Talk:LGB Alliance

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon gender.svg

This gender related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Oh, I didn't know[edit]

Oh, Why is this on the to do list if the page is created does it need help or more information? Also I'm not surprised a group like this exists there seems to be a growing sentiment to accept people for their orientation but screw people over for Trans identities at most this is just tokenist bullshit by the right-wing to make it look like they accept people for their orientation but for whatever reason trans people are their ultimate enemies and its crazy how much effort they put in just hurt trans people St.~Emi (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)St.~Emi

Oops silly me it was under the recently created section St.~Emi (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)St.~Emi

Martin Cleaver[edit]

Is this supposed to be a "rational" description? It looks to me more like a gender-activist rant that will give RationalWiki a bad name.

1 The LGB Alliance has many trans supporters. 2 It is not anti-trans. 3 Stonewall has abandoned the LGB and is now exclusively pushing the T agenda. 4 T is apparently anyone who calls themselves T without any need for medical evidence. (Self-ID is the new mantra.) 5 Many RationalWiki supporters and leading sceptics campaigning against quackery and woo disagree with this stance. 6 This entry is devoid of any scientific basis and ignores biology. 7 The LGB Alliance is supported by people from across the political spectrum, but its leaders are on the left.

I suggest a complete rewrite to provide a balanced and scientific text. Surely RationalWiki is not intended as a platform for gender extremists? — Unsigned, by: Mcleaver / talk / contribs

