Jameela Jamil comes out as queer

I think she's a serial exaggerator. There is probably an element of truth behind what she says. She had a cancer scare but didn't have cancer. I also read she said she put on 75lbs when she worked at Radio 1 because of steroids for asthma. I've found a couple of pictures from the time where she looks like she weighed more than she does now but definitely not that much more. She's also been in an affair with a married man, been date raped, had an abortion. All of this may be true but she seems to have a story to suit any issue so that makes me wonder.

Surely most people call themselves gay or lesbian to meet partners and like minded friends. Not to claim discrimination as ridiculously alleged.
But if no one knows you are gay or lesbian, you can't be discriminated against on that basis. I am married to a man with 2 teenagers. If I suddenly decided tomorrow that I was a lesbian but did not tell anyone, nobody could discriminate against me on that basis.

Wow. What an unlucky person she is. Imagine suffering from so many different conditions and still having a hugely successful career.

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but she's actually an executive producer of the show that caused the controversy and isn't just appearing on it.

She also features in this video where she says she had had cancer twice and was deaf, among other things. It's all really bizarre.

www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3OTIxMDgzODY3MzYzOTc4?igshid=1m30xnqi4eqyj&story_media_id=2202809773556424305_5465555

What Sunset said.

Here are a couple of screenshots:

Lies and conflicting stories she's told over the years.

She was a model, she wasn't a model;
She was a professional model scout, she was an unpaid intern
She seriously injured herself in a fall during a tv show (broken nose, elbow and tooth), except she's shown continuing on without those injuries,
She got chased by a bee and then got hit by a car turns into she got chased by a swarm of bees on the set of The Good Place and only slightly hit by a car;
She broke her coccyx slipping on ice, actually she pulled a muscle in her bum on the set of The Good Place
She's got loads of allergies, including to peanuts, she posts a photo of a bag of peanuts she's about to eat

It's batshit.

What is it about? I’m not on Instagram and it’s asking me to log in to see it

This has been doing the rounds on social media today: an Instagram story showing Jameela Jamil as a compulsive liar

www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE4MDkzODgzODY0MDgzNjAz?igshid=zii56x3sm912&story_media_id=2237543377360317268_5465555

So the only reason to have a term like gay or lesbian is to claim discrimination?

That does appear to be the reason JJ is labeling herself as such. Hence the comment.

If you do not actively engage in homosexuality acts, you are not gay and do not face the same discrimination as a gay person. Therefore gay rights are not for you.

So the only reason to have a term like gay or lesbian is to claim discrimination?

as we can see with such as Jessi Jay, she is still judged for being bi because of previous lesbian relationships even though she is now with a man.

Jessie J was criticised for saying her bisexuality was just a phase and she wasn’t bi anymore, when her career started taking off in America.

Like so many others, I appreciated the fact that Jameela put body positivity on the agenda. The Muscato thing was my tipping point. In an effort to please everyone, she’s just all over the place.

By the way I’m not a purist about this. Be whoever you want to be. But we need to tackle this diversity industry around men. It’s the Freemasons for metrosexuals.

And we’re back to Philip Schofield - a wealthy white man, married with children, who is tremendously brave and stunning. You now get all the good stuff that Stonewall can offer you. All the awards (including some that were intended for women)

Like our own dear Philip Bunce. (Note to self - don’t marry a Philip).

I think "identifying" as a sexuality is dangerous territory.

Much like we see with self identified gender identity. Men are claiming the rights that women - the less privileged class have won; now straight women are declaring themselves pan/bi/queer and piggy backing onto the lgb rights movement.

If you do not actively engage in homosexuality acts, you are not gay and do not face the same discrimination as a gay person. Therefore gay rights are not for you. Obviously it is slightly different for bi people in long term straight relationships, as we can see with such as Jessi Jay, she is still judged for being bi because of previous lesbian relationships even though she is now with a man.

But please don't discriminate against me, I have lesbian fantasies and snogged a girl in my teens.

But it does make sense. Because in these circles the more oppressed you are, the more you are listened to, and the higher your social status.
Even better if you can somehow claim to be really oppressed, without having characteristics that do actually get you discriminated against.

Doesn't work like that, and it seems many seem to want to claim that it does for some reason, almost as if discrimination is something you want to have had happen, just to play victim in some way.

Isn't it revealing though that all this is in the context of whether or not someone has been discriminated against? As if that is now the whole point of the labels, to place yourself in a more advantageous place in the hierarchy of oppression? When we all thought that it was just supposed to be a description of your sexual attraction.

Presumably he has never suffered any homophobia because he is in a relationship with a woman.

A virgin's sexual orientation is clearly like a bag of Revels then. You don't know what it will be till you put it in your mouth.

Yeah, I get where thats coming from, but have to disagree.

Also not really comfortable with heterosexual as the default really. Though thinking about it, before I had any sexual contact I was sure I was straight. But once I started having sexual contact, I realised that girls were just as sexy and went from there. Actually probably had more contact with girls overall, meaning more..different girls than different boys. Obviously 12 years of being with my husband has almost wiped all the women off my sexual contact list totally, if going by amount of times or whatever! Not that this means anything, but if going by this actions only thing, basically if I had never had sexual contact I would still be thinking I was straight..hmm

Despite disagreeing though, I do agree with basically..if you have only ever had sexual contact with the opposite sex, no it really does not qualify you to be able to claim discrimination based on your bisexuality, just because you have had thoughts about the same sex. Doesn't work like that, and it seems many seem to want to claim that it does for some reason, almost as if discrimination is something you want to have had happen, just to play victim in some way. Its a bizarre thing really.

