Wotcha mean “free”?
Let’s think about this.
There’s more than one stumbling block here.
One: why “free”? Is that the issue? Are lesbians and gay men and bisexual people all locked up or enslaved or otherwise restrained or confined?
Two, why the T? What does the T have to do with the LGB?
Three, is it true that none are free until all are free?
The first one. “Free” is used as a kind of catchall for social justice movements, but I think it shouldn’t be, because it just muddles things. Freedom isn’t really the issue here, although it was in the past, when people could be prosecuted for being lesbian or gay. (Or at least gay. I don’t actually know if lesbians were.) It’s more about acceptance, about an end to disgust, about normalization.
The disagreements over trans ideology aren’t generally about freedom, they’re about truth, safety, bodily integrity, competing rights, medical ethics, and the like. Yes, you can make it about freedom by talking about the precious freedom to mutilate your own body, but the freedom part isn’t really the core dispute.
And the slogan illustrates that. In what way are lesbians and gay men less “free” if people are not encouraged to try to change their sex? I can’t think of any such way.
What slogans like this are doing is ripping off other social justice movements to make the gender ideology look better. We’re supposed to think this is the Civil Rights movement redux. Well guess what: it’s not. The two are not the same in any way, and forced teaming them is gross.
The second. Why the T? Well because forced teaming. See above. The more trans ideology can hook itself onto genuine human rights issues, the more plausible it looks. That’s why we have to push back.
Three, is it true? Of course not. It’s political rhetoric, intended to manipulate. Nobody’s rights or freedoms depend on agreeing that men are women if they say they are.
I suspect that “freedom” is a bit like “equality” in these contexts–they’re used as general terms meaning, roughly, “the changes we want in society/law”. It’s the reverse of using what should be specific epithets (such as ‘genocide’) to mean “That thing that I think is bad”.
Oh, I did a bit of research, and yes, at one point, lesbians were equally threatened by sodomy and obscenity laws (it also seems like the latter were more commonly used against lesbians) in theory, but in practice were far less likely to be actually arrested. You had to be a lot more open and even vocal about it before you’d get put in cuffs. (One case I found referenced was of a lesbian cafe owner, Eva Kotchever, who was very open about her sexuality.)
An interesting case brought in Edinburgh had the judges flummoxed as to whether or not two women could have a sexual relationship.
There is a reference to this case in the excellent TV series “Gentleman Jack”, based on the diaries of Anne Lister. I highly recommend it, not for the Lesbianism, but for the portrayal of a strong willed woman making her way in the world of male dominated business in 19C Britain. plus, it’s written by Sally Wainright and stars Suranne Jones, an almost perfect combination.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/lesbianism-and-the-criminal-law-england-and-wales
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7211618/
T is antithetical to LGB. It’s the ultimate in “conversion therapy,” not to mention particularly hostile to lesbians, i.e., women. T makes certain men “free” to run roughshod over women generally. It comes at the expense of freedom for W, as well as L. T doesn’t want freedom. They want Tyranny, with a capital T.
Rev David – Wo – you too are a fan of Sally Wainright and Suranne Jones? I did not know this. SAME.
Well, we used to talk about the Gay Liberation Movement.
There is nothing new about transgender activists soliciting support from lesbians and gay men. Back in the day I have heard Stephen Whittle address a meeting on exactly that theme: you’ve achieved your liberation, now support us as we fight for ours. But Stephen was thoroughly diplomatic: I was quite charmed at the time; became more critical upon reflection. The tone of this poster, however, is distinctly aggro: it sets out to bully, not charm. A tactical error.
Interesting question. Who are the T? In Britain (I cannot speak for other countries) it was a handful of transsexual activists who conducted the campaign to associate their cause with the movement for gay rights. At some point a decision was taken to invent a ‘trans umbrella’ and include cross-dressers, people with differences of sex development (sometimes termed intersex people), etc etc. It seems it was felt that there was political advantage in ramping up the numbers. Setting aside drag queens, who have been part of male gay culture for a very long time, none of these groups have any actual identity with the LGB in culture or political interests.
Again, I can only speak for Britain. Here there were no laws that targeted lesbians directly. But lesbians could be sacked if they were known to be gay, and they could also find themselves at a disadvantage in child custody cases, if their ex-husbands chose to leverage their sexuality against them.
@ OB #4
Wainright writes strong female characters with immense flaws (think “Happy Valley”) and Jones never misses the beat. Her Anne Lister, above, and Ruth Slater in “Unforgiven” show the breadth she can carry.
I may also be drawn to Wainright’s work as so much of it is set in Yorkshire, my father’s home. But mostly, it’s the writing and the characters that draw me in.
I just re-watched the first episode of Scott and Bailey. I don’t know why I waited so long.
It’s not ‘forced teaming’ if it identifies as ‘intersectionality.’