I am happy to be considered 'woke' (vigilant to bigotry) but I think it is easy to be overzealous and therefore counterproductive even when filled with the best of intentions.
Some causes have clear simplistic messages that I'd happily be associated with personally. The old LGB Pride message was clear (gay rights, same sex marriage, no discrimination based on sexuality) and extremely hard for me to argue against even as a Devil's Advocate. Even the 'contentious' element of mentioning it in school sex education classes just seems like a complete no brainer to me. Things like 'Kick It Out' was simple and clear (no to any bigotry). Same with 'Show Racism the Red Card'. You know what they are standing for and the limits of what they are standing for because they are simplistic. It shouldn't be confusing or contentious to anyone. I personally would have no issue with being contractually forced to be associated with those topics/causes and think for those causes it has benefits (even if folk like Rio Ferdinand don't think it goes far enough or is a fig leaf).
I like to consider myself informed but I don't have a clue what BLM and 'taking a knee' stands for when done in Scotland (with a tiny black population and a large (and ignored) south Asian population and a police force that police by consent rather than the more confrontational US or Continental European style). I have an aversion to being associated with things I don't know fully about, to an extent I don't wear clothing that displays a brand (and will go to the grave without waving a flag or singing an anthem). So I wouldn't have wanted anything with BLM to be imposed on me in any way and I wouldn't have taken a knee if I had a choice. I'd actually think it would be pretty insulting to my Asian acquaintances to do anything with BLM in Scotland. But I think I've made my fair share of posts and threads over the years (particularly about 'indigenous' South Africans and transformation) on the topic of race to show I'm not particularly big on racial generalisations, specifically in relation to sub-saharan Africans.
With LGBTQ+ Pride (if I'm getting that right) I similarly don't know what it stands for once you get past the first three letters. Wikipedia suggests it's about visibility (fine and clear) and equality (less clear when extended beyond sexual preference). I find it particularly confusing in the context of rugby at a time of stories like this.
The RFU Council has voted in favour of a change to its gender participation policy, with trans players banned from women’s contact rugby
www.rugbyworld.com
If I'm associated with LGBTQ+ Pride am I condemning the above position as promoting inequality? Or am I neutral on it? I genuinely don't know. Am I endorsing all activity that permits kids to undergo irreversible (often risky and invasive) changes that are subsequently condemned and suspended in an independent review?
Or am I neutral on that? Does that come under 'equality' or is it something completely different? Is it linked to the pro-abortion movement's 'right to choose', or is that a false comparison?
Anyone that will believe a friend or relative over a stranger in a dispute has prejudices. I have prejudices. I dont think I have racial or LGB prejudices that are any stronger than any prejudices I might have towards certain groups of white people and straight people. But maybe that is wishful thinking on my part so I can feel better about myself?
Do I have prejudices about Trans people? Probably. Are they stronger than my prejudices against some groups of white people and straight people? Probably. I know I have a lot of uncertainty and a lot of questions and am incredibly unconvinced by arguments on either side of the debate that attempt to make gender self identification and realignment sound simple. I am definitely prejudiced against people on both sides of the trans debate who are convinced it is simple. One of my favourite sci-fi authors was Iain M. Banks, whose universe had near immortal, gender fluid people as standard (and as a kid i thought the concept of people being able to change into something they were happier with in these books was kind of nice). The natural world is filled by gender swapping animals (not biological 'accidents', but a core part of the species). It is clear that on the main measurements of a human sex, there are a significant amount of people who don't have a conclusive binary position. It is not unnatural to be that way.
However, I think the merging of LGB (purely about sexual preference, which doesn't impact on other people) with the very distinct matter of self gender identification (which does impact on other people) and realignment is at best horribly premature (while societies are still thrashing out the implications and complexities of the topic) and at worst a colossal mistake in a hostile world that will be counterproductive to the interests of the LGBs and the Ts in the medium to long term.
If some LGBTQ+ sponsor was on my sports shirt and it was my job, I'd just get on with things and keep my mouth shut. If my sports team told me I had to take a knee or had to wear an LGBTQ+ banner I'd tell them I wasn't happy, request that I could opt out or at least be able to post my own thoughts on the topic on social media to clarify my position (if I was forced to wear it / do it as a condition of my employment) and advise my employer I'd be bringing up the matter at the time of considering a contract extension. I'd then leave it up to the employer to decide how they wanted to handle it, would do what was demanded of me but at the very least would post on social media that I was contractually obliged to participate and was also contractually unable to talk further on the topic.
Maybe that makes me a 'bad' person. Its just how I feel after thinking things through. Loads of people will oppose BLM because they oppose anything anti-racist that doesn't favour their race/ethnicity. Loads of folk will oppose LGBTQ+ Pride because they will oppose anything other than heterosexuality. If you lump me together with those people because I've serious misgivings about the agendas and competence of BLM and LGBTQ+ then you are aiming your weapon at someone who 9 times out of 10 would be an ally. That's only ever great news for the enemy.