Korat-Farang.com

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Roger on October 18, 2017, 08:38:13 AM

Title: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on October 18, 2017, 08:38:13 AM
I must say all this stuff drives me a bit loopy. Maybe I'm a bit 'old school' on this front, taking a position of 'live and let live' although for me, this is a bit too much.  ::)
From the DT today - new questions to be routinely asked of Patients by the NHS :-

''It’s clear that spineless politicians, pathetically eager to be on-trend, are being manipulated by lobby groups such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Foundation, a “charity” reportedly behind the new NHS policy. The LGBT Foundation receives annual grants of £500,000 from local councils and £234,800 from the Department of Health to pay for such vital services as “fetish workshops” and a “trans changing room” with “free make-up” during the Manchester Pride festival. Nice to know our money is being well spent, eh?''

''Seriously. These people have got to be stopped before it’s too late''.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/will-spineless-politicians-love-affair-lgbt-ever-end/
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on October 18, 2017, 09:30:41 AM
I must say all this stuff drives me a bit loopy. Maybe I'm a bit 'old school' on this front, taking a position of 'live and let live' although for me, this is a bit too much

Finally one issue on which I fully agree with you, and probably with the Torygraph in this case (I cannot access the whole article online). LGBT lobbies rule? No, not OK for me.

We discussed a similar topic 6 years ago, maybe someone remembers it: Tesco Backs Gay Festival (http://korat-farang.com/forum/index.php?topic=1646.0). From what I remember I was the only one here, openly criticizing Tesco's choice at that time. I still consider same-sex marriage as a monstrosity as I pointed out in at least one other discussion on this forum.

This quote (http://korat-farang.com/forum/index.php?topic=6340.msg48869#msg48869) by a newly appointed Pope Francis, 4 years ago, is right on topic. The first line: I believe that when you meet a gay person, you should distinguish the fact of being gay from the fact of making a lobby...  ;)
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on October 18, 2017, 02:02:14 PM
Anton does my link not get you into the full article ? (I pay for 'Premium' but maybe I can't link it). Thanks for your reply.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Coolkorat on October 18, 2017, 03:41:52 PM
If you're ever asked, tell them you are a jedi. That'll fox the buggers. Perhaps literally.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Alfie on October 18, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
I must say all this stuff drives me a bit loopy. Maybe I'm a bit 'old school' on this front, taking a position of 'live and let live' although for me, this is a bit too much.  ::)
From the DT today - new questions to be routinely asked of Patients by the NHS :-

''It’s clear that spineless politicians, pathetically eager to be on-trend, are being manipulated by lobby groups such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Foundation, a “charity” reportedly behind the new NHS policy. The LGBT Foundation receives annual grants of £500,000 from local councils and £234,800 from the Department of Health to pay for such vital services as “fetish workshops” and a “trans changing room” with “free make-up” during the Manchester Pride festival. Nice to know our money is being well spent, eh?''

''Seriously. These people have got to be stopped before it’s too late''.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/will-spineless-politicians-love-affair-lgbt-ever-end/

Roger, I don't see anything in your post or from the limited text available from the Telegraph website about "new questions to be routinely asked of Patients by the NHS". Can you post them, please?
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on October 18, 2017, 04:28:11 PM
Anton does my link not get you into the full article ?

No it doesn't, I see only 3 paragraphs entirely, until "...the only sane response"; 4th paragraphs fades away.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on October 18, 2017, 05:37:58 PM
OK I'll try to post the whole script :-

''Plans for my US book tour to promote How Hard Can It Be? are hotting up. Yesterday, I got an email from one event organiser. “I’ve been asked if you have any food allergies,” she wrote, “and what’s your personal pronoun of choice?”

Without pausing to consider, I replied: “I’m still identifying as a woman, but I’ll keep you posted.”

When I told a New Yorker friend about this exchange, she warned me: “Don’t make jokes about that binary stuff, even if you think they’re totally crazy.” Thus, it has been decreed that there shall be no laughing about the gender absurdities foisted on us by the cultural commissars, even though laughter is the only sane response.

What happens across the Atlantic soon travels here. Sure enough, the NHS has announced that, from 2019, it will be asking all patients aged 16 or over whether they are “straight, gay, bisexual or other” every time they visit a GP or a hospital. Medical professionals are instructed to keep a record of the patient’s answer and to make a note if they refuse to give one.

This despite recent findings by the Information Commissioner that a third of all NHS patient records are not secure. Jacob Rees-Mogg is spot on when he describes the plan as “intrusive and Orwellian”.
"Why should an elderly lady with a bladder infection be faced with such impertinence?"