Martin, let's just enjoy the incredible spectacle of RationalWiki attacking a group set to promote the rights and interests of lesbian and gay people from an objective, materialist perspective as to the nature of sex and sexuality. Lecanardnoir (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought this was a *rational* wiki! Also, Andy is that you? I thought you got banned.
1 The LGB Alliance has many trans supporters - and the BNP had a black member. Google tokenism.
2 It is not anti-trans. - it very clearly is, and there is linked evidence to demonstrate that.
3 Stonewall has abandoned the LGB and is now exclusively pushing the T agenda. - yes, that is a thing transphobes and TERFs say.
4 T is apparently anyone who calls themselves T without any need for medical evidence. (Self-ID is the new mantra.) - so what?
5 Many RationalWiki supporters and leading sceptics campaigning against quackery and woo disagree with this stance. - no they don't, as evidenced by the amount of people who requested this page be built. Go visit the TERFs talk page. Apart from one or two cranks, we all disagree with your bigotry.
6 This entry is devoid of any scientific basis and ignores biology. - It describes the actions of a hate group; biology is irrelevant.
7 The LGB Alliance is supported by people from across the political spectrum, but its leaders are on the left. - no it is not, and it's leaders are not left wing. The vast, vast majority of lesbian, gay and bisexual people hate the so called LGB Alliance - every single thing they post gets criticised by gay people. And it's leaders are involved with groups who have actively fought against gay rights, including equal marriage. If you can name another supposedly left wing, LGB focused group that Breitbart approves of, I'm all ears.
This wiki is absolutely not a platform for ideological viewpoints (including TERFism and tranpshobia). It is for factual analyses with citations, not your intangible feeling that the LGB Alliance is great, actually. If you have any evidence to back up your claim - that an organisation solely set up to attack trans people isn't anti trans - please come back and we'll consider it. Scribbinus (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Someone replied. But the reply is anonymous?
Please supply evidence that the LGB Alliance is anti-trans.
Even Stonewall founders are saying it (Simon Fanshawe and Kate Harris).
TERF and transphobe (and crank) are terms that certainly fall under the community standards guidelines as harrassment.
The LGB Alliance is left led. Bev Jackson was one of the founders of the Gay Liberation Front in 1970 and is still active on the left.
If Rational Wiki is (as I hope) oppposed to ideological viewpoints, then I hope it distances itself from the reactionary gender ideology.— Unsigned, by: Mcleaver / talk / contribs
I already supplied evidence, it's linked to throughout the piece. They hold many anti LGB positions, even more anti trans positions and have extensive links with both transphobic and homophobic orgs. As I said in my previous comment - name a single other LGB org that Breitbart like. Neither TERF nor Transphobe are terms of harassment. They are accurate descriptors of political positions / prejudices - the term TERF is an acronym for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, and it was coined by a cisgender female radical feminist. Calling being transgender a 'reactionary gender ideology' is in itself an ideological viewpoint, and an extremely offensive one to boot. I don't see the relevance of the LGBA being left led. Even if it is true - and given their links to the homophobic Heritage Foundation, that is debatable - left wing people are not immune to having prejudices or being bigoted. Scribbinus (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The "links" to the Heritage foundation consist of: Gary Powell, who spoke at a Heritage event against commercial surrogacy (not an anti-gay position), also turning up for their launch, and having no further involvement. The same Gary Powell who has had pieces published by PinkNews. There is then a link to a Twitter thread that repeats this claim, and no other. There is no further evidence given at all, and by that standard, PinkNews have "links" to Heritage. Majormajormajormajor (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Other links include cofounder Bev Jackson defending having worked with the Heritage Foundation on her personal Twitter account. Try again? Scribbinus (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No, they include cofounder Bev Jackson tweeting that she understands why other people, in a different country, with different political realities, might feel they have no option but to work with them. Try again? Majormajormajormajor (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
So your (inaccurate) rebuttal is “she didn’t work with them personally, she’s just thinks it’s completely ok to collaborate with them”? A view she explained through sharing an article from a conservative US think tank that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage? That’s not the hot take you think it is. I’m not responding to your nonsense any longer. If you have *cited* evidence to back up your claims, please feel free to edit the page. If the edits are accurate, they’ll stand. I’m done wasting my time arguing with you bigots.Scribbinus (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
"Bigots"? Explaining how to comprehend plain English is not bigotry - my "source" is the one you provided, I'm just reading the words and telling you what they mean, rather than your overreach. You talk about links to Heritage - she has none and posted an article from someone describing being frozen out by progressive sources for talking about this. Honestly the whole page is so littered with invective and irrational, non-neutral POV that it is likely unsalvageable. As I said: there are no "links" to Heritage. There is one direct and highly tenuous "link" in the form of a Pink News contributor who spoke at a Heritage event also going to the LGBAlliance launch. That is it. You may as well say there are "links" between Pink News and Heritage based on this sort of "evidence". Tweeting about how other people are in an understandable dilemma is not a "link". Majormajormajormajor (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
So, I know the concern troll is too lazy to check the sources, so I'll link a few here. These are from the introduction by the way. You know, the bit you didn't bother reading beyond the first sentence? One. Two. Three. Come back with an actual case or fuck off. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
their website is pretty open about it being anti trans. the whole 'about' section positions all things trans as threat of lgb people and shames people who who do not agree as having abandoned them. there is much about preventing educating children in schools on trans issues that is so reminiscent of section 28 that claims of not being anti trans are sick joke. even if one were to have sympathy with their viewpoint, its so vehemently asserted, polite disagreement is not a likely product of this, there is a claim that they seek to stand with lesbians rejecting being pressured into 'accepting sexual partners males who define themselves as women on the basis of gender'. is there much actual pressure happening in this regard? being pressured into sex - that there is an accusation of rape. its a bold claim even if reduced to just being pilloried for rejecting advances of someone trans. as comparison, you can find on grindr one too many profiles of gay men stating they are not into Asian guys. preference is not racism, but overstating just how not into Asian guys you are, when your not-preference need not have been mentioned at all, little bit of racism going on there. so not into transwomen - is this about tactless rejection of an unwanted, but not creepy, advance? loudly stating ones lack of interest to preclude such advances in the first place, maybe getting a response to that, or an actual attempted sex crime via bullying and coercion? although it has lgb in the title, this doesn't reflect the focus. its largely terf talking points very heavy with lesbian women against a 5th column of men posing as women. the situations that I referred to above either represents a real danger to women that I have thus far been unaware needing real action, or it is spurious claim by a militant group echoing old transwomen are men in drag for the purpose of rape because all their other points are just promotion of discrimination not action against a real threat posed. their talk about their opposition to discrimination is undermined by the desire to promote discrimination of trans people, specifically transwomen. its anti trans stance is explicit on their own website, every aim that seeks to positively promote the rights and well being of lgb (but mainly l) is achieved by denying the rights of trans. this is evident without even looking at their activities in the wild, as linked to in the above post. not anti trans? if you say so. the lgb alliance would appear to disagree.AMassiveGay (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Complaint (from another moronic weirdo)[edit]

