The LGBT+ Liberation Group is a group designed to represent students who self-define as LGBT+, and a space for them to work together and organize around these issues. This is understandable, and even obvious, right? Maybe not, seeing as some people fund it so hard to grasp the need for women-only spaces and BME liberation groups.
Robbie Travers believes we should open up liberation groups to anybody, whether they define into them or not. He wishes for a “meritocratic” view of liberation, that the quality of the point and not the lived experience is what makes a good advocate for, say, BME rights or LGBT+ rights. He believes that he is fit for the job, and I don’t know nor would I say what his sexuality is on a public forum, but he suggests straight people could run for LGBT+ Liberation Group Convener.
Basically, a candidate for a liberation group does not believe in the autonomy of liberation groups, and would like to put into place this “meritocratic” system of voting in leadership to liberation groups. This doesn’t make any sense to me, I am baffled. He would have to up-haul not only EUSA’s liberation structures, but NUS’s too, which seems ridiculous and pretty much impossible. I define into that section group and there is no way I would allow a representative of my issues open up this space to straight people. I’m sure many others would agree with me.
I had a lil look at his blog too, and under in his article “The Decay of the Left and the Need to Reaffirm Liberalism” he echoes much of what is said in articles by Sp!ked and the absolutist free-speech crowd. He believes that people bandy around the “insidious ideology” that is “identity politics” too much and use it to silence rational discourse. He believes that “privileging the views of group of people above another” is censorious, which I find pretty funny, as he’s basically saying that the voices of oppressed minorities calling out bigotry are privileged… like, seriously?? He also questions the need for safe spaces and mental well-being of students, saying that “mental safety” is “speciously defined”, and is used simply to block out any form of conflict. In a way, yes, that’s true Robbie. Safe space policies are there to block out abusive and triggering language, to protect the mental health of those affected by it. What is wrong with that? I don’t trust a person who believes that putting in structures to protect students’ mental health is supporting some kind of neo-fascist agenda.
Robbie also claims that he has been the victim of transphobic bullying, by way of him being “more feminine”, while admitting that he is in fact not transgender or even “transsexual” (jfc like at least try and learn the right terms and not offensive alternatives)… How is this guy going to represent trans issues when he doesn’t even get trans politics?
HAHAHA he also believes you can be racially prejudiced against white people.
Oh, God. Make of him what you will, but as a person who defines into the LGBT+ liberation group, I’m certain he wouldn’t be very good at representing us, with his strange opinions of allies and representation, and his downright awful views of transphobia.