to some imagined set of rules or criteria is daft. I don't see what anybody gains.

The way I see it the only gain is rabid hateful opposition of trans rights. Its not even promoting LGB rights at all.

eviltwin

You can't say you're in support of peoples rights while at the same time deliberately excluding one of the most discriminated groups in society.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Pretty sure one of it's founders also founded Stonewall.

L1011

Already some level of female bi exclusion by some of the figureheads on twitter; so its probably going to be the "LG Alliance" imminently.

There is probably dodgy money behind this.

isohon

Dante7 wrote: »

I would brand it as a group of mainly lesbians who have been told by Stonewall that they are not welcome because they refuse to accept that they now have to suck male dicks.

Please provide a link to Stonewall issuing an edict that lesbians need 'to suck male dicks'.

Dante7 wrote: »

Stonewall told them that they are no longer welcome for holding such views, so they decided to set up a new group for themselves. Go girls.

Such views as what? Again a link is required.

As far as I was aware this was an B and G alliance also? 'Go girls' seems to ignore at least all of the G, and some of the B?

Manion

They seem to be all about being anti-trans as opposed to pro LGB.

baby and crumble

No lesbian group that I am aware of has ever been told that they must find a certain type of woman to be attractive.

Ergo I find it hard to believe that any lesbians have been told to suck dicks.

Also, like someone else has said some queer women would quite like to do so, regardless of the body it’s attached to.

I am 100% opposed to any group that focuses on one set of advances and/or rights which is dependent on the lessening of another groups rights. So like, I’ve no issue with a gay men’s group setting up, but I’d object to one that says that women are subordinate to men.

So it is with this. I would never support a purposefully exclusively queer group that includes every single queer group except trans folks. And saying “we’re not transphobic” doesn’t make that true.

Annasopra

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Pretty sure one of it's founders also founded Stonewall.

Doesnt make it any less of a trans hate group.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Doesnt make it any less of a trans hate group.

Did I say it did? It's just sort of amusing watching the "let's all get along and be inclusive far left brigade" fall apart and hate each other.

I mean who knew that the LGBT+ community were such racists and bigots... I guess we can add transphobic to the list aswell

"research conducted by Stonewall in 2018 revealed that 51% of LGBT+ people of colour (POC) have experienced racism and discrimination from withing the LGBT+ community".


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/uk-black-pride-lgbt-racism-people-colour-stonewall-a8991976.html

Ps: I believe those stats are complete bollocks

baby and crumble

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Did I say it did? It's just sort of amusing watching the "let's all get along and be inclusive far left brigade" fall apart and hate each other.

I mean who knew that the LGBT+ community were such racists and bigots... I guess we can add transphobic to the list aswell

"research conducted by Stonewall in 2018 revealed that 51% of LGBT+ people of colour (POC) have experienced racism and discrimination from withing the LGBT+ community".


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/uk-black-pride-lgbt-racism-people-colour-stonewall-a8991976.html

Ps: I believe those stats are complete bollocks

Stonewall was formed in 1989. Societies attitudes have moved on but not necessarily everyone else has. I don’t know what founder you’re talking about but it’s unlikely they were younger than 19, at the lower end. So say they were born in 1970, that’d put the youngest possible founder member of Stonewall at pushing 50.

Also, for my 2c some of the most insidious transphobic attitudes I and my friends have heard or seen have come from within the community. Likewise biphobic attitudes too, which this new group reeks of also. So it doesn’t surprise me at all. The community is notorious for splintering. All you have to do is look at the Irish example of the spilt in campaigning from civil partnership vs equal marriage.

p1akuw47h5r3it

baby and crumble wrote: »

Stonewall was formed in 1989. Societies attitudes have moved on but not necessarily everyone else has. I don’t know what founder you’re talking about but it’s unlikely they were younger than 19, at the lower end. So say they were born in 1970, that’d put the youngest possible founder member of Stonewall at pushing 50.

Also, for my 2c some of the most insidious transphobic attitudes I and my friends have heard or seen have come from within the community. Likewise biphobic attitudes too, which this new group reeks of also. So it doesn’t surprise me at all. The community is notorious for splintering. All you have to do is look at the Irish example of the spilt in campaigning from civil partnership vs equal marriage.

Simon fanshawe I believe. I've heard of the biphobia being a problem, but racism too?

Annasopra

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Simon fanshawe I believe. I've heard of the biphobia being a problem, but racism too?

