You believe they have a transphobic agenda?
The Mermaids-LGB Alliance tribunal has resumed.
AR is Akua Reindorf for LGBA, R is Paul Roberts, CEO of LGBT Consortium, for Anti-LGBA. I’ve filled out some of the tweets a little without marking them because they’re quick stenography.
AR – you believe they have a transphobic agenda?
R – yes that is correct
AR – you believe that they have deliberately adopted a positive stance to deceive the Charity Commission and the wider community.
R – yes that is correct
AR – you describe their messages as innocuous, are they delivering Hidden messages?R – Yes
AR – CC decision looked at LGBA inevitably denigrates T people. Quoting from website, ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’ ‘dialogue’ ‘disagreement is not hate’. Do you believe those words are a sham and deceitful?
R – I disagree that that is how they are operating.AR: now referring to witness statements from Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. Both discuss pride and history of lesbian activism.
R – that what is written here.
AR – that is 100 years of activism for progressive causes.
R – activism yes, not sure it is progressive
Bam. Decades of activism for lesbians and gay men, he’s not sure it’s progressive.
AR – you believe that they have set up this charity with sole objective of removing rights from trans people?
R – yes, I believe that is their prime objective
AR -you realise that they are bombarded daily on social media with accusations of being a hate group?
R – yes, I understand that.AR -tweet from J Maugham, describing LGB Alliance as a dark money funded hate group. O Wilson: similar tweet.
R – yes I see that
AR – you may not know how many followers they have but they are influential.
R – yes
I think O Wilson must be Owen Jones. They’re transcribing at lightning speed so flubs are inevitable.
They discuss transphobia and “a disgust for trans people,” R agrees that’s what he thinks they have.
AR: are you prepared to entertain that they are acting in good faith?
R – they might believe they are acting in good faith, I believe they are not.
AR: you say earlier they have deliberately deceived the Charity Commission, therefore they must be acting in Bad faith.
R – yes, I agree.
AR: so you are not prepared to entertain that they may be acting in good faith.
R – they are trying to remove rights from trans people. That can’t be good faith.
R is talking about removing rights from trans people without spelling out what rights he’s talking about. That can’t be good faith.
They talk about how recent the addition (aka “inclusion”) of trans to LGB is.
AR: the opposition is that LGB are sexual orientation and T is about identities.
R – That is the argument.
AR – you don’t see that there are any conflicts between LGB and T rights.
R – I see that some might disagree.
AR – but you are exclusive of people who disagree with including T with LGB.
R – we are not inclusive of those who exclude T
But they are inclusive of those who exclude the LG who exclude the T.
AR – you expect members to be inclusive. An org that focuses on gay men must include trans gay men
R – yes.
AR – that means that an org that focuses on gay men, must include people who are born female, but identify as men and are exclusively attracted to gay men.
With the interesting result that an organization that focuses on gay men no longer focuses on gay men. It’s compelled heterosexuality under a “progressive” label.
AR – going back to the example, anyone who identifies as a man is quite a wide population.
R – yes.
AR – may not have surgery or taken hormones etc
R -yes
AR – so we are talking about self-identification.
R – yes.
AR – you mean that they are literally men?
R – no, there would be differences but my understanding is that they are men under the law
Ah, there would be differences. Interesting. There would be differences but the law says they are men, and everyone must obey the law. I wonder if the law can compel the gay men in these organizations that focus on gay men to be attracted to the women who are “men under the law.”
R – you keep using the word literally, what do you mean.
AR – actually, objectively.
R – trans men are men and should be treated as such.
AR – orgs must accept that a person with a female body can be a gay man. it is transphobic to say otherwise.
R – if someone is being Denied access to a service yes.
AR – do you believe it is transphobic to say that someone with a female body cannot be a gay man?
R – yes, I agree.
Because sex isn’t about bodies, it’s about gendered souls.
To be continued
I’ve been reading some of these excerpts today and can’t get over the fact that these respondents are professional people, employed (and paid, probably decent salaries) by the organisations they’re supposed to be representing. It is, as the kids say, cringe.
You cannot actually believe that you are acting in good faith, but not be. That is more or less the point of what ‘good faith’ means, that regardless of the correctness of your choices, they are/were reasonable as you understood them and have been pursued with genuine effort and diligence.
guest – it is, isn’t it. One cringe after another.
I hope they are planning to bring other witnesses who can say that the idea that women can be men is nuts.
Questioning about TiFs rather than TiMs is an interesting strategy, as the boundaries of men are not undergoing the same degree of erosion as those of women. Points can be made in this comparatively quiet backwater of trans “rights” and then applied symmetrically to lesbian’s concerns. The genderists might accidentally give away points in this arena that they are more fully prepared to defend in the far more contentious area surrounding women’s rights. Cleveer.