A spokesman for NHS England explained: “All health bodies and local authorities with responsibility for adult social care are required under the Equality Act to ensure that no patient is discriminated against.” Fair enough – but if a doctor doesn’t know our sexual orientation, how can they possibly discriminate against us? By giving the authorities that information, doesn’t it make it much easier to discriminate – or am I missing something?

There were dark times, at the height of the HIV/Aids pandemic, when gay men needed to keep their sexuality a secret in order to get insurance or a mortgage. Many may feel uneasy being asked to come out at the surgery when they have just popped to the GP with a chest infection. If there is a medical reason for them to disclose their sexual orientation, there is nothing to stop them doing so now. Equally, why should an elderly lady with a bladder infection be faced with such impertinence?

“People do not have to answer the questions, and it will have no impact on the care they receive,” says NHS England. So what the hell is the point, then, other than permitting the state to meddle in people’s private business and to virtue-signal in a tedious and wasteful manner?

You can bet these attempts at social engineering won’t end there. The NHS is already looking into asking all patients whether they are transgender or “non-binary”. Yes, I know, Marjorie – we still think non-binary is the days the rubbish men don’t come. Oops, sorry, rubbish persons.

All this fuss, even though such people make up only the teeniest sliver of our population of 65.46 million. There are more Britons who keep guinea pigs than who identify as transgender. Yet a huge amount of social policy is being driven through to cater solely for the latter.

Dismayingly, Conservatives – whose instinct should be to resist change for change’s sake – are at the forefront of the lunacy. Education Secretary Justine Greening proposed a Gender Recognition Act to make it easier for adults to change their birth certificates at will.
"There are more Britons who keep guinea pigs than who identify as transgender"

“This Government is committed to building an inclusive society that works for everyone, no matter what their gender or sexuality,” Greening blathered. “We will [...] tackle some of the historic prejudices that still persist in our laws, giving LGBT people a real say on the issues affecting them.”

What about the rights of children not to wake up one day to find that the father on their birth certificate has never existed? Nobody seems to care about them in this brave new transgender world.

Earlier this month, the Office for National Statistics caused jaws to drop with the news that it was considering making it optional to say whether we are male or female at the next census in 2021. According to an internal report, the male/female question is “considered to be irrelevant, unacceptable and intrusive, particularly to trans participants, due to asking about sex rather than gender”. Justine Greening, the Education Secretary, proposed a Gender Recognition Act to make it easier for adults to change their birth certificates at will

Considered by whom? I doubt that the male/female question is considered irrelevant or unacceptable by most British people whose taxes pay, among other things, for the Office for National Statistics. Imagine all those future series of Who Do You Think You Are?, a hundred years’ hence, where the poor celebrity can’t even find out if their long-lost relative was a boy or a girl.

So, on the one hand, we have the ONS deciding that asking whether we are male or female for a vital census is intrusive, while the NHS is allowed to ask who we go to bed with.

It’s clear that spineless politicians, pathetically eager to be on-trend, are being manipulated by lobby groups such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Foundation, a “charity” reportedly behind the new NHS policy. The LGBT Foundation receives annual grants of £500,000 from local councils and £234,800 from the Department of Health to pay for such vital services as “fetish workshops” and a “trans changing room” with “free make-up” during the Manchester Pride festival. Nice to know our money is being well spent, eh?

It’s tempting to laugh. But what’s at stake here is nothing less than our millennia-old understanding of human beings. Organisations that should know better have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a warped ideology that dares to call the fundamental truths of biological science lies. So terrified are people in power of accusations of “transphobia” that they increasingly allow a tiny minority to dictate to the majority.

The headmistress of the prestigious all-girls’ school, James Allen’s in London, admitted recently that she now refers to students as “they” rather than “she”, because she wants to avoid embarrassing or upsetting “those who might be considering a sex change”.

Seriously. These people have got to be stopped before it’s too late
''.

I hope that's ok.
Let me know if there's another DT script you'd like in full anytime. ATB
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Teessider on October 18, 2017, 05:52:33 PM
When I go the the dentist in UK I am asked to identify my ethnic group. I have asked why they need to know this but the receptionist had no idea. The ethnic groupings are also inconsistent as they include both Asian and Chinese. I leave this question unanswered including the decline to answer option. Tell 'em nowt!
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on October 19, 2017, 08:57:01 AM
The ethnic groupings are also inconsistent as they include both Asian and Chinese

That reminded me of this news report from last year: UK school pupil ethnicity question angers Italy - BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-37631062)


DISCLAIMER I don't intend this post as a critic to the UK in general or as an offence to anybody in this forum
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on October 19, 2017, 09:13:04 AM
OK I'll try to post the whole script :-

Thank you for the full text. Personally, I confirm I agree with it. Author is spot on in final paragraphs about "spineless politicians, pathetically eager to be on-trend", and about those grants of public money.