And transphobia...

p1akuw47h5r3it

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And transphobia...

Sure anything that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world is transphobic!

baby and crumble

Racism is a problem everywhere. They way I look at it, if you aren’t the focus of the abuse (ie if you’re white in a predominately white society, or cisgender and a not trans) then you don’t get to say racism or transphobia or whatever doesn’t exist. Same as straight people who are like “well I’ve never experienced homophobia so it can’t exist”.

I have many friends who aren’t white in the community and yeah, it’s a problem according to them. Perhaps less so here than the UK but it’s still something they talk about. Why would you refuse to believe what people are telling you they’ve experienced?

p1akuw47h5r3it

baby and crumble wrote: »

Racism is a problem everywhere. They way I look at it, if you aren’t the focus of the abuse (ie if you’re white in a predominately white society, or cisgender and a not trans) then you don’t get to say racism or transphobia or whatever doesn’t exist. Same as straight people who are like “well I’ve never experienced homophobia so it can’t exist”.

How inclusive of you. If I, a straight white male, say that I am the focus of abuse in large amounts of leftist media*, you thus cannot say I am not unless you are the focus of that abuse: Straight white and male. That is your (lack of) logic.

baby and crumble wrote: »

I have many friends who aren’t white in the community and yeah, it’s a problem according to them. Perhaps less so here than the UK but it’s still something they talk about. Why would you refuse to believe what people are telling you they’ve experienced?

I don't refuse to believe anything. I find it hard to believe that more than 1 in 2 LGBT "POC" have been racially abused or discriminated against by other LGBT people. I'm always skeptical of studies by any interest group. Racism is a problem in all communities, the question is how big a problem.

*I don't believe this btw.

Goodshape

DanDan6592 wrote: »

How inclusive of you. If I, a straight white male, say that I am the focus of abuse in large amounts of leftist media*

*I don't believe this btw.

*Yeah, neither do I. Soooo.... *shrug*.

I don't refuse to believe anything. I find it hard to believe that more than 1 in 2 LGBT "POC" have been racially abused or discriminated against by other LGBT people. I'm always skeptical of studies by any interest group. Racism is a problem in all communities

You find it hard to believe that POC are discriminated against yet you state that racism is a problem in all communities. You're talking in circles here.

the question is how big a problem.

Who's question? Why?



I'm not sure where race or skin colour has crept into this discussion anyway but "LGB Alliance" is exclusionary. I don't think that's debatable. It's literally their reason for existing. The only question is whether you're okay with that. And I don't see what there possibly is to gain from it.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Goodshape wrote: »

*Yeah, neither do I. Soooo.... *shrug*.

Did you read what I was responding to?

Goodshape wrote: »

You find it hard to believe that POC are discriminated against yet you state that racism is a problem in all communities. You're talking in circles here.

Nope. Not what I said. Maybe have a re-read of it.

Goodshape wrote: »

Who's question? Why?

Societies question.

Goodshape wrote: »

I'm not sure where race or skin colour has crept into this discussion anyway but "LGB Alliance" is exclusionary. I don't think that's debatable. It's literally there reason for existing. The only question is whether you're okay with that. And I don't see what there possibly is to gain from it.

I brought it up as it seems, if Stonewalls stats are to believed, that the LGBT+ community is very exclusionary in general.

Anyway, I'm off boards for a bit. Good luck

Goodshape

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Did you read what I was responding to?

You were responding to B&C's assertion that if you are not the focus of abuse or discrimination then you don't really get to say how much or how little of it occurs.

You came back with a hypothetical which even you don't believe. So.. blah. I don't know. It's... irrelevant?

Nope. Not what I said. Maybe have a re-read of it.

Okay, so you're perfectly willing to accept that it happens and you're just concerned that "1 in 2" might not be the right figure.

Again.. so what? Maybe it's 1 in 3? 2 in 5? What number would be enough for you?

(please don't answer that)

I brought it up as it seems, if Stonewalls stats are to believed, that the LGBT+ community is very exclusionary in general.

The "LGBT+ community" isn't a single easily defined entity though. I'm not sure that an "in general" really exists.

Groups like the "LGB Alliance" evidently do exist.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Goodshape wrote: »

You were responding to B&C's assertion that if you are not the focus of abuse or discrimination then you don't really get to say how much or how little of it occurs.

