Legitimate means legal, doesn’t it?

…They’re not just a hate group; they’re masquerading as a legitimate LGB rights organisation, seeking to undermine the existing charity that fights for LGBT rights, and replace them, while being nothing but an arm of the religious right.

…Imagine for a second they hadn’t faced such public scrutiny and pushback and got their way? The UK would have an “LGB rights charity” that opposes anti-bullying, opposes hate crime legislation, thinks gay teachers are predators and that school LGBT groups are harmful

This is all well documented and easy to find. Media outlets that continue to platform them or present them as a legitimate organisation are either incompetent or malevolent.

They may or may not be a group we like but they are still legitimate. It is, indeed, legal to hold those views and to advocate for them.

10 thoughts on “Legitimate means legal, doesn’t it?”

  1. an arm of the religious right

    The “Religious* Right” looms large in Carrie’s fever dreams, apparently we must be eternally vigilant of them pesky Bible thumping bigots because we live in that fictional American town from FOOTLOOSE (1984) and also maybe THE HANDMAID’S TALE or whatever else Carrie last saw on Netflix in between dancing in front of a mirror while masturbating.

    *Not the Mohammedans obvs

    I’m not really sure what qualifies the genderspazzed chubster to lecture gay men that they’re not homosexualising properly, but as always with the terrible T, most people are initially quite sympathetic… until they get to know more about them.

    Pregnant horse piss is one helluva drug.

    DANCING with tears in my eyes
    Weeping for the memory of a life gone by…

  2. I’m pretty open vs. homosexuals (I have friends and acquaintances that L, G and T) but even I am strongly opposed to hate crime legislation and am not convinced that school LGBT groups are not harmful. I suppose I’m now also part of the “religious right” (despite being atheist)

  3. It makes absolute sense to separate the LGB from the T. You have one group which is defined by their sexual identity/preference and another group defined by their delusions.

    It also makes particular sense for lesbians who don’t want to get molested by some hairy-arsed rapey narcissist.

  4. Fascinating.

    The linked article: “Horrible people are horrible, look this Twitter thread proves it.”

    The previous article: “Don’t believe Twitter, it’s all lies!”

  5. Lesbians are concerned that with the current trend of telling girls who like girls that they must really be boys they are effectively wiping out lesbians the only one left will be the lesbians with a penis
    Reminds me of Iran claiming they have no gay people because they make them all have sex change surgery

  6. “It is, indeed, legal to hold those views …”

    For how long, if creatures like this representative of the Transgender Taliban get their way?

  7. Isn’t it legal to hold ANY views? If there were to be legislation, what views would first be banned and where would it stop?

  8. @rhoda

    ..and how would the Stasi know what views I held?

    Of course, publishing one’s views is a different act entirely from holding them.

    And the answer is that it’s already illegal to publish some views. You can’t be seen to be a racist, or a misogynist, or a… because you’re ‘promoting hate’, which is a hate crime, no?. With, of course, this week’s definition of ‘hate’

  9. “they’re masquerading as a legitimate LGB rights organisation,”

    Seems a strange accusation coming from a geezer masquerading as a legitimate woman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *