The effort at anathematising @ALLIANCELGB by claiming that it "does not represent L, G or B people in no way shape or form" betrays a confusion that underpins a lot of the totalitarian moralism from some in this debate - and there is a debate. (1/14)

Beneath that is an overuse of the term "community" to the point where it means little and obscures a lot {banking, landlord and spying communities, anyone?}. The #LGB Alliance emerged precisely because a large number of people, including some Stonewall founders... (2/14)

tried to win an actually broader, more "representative" approach from that charity and not to lose focus upon the rights of same-sex attracted people. Stonewall refused, so an organisation was founded "representing" the spurned point of view and campaigning priorities. (3/14)

In none of this is there a claim to "represent" all or some proportion of LGB people. It is representing a *point of view* and commitment to specific charitable and political aims. It is Stonewall that is lazily claimed to be "the representative" of LGBT+ people qua LG... (4/14)

But even when SW did more align with more people and ostracised none, it was still a matter of political campaigning not representation of a community in the usual sense. There was no vote to appoint the "representatives". No structure of mass decision-making. (5/14)