Perhaps she could have added that mainstream media are playing a big role in empowering those lobbies against those politicians: after all, it's them (the media) who decide what's trendy and what's not. From what I see, today there's not a TV series being produced without at least some homosexuality in it, not for reasons functional to the script, but only to be trendy, reach a larger public, sell better. And, in our "democratic" regimes, those politicians who have the spine to dare taking action against the lobbies, or (God forbid!) against those media that support the lobbies, are systematically and mercilessly pilloried by those same media. No wonder some people in power are "terrified" of possible accusations, as she writes at the end of the article.

I am for political correctness in general, but always applied with some grain and common sense. This ridiculous "sexism" issue is a widespread cancer by now. My Italian friends tell me that, in Italy, politician Laura Boldrini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Boldrini) is trying or has tried to change rules of Italian grammar to make it less "sexist". Something similar is occurring also in France if I'm not mistaking.

Off topic and out of curiosity: I'm puzzled about use of expression "binary stuff" in the 3rd paragraph: Don’t make jokes about that binary stuff. Is that correct English? Shouldn't it be: "about that gender issue" or, in case, "about that non-binary stuff"?
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Wizard on October 19, 2017, 06:29:53 PM
What a Joke!
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on October 20, 2017, 07:17:41 AM
Hi Wiz - No offence but how do you mean that ? ATB
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: caller on October 20, 2017, 11:25:40 AM
It's worth pointing out that completion of these forms isn't mandatory. I finished my career in local Govt in one of the most highly ethnically diverse areas of the Country. Pretty much everything sent out had the usual ethnicity questionnaire and it was estimated that about 90% were not returned or if part of a form needing completion, were left blank. The biggest respondents? White British. But form filling is in our DNA.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Alfie on October 20, 2017, 01:41:51 PM
It seems that Playboy magazine has been a victim of the LGBT lobby!



The latest issue of Playboy features a transgender playmate, a first in the magazine’s 64-year history.

Ines Rau poses fully nude in the November/December 2017 issue, which is also the first to hit newsstands following the death of the magazine’s founder, Hugh Hefner.

The 26-year-old model has been shot for the magazine before, however, this time around marks her debut as the first official transgender playmate, which means she will appear in a full pictorial and the iconic centrefold.

She appeared in Playboy’s May 2014 issue in a special A-Z edition, which championed a more progressive understanding of gender as non-binary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/playboy-transgender-playmate-first-ever-magazine-ines-rau-a8008281.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/playboy-transgender-playmate-first-ever-magazine-ines-rau-a8008281.html)
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on October 20, 2017, 04:35:30 PM
Quote
She appeared in Playboy’s May 2014 issue in a special A-Z edition, which championed a more progressive understanding of gender as non-binary


So the author of this article, a certain Olivia Petter, has no doubt about it: understanding gender as non-binary is PROGRESS. And that's the message the newspaper conveys to its audience. The possibility that, for some, maybe for many, it could be REGRESS doesn't even seem to cross their minds. A typical example of mass media supporting the lobby and driving public opinion towards a specific direction, more or less consciously, more or less covertly.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Teessider on October 20, 2017, 05:12:30 PM
What are you suggesting  Anton? That transgender people should not be recognised or allowed to change gender? Surely the opinion that matters is the transgender persons themselves and not the opinions of right wing/ religious bigots.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on October 20, 2017, 05:56:01 PM
What are you suggesting  Anton? That transgender people should not be recognised or allowed to change gender?

These are your words not mine.

Surely the opinion that matters is the transgender persons themselves, and not the opinions of right wing/ religious bigots

Correct, and not Olivia Petter's opinion, either.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Alfie on October 20, 2017, 06:34:13 PM
I actually don't get how "transgender" is non-binary. My understanding of binary is either one or the other. "Trans" means crossing or changing, so transgender is crossing from one gender to to another/changing gender. It would appear the playboy model changed from being a male to being a female. How is that non-binary?
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Teessider on October 20, 2017, 07:33:12 PM
I would suggest it is non binary by using the exampe of ladyboys or katoey who are often transgender. It takes a while to transition hence the term third gender sometimes used.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on October 21, 2017, 06:15:29 PM
Thanks for your reply Anton - good to agree on something at last !  ;)

I described my feelings on this as 'old school' - I can respect Gays and Lesbians BUT I do object to the hyper-lobbying that goes on and I don't want these matters thrust under my nose every day. Pushing these issues before young children is IMO not right - let kids be kids I say !

I agree with you about 'same sex marriage but see nothing wrong with 'civil partnerships'. I'm unsure about adoptions by L's and G's . . . .

Your comment in Reply 14 was a fair observation of the hysteria that all this lobbying creates - ''A typical example of mass media supporting the lobby and driving public opinion towards a specific direction, more or less consciously, more or less covertly.''

Teess your comments seem milder than usual - I hope you don't see my views as 'bigotry'. The trouble is, it's not generally OK to disagree with the new 'conventional wisdoms' created by mass media and the hyper lobbying.

AIMHO
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on November 15, 2017, 08:11:42 AM
As I said before:- ''I must say all this stuff drives me a bit loopy. Maybe I'm a bit 'old school' on this front, taking a position of 'live and let live' although for me, this is a bit too much.  ::) ''.
Edit that - delete 'bit' replace with MUCH too much !

The Church of England weighs in :-
''In its first official guidance to its 5,000 schools on transgender issues, the Cof E said children should be able to try out “the many cloaks of identity” without being labelled or bullied. Youngsters should be free to “explore the possibilities of who they might be” – including gender identity – and Christian teaching should not be used to make children feel ashamed. At nursery and primary school, they should be able to choose the tutu, tiara and heels, as well as or instead of the helmet, tool belt and superhero cloak, “without expectation or comment”. 

Alison Pearson's conclusion :-
'' Encouraging impressionable children to believe that changing sex is just another choice on the school lunch menu is at best daft, and at worst plain wicked.''

The whole DT script follows :-

''The other day, a friend handed her 13-year-old son some washing to take to the utility room. “Good boy,” she said automatically.“Assuming my gender there, Mum?” he shot back with a cheeky grin. The mother burst out laughing. “Has your school gone transgender bonkers, then?” she asked.
 
The boy – sorry, young person of no fixed sexual orientation trying on multiple identities – confirmed that his school had indeed gone bonkers. Every other child in his year was suddenly claiming to have “gender issues”. This is new, isn’t it, this spraying around claims of gender dysphoria willy-nilly? Oops, no willies, please, it might be transphobic. Keep up at the back, Marjorie!

As my GP told me recently, in all but a tiny handful of genuine cases, this is a fashion, a fad. In general, and despite aggressive campaigning by transgender activists, boys will still be boys and girls will be girls, and positively revel in that difference. The proper response of any institution to a fad is to hold tight to its core values and wait until it has passed. How dismaying, therefore, to see the Church of England this week getting its cassock in a twist as it jumped on the bandwagon.

In its first official guidance to its 5,000 schools on transgender issues, the Cof E said children should be able to try out “the many cloaks of identity” without being labelled or bullied. Youngsters should be free to “explore the possibilities of who they might be” – including gender identity – and Christian teaching should not be used to make children feel ashamed.

At nursery and primary school, they should be able to choose the tutu, tiara and heels, as well as or instead of the helmet, tool belt and superhero cloak, “without expectation or comment”. The document, which offers advice on how to challenge transphobic, biphobic and homophobic bullying, also says young children “should be afforded freedom from the expectation of permanence”.

God help us. Let’s start with the fact that no primary school I’m aware of in the past 20 years has ever prevented a child dressing up in a costume of their choice. Far from it. In my son’s year, one little boy regularly wore fairy wings and sparkly tights and no one batted an eyelid. Nor was it any surprise when he later revealed he was gay, and his friends were incredibly supportive and happy for him.
"As my GP told me recently, in all but a tiny handful of genuine cases, this is a fashion, a fad"

It’s the talk of “freedom from the expectation of permanence” that is utterly wrongheaded and shocking. Have the authors of the Church document actually met a small child? Little kids are deeply conservative. They like regular meals and fixed bedtimes and a Mummy and a Daddy, or at least a small cast of utterly dependable adults. It makes them feel safe. Himself used to accuse our then five-year-old of being more reactionary than Enoch Powell. “Are we still in England?” Tom would wail whenever we took him too far from his home. Trust me, he would not have been pleased to be told he might grow up to be a lady.

From the age of three onwards, infants enjoy imaginative play, becoming surgically welded to a Batman costume, a Cinderella gown or a dog onesie. It doesn’t mean they want to become a girl with one shoe, a Labradoodle or a member of the opposite sex. They’re just *playing*. And that play is only enjoyable in a context of stability and, yes, permanence. Carte blanche is terrifying to a child.

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, says that children “should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision”. Indeed they should. But what about the freedom of little girls to believe that they will grow up to be amazing women like their mum, and of little boys to feel confident they will one day be a man like daddy? Why should any insinuation to the contrary be part of classroom life in the pre-sexual years just to satisfy the demands of a tiny minority?

