But they're not against LGB, just T. So they're anti-T. When every letter in the acronym is literally representing a different group, lumping them together the way you are is dishonest.
LGBT people bundled themselves together, decades ago.
This particular group was formed to combat the notion of LGBT identity. So it isn't unreasonable to class it as anti-LGBT, in addition to also holding more specifically anti-T positions.
I'm not saying there's anything dishonest about LGBT people all banding together to show strength. I'm saying that it's dishonest to say that an LGB person who doesn't want to be lumped in with the T people is "anti-LGBT."
I'm not LGBT, but I do personally know LGB people who don't like the Ts being lumped in with them. They aren't anti-trans by any means, but they see it as a different thing that tends to distract from the LGB and causes more strife. I also know LGB people who share your philosophy and are perfectly happy to have the Ts onboard.
The term has been LGBT basically from the start, hasn't it? Being iffy on new optional extensions is one thing, trying to act like the T is new gets a much less charitable view from me.
I personally interpreted the original tweet as being against a rather extremist minority within the LGBT community.
It was not in good taste but I think it highlights an actual issue and it's too easy (and perhaps even proves the point) to accuse anyone sharing it or not being overly outraged by it of being 'anti LGBT'. Like JK Rowling being cancelled for saying that women may not feel safe in toilets with men (many women agree), for instance.
How do you figure? It doesn't require you to be anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, or anti-trans, in order to question why we lump together people who are homosexual/bisexual (which describes the types of people someone wants to get into a romantic or sexual relationship with), with people who are trans (people whose assigned-at-birth gender is not who they are).
The answer is, of course, that "we" don't lump them together; the group as a whole has decided to band together because the persecution and opression they suffer is in many ways shared, and often the kind of person who would persecute one of the groups would persecute all of them. But it's not "anti-trans" or "anti-LGBT" to ask this question.
(Consider "Asian-American", which is more a political/activist construct than anything else, given that "Asian" describes a bunch of different groups, some of which may not have all that much in common culturally or even politically.)
The organization in question may also be anti-trans (or anti-LGBT as a whole), but that's... a separate issue?
In a literal sense, you're right. But the ideas and values that underpins the LGBT movement and many of the people who identify with it are not compatible with accepting just part of that group.
It's not an anti-LGBT organization. It is an organization concerned that the police have embraced trans ideologies that don't have the support of most of the UK population. It is in many ways similar to the LGB Alliance, which has a similar position with regard to the T in LGBT. Many of its supporters are gay, including a large number of lesbian feminists who support its goals.
Indeed, gay people often hate trans people (who, as another comment says, mostly want to get on with our fucking lives) as much as anyone else. What’s your point here? Hatred is cool and normal and Amazon should be promoting it?
reply