I also (obviously) disagree that those who are bisexual but have long term opposite sex partners are actually straight, which seems to be a new claim (often coming from the wokesters, oddly). They are in a straight relationship (yes, a straight one, not a queer one ) but they are still bisexual. Which does mean that they are less/not likely to experience homophobic behaviour too, but this doesn't mean they have no experience of that..

On that note too..I do not make a big 'thing' of being bi, given I am currently in a same sex long term relationship. If specifically asked I will say, but I don't really see any need to mention it otherwise. I have a friend who, whe people are talking about homophobic stuff, will ALWAYS bring up that hes bi, despite being in a heterosexual marriage for over 40 years now (and hiding that side of his sexuality before that, as many did back then). For no reason besides attention seeking it seems. Like, a gay couple will be discussing homophobia, and he will bring up how he is bi but never ever experienced any homophobia in his life. It seems so..unneeded yet always shoved in. Tbh, I don;t really understand why anyone would reply to someone discussing homophobia they have suffered recently with basically 'I never suffered any homophobia' (basically..ner ner ner ner ner?!)

Long post, full of random shite really, and probably many typos. But sexuality can be a bit of a minefield. And yes I agree with whoever said that bi people are often shoved into gay/straight boxes based on long term relationships but that doesn't change their sexuality. It does tend to change their experiences based on sexuality though, of course.

Apparently it’s also transphobic, as ‘if you need a different sexuality to include trans people,

I thought it was supposed to be inclusive of furries and enbies and otherkin and reincarnated angels and old uncle tom cobley and all?

But by all means let them crack on with eating themselves by reducing shared meaning down and down until there's nothing left to actually communicate with.

Only the puritans can be in 'LGBT Queerclub'.

If ideologically you don't share wider beliefs it doesn't matter what your sexuality is because you are a 'LGBT traitor' to the cause. Who needs to be reeducated or publicly shamed as punishment for dissident behaviour. Or both.

It just highlights that the whole movement about identity isn't about your sexuality, its now about a public display and demonstration of your political leanings and having a very narrow pre approved accepted set of beliefs.

It's the very antithesis of inclusive.

By current naming protocol I suppose I'd be a genderqueer bisexual woman with a preference for men who're a bit fey (and no particular preference as to the gender expression of women). I suspect that openly saying that would set off a storm about how phobic it is to like pretty men who wear eyeliner and have long hair but not to have any sexual interest in middle aged males who would like to be perceived as women.

As far as I can work out, she’s pansexual because she snogged a couple of girls at parties as a teenager and finds certain women in the media very attractive. I once agreed with her that Emma Watson is indeed a beautiful women and got a lecture about how I can’t possibly think this way because I’m straight (or, in her words “cishet”) and that I was appropriating her gayness which is the worst form of literal violence against the LGBTQ+ community. I’ve tried talking to her about my life experiences, which, as far as I can see are exactly the same as hers – had some drunken girl-snogs/experimentation in my youth, long term relationship with a man but she just recoils in horror, telling me that I’m nothing like her and that I really don’t understand sexuality definitions. The only difference I can see is that she is a young, nubile 24 year old and I’m a frumpy 40-something who clearly doesn’t fit her narrative.

I have had this very same experience with a couple of younger people I speak to. One was hilarious. A poll on a forum I used to frequent asked for gender and sexuality. I answered that by todays labels, that would make me a bisexual a-gender/gender-queer female. That was instantly taken offence to by some of the younger members who announced I was 'taking the piss' and was 'clearly cishet, and a terf too'. They never could explain to me quite how that worked, given I have had relationships with both men and women, serious ones (not just drunken snogs, though them too!), though now married to a man. I also have always been GNC by todays standards. And do not feel any 'inner identity' and it was actually that lot that told me that I 'Must' be genderqueer, only days before that when I stated that I didn't understand how men can feel like women as I don't 'feel like' anything besides myself. They declared me genderqueer and said thats how I could not wrap my head around having some sense of innate sex. Anyway a few more questions later, they still couldn't explain and instead just declared me a bigot and left the thread

I deduced from that, that the reason I cannot claim any special labels, is because I am over 30. According to them, once past 20 ish, you are no longer 'special' it seems, as a few other older (though not 'old' by anyones standards) members tried answering honestly what they would be if they followed the many labels of today and got the same treatment.

MInd, tbf it did seem to be only those of us who had previously commented on trans stuff and said we believe in biological sex that got the 'you can't be in our gang!' treatment. One very militant 'TWAW!' poster, who claims to have a trans teenage child, and is 40 ish was able to describe herself as queer non-binary femme without being declared a pisstaking bigot though. So..its not only age thats a barrier I guess. But figuring out who is allowed to be nonbinary or such, is a bit of a minefield.

For those claiming themselves as the most inclusive of inclusive people, they don't include anyone besides people they deem to be 'able to be special', which seems a select few! And as for 'noone can tell you what you are, only you can name yourself', well, seemingly not!

Maybe they can just make a label for "will have sex with anyone who asks in order to avoid causing offense" - it would save a lot of time.

There is a bit of a backlash about ‘pan’ from the woke bis, so maybe the younger ones are distancing themselves from it for that reason. Apparently it’s also transphobic, as ‘if you need a different sexuality to include trans people, you’re saying you don’t really see them as their presenting gender’.

Ahaha thats amazing

Last I heard, it was transphobic to be 'bisexual' as bisexual specifically does not include transpeople. It was as bad as daring to say you were a lesbian who was only attracted to female people (like..a lesbian).. So everyone woke and bi had to be pan.

The acceptable label brigade really do chop and change like the wind.