You came back with a hypothetical which even you don't believe. So.. blah. I don't know. It's... irrelevant?

It's not irrelevant. It's to point out the absurdity of the position that no gay person could object to me saying that my gender and sexuality are undergoing a witch hunt by the media, or that straight men are highly discriminated against in society, solely because that person is gay. Because that follows from B&C's own logic.

It's not a clever position to hold when it gets turned against you.

Goodshape wrote: »

Okay, so you're perfectly willing to accept that it happens and you're just concerned that "1 in 2" might not be the right figure.

Yes. I'd be very surprised if it was, but it ofcourse could be.

Goodshape wrote: »

Again.. so what? Maybe it's 1 in 3? 2 in 5?

What's the point in obtaining accurate statistics. That's what your asking me... seriously.

80% of trans-sexuals are sex offenders. This statistic may not be true, but sure so what? Let's just have people believe it anyway.

Goodshape wrote: »

What number would be enough for you?

(please don't answer that)

Enough for what? I'm highly suspicious of that figure, would like accurate statistics, and don't believe they are.

Goodshape wrote: »

The "LGBT+ community" isn't a single easily defined entity though. I'm not sure that an "in general" really exists.

Groups like the "LGB Alliance" evidently do exist.

Oh I fully agree. The idea of a LGBT+ community to me is a bit ridiculous, but that's the position that gets pushed by the likes of Stonewall. And when they produce suspicious statistics that suggest the LGBT+ community is racist and discriminatory you thus all get tarred with the same brush.

baby and crumble

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It's not irrelevant. It's to point out the absurdity of the position that no gay person could object to me saying that my gender and sexuality are undergoing a witch hunt by the media, or that straight men are highly discriminated against in society, solely because that person is gay. Because that follows from B&C's own logic.

Actually, if it's genuinely your experience, then I couldn't argue with that personal experience. I'd perhaps discuss with you the idea of societal privilege (which is a an accepted sociological concept), which would suggest that as a straight white male, individually there's a high possibility you are discriminated against by certain other individuals but society at large is contracted in order to afford you far more privilege than I have as a cisgender white female in western society. I in turn have far more privilege, structurally, than a trans woman, or a black cisgender woman, or many others - because our society is built structurally on those concepts. Other cultures will have different groups which hold more privilege than others, obviously. But if you tell me your experience, I have no tools at my disposal to refute that.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Enough for what? I'm highly suspicious of that figure, would like accurate statistics, and don't believe they are.

Can I ask how you would then propose collecting more accurate statistics on the topic? Surely asking the individuals involved is the most accurate method. Statistics, when it comes to human experience issues, can't really ever be objectively accurate - because humans are involved. All we can go on is to repeat the same data collection and analysis and see if it is similar in different age groups, locations, collection dates etc. If it remains stable over time and across demographics you can be fairly confident in it's accuracy.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

IOh I fully agree. The idea of a LGBT+ community to me is a bit ridiculous, but that's the position that gets pushed by the likes of Stonewall. And when they produce suspicious statistics that suggest the LGBT+ community is racist and discriminatory you thus all get tarred with the same brush.

You're making a poor leap in statistics there. Because you see that 51% of POC have experienced racial abuse, you assume that that means that similar numbers of the non POC LGBT community are perpetrating that abuse. You also may be conflating 'discrimination and abuse' with physical danger or aggressive verbal abuse. All you have to do is look at the proliferation of the 'no fats no femmes no asians' trope that occurs on dating and hook-up apps.

And frankly I would agree that a lot of the LGBT+ community is problematic in many ways, just like society at large is problematic for minorities. Just at the moment there is a pretty serious debate happening within the drag performer community about cultural appropriation of black and minority cultural artefacts for profit by white kings and queens. Being called out on it is vital, just like being called out of transphobia within and outside the community.

I don't see how having a group which focuses on gay/bi issues is a problem because they don't deal with trans issues.

Gay/bi issues aren't trans issues and vice versa.

Why should the two be linked?

p1akuw47h5r3it

baby and crumble wrote: »

Actually, if it's genuinely your experience, then I couldn't argue with that personal experience. I'd perhaps discuss with you the idea of societal privilege (which is a an accepted sociological concept), which would suggest that as a straight white male, individually there's a high possibility you are discriminated against by certain other individuals but society at large is contracted in order to afford you far more privilege than I have as a cisgender white female in western society. I in turn have far more privilege, structurally, than a trans woman, or a black cisgender woman, or many others - because our society is built structurally on those concepts. Other cultures will have different groups which hold more privilege than others, obviously. But if you tell me your experience, I have no tools at my disposal to refute that.