The page is full of ideology, value judgements, slurs and even leaps of imagination (the colour scheme is reminiscent of the straight pride flag because it's black and white, I never knew that about chess boards). While I wouldn't expect the views of the LGB alliance to be reflected back at me, if a site is plausibly rational, I'd expect different views to be represented. This is a controversial area, and involves different issues to same-sex attraction. It encompasses concepts about gendered brains, sexual dimorphism, sexual attraction/ genitals as a social construct, body modification in the context of recent developments in western medicine, sex-segregated spaces and the autonomy/ capacity of children and adolescents. Through your own life experience, you'll know, that because something is referenced, it's not necessarily rational, or giving an overview. My son has Down's syndrome and Downs abortion has been debated recently in the UK. It's a very emotive topic, and we've had accusations of "eugenics". If I asked Antenatal Choices for a comment, they'd give a different one to Downs parents groups or those who have been campaigning against the new diagnostic test, but I'd hope that an article presented as promoting rationality would illustrate different perspectives. I think the moderators are asleep at the wheel on this one. — Unsigned, by: Sadhbh / talk / contribs

Drink! Twodots (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Well now, let's address this in an honest and earnest way. This isn't the way this wiki works, or the way rationality works. One must not appear perfectly calm and unbiased to be rational, and rationality cannot and should not be defined by providing credence to irrational beliefs and perspectives. For better or worse, this wiki is in favor of trans rights, for reasons outlined in many articles. If you disagree with this, then a discussion can be had. But to preserve rationality, this wiki covers topics in as to favor rationality, and against irrationality. As a result, it HAS a bias; to be rational, you MUST be biased against some things. Nobody would expect a physics textbook to devote a page or two to flat-earth beliefs to remain "unbiased", for example. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Obviously you're busy reconstructing logic as well, so it's defined as whatever you like. Discussion in a context like that, isn't possible. — Unsigned, by: Sadhbh / talk / contribs
@IveBeenFrank I think your ground level explanation broke their brain. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
To the user: How am I reconstructing logic? If something is true and rational, then yes, I do like it. If something is irrational, I don't like it. Now, debate may be had as to whether a thing is rational or irrational, but I see no reason why this wiki, or any rational person, would seek to give credence or even attention to that which is irrational.
@GrammarCommie I'm glad my response was adequate. Compliments from you rank high in my book. If the user wants to hear it a second time, I'm game. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This conversation is breaking my brain. Twodots (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sadhbh - no, we don't always have to represent the views of cranks and bigots to be 'rational'. We're not the BBC here; we're not engaged in false 'both sides' 'balance'. Yes, there are people out there who think trans people are bad and wrong. Rationality does not require giving them space. That said, even though I put it in, I'm inclined to agree on the straight flag section. It's true, but detracts from the LGB Alliance's really dangerous behaviour. So i'll concede there; we should be highlighting the LGBA's abuse, hate group related activities, their links with right wing evangelicals, and their founder's recent tweet calling for non transphobic LGBTQ people to 'be stopped'. Not somewhat tenuous links with white supremacist straight pride groups. You may have missed it, but we do highlight their beliefs, in a direct quote from their own website. Not sure we can get fairer than that. Scribbinus (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)