Lately, the transgender bonkersness has taken an increasingly sinister turn. Joshua Sutcliffe, an Oxfordshire maths teacher, was suspended after he said “Well done, girls” to two teenagers, one of whom identifies as a boy. Mr Sutcliffe apologised after the pupil corrected him, but six weeks later their/his mother lodged a complaint. This week, the poor chap must attend a disciplinary hearing to face misconduct charges for “misgendering”. Miss Gendering? Is she a friend of Miss Apprehension and that ghastly Miss Ogyny?

Meanwhile, up in Scotland, the cravenly politically correct government has told teachers they should allow primary pupils who wish to switch gender identity in school to do so without informing parents. A report produced by LBGT Youth Scotland, and endorsed by Holyrood, also states that teachers should consider approaching the local authority if parents are “struggling to come to terms” with their child’s transgender identity. So, you send six-year-old Murray off to school in the morning and, by lunchtime, he is identifying as Morag. If you ever find out, and you are narrow-minded and bigoted enough to object to this disturbing behaviour in your young child, then the teacher can inform on you. Chilling, isn’t it?

This has absolutely nothing to do with science. It’s cultural politics. Liberal western society has progressed to the point where it has pretty much run out of things to feel oppressed by. The truly important things like sex discrimination and racism are not solved, not by any means, but vast improvements have been achieved. By trumping up one of the few remaining grievances of a tiny group (not actually shared by many trans people), the Left can undermine traditionalists and convert society to its own secular ends. So boys are girls and girls are boys – who dares to say otherwise?

The Church of England, that’s who should be saying it. C of E schools should be basing their policies on the needs of all pupils, not catering to one small sub-group at the expense of other children, particularly girls. Encouraging impressionable children to believe that changing sex is just another choice on the school lunch menu is at best daft, and at worst plain wicked.

God knows where all this will end up, and even He’s not sure. Sorry, She
.''
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on December 11, 2017, 05:00:20 AM
Here we are again ! I'm getting that 'loopy' feeling. From an article in the DT today :-

''Ten-year-old children are being asked by the NHS whether they are "comfortable in their gender" in official health surveys being completed in schools, it has emerged. The form given to children in year six to complete asks: "Do you feel the same inside as the gender you were born with? (feeling male or female)". Youngsters are also asked to tick a box to confirm their true gender, with options including "boy", "girl" and "other".''

''Tim Loughton, the Conservative MP and a former Children's minister, claimed the question was "deeply worrying". He said: "At a time when children are growing up and having to deal with all sorts of challenges of the modern world, now they are being asked to confront their gender, which for many will be unsettling.''

The NHS can barely cope but they pay 'Jobsworths' to promote this nonsense.  ::)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/10/nhs-asks-10-year-olds-comfortable-gender-school-surve
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Coolkorat on December 11, 2017, 07:43:57 PM
Here we are again! I'm getting that 'loopy' feeling. The NHS can barely cope but they pay 'Jobsworths' to promote this nonsense

Apropos of nothing, my 8-year-old daughter went to a friend's party last week. The party was all girls, with the exception of one boy who had been in her class but is now being homeschooled. The invitation was for attendees to wear 'Christmas Dress'. The boy duly arrived in a pink dress and matching pink wig, and insisting on using a girls name. Prior to the party, my daughter kicked up a major fuss as she wanted to wear trousers.

The kids thought nothing unusual of their friend in a dress, and spent the party trying to nick his/her wig.....
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Alfie on December 11, 2017, 09:14:03 PM
''Ten-year-old children are being asked by the NHS whether they are "comfortable in their gender" in official health surveys being completed in schools, it has emerged. The form given to children in year six to complete asks: "Do you feel the same inside as the gender you were born with? (feeling male or female)". Youngsters are also asked to tick a box to confirm their true gender, with options including "boy", "girl" and "other".''

Why are the NHS doing surveys in schools? Why don't they just get on with doing what they're supposed to do?!
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on December 24, 2017, 09:14:40 AM
"LGBT" is not enough anymore: now they are LGBTIQ - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning. And questioning?! Questioning what? That can include everybody, unless implying that heterosexual people are never "questioning" anything - which would be in itself an arbitrary generalization.

What else next? Why not simply ATN - All Together Now?

Anyway they are also here now. They would like authorities to force a private Buddhist school in Pak Thong Chai district go their own way, even in absence of the requirements for legal action. I think the school is this one (http://tavanchaividhaya.ac.th/). From today's The Nation:





Group calls for strengthening gender equality law (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30334652)

AN LGBTIQ rights group has called for changes to the Gender Equality Act to improve enforcement of the law, noting that it took over a year for action to be taken on a clear case of gender injustice – and even then the response was too weak.