But we're not talking about personal experience per-se. We're talking about extrapolating personal experience to "your group" in general, as if everyone has the same experience. And this, to me, is were the whole idea of societal privilege essentially falls apart. You either take people as individuals with individual experiences, or youb take people as a group with a group experience. You can't have it both ways.
I mean, if I'm being discriminated at work and you are not, what use is it to me that "society at large is contracted in order to afford you (me) far more privilege". You're essentially telling me to just suck it up.

But, here, this is probably a discussion for another day!

baby and crumble wrote: »

Can I ask how you would then propose collecting more accurate statistics on the topic? Surely asking the individuals involved is the most accurate method. Statistics, when it comes to human experience issues, can't really ever be objectively accurate - because humans are involved. All we can go on is to repeat the same data collection and analysis and see if it is similar in different age groups, locations, collection dates etc. If it remains stable over time and across demographics you can be fairly confident in it's accuracy.

Yes to everything you've said, with the addition that I'd want a group that isn't an interest group to do the study. So, for example, Pew research or the CSO.

baby and crumble wrote: »

You're making a poor leap in statistics there. Because you see that 51% of POC have experienced racial abuse, you assume that that means that similar numbers of the non POC LGBT community are perpetrating that abuse.

It would have to be a relatively high number of people, though point taken.

baby and crumble wrote: »

You also may be conflating 'discrimination and abuse' with physical danger or aggressive verbal abuse. All you have to do is look at the proliferation of the 'no fats no femmes no asians' trope that occurs on dating and hook-up apps.

How is that discrimination? It's a dating/hook-up app, not a lets-be-friends app. If you aren't interested in femmes or asians then you are not interested in femmes or Asians. And this is what I mean about not truely believing those statistics.

baby and crumble wrote: »

And frankly I would agree that a lot of the LGBT+ community is problematic in many ways, just like society at large is problematic for minorities. Just at the moment there is a pretty serious debate happening within the drag performer community about cultural appropriation of black and minority cultural artefacts for profit by white kings and queens. Being called out on it is vital, just like being called out of transphobia within and outside the community.

Look, you've been respective of me, and I apologise if I don't return that! But the idea of cultural appropriation to me is complete nonsense. It's bonkers! The gay community has no hope if that is the kind of infighting that is going on.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see how having a group which focuses on gay/bi issues is a problem because they don't deal with trans issues.

Gay/bi issues aren't trans issues and vice versa.

Why should the two be linked?

It's not that they don't deal with trans issues. The real issue is that they actively try to damage trans rights. There is absolutely no issue with an lgb group that is pro lgb. This one isn't merely pro lgb. It is actively anti trans and transphobic.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's not that they don't deal with trans issues. The real issue is that they actively try to damage trans rights. There is absolutely no issue with an lgb group that is pro lgb. This one isn't merely pro lgb. It is actively anti trans and transphobic.

I'm far from an expert on this issue but from what I can see, it is a group that is actively trying to distance themselves from transgenderism because of the historic inclusion of Transgenderism in issues that are LGB focused.

Is not wanting transgenderism being associated with your group transphobic?

Not wanting anything to do with trans is hardly anti-trans?

gmisk

I think Katie Hopkins is backing them....that should tell you all you need to know.

gmisk

gmisk wrote: »

I think Katie Hopkins is backing them....that should tell you all you need to know.

Not a fan of Hopkins in the slightest but to oppose something just because you don't like someone who supports it is a little silly.

Alex Jones is pretty sure that Epstein didn't commit suicide. So is that wrong because Alex Jones thinks so?

I mean, Piers Morgan supports Arsenal. Doesn't mean that people shouldn't support Arsenal for fear of being aligned with him.

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not a fan of Hopkins in the slightest but to oppose something just because you don't like someone who supports it is a little silly.

Alex Jones is pretty sure that Epstein didn't commit suicide. So is that wrong because Alex Jones thinks so?

I mean, Piers Morgan supports Arsenal. Doesn't mean that people shouldn't support Arsenal for fear of being aligned with him.

