The UK is officially an intolerant hellhole for transwomen

And I do agree that it is a mistake to assume someone's sexual orientation. I can see how it is a constant irritation for people who are not heterosexual

Well yes but in reality unless one is actually considering having sex with someone else does one in reality actually make that assumption?

As for ace or demi or aro or whatever in a dating profile, because it's important for other people to know that - personally, yes it would be useful to know but probably not for the reasons loop would think.

Datun I guess? I am currently living in a house with 4 straight housemates, we don't really talk about it, although I have mentioned that I'm ace as an 'understand me better' sort of thing. Last year I lived with 3 other people who were various shades of not straight (one bisexual, one aro ace, one ace/unsure, and me ace/lesbian) we would talk about it all the time haha it was kind of a big part of how we interacted with the world, gay jokes, gay media, eyeroll about the straights (not in a mean way), memes, just rainbow glitter sparkles on everything haha

Fair enough, I'd struggle to take him seriously on anything but I would be open to reading more from people who aren't so awful lol

demisexual people are not heterosexual (you can't be xsexual and also ysexual at the same time). Aromantic people may well be heterosexual, because it's a romantic attraction (or lack of one) but that doesn't negate that they are also aro

According to the urban dictionary
Demisexuals are characterized by a lack of sexual attraction toward any person unless they become deeply emotionally or romantically connected with a specific person or persons. The level of connection it takes for sexual desire to form is dependent on how close the relationship is rather than initial attraction. It is an orientation that is not chosen

Why does that preclude being heterosexual?

As for the other things you mention- really who cares apart from the individuals concerned?

loops

Ok. So it's more within the framework of the possibility of a relationship, rather than something you would just say in a neutral social setting?

Yes, and yes Brendan O'Neill is a wanker, but I agreed with his article.

The Stonewall riots are a massive bone of contention between TRAs and other people in the LGBT community, from what I have read.

And I have zero faith that TRAs do not rewrite history. They regularly purloin women from the past who were forced to disguise themselves as male in order to access education/jobs, as being trans.

That was a long running thread on here here a few months ago listing them.

And I do agree that it is a mistake to assume someone's sexual orientation. I can see how it is a constant irritation for people who are not heterosexual.

datun like...oh hey, I'm asexual/demisexual/gay/bi/pan etc... just the same way you'd tell someone you were gay or straight. Sexuality is often a crucial part of someone's identity, and super relevant to their interactions with other humans re: dating or relationships, or just in how they interact with the world.

Like, you'd put you were ace or demi or aro or whatever in a dating profile, because it's important for other people to know that, the same way you'd put if you were gay or anything other than straight. It's about what you'd expect from another person in a relationship, and what they could expect from you.

Also having people assume you are straight isn't the best, that's why people come out, and why coming out is necessary at all. I'm sure one day it won't be, but at least for now it is.

Datun Brendan O'Neill...really? The guy who campaigns against same-sex marriage, and wants abuse victims to shut up? He's really the person we should listen to regarding LGBT history...as opposed to the people that were either actually there, or have done extensive study on the events.

I'm sure some LGB people do want to pretend that trans people weren't crucial to the development of Gay Rights, but that doesn't make them right or even especially reasonable.

loopsdefruit

You seem to be quite familiar with the terms. Can I ask you a question? How does this sort of identity come up in conversation, if at all?

Eresh demisexual people are not heterosexual (you can't be xsexual and also ysexual at the same time). Aromantic people may well be heterosexual, because it's a romantic attraction (or lack of one) but that doesn't negate that they are also aro. You're actually being quite rude.

Thankfully, for the most part, the Queer community is pretty accepting...and those that are not make up a tiny minority of it.

I'm not sure that things like BDSM or other kinks make someone queer, but then I wouldn't presume to tell someone they 'aren't allowed' to ID as queer if that's how they feel...because that's not a nice thing to do.

MillicentFawcett

Bloody hell. That was a breath of fresh air.

Yet if anyone’s messing with history, it’s these historically illiterate trans blatherers.

Where the first gay radicals wanted to break free of identity — by refusing to be a typical bloke or girl — today’s deviants are determined to return to the prison of identity, dreaming up utterly fixed, unquestionable, sometimes medically enhanced identities for themselves to live in and live by. And if the rest of us refuse to genuflect before their sainted identity, we’ll be branded transphobes and elbowed out of polite society

Brendan O'Neill is an utter wanker a lot of the time but he's bang on the money when it comes to the transcult:

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/theres-a-simple-reason-why-the-stonewall-trailer-doesnt-feature-more-transwomen-of-colour/

Lots of people are a minority, and want to be accepted. It doesn't make them a member of the LGB community.

