LBQ+ women and girls included by UK Government in Violence against women strategy

[IwantToRetire]

Quote:

... The report makes clear that lesbian, bisexual and queer women and girls, and trans and gender-diverse people face unique and disproportionate exclusion, discrimination and violence – often at the hands of those seeking to uphold gender stereotypes and norms.

... The UK is steadfast in its commitment to ending gender-based violence against women and girls in all their diversity, both at home and overseas.

... Our approach is underpinned by the UK’s International Strategic Framework on Women and Girls will guide our efforts to ensure that all women and all girls, in all their diversity, can realise their rights and potential.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/un-human-rights-council-62-uk-statement-for-the-interactive-dialogue-with-the-independent-expert-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity

Ffs.

So a mixed sex group, undefined, because women and girls alone aren't enough to warrant a focus of their own despite being half the bloody population.

There is no such thing as 'gender based violence', the whole phrase is to deny women as a sop to men.

What it made me think is they are just 2 faced.

I don't think I have ever seen a Government statement about violence against women and girls as part of a UK strategy use this sort of wording.

Which indicates to me they use it in an international scenario, which shows which ever way to look at it, they are 2 faced.

Lesbian, bisexual women and any women (clarified in U.K. law now as meaning female) who might identify as Q or + whatever the heck that means obviously should be included in the VAW strategy.

Violence against women and girls (regardless of their sexual preferences) is a specific problem. The whole point of identifying VAWG separately from other violence is that it’s not random aggression but is a built-in facet of patriarchal societies all around the world. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s the ugly, visible side of keeping the female half of the population under male control.

Men fight among themselves and attack mixed-sex groups for many reasons, but they are not VAWG. Equating any other manifestation of male violence with VAWG simply weakens the analysis and reduces the possibility of finding solutions to this huge, specific and widespread problem.

Including transmen, absolutely fine and appropriate. Transwomen, not at all.

The UK is steadfast in its commitment to ending gender-based violence against women and girls in all their diversity

Sorry but that bit made me not want to bother reading the whole piece. 'Diversity' is such a magic word, isn't it?

I'd also rather they used sex based than gender based, but I know I'm asking for the moon on a stick there.

It's a shibboleth really, isn't it? As soon as you see, 'sex' replaced with 'gender'.

tbh I think this may be one of the times where it’s not unreasonable to use ‘gender’ (which really is still often simply meant as a euphemism for sex) because ‘sex based violence’ may be taken to specifically mean sexual violence.

I see what you're saying, and its a good point, but I still object to gender. Maybe biological sex based violence would cover it without it just meaning sexual crimes.

It shouldn't include men just because they have decided their gender is female.

Absolute prats. No surprise, though.

Sure, but I think those who seeks to pervert the English language, quite deliberately, by inserting 'gender' rather than 'sex' know exactly what they are doing.

That's the point I am making.

In Europe they are saying TW (ie women in all their diversity) are part of VAW strategies.

As i said i dont think they have ever said this is any publicity about VAW strategies.

If has FA to do with language.

In Europe they are "fitting in" (or actually do believe that TWAW).

In the UK they do not say this (although we know many in Government do think this).

This is political deceit.

Violence against women by women is because of their sex, and how men perceive the female sex.

Violence against TW is not because of their sex but their gender identity.

Just how understand and disrespectful of women as a sex class can they be.

Or that the Government is just made up of shysters.

Or that the Government is just made up of shysters.

Just that. As are most other conceivable administrations after a GE. Which doesn't offer a lot of choice.

I think it's noteworthy they're using LBQ+ without a T in there.

They mention trans when referring to the report they're responding to (because no doubt that report will have been all about the T) but they appear to carefully separate out 'lesbian, bisexual and queer women and girls [COMMA] and trans and gender-diverse people'

Then everything else they say is about women and girls.

I'd be interested to see the report - I bet it doesn't use LBQ+ without a T. There's a lot to criticise in there with queer this and gender that but I don't think we'd have seen this small shift in language before FWS.

I cant find the actual report. This seems to be the press release.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/06/lesbian-bisexual-and-queer-women-continue-face-distinct-challenges-globally

I think this might be it. You would think the UN would have a simple index page of newly released reports.

Looks like the UN have devised a whole new set of phrases. Not sure if it is for the benefit of anyone other than those who are part of the UN and only speak to each other.

https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/62/46

If that doesn't work it is on this long list here https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session62/list-reports

Yes, if by 'trans' the government mean trans identified females. But it looks lie they want to sneak in trans identified men under the guise of calling them transwomen. They are weasels, the lot of them.

There are lots of groups who are disproportionately subjected to violence. Focussing attention on any one specific group could be framed as ‘off’ if positioned as ‘focussing on violence against X, despite the high levels of violence also Y are subjected to’. This, however, is whataboutery.

Arguably, different campaigns/ strategies are needed to tackle VAWG and violence against transwomen. If/where a transwomen passes and is stealth, the violence is happening because they are thought to be female - so their trans status is irrelevant.

We are left with 2 options: 1) the inclusion is virtue signalling. They are approaching the policy/strategy focusing on male violence against women and girls 2) they are not focusing on male violence against WAGs but male violence against 2 groups WAGs and transwomen. In this case, gay men and homeless men seem to be unfairly left out.

I'm not a fan of Q+ but it definitely depends on who exactly is covered by this strategy and what they intend to use it for. I have also never seen this LBQ+ acronym before, so, of course, one to watch.

What I am encouraged by is the fact that we have noticed (thanks, OP). There is nothing they can do anymore without women noticing. We watch and we see and we are suspicious, and that's a good thing. We will be ready, and anyone who doesn't realize this is in for a big wake-up call!

I have always been skeptical, even cynical, but I was never a suspicious person until men started demanding that women give up all our rights, and our governments started colluding with them to make that happen.

Suspicion is good. Gordon Gekko eat your heart out!

(and good morning, all you lovely, suspicious wims!)

So in Spain a man has been included on the list of women killed by Men. Outrageous.

I sort of agree but we wouldn't need to use gender if only people would accept that the words women and girls meant born female by biology.

Excellent. Misogyny affects all women, just manifests in different ways.

LGBTQIA+ women experience misogyny differently to cishet women. Asexual women are threatened with corrective rape, subjected to medical misogyny and attacked for their clothing choices, for example. Bi women are stereotyped as hypersexual and liable to cheat. Gay and trans women have their sexual preferences policed and are frequently labelled men in order to justify attacking them.

It's a tiny step in the right direction. Anything that fights misogyny is progress.

Well, not quite - you need an appropriate word to make a compact phrase. Same thing with ‘gender pay gap’ - unless anyone can think of a better way to express the differential remuneration of men and women due to sex discrimination (partially solved) and structural sexism (effects due to childbearing etc which are harder to deal with). ‘Gender’ was always absolutely appropriate before people started pretending it didn’t mean cultural norms, stereotypes and physical realities etc etc that were causally linked to sex.

Asexual clothing choices? What?