I wouldn't be totally surprised, given the effort to get the FPC 501c3 delisted from smile last month.

I thought part of what made Smile cool is that Amazon would forward my donations to such a wide range of organizations (eg my local church OR my local satanic temple). Talk about consumer choice.

Berkshire Hathaway had a program where shareholders would allocate corporate donations to charities [1] but shut it down after subsidiaries faced misplaced criticism [2] for shareholders’ choices.

[1]: https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/1997ar/shcontri.html "Shareholder-designated contributions"

[2]: https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/pampered-... "Pampered Chef profits will no longer fund abortions"

If people go to a doctor to get a diagnosis is that not the definition of a disease?

As for a cure, that should be a matter for the patient to decide if they want one or not.

I strongly suspect that your quote marks should actually be inverted commas.

They obviously don't call it hate themselves. It is the opinion of certain trans groups that the positions taken by the organisation are based on hate. Of course hate in modern lingo just means disagreement, or failure to support the specific legislative agenda of a particular group.

LGB Alliance states that it believes many cases of transition are actually a form of therapy to remove gay-ness. That a gay person is led to believe they can be "straight" if they transition to the opposite sex. So in their view, transitioning is a form of homophobia, but in the view of trans groups, the LGB alliance is anti-trans. From the LGB Alliance webpage:

> Very many children, and quite possibly adults, enter the process of gender transition as a result of the homophobia of their parents, peer group, or their own internalised dislike of their sexual orientation. Young gay men or lesbians are being sold a myth that they can be straight, that lesbians are really straight men and that gay men are really straight women. This is homophobic conversion therapy.

> Of course hate in modern lingo just means disagreement, or failure to support the specific legislative agenda of a particular group.

Maybe that’s just me, but I think we should have higher expectations to the language used in discussions on HN.

If we agree this is about a policy-disagreement, then let’s use those words. Don’t use the word “hate” when no actual hate is involved.

It doesn’t help bring across any points, it doesn’t make you look better, it doesn’t seek constructive replies and it doesn’t help the conversation.

Enough with the “hate” already.

My tone apparently didn't come across well. I was in fact criticizing the use of the word hate in this context.

It’s just plain rhetoric at this point.

Anyone not actively supporting trans-rights these days are effectively labelled a “hater” or transphobic.

Essentially the trans-activist doing their best to gaslight the situation and get as much chilling effect as possible.

It’s dishonest, undemocratic and should be enough reason for most reasonable people to distrust them.

And yeah. I’m transphobic for posting this, obviously.

This isn't rhetoric, the LGB Alliance isn't some group that just happens to not focus on T of LGBT. They're a group that wants the T dropped from LGBT, that believes, advocates for, and fights for legislation that defines trans men as women and vice versa. They were literally established in opposition to LGBT groups supporting trans people and still are.

There is no gaslighting whatsoever, one of the co-founders literally, somewhat famously, broke down in court when backed into a logical corner about whether trans women were lesbians. Even if you take the naive definition of "transphobia" where there must be actual fear it still holds up.

Of course they don't say their beliefs are transphobic. That's the real rhetoric -- because they're happy to tell you that they think that trans women are men who pretend to be women like that doesn't invalidate the very core definition of what it means to be trans.

This group would run into no trouble whatsoever had they had no stance at all about trans people and just said that they preferred to focus on the sexuality rather than gender issues.

The reason they are for LGB only, explicitly dropping the T, is because modern transgender activism redefines homosexuality to be attraction between people of the same gender identity, rather than the same sex.

As a result, you have situations like, for example, males identifying as lesbians expecting actual female lesbians to be open to dating them, and accusing them of transphobia if they decline. This is a problem as by the usual/previous definitions, the former are heterosexual males who are imposing themselves on homosexual females.

This sort of thing is what the LGB Alliance was set up to oppose, given that most other gay rights organisations (Stonewall in particular) have fully immersed themselves in the ideology of gender identity.

> This isn't rhetoric, the LGB Alliance isn't some group that just happens to not focus on T of LGBT. They're a group that wants the T dropped from LGBT, that believes, advocates for, and fights for legislation that defines trans men as women and vice versa. They were literally established in opposition to LGBT groups supporting trans people and still are.

But there's nothing hateful about that. It's a perfectly reasonable position, held by the vast majority of people worldwide. The reason trans-activists are working to get acceptance for such a view, is in fact because it is not the dominant view (or why else would they need to promote it?).

Would you care to outline why you'd categorize having a specific view on gender and sex which differs from the one driven by these activists as "hateful"? Just what part here is hate?

It's a genuine question. I honestly don't understand this mentality or world-view.