Hi Kirsten - sorry it took me a couple of days. I am going to try and explain my thoughts on this and all I ask is that you assume I am doing so in good faith and not trying to push a particular ideology, and that I do try to listen but can't reply to everything always
I think I explained (or tried to) that I don't have an issue with organisations presenting particular groups or groups of groups, but it seems to me that the name "LGB" was deliberately designed as a play on "LGBT"
And given that the LGBT+ movement is an alliance, it seems to be a conscious and provocative move away from that alliance. I appreciate that the response some people have given is that 'trans people are welcome' but taking the "T" out of "LGBT" seems to belie that
As does the banner on the Twitter account. I get (I really do) that some people have strong views about sex and gender, and I have no issue (as said above) with people organising how they want, but you asked about a human rights approach... 
... and I think the answer is that a human rights approach is based in dignity and brotherhood (suitably updated to present language), per Art 1 of the UNHDR. Seeing the human in everyone, empathising, assuming good faith, aligning not opposing
I entirely appreciate that people have legitimate concerns over safety and prospective changes to Equality Act - I think those concerns are across the piste. But my concern is that emphasising difference and division doesn't build solidarity or focus on dignity
I can anticipate that the response to this (as with many other tweets I send over this issue) will be (a) I have no right to say anything, (b) I am not listening to legitimate concerns, (c) I hate women. I do try to be self-reflective and I can only respond that...
(a) I think that human rights are meant to about concerning yourself with issues which aren't directly about your own self-interest. (b) I do try to listen, I think about this a lot, sometimes people think that if you don't agree with them it means you're not listening...
(c) Not true, and if people think it's true then I will do my best to prove them wrong but ultimately it is an ad hominem attack I can't do much about. I should say that the concerns people have about violence are real and worthy of respect.
I know people talk a lot about needing to 'detoxify' certain debates, and I think that the debate over the GRA (or more generally over the rights of trans people) requires that too. But I also think that there is a genuine division between the perspective of orgs like LGB...
... and current pretty longstanding human rights law as exemplified by Goodwin v UK. As I said re the Forstater judgment, I think that this is going to lead to issues between people who claim to be taking a human rights approach.
Personally, I suspect the dividing line will end up being between people who see human rights protections of different protected groups / characteristics as being *in balance* and those who see them as *in opposition*. I think the former is correct and the latter is a misstep
I think there is also a tendency to assume the worst in terms of the motives and... not sure how to put this exactly... character of people who have opposing views. I think that is also toxic, social media probably to blame, but god knows I don't know how to change it.
But to do so, there need to be more alliances, not less - including acceptance of difference, which seems to be an issue. Anyway, that's my longwinded attempt to explain myself. Interested to hear your thoughts.
@KirstenSjovoll this entire thread was meant to be a reply to you but for some reason it didn't appear as one!
