Their approach ith unpleathant
The Guardian reports on the LGB Alliance hearing:
The creation of LGB Alliance has promoted constructive debate on “difficult and problematic issues” of sex and gender, the Charity Commission told a court on Monday, during final arguments over whether the gay rights group should have been given charitable status.
…
Mermaids, which supports transgender, non-binary and gender diverse children and their families, launched an appeal last year against the Charity Commission’s grant of charitable status to LGB Alliance. Mermaids has argued that the group was set up to lobby the government to restrict legal rights afforded to transgender people.
And to non-binary people and gender diverse children. Let’s make sure to get all the adjectives in every time, even if they do all mean pretty much the same thing.
Summing up, Michael Gibbon KC, counsel for Mermaids, said LGB Alliance’s “worldview and objectives are based on conflict and confrontation. This makes its approach fundamentally unpleasant, aggressive and corrosive of public discourse.”
What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. You could say that about Doctors Without Borders or anti-war groups or let’s not destroy the climate groups or any groups with a purpose. You could say it about anti-racism movements and feminist movements – you could say it about anything other than sitting still and saying nothing.
He said LGB Alliance had repeatedly described Mermaids in derogatory terms, accusing the charity of promoting a “gender identity ideology”, of inappropriately medicalising children, “of child abuse, basically”, and of having homophobic views.
Yes, and? Are they supposed to lie?
Steele set out the law on the granting of charitable status, assessing whether or not the purposes of LGB Alliance were “exclusively charitable” and “for the public benefit”.
“An institution whose purpose is to promote the rights and fair treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual people will be acting for charitable purposes,” he said. “The issue is whether LGB Alliance was actually established to pursue the pro LGB purposes it set out or whether it really has anti trans purposes.”
“Anti trans” is ambiguous. There are trans people (people who call themselves trans), and then there is trans ideology. One can dispute the ideology without being “anti” trans people.
This applies even more to gender ideology itself. Mobbing women meeting to discuss their rights is certainly unpleasant. and aggressive. How much more corrosive of public discourse can you get than a) redefining language to suit your ends, b) demanding continual validation through use of inaccurate pronouns, c) refusal to discuss or debate the nature and scope of their demands, which is mischaracterized as “questioning their right to exist.”
Of course, they do say it about feminist movements. Especially GC feminists.
Some people [racist imbeciles] say that Black Lives Matter is a) “racist” – because some people [racist imbeciles] imagine that BLM means that ONLY Black lives matter. & b) an anti-cop “hate” group.
Mermaids is employing the same twisted logic and dishonesty here.
How they can pretend that convicted rapists with penises are not a threat to women; how they can pretend that the only problem at the Tavistock Institute was long wait times; how they can pretend that predatory “cis” males abusing “self-ID” is ludicrous on the face of it … etc., etc.,
Me, what’s even worse is that “racist” argument against affirmative action. The Supremes are hearing a case on that, and from what I’ve heard about the oral arguments, don’t hold your breath in expectation they will uphold precedent.
And like the TAs, they latch on to an argument to support them that isn’t really what they’re arguing about. Here they use the image of gifted Asians being denied Ivy League spots for poorly qualified people of color. What they’re really worried about is mediocre white men who don’t get in because the spots are full. Since legacy admissions remain in place, there is room for a lot of those mediocre white guys if they are fortunate enough to be born into families who have alums from those schools.
White men really do WANT to be viewed as oppressed, don’t they? Without, of course, actually going through any oppression.
Yes, a good number of us pale dudes identifiy as oppressed. To someone who’s accustomed to being on top (or at least ahead) through the enjoyment of unearned, structural advantages that were traditionally denied to humans who were not born male and white, levelling the playing field feels like victimization.