Dear Bev: We are all sending a multitude of good thoughts on the For Women Scotland case. Meanwhile, back here at home, there is something I wanted to thank you for, particularly: which is how helpful you have been on articulating concepts relating to LGB v TQ+ that enable so many of us to better articulate these points ourselves. Just today, in commenting back to the journalist of a NY Times article on things trans, I had you much in mind. It was your words that helped me articulate the following (though you are not responsible for my use of them, to be sure):
Here's what I wrote: "As an “L” of 75 years, I would just appreciate it very much if folks would stop using the phrase “LGBTQ ”, let alone the rest of the alphabet soup. This collection of letters does not constitute a coherent community of interest in any respect. It is a bit like calling everyone who is not white part of a single community. To learn more about the problems inherent in conflating issues of sexual orientation (LGB) with issues of identity (TQ ), I commend the information and materials put out by the LGB Alliance in the UK."
Many, many thanks to you and all at the LGB Alliance.
Thank you so much! When we first started pointing this out, we were called “divisive”. Fact is, the opposite is true. Those who insisted on adding TQ+ and then promoting policies that are actually harmful to LGB people - especially lesbians - now that was truly divisive.
Dear Bev: We are all sending a multitude of good thoughts on the For Women Scotland case. Meanwhile, back here at home, there is something I wanted to thank you for, particularly: which is how helpful you have been on articulating concepts relating to LGB v TQ+ that enable so many of us to better articulate these points ourselves. Just today, in commenting back to the journalist of a NY Times article on things trans, I had you much in mind. It was your words that helped me articulate the following (though you are not responsible for my use of them, to be sure):
Here's what I wrote: "As an “L” of 75 years, I would just appreciate it very much if folks would stop using the phrase “LGBTQ ”, let alone the rest of the alphabet soup. This collection of letters does not constitute a coherent community of interest in any respect. It is a bit like calling everyone who is not white part of a single community. To learn more about the problems inherent in conflating issues of sexual orientation (LGB) with issues of identity (TQ ), I commend the information and materials put out by the LGB Alliance in the UK."
Many, many thanks to you and all at the LGB Alliance.
Thank you so much! When we first started pointing this out, we were called “divisive”. Fact is, the opposite is true. Those who insisted on adding TQ+ and then promoting policies that are actually harmful to LGB people - especially lesbians - now that was truly divisive.
Two days, Bev? Really? This only should take two minutes, max.
Thank you, once again, for yours and Kate’s clarity and courage. One really low point for me was when our government celebrated Rachel/Richard Levine on the so-called Lesbian Day of Visibility, which of course rendered lesbians utterly invisible. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/27/readout-of-white-house-roundtable-with-lesbian-leaders-to-celebrate-lesbian-day-of-visibility/
I cannot imagine what it was like for Kate to have to deal with this on the witness stand. Just wrenching. So grateful to you both for all you do.
Yes, I saw that Levine post - it made me so angry. He has done enormous harm in that position.
I completely agree.
I'll be watching today. The idea of losing this case is just terrifying.
Yes, it really is.