The Togetherness for Equality Action (TEA) group on Wednesday publicised correspondence with the national gender discrimination committee relating to claims of discrimination against non-heterosexual students at Tawanchai Wittaya School in Nakhon Ratchasima.

According to a letter to the Tawanchai Wittaya School principal, the committee, which has a duty to investigate and take action on gender discrimination cases, informed the school that there was a complaint about the school's student admission policy.

It said the policy, which bans LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning) students from studying at the school, was gender discrimination, and asked the school to reconsider it to comply with Gender Equality Act.

The school principal could not be reached for comment, but earlier reports stated the school had reasoned that LGBTIQ students would have trouble adapting because it was a boarding school and had a religious mission to produce students with "good morals" according to Buddhist values.

In a separate letter to TEA, the committee explained that the complaint made by the rights group did not match the rules of the Gender Equality Act, which requires the discriminated persons or their representative to submit a complaint. Therefore, the group's complaint was turned down. TEA member Chumaporn Waaddao said that although the gender discrimination committee had taken some action on this case, it took too long and did too little to stop the discrimination.

"It took one-and-a-half years for the committee to exercise its power in this case. Moreover, the letter to the school is merely a suggestion, which does not ensure that the school will comply," Chumaporn said.

"Moreover, the committee did not punish the school or provide any compensation for those who lost opportunities from the school's poor policy, even though they have such power under the law."

She said this case demonstrated that there were problems with enforcement under the current Gender Equality Act. She said that the committee agreed that Tawanchai Wittaya School discriminated against the LGBTIQ students, but it had rejected the complaint from TEA because of the law.

Moreover, she noted that most cases accepted by the committee were about the rights of LGBTIQ students to dress as per their gender identification, but not about more serious cases of discrimination.

Chumaporn stressed that Thai society is full of gender discrimination and inequality, and the current law contained too many flaws that made it ineffective as a means to promote equality.

"The main issue of this law is in Article 18, which allows only the victims of discrimination to file a complaint to the committee," she said. "In many case, discrimination victims are too afraid to seek justice and it is the duty of rights groups to pursue their cases for them."

She said another problem was in Article 17, which exempts gender discrimination that is part of a religious practice or any practice that relates to national stability. She stressed that gender equality must be protected in all circumstances.

Source - The Nation 24.12.2017 (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30334652)
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on December 24, 2017, 05:31:37 PM
Anton thanks for posting that report - the mind boggles  ::)
Just crazy - it must be very confusing to be a youngster these days - it was quite straightforward when we were young I think !!  ;)
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Teessider on December 24, 2017, 08:51:52 PM
The League of Gentlemen discussed this in a recent episode. A character mentioned LGBT or whatever acronym you prefer. The response was " I prefer the acronym ACRONYM, Actively Considering Reassignment Or Not Yet Made Your Mind up.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on December 25, 2017, 05:39:45 AM
Teess - acronym.
Always wondered what that word meant  ;)
Happy Christmas !
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on January 10, 2018, 05:42:24 AM
Anton - I hope you will enjoy this post as if I remember rightly, this is a topic on which we DO generally agree  ;)

One of the last remaining bastions of resistance to the LGBT lobby in the 'Western' World, Australia, has fallen. Same sex weddings were legalised this week. I saw some passionate, 'you may kiss the bride/groom' clinches on France 24 this week. Oh dear.

Here's a report from Newsweek with some pictures :

http://www.newsweek.com/25-pictures-same-sex-weddings-australia-show-love-love-775835?piano_t=1

(Anton a few posts this morning - was early to bed last night. But I'm off on the bike to Laem Sing for breakfast so that's it for now. ATB)
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Anton on March 24, 2018, 11:36:33 PM
A classic scene from Woody Allen's second full-length film: "Bananas" (1971). Relevant to this topic from 00:48 to 01:00.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCD2wl1mFu0
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on March 20, 2019, 04:17:16 PM
Thanks for 'Bananas' Anton - I had another chuckle at that . . .

A 23 year old, 7 years into his/her sex change, can apparently be offended by being addressed 'wrongly'. The LGBT Lobby have a great appetite for 'political correctness' and take no prisoners among those who don't stand in line.

The Police meantime, can't prevent social media screening 50 live shootings in New Zealand and rampant knife crime in London, (for example) and almost never to be seen on the streets, have time to call an 'Offender' for interview. Words fail me  ::)

''A devout Catholic and mother is the subject of a five-month police investigation - after she was accused of calling a transgender woman a 'he' on Twitter. Caroline Farrow, a broadcaster and writer for Roman Catholic newspapers, said she had a phone call from an officer on Monday asking her to attend an interview. Mrs Farrow, 44, said she may have posted the suspect tweet following an appearance on Good Morning Britain last September, during which she took part in a debate on transgender children.

