Being Called A ‘Lobby’

Excuse a smidgen of self-interest here – or at least broad own-community interest; but this is an interesting admission here from a US anti-trans hate group… I’m sorry, I mean “group advocating for family rights” (“family rights”, though? I mean what… what IS that, even…? I can’t even work out how to start unpicking that…)

Anyway, turns out allowing trans people (specifically trans women) to use the rest room appropriate for their gender does not, in fact, mean that women are any more likely to be attacked by predatory men exploiting anti-discrimination laws to gain access to women-only spaces.

Turns out, in fact, that that’s the very pile of abject, steaming felgercarb that most people who’d given the matter any real thought – much less actually done any research and fact-checking – suspected it was all along. And it turns out still further that the people pushing the line knew that it was bulldung – because they made it up in the first place.

This article (from PinkNews) reports on a comment from a hate group called ‘MassResistance’ and quotes their direct admission that:

“Our side concocted the ‘bathroom safety’ male predator argument as a way to avoid an uncomfortable battle over LGBT ideology, and still fire up people’s emotions […] But the LGBT lobby has now figured out how to beat it.”

Intriguing. And I’m particularly fascinated by the way they admit to making up and spreading codswallop scare stories to try to cause harm to and ostracism of trans people, yet we’re still the ones being called a ‘lobby’ and having an ‘ideology’. (I mean I do have an ideology, I admit it: I’d like everyone to be treated with respect and dignity even when something about them is unfamiliar to you and makes you feel a bit scared. I suppose that’s an ideology of sorts.)

Anyway, all this raises two main conclusions:

  1. They’ll be looking for something else to use to attack the people they hate, so keep an eye open for that, it’s bound to be all sorts of fun stuff; and
  2. It pretty much openly confirms that their issue with us isn’t a legitimate – or even an overprotective – concern for vulnerable people’s safety, but is in fact… well, just hatred of us. (Which, let’s face it, was pretty clear throughout; but it’s sporting of them to admit it, however tacitly.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s