Though plenty of fringe communities are vying to be included under the "queer" umbrella. Some I've seen are furries, adult babies, BDSMers and even paedophiles.

As well as all manner of heterosexual sparklegenders such as demisexual, aromantic etc.

It's basically a meaningless term. Many LGB people hate it.

Like, stonewall riots were started by trans women,

A lot of LGB people apparently see that as revisionism. The people concerned didn't identify as "trans" in the modern sense.

I might add that the trans-ideology is in direct opposition to LGB rights. It erases homosexuality as an orientation.

Lesbians particularly, (always the bottom of the pile) are relentlessly persecuted as a direct result of the trans-ideology.

loopsdefruit

Lots of people supported LGB rights and fought alongside them, without being LGB themselves. Not just trans.

The difference is transgenderism is an identity, not a sexual orientation.

And whilst they have common goals of being accepted for who they are, homosexual rights did not remove the rights of anyone else.

Lots of people are a minority, and want to be accepted. It doesn't make them a member of the LGB community.

I think it's damaging to conflate the two. There is no reason to not support sexual orientation. There is every reason to disagree with the trans-ideology.

I do disagree with a lot of posters here RE: Trans arguments, which is fine, live and let live lol but I do get super confused when people don't understand why the T is in LGBT. Like, stonewall riots were started by trans women, and trans people have always played a huge part in campaigning for and getting rights for the Queer community. That's why the T is there, and why it should remain there.

It's a really horrible dichotomy. Because I'm sure young people questioning their gender identity and presenting as the opposite sex, do indeed encounter negative reactions.

But the support should not be under a framework of beauty and bravery.

Acceptance and acknowledgement. Yes. But not lauded and feted. Not told that by presenting as female, they are being female. And in a so much better and in more desirable way than actual females. There is no goal to how good a female one is. It just is.

Children should be taught to accept people who present differently, whilst at the same time being under no possible illusion that the person has changed their biological sex. That should be emphasised.

Re stunning and brave. You're so right. Fuck. The fuckers have found another way to shove us down the ladder, haven't they?

Despite her precautions and isolated existence, the woman experienced frequent verbal and physical assaults from strangers, including being stalked, pushed off pavements and screamed at. She also had people grab her breasts to see if they were real, and ask “what are you?”

Because none of this happens to real women on a daily fucking basis!

Yes Datun! re being brave and stunning.

Compare and contrast Grayson Perry cheerfully rocking up to get his award from the palace in a lovely mother-of-the-bride outfit.

What's his connection with the needs of gay men and women?

Zero. He's just another heterosexual man with a fetish. Jumping into a Trojan horse of mammoth proportions to the detriment of women everywhere. The power needed to do this is spectacular.

You have, on the one hand this huge powerful push to rebrand dodgy men as women but what I find almost suffocatingly frustrating is how many people are taken in by it.

Actually going out of your way to force people to treat you as female because your yearning over what female means shows a level of misogyny that's difficult to stomach.

It doesn't only leave women's oppression unacknowledged, it actually remarkets it as desirable.

Stephanie Davis Arai said something to me in Brighton which really struck a chord. When a boy decides he is a girl, and comes to school presenting as feminine, and is accepted and called brave, stunning, etc, girls look at this, and then look at themselves and are shattered by the fact that they, who are female, are neither 'stunning nor brave' because they don't conform to the same stereotype.

To me it’s synonymous to how a lady may choose to wear a dress, heels and makeup one day yet trousers, flats and no makeup another — these are just internal preferences of how we choose to express at any given time."

Yes, quite right. Just that. Merely that, for which no actual woman got an award, ever.

Now, the fact that Phillip(a) is breaking the bounds of gender stereotypes is IMO good. However, as women have been doing this re 'presentation' for years, surely what he is is a male champion of non-gender conforming men in business.

Absolutely Datun! I find it astounding that these men can just snatch awards away from women and feel not one iota of shame that they've just trampled over them in their need for validation. The narcissism - and the fact that it isn't recognised as such - makes me absolutely furious