She said she was prepared to go to jail, adding: 'I don't know what I am suspected to have done. The only thing I can think of is that I may have referred to a 23-year-old transgender woman as someone's "son". 'I try at all times to be polite on Twitter, but it is my belief on both a religious and scientific basis that you cannot change the sex into which you were born
.' ''

Sorry it's the DM providing the entertainment again.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6827459/Catholic-journalist-questioned-caution-police-misgendering-someones-daughter.html
Title: Re: Brunei plan to extend use of 'Sharia Law'
Post by: Roger on April 03, 2019, 03:55:37 PM
This is absolutely shocking   :o    >:(

''Brunei plan to bring in the punishment of death by stoning for adultery and gay sex. The laws were scheduled to be introduced on Wednesday in the tiny south-east Asian kingdom ruled by the all-powerful Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah. The new punishments, which also include amputation of hands and feet for thieves, will make Brunei the first country in east or southeast Asia to have a sharia penal code at the national level. Several mostly Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia also adhere to sharia law.''

Although I indulge in neither of these pursuits, I have, notwithstanding, cancelled my Suite at The Dorchester in protest  ;)
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on April 21, 2019, 05:09:13 AM
Whatever happened to freedom of speech ?    :'(

''Teaching assistant Kristie Higgs’s devotion to her Christian faith was matched only by her dedication to her job. She is no evangelist, but believed one complemented the other – her role, after all, was to provide emotional support and care for the most needy and troubled students in a 1,000-pupil secondary school. It was a job the mother-of-two cherished and carried out for seven unblemished years – until she was sacked recently for an ‘offence’ that, in these politically correct times, is becoming all too familiar.

Kristie’s ‘crime’ was to share on her personal Facebook site what she thought was an innocent expression of her Christian point of view – an online protest against transgender teaching at her son’s primary school. A single anonymous complaint that accused her of offending gay and transgender pupils led to her immediate suspension and eventually ended her career
.''

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6943285/Christian-teacher-fired-posting-petition-against-transgender-issues-reveals-abuse-received.html
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Alfie on April 21, 2019, 06:29:21 PM
Whatever happened to freedom of speech ?
It never existed in the first place.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on June 12, 2019, 12:22:57 PM
I don't know what other K-F's might think but I can guess . . . .

Seen outside Sainsbury's Melksham, Wilts, branch - a 5 metre banner on the approach roundabout :-

               SAINSBURY'S PROUDLY SUPPORT THE LGBT+ COMMUNITY

Well good for you Sainsbury's but get back to your own Business - which is NOT politics  >:(

It's the + that gets my goat - what weirdness would that be???
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on June 12, 2019, 12:44:17 PM
Primary school kids do not IMO need to be taught LGBT 'equality' . . .

''Protests against the teaching of LGBT equality at a Birmingham school have been halted temporarily following a high court injunction. Birmingham city council secured the injunction to protect Anderton Park primary school. The temporary order, which came into force immediately, bans protesters from an exclusion zone in the streets surrounding the school in the Moseley area of Birmingham.''

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/11/birmingham-anti-lgbt-protesters-banned-school-injunction
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Coolkorat on June 12, 2019, 04:13:37 PM
Primary school kids do not IMO need to be taught LGBT 'equality' . . .

''Protests against the teaching of LGBT equality at a Birmingham school have been halted temporarily following a high court injunction. Birmingham city council secured the injunction to protect Anderton Park primary school. The temporary order, which came into force immediately, bans protesters from an exclusion zone in the streets surrounding the school in the Moseley area of Birmingham.''

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/11/birmingham-anti-lgbt-protesters-banned-school-injunction

But it isn't 'LGBT' anymore (which was bad enough: it's like remembering the runners and riders at Ascot), now its LGBTQIA. Invent a new 'sexuality', add an initial and claim a patch of your own moral high ground....

https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/sc-lgbtqia-letters-meaning-family-0606-20170602-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/sc-lgbtqia-letters-meaning-family-0606-20170602-story.html)
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: caller on June 15, 2019, 11:01:09 AM
One for Roger and anyone else despairing of the eradication of free speech in the UK.

Another gem from the Spectator and Rod Liddle:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/diversitys-valued-unless-its-diversity-of-opinion/

Enjoy the comments as well.

Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on July 28, 2019, 10:42:48 AM
Caller - 'anyone else despairing of the eradication of free speech in the UK ?'

