Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Do we have it anywhere on record that Stonewall does/does not support people to express their sexuality as exclusively homosexual?

591 replies

JustcameoutGC · 30/08/2021 10:16

The expectation that lesbians accept partners with penises was one of the things that really made me start questioning gender identity politics more closely.

Exclusively homosexual lesbian spaces have disappeared as viewed to be transphobic. Just look on any lesbian dating apps and many of the users are male and be-penised. Some may be fine with this, but all of my lesbian friends are not, and they feel very disenfranchised, but equally they feel unable to speak out. Just look at what happened in Manchester.

I just can't wrap my head around how the prevoiusly stalwart and highly effective champion of gay rights has now essentially outlawed exclusive homosexuality.

Have they made any statements that make this stance clear? Have they actively said they do not support exclusively homosexual spaces?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
OldCrone · 31/08/2021 16:08

@BilindaB

So the dictionary definition - and I know how you all love those- now says a trans woman is a woman. Because times have changed. Or Merriam-Webster's has been 'captured' by the dreaded trans agenda.
It's an American dictionary isn't it? I wouldn't be at all surprised at capture.
PurgatoryOfPotholes · 31/08/2021 16:08

@BilindaB

He went there to make trouble anyway, it was a stunt.
You're doubling down on this?

Are you saying that April Preston and her friends had agreed to meet up with him and shout at him?

This is a page I think you need to read, urgently.

rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/myths-vs-realities/

334bu · 31/08/2021 16:08

This thread is about the homophobia inherent in Stonewall's redefinition of same sex attraction to same gender attraction.
It is not the place to discuss a court case which already has its own thread.

OldCrone · 31/08/2021 16:07

Could you post a link to a circular definition in a dictionary Bilinda as you claim that's how dictionaries define things? Or a link or screenshot of your earlier post that you referred to?

BilindaB · 31/08/2021 16:07

So the dictionary definition - and I know how you all love those- now says a trans woman is a woman. Because times have changed. Or Merriam-Webster's has been 'captured' by the dreaded trans agenda.

Helleofabore · 31/08/2021 16:06

Do you even hear yourself Bilinda?

How you can not see the comparison is quite astounding.

OldCrone · 31/08/2021 16:05

Sorry Bilinda. My mistake. That was a different discussion with a different poster. It wasn't about circular definitions.

I don't remember a recent discussion with you or anyone else about circular definitions. Perhaps you're mistaking me for someone else?

BilindaB · 31/08/2021 16:04

And there it is!

He wore the shirt and hat to 'make trouble' anyway.

It was a stunt.

'He deserved it!'

and it's still not analogous to someone deserving to be raped. Because in that case, they don't deserve it for what they were wearing. In his case, he deserved to be made to leave because of what he was wearing (and that it was a stunt).

BilindaB · 31/08/2021 16:02

'Was this your post?'

No but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Helleofabore · 31/08/2021 16:00

@BilindaB

He went there to make trouble anyway, it was a stunt.
And there it is!

He wore the shirt and hat to 'make trouble' anyway.

It was a stunt.

'He deserved it!'

BilindaB · 31/08/2021 16:00

Did you see the crowds that were there for her though! Nearly forty people!

OldCrone · 31/08/2021 16:00

@BilindaB

2. is a circular definition. You have used the word being defined in the definition itself.

That's how dictionaries do it, I showed that last time. Go look for yourself.

I've had a look as I remember that discussion.

Was this your post?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4295102-Does-anyone-ever-wonder-how-this-will-end?msgid=109030802

Do we have it anywhere on record that Stonewall does/does not support people to express their sexuality as exclusively homosexual?
BilindaB · 31/08/2021 15:58

Millar:

''The charge also alleges she wrote personal and false information relating to a female police constable on social media.

The offence is said to have been aggravated by prejudice related to sexual orientation.''
-------

Innocent til proven guilty, I know.

HAHelp · 31/08/2021 15:58

I see we're circling back to gravy boats in definition world now...

BilindaB · 31/08/2021 15:57

He went there to make trouble anyway, it was a stunt.

dyslek · 31/08/2021 15:51

@BilindaB

She' been charged with a homophobic hate crime. Do you usually want to let people who commit crimes like that off?
When theyre trumped up bullshit, yes. Every time.
Helleofabore · 31/08/2021 15:50

You were defending the perpetrator of what I see as a "homophobic hate crime" the other day, based on what the victim was wearing.

Yes. Rather shameful victim blaming there. Also completely ignored the fact that it was ONE gay man that the crowd could have chosen to ignore completely but instead abused, harassed and crowed about doing so. One person.

RedDogsBeg · 31/08/2021 15:49

@BilindaB

'You were defending the perpetrator of what I see as a "homophobic hate crime" the other day, based on what the victim was wearing.'

Your shit analogy is shit.

Hardly, you agreed with a poster that the gay man got what he deserved because of the clothes he was wearing.
RedDogsBeg · 31/08/2021 15:48

@BilindaB

I'm not desperate for anything. I've always said I'll wait to see the evidence before making my opinion.
And what is this evidence you are privy to that has not been tested in open court to so confidently declare this:

Do you usually want to let people who commit crimes like that off?

You have already decided pre trial that Marion is guilty.

BilindaB · 31/08/2021 15:48

'You were defending the perpetrator of what I see as a "homophobic hate crime" the other day, based on what the victim was wearing.'

Your shit analogy is shit.

334bu · 31/08/2021 15:47

I'm not desperate for anything. I've always said I'll wait to see the evidence before making my opinion.

She' been charged with a homophobic hate crime. Do you usually want to let people who commit crimes like that off?*

Slight inconsistency here, no?

Helleofabore · 31/08/2021 15:47

2. is a circular definition. You have used the word being defined in the definition itself.

deja vu

BilindaB · 31/08/2021 15:47
  1. is a circular definition. You have used the word being defined in the definition itself.

That's how dictionaries do it, I showed that last time. Go look for yourself.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 31/08/2021 15:46

@BilindaB

She' been charged with a homophobic hate crime. Do you usually want to let people who commit crimes like that off?
You were defending the perpetrator of what I see as a "homophobic hate crime" the other day, based on what the victim was wearing.
allmywhat · 31/08/2021 15:43

@allmywhat

GrinGrin

  1. it’s recursive. ❌

  2. please try to define “man” now.

Oh I was talking about that brilliant two-part definition, please expand on it Blinda!
Swipe left for the next trending thread