Peter Tatchell says bisexuality will be the new normal for many

Thank you

Great post, @FlyingOink

If bisexuals form the majority of people (not saying they do, but if they did) then a less judgemental society would mean more of those people having same sex relationships. That bit makes sense.

With regard to lesbians in particular being anti bisexuals, I think we have to look at how society actually is. A big part of being a homosexual is about being not attracted to the opposite sex. The fact that door is firmly closed means so much of society is alien to us. As pp mentioned, all the stories, films and songs are aimed at other people, not at us. Couple that with discriminatory laws and abuse, and you get a siege mentality.

I'm not saying that to be inflammatory; it is a part of my own experience of the world. It's why gay and lesbian people value gay and lesbian resources. Even being able to sit in a gay pub, knowing