''School counsellors and mental health service providers are bowing to pressures from ‘highly politicised’ transgender groups to affirm children’s beliefs that they were born the wrong sex, a leading expert has warned. Marcus Evans, a psychotherapist and ex-governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, whose Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) is the only NHS clinic to provide gender counselling and transitioning, said many experts were living in fear of being labelled transphobic, which was having an impact on their objectivity.

I believe the trans political agenda has encroached on the clinical environment surrounding and within the Gender Identity Development Service,” Evans told the Observer. “Young people need an independent clinical service that has the long-term interests of the patient at heart. To some extent, this requires a capacity to stand up to pressure coming from various sources: from the young person, their family, peer groups, online and social networking pressures and from highly politicised pro-trans groups . . .

Evans said that since his resignation he had become concerned that the debate around transitioning had been shut down by a vocal minority. “The mind that is free to think or ask difficult questions is treated as a real threat; TV producers and journalists continually report that while people are willing to speak in confidence to them about their reservations about treatment in these areas, they shy away from being named, for fear of being accused of being bigoted and transphobic and sometimes either disciplined or even sacked for speaking their mind
.” ""

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/27/trans-lobby-pressure-pushing-young-people-to-transition
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies don't rule - just once - OK ?
Post by: Roger on September 26, 2019, 01:40:02 PM
"Shocking news from the High Court. Judges have ruled that if you become pregnant and give birth to a baby then you will be described on your child’s birth certificate as the mother. You might dress like a father, act like a father and ask your child to call you “dad”; you might even pump your body full of testosterone or undergo surgery: but this counts for nothing. If you have a uterus and ovaries and you use these parts of your anatomy in the creation and delivery of a child, you are a mother".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/25/high-courts-transgender-ruling-spells-rare-victory-sanity/
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Kev on September 26, 2019, 02:04:15 PM
Sounds fair to myself  ;D
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on September 27, 2019, 04:27:34 PM
Now I am angry  >:(   >:(  they are bringing this nonsense onto my daily dose of the 'Archers' . . . .

"Calling all Archers fans! Have you heard about the latest au courant plot twist in this everyday tale of farming folk? New parents Adam and Ian are only going to court to have their surrogate Lexie’s name taken off the birth certificate so that Ian can be legally registered as the mother. Well, he is taking a year off work, you know. What do you mean you don’t believe it? Might that be because even for a long-running radio soap that pioneered all things organic (Pat and Tony on the farm) and orgasmic (Sid and Jolene in the shower), this is just too stupid?"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/no-transgender-parent-should-able-airbrush-childs-history/

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Hector on November 08, 2019, 05:42:09 AM
..... and now there is an LBGT poppy with all the rainbow colours!  Any comment would be superfluous!
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on November 09, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Hector I missed that gem I'm glad to say   >:(  Tks.
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - not OK ?
Post by: Roger on January 07, 2020, 02:51:18 AM
OMG - regarding the stifling of children's gender development :-

"Children are prevented from buying cigarettes and alcohol because we know the risks of consuming alcohol to excess and the long-term health implications of smoking. Yet children are allowed to begin the process of transitioning gender - including taking chemical puberty blockers - when we have relatively little evidence of the long term health implications. . . . . . . . . . . . Every parent knows that children change their minds about things all the time. One week they love baked beans; the next week they hate them. One month science is their passion and just when an expensive toy microscope has been purchased and a trip to the Science Museum arranged, they decide they prefer music after all. A child’s views about gender are not immune to this faddism. A growing number of young adults who began transitioning as children are now speaking openly about their regrets and their desire to detransition. The more we allow children to undergo medical interventions, the harder we make it for them to change their minds months or even years later."

and . . . "We can only imagine how history will judge today’s approach to children and gender. In the decades to come we may look back in horror at the readiness with which we allowed some of the most vulnerable children in society to be subject to a social and medical experiment."

IMO madness  ( to allow this gender action in children )  ::)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/06/approach-gender-self-id-moral-outrage/
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: dam12641 on January 13, 2020, 12:48:45 PM
Well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUuZMyqhUUk
Title: Re: LGBT lobbies rule - OK ?
Post by: Roger on March 14, 2020, 01:35:37 PM
The Police ring Harry Miller about some tweets :-

Were any of the tweets criminal?’ I ask.

‘No,’ says PC Gul. 

Then why are you ringing me?’ 

‘I need to check your thinking,’ says PC Gul   >:(   >:(   >:(

58 minutes into Dam's link, Harry Miller equates the symbol of the 'rainbow' with the swastika   :o

But listening to all that again - I see what he means.

https://www.faircop.org.uk/harry-miller