To provide an affirming environment
Here we go again.
You can’t do that, you can’t say that, you can’t invite her, you can’t do anything without our prior approval.
I did read it. It’s utterly typical and utterly contemptible.
None of them are “LGBTQ+” because no one can be all of those things. By “allies” they don’t mean people who think same-sex attraction should not be ostracized or shamed in any way, they mean people who are eager to enforce a new and stupid doctrine of Magic Gender on the entire world. With Allies like that who needs an Axis?
By the same token there’s no such thing as “an affirming environment for LGBTQ+ members” because they have different and incompatible goals and worldviews, whether they realize it or not.
In both cases of course the wording is meant to function as a threat and a shaming device. “Y R U abusing the LGBTQ+ communiddy?”
Ah the inclusion of the last speaker is the problem, is it? Inclusion for me but not for thee.
What are her crimes?
She has said that in the particular post she is writing she won’t refer to a man who calls himself a woman as a woman, because the fact that he’s a man is at the heart of what she’s writing about.
She wrote that post about Mridul Wadwha, a man who applied for a job as head of a rape crisis centre advertised as women-only, and she referred to him as a man, because putting a man in charge of a rape crisis centre is a very bad thing to do.
But these bedwetters want all that covered up and concealed in language that pretends Wadwha is a woman, and they want groveling and reparations and everybody gets a new car because Naomi Cunningham was invited to their dire “annual dinner and discussion.”
The discussion is about banning “conversion therapy”. One form that “conversion therapy” takes is convincing lesbians to like dick.
Seems like trans ideology is antithetical to that effort.
If it’s for the noble goal of progressivism, then it’s OK, doncha know?
I’d say roughly 90% of trans ideology is convincing lesbians to like dick, metaphorically speaking.
Perhaps only within licking distance of the topic but might be revealing:
I was the subject of a minor pile-on yesterday. There are some different opinions among legal people about some aspects of the UK’s Equality Act. I’m pretty sure that my position is correct on a particular point, but there are ways in which the text of the act and the official guidance can be read that suggest a conflict and the matter could perhaps be interpreted either way. Now the thing is, I don’t have any ideological skin in this game. I’d prefer the law to be sensible, but nothing about my world view crashes down if it is not. Not so the other side, of course. They are using the act as a means to grasp ever more rights rather than a means to, you know, protect equality.
So when I said I was looking at various different sources to try to find out exactly where different interpretations were in conflict and see what it would take to iron them out, they descended like flies
The overriding message was that I should not be asking these questions, I should just take their word for what the law says (after all, one of them had ‘solicitor’ in their Twitter handle). All were telling me I was wrong even though by that time I’m sure few of them even knew what my original point had been.
They just wanted me to stop. At all costs. I must not look into things in any more depth. Me. With no legal training, about eight followers and zero influence on the rest of the world. I must, whatever else I do, immediately cease and desist looking into this matter.
Reader, I did not.
The reaction is absolutely crazy, though. An enormous overreaction. The kind of overreaction that makes people wonder what they’ve got to hide. As piles-on go, it was strictly amateur. I’ve been piled on by bigger and meaner (and definitely smarter) people every day before breakfast, man and boy. But it’s usually to tell me “you are bad because you said x” not YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY AGREE THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND NEVER EVER DISCUSS THE MATTER AGAIN.
I can shrug it off, but one sour note (well, two): the obvious one is that other people get it worse. If they’re putting so much effort into trying to silence someone who is barely audible anyway….. the other is that since I started using my face as an avatar, I’ve been called a misogynist a lot. I mean, a lot. Now I may be a misogynist, of course, but I don’t believe that figures in my being called one. I tend to be called one if I disagree with a woman (or a ‘woman) about trans issues. I don’t mind the name-calling, but I despair at the use of the word to silence debate, especially in aid of a deeply misogynistic cause.
Seems entirely reasonable. After all, the legal profession are well known for being of exactly one mind as to how to interpret the law. You’d NEVER see two lawyers disagree about interpretation of anything.
@latsot:
“And yet, he persisted …”
If the law had really been clear on the matter, it makes no sense that they’d want you to stop researching. I never saw that kind of panic from the evolution-side of the Creationism debates, for example.
While the topic of “the fight to ban gay conversion therapy” certainly includes understanding various objections, I can give them this. New speaker added (or old speaker removed) arguably changes the nature of the contract, if not the “nature of the event.” Offer refunds. The loss is theirs, since hearing and possibly questioning someone they disagree with seem like the kind of things attorneys should do often enough to get good at them.