In your opinion, I can't say I agree with anything Katie Hopkins says. Supporting arsenal is not a comparison...if you want to talk about piers Morgan what do you think about his views on gender etc, he wants to identify as a penguin..
Without the effort of trans people imo (Stonewall etc) there wouldn't be the same momentum behind LGBT rights.
They are probably the most demonized group under LGBT umbrella. The couple of trans people I have met are nothing but decent but they seem to be a real target currently whether it is with regards the use of bathrooms, terf groups or LGB alliance.

gmisk

gmisk wrote: »

In your opinion, I can't say I agree with anything Katie Hopkins says. Supporting arsenal is not a comparison...if you want to talk about piers Morgan what do you think about his views on gender etc, he wants to identify as a penguin..
Without the effort of trans people imo (Stonewall etc) there wouldn't be the same momentum behind LGBT rights.
They are probably the most demonized group under LGBT umbrella. The couple of trans people I have met are nothing but decent but they seem to be a real target currently whether it is with regards the use of bathrooms, terf groups or LGB alliance.

With regards Piers Morgan, I can't see any possible reason that anyone can have for not supporting his right to identify as a penguin. I mean, it is obvious that he is taking the piss but if you are willing to put forward the idea that people can self identify as whatever they choose, have the same rights and access to facilities that are exclusive to the opposite sex, you can't in all honesty deny him his right to choose what he wants to be identified as.

I know trans people myself (two actually if you want to be specific) and they are decent people. I don't have an issue with people living how they want. But on the flip side, I can see why groups of people who have nothing to do with transgenderism would not want to be associated with them. I don't see how that can be described as transphobic.

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With regards Piers Morgan, I can't see any possible reason that anyone can have for not supporting his right to identify as a penguin. I mean, it is obvious that he is taking the piss but if you are willing to put forward the idea that people can self identify as whatever they choose, have the same rights and access to facilities that are exclusive to the opposite sex, you can't in all honesty deny him his right to choose what he wants to be identified as.

I know trans people myself (two actually if you want to be specific) and they are decent people. I don't have an issue with people living how they want. But on the flip side, I can see why groups of people who have nothing to do with transgenderism would not want to be associated with them. I don't see how that can be described as transphobic.

As you have just said...he is taking the piss...maybe talk to your two trans friends and try and see things from there point of view, how they likely struggled with there gender for years or how they might have been treated by society over the years, then maybe you might come to the conclusion that wanting to live as a penguin and being trans are not in any way comparable.

I am a gay man but I have no issue with the T in LGBT as I stated already they did a lot of work with regards LGBT rights and have a tough enough time as it is without LGB people rounding on them for no good reason.

Jameela Jamil put it a lot better than I can.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/29/jameela-jamil-anti-trans-activists-lgb-alliance-ally-twitter-the-good-place/amp/

Maybe do some digging into the group and what they stand for and the members?
One of the speakers at there first event was Miranda Yardley (who is trans...you couldn't make it up) who has been permanently banned from twitter, has a history of harassing trans people online and who doxxed a trans child...lovely.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm far from an expert on this issue but from what I can see, it is a group that is actively trying to distance themselves from transgenderism because of the historic inclusion of Transgenderism in issues that are LGB focused.

Is not wanting transgenderism being associated with your group transphobic?

Not wanting anything to do with trans is hardly anti-trans?

Actively working to oppose trans rights is anti trans and transphobic

gmisk

gmisk wrote: »

As you have just said...he is taking the piss...maybe talk to your two trans friends and try and see things from there point of view, how they likely struggled with there gender for years or how they might have been treated by society over the years, then maybe you might come to the conclusion that wanting to live as a penguin and being trans are not in any way comparable.

I am a gay man but I have no issue with the T in LGBT as I stated already they did a lot of work with regards LGBT rights and have a tough enough time as it is without LGB people rounding on them for no good reason.

Jameela Jamil put it a lot better than I can.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/29/jameela-jamil-anti-trans-activists-lgb-alliance-ally-twitter-the-good-place/amp/

The fact that he is taking the piss doesn't/shouldn't negate him of his right to identify as whatever he wants, if self determination is what you believe in.

I have spoken in depth to the two trans people I know. And yes, they have suffered hardships because of how they identify. But that still doesn't mean that because of their identification, that people must accept them and treat them as they wish to be treated.

I mean, in an ideal world, yes, everyone could just be who they want to be and everyone would accept it, but the rights of people to identify as they wish, shouldn't supersede the rights of people who choose to ignore that request. You can't force people to accept your "reality" when biology contradicts it.

