4 ms·

(Non-combative) do you have a non-partisan source? - I ask because I’ve seen that and other similar statements (“The LGB Alliance is an astroturfed organisation

(Non-combative) do you have a non-partisan source? - I ask because I’ve seen that and other similar statements (“The LGB Alliance is an astroturfed organisation”) on Twitter, and wonder if they’re objectively true or exaggerations / distortions from opposing activists?

notahacker 4y ago
It's almost impossible to find non-partisan sources on culture war debates and the definition of "astroturfed" is debatable. It is true that the LGB Alliance was formed by a small group of primarily lesbians who strongly disagreed with positions held longstanding LGBT groups that had historically campaigned for lesbian (and gay) rights. It is also true that the Heritage Foundation, more noted for sponsoring anti-gay groups, is its primary sponsor, and that the group's primary activity is campaigning against gender recognition and access to treatment for gender dysphoria. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the group is quite popular with conservative journalists and highly unpopular with most lesbian and gay people familiar with them.
- implements 4y ago
  > is also true that the Heritage Foundation […] is its primary sponsor, I can’t find evidence of this, and the LGBA website says their primary funding comes from individual donations. https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-why-the-gender-ideology-activists-are-wrong-about-me-the-heritage-foundation-and-lgb-alliance/ https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-wh... The above article makes this point: Why would it donate to an organisation that campaigns for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, that has an overwhelmingly left-wing membership, and that was founded by two left-wing lesbian feminists? - given the LGBA’s position is: “(W)e do not, and will not, forge links with, or accept funding from, any organisation… that seeks to undermine women’s reproductive rights.” - which the Heritage Foundation oppose, I gather. I’m inclined to believe the Heritage Foundation link is a untruth, to be honest. Given the LGBA’s charitable status I guess we’ll get definitive evidence at some point.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    I will backtrack a little and concede that it's not evidenced that the LGBA itself taking the cash, but here's its founder talking about how the wider movement she represents wouldn't have even been possible in the United States without Heritage Foundation backing https://twitter.com/BevJacksonAuth/status/1153964242103615489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1153964242103615489%7Ctwgr%5Ef31ee71d60c7cfc7079a6c707ec0988d5102ff77%7Ctwcon%5Es1 https://twitter.com/BevJacksonAuth/status/115396424210361548... (not her only tweet defending the need for feminists to work with the Heritage Foundation) I think being such a niche cause that only your notional political enemies pursuing a divide and conquer strategy will work with you internationally is what most people mean when they accuse a cause of being "astroturfed" [For the avoidance of doubt I fully agree that in other respects, they do not share the same political views and that they are not closet hardline antifeminists in disguise]

notahacker 4y ago

It's almost impossible to find non-partisan sources on culture war debates and the definition of "astroturfed" is debatable. It is true that the LGB Alliance was formed by a small group of primarily lesbians who strongly disagreed with positions held longstanding LGBT groups that had historically campaigned for lesbian (and gay) rights. It is also true that the Heritage Foundation, more noted for sponsoring anti-gay groups, is its primary sponsor, and that the group's primary activity is campaigning against gender recognition and access to treatment for gender dysphoria. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the group is quite popular with conservative journalists and highly unpopular with most lesbian and gay people familiar with them.

implements 4y ago
> is also true that the Heritage Foundation […] is its primary sponsor, I can’t find evidence of this, and the LGBA website says their primary funding comes from individual donations. https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-why-the-gender-ideology-activists-are-wrong-about-me-the-heritage-foundation-and-lgb-alliance/ https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-wh... The above article makes this point: Why would it donate to an organisation that campaigns for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, that has an overwhelmingly left-wing membership, and that was founded by two left-wing lesbian feminists? - given the LGBA’s position is: “(W)e do not, and will not, forge links with, or accept funding from, any organisation… that seeks to undermine women’s reproductive rights.” - which the Heritage Foundation oppose, I gather. I’m inclined to believe the Heritage Foundation link is a untruth, to be honest. Given the LGBA’s charitable status I guess we’ll get definitive evidence at some point.
- notahacker 4y ago
  I will backtrack a little and concede that it's not evidenced that the LGBA itself taking the cash, but here's its founder talking about how the wider movement she represents wouldn't have even been possible in the United States without Heritage Foundation backing https://twitter.com/BevJacksonAuth/status/1153964242103615489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1153964242103615489%7Ctwgr%5Ef31ee71d60c7cfc7079a6c707ec0988d5102ff77%7Ctwcon%5Es1 https://twitter.com/BevJacksonAuth/status/115396424210361548... (not her only tweet defending the need for feminists to work with the Heritage Foundation) I think being such a niche cause that only your notional political enemies pursuing a divide and conquer strategy will work with you internationally is what most people mean when they accuse a cause of being "astroturfed" [For the avoidance of doubt I fully agree that in other respects, they do not share the same political views and that they are not closet hardline antifeminists in disguise]