The Oppressed

This entry was posted in LGBT and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Oppressed

  1. Ilíon says:

    Carl (“Sargon of Akkad”) Benjamin’s “Podcast of the Lotus Eaters” published a short about that —

  2. Ilíon says:

    LOL, that “Relax, It’s Probably Nothing” reaction was priceless.

  3. Fabes says:

    @Ilion Right?! I’d like to print this out and put it up at my local Starbucks LOL.

  4. Dhay says:
  5. Dhay says:

    Now I have had time to OCR that Tweeted letter from Baroness Nicholson — a member of the House of Lords since 1997 — to the street’s landlord I’ll provide here its text:

    I write to express my profound dismay at the decision of The Crown Estate to commission and fly 100 Pride Progress flags in Regents Street; not least because they were flown in direct contravention of your Purpose and Values.

    The days when Pride was a campaign for equality of sexual orientations, or a celebration of achieving that equality are long gone. Pride is now an exclusionary, partisan political protest, captured by the increasingly aggressive TQ+ branch of the ‘LGBTQ+ Community’. They are at war with the Equality and Human Rights commission and have lost the support of many lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals to whom they are openly hostile.

    The flags you flew — not, I understand, the ones for which planning permission was obtained — include an additional feature to represent people with Disorders of Sexual Development, also known as ‘Intersex’. Many such people object to their medical condition being regarded as an ‘identity’ and have asked the LGBTQ+ Community to not hijack their plight for its own ends. They are routinely ignored.

    Many lesbians and gay men have written that they find the Progress flag and the organizations it represents intimidating. The design drives a sharp wedge of heterosexuality into the traditional rainbow of homosexuality. @Kat4E4 reflected widely held views when she tweeted, “l find progress flag intimidating, don’t enjoy seeing it out & about. It represents women’s loss of sex-based rights, encroachment on boundaries of lesbians & gays, safeguarding issues for our kids.

    There was a poll on Twitter which asked, simply, whether people liked “the Progress flag being flown on London’s Regent Street”. It also asked for retweets as the author sought “an unbiased view”. At 07:16 on June 27, after 7,394 votes 8% liked it while 92% disliked it.

    Pride is no longer a party. It is a protest. The TQ+ agenda has nothing to do with creating lasting and shared prosperity for the nation and is hostile towards, and exclusionary of, anyone who has the temerity to question their credo that biology is irrelevant while self-regard is all.

    Perhaps, next year, you could revert to the simple, and wholly preferable, six-striped Rainbow.”

    The third paragraph explains the symbology of the odd-looking flag flown. A fuller explanation including its history can be found at:

    The letter draws attention to conflicts and divisions between the LGB community and the TQ+ community.

  6. Dhay says:

    In his 30 June 2022 “The TERFs have science on their side!” PZ Myers laughs at a letter from Baroness Emma Nicholson to a Council protesting its officials’ decision to refuse to allow a women’s group to meet in a local library room (where it allows other groups to meet), and to refuse them because the speaker holds gender-critical beliefs. He laughs because Nicholson refers to human beings not having changed from one biological sex to another in “500 million years of human existence.”

    Well, I laugh with him at “500 million years”; but I also note that her point is not the length of human existence but that throughout the whole of human existence human beings have not changed from one biological sex to another. Myers’ jeering title is a claim that the Baroness does not have science on her side, but actually, yes, she clearly does have science on her side. Myers’ jeer therefore functions as a weak attempt to distract attention from the correctness of the Baroness’s point, that human beings do not nowadays change biological sex and indeed have never ever done so.


    And Myers is attempting to distract from Nicholson’s impeccably correct main point, which is that the Council has been given wrong legal advice by the activists staffing the Stonewall LGBTQ+ charity, who have told the Council they will be breaking the law if they allow their premises to be used by people with openly gender-critical views; she has contradicted Stonewall and stated that in acting on that faulty advice the Council is itself breaking the law. Here’s the letter’s text:

    I write with reference to the decision to cancel the booking of a room at Aspley Library by Nottingham Women for Change. Your reason, as published on was Julie Bindel’s “views on trans gender (sic) rights” when you are “committed to supporting trans rights as human rights through Stonewall”.

    If you were not already aware of it, your Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods, Safety & Inclusion, Cllr Neghat Khan, ought to have advised you that you cannot discriminate in the provision of service because you are prejudiced, especially when that prejudice is targeted against a protected characteristic. The belief that human beings cannot change from one biological sex to another is not only borne out by 500 million years of human existence, but it is a protected characteristic (see Forstater vs CGD Europe).

    Chapter 2 Of the Equality Act 2010 deals with Prohibited Conduct. Section 13, Direct Discrimination, reads “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

    That is exactly what you have done. This discrimination is no more acceptable in civilized society than denying the use of facilities to BAME, or Jews, or married women, or pensioners. Irrespective of what Stonewall has told you, I fear it is simply unlawful.

    Baroness Nicholson (whose official pronoun is, My Lady) has been a member of the House of Lords since 1997, and in that capacity has reviewed and revised legislation sent up from the House of Commons, including the Equality Act 2010. She knows her primary legislation inside out; that she also knows her case law (precedents) inside out is evidenced by her references, direct and indirect (via the quote, “no[t] acceptable in civilized society”), to Maya Forstater’s successful appeal against dismissal for gender-critical views.

    The Council is breaking the law in refusing use of the room to an allegedly prejudiced gender-critical group, and wrong to claim the law requires it to. Nicholson pulls no punches in telling the Council (I’m paraphrasing, here) that it’s got it arse-backwards, and that in doing so it is prejudiced, and it is breaking the law.


    Funny how commenting on the Council’s unlawful prejudice against, and unlawful discrimination against, gender-critical groups, is not something Myers is prepared to do, he is silent. He is as ignorant on that subject as Nicholson is on the early evolution of animals. If she’s worth laughing at, so is he.

  7. Ilíon says:

    But, if evolutionism were to be taken seriously, then there is nothing wrong, vis-à-vis evolutionism, with saying “500 million years of human [evolution]“, nor with saying, “500 million years of [sexual] existence“. A charitable reading would be that she inadvertently mashed the two thoughts together.

  8. TFBW says:

    The key word “charitable” explains why PZ didn’t take that route.

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.