Anyway, I have gone off topic so to bring it back, I can't see why distancing yourself away from a group who you share nothing in common with (apart from discrimination) is considered "phobic".

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actively working to oppose trans rights is anti trans and transphobic

Distancing yourself from a group and highlighting what you perceive to be issues with that group is hardly phobic.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Distancing yourself from a group and highlighting what you perceive to be issues with that group is hardly phobic.

I thought you didn't know much about this issue? Yet suddenly you know all about this group?

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I thought you didn't know much about this issue? Yet suddenly you know all about this group?

Christ Joey, I am going on the link provided where Jamilia Jamil points out that they bring up some points about dangerous trans women.

I never claimed to know a lot about the group.

I see my input is obviously not "on brand" so I will leave you to it.

L.Jenkins

Deleted User wrote: »

With regards Piers Morgan, I can't see any possible reason that anyone can have for not supporting his right to identify as a penguin. I mean, it is obvious that he is taking the piss but if you are willing to put forward the idea that people can self identify as whatever they choose, have the same rights and access to facilities that are exclusive to the opposite sex, you can't in all honesty deny him his right to choose what he wants to be identified as.

I know trans people myself (two actually if you want to be specific) and they are decent people. I don't have an issue with people living how they want. But on the flip side, I can see why groups of people who have nothing to do with transgenderism would not want to be associated with them. I don't see how that can be described as transphobic.

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that he is taking the piss doesn't/shouldn't negate him of his right to identify as whatever he wants, if self determination is what you believe in.

I have spoken in depth to the two trans people I know. And yes, they have suffered hardships because of how they identify. But that still doesn't mean that because of their identification, that people must accept them and treat them as they wish to be treated.

I mean, in an ideal world, yes, everyone could just be who they want to be and everyone would accept it, but the rights of people to identify as they wish, shouldn't supersede the rights of people who choose to ignore that request. You can't force people to accept your "reality" when biology contradicts it.

Anyway, I have gone off topic so to bring it back, I can't see why distancing yourself away from a group who you share nothing in common with (apart from discrimination) is considered "phobic".

Deleted User wrote: »

Christ Joey, I am going on the link provided where Jamilia Jamil points out that they bring up some points about dangerous trans women.

I never claimed to know a lot about the group.

I see my input is obviously not "on brand" so I will leave you to it.

If you claim to not know a lot about a group, then educate yourself. It's that simple. One more utterance on the issue and you'll take a well needed break.

p1akuw47h5r3it

gmisk wrote: »

As you have just said...he is taking the piss...maybe talk to your two trans friends and try and see things from there point of view, how they likely struggled with there gender for years or how they might have been treated by society over the years, then maybe you might come to the conclusion that wanting to live as a penguin and being trans are not in any way comparable.

I am a gay man but I have no issue with the T in LGBT as I stated already they did a lot of work with regards LGBT rights and have a tough enough time as it is without LGB people rounding on them for no good reason.

Jameela Jamil put it a lot better than I can.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/29/jameela-jamil-anti-trans-activists-lgb-alliance-ally-twitter-the-good-place/amp/

Maybe do some digging into the group and what they stand for and the members?
One of the speakers at there first event was Miranda Yardley (who is trans...you couldn't make it up) who has been permanently banned from twitter, has a history of harassing trans people online and who doxxed a trans child...lovely.

Piers Morgan takes the piss out of people that claim to be two-spirit, gender-fluid, gender non-binary etc. not trans-people. Trans people identify as the sex opposite to their birth-sex. You can't be gender fluid and trans, that negates what to be trans is.

And this is why trans-people have come in for ridicule, because the two issues are always conflated, particularly by trans "activists" themselves, people who I have in the most part very little respect for as I believe they are fully self-serving and rarely have trans people needs n their minds.

p1akuw47h5r3it

L.Jenkins wrote: »

If you claim to not know a lot about a group, then educate yourself. It's that simple. One more utterance on the issue and you'll take a well needed break.

So what, if he educates himself he still can't have an opinion?

Ten of Swords

Mod

Please do not discuss moderator actions on thread as it derails the discussion. If you have a query you can pm any of the mods

_Godot_

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see how having a group which focuses on gay/bi issues is a problem because they don't deal with trans issues.

Gay/bi issues aren't trans issues and vice versa.

Why should the two be linked?

There are gay and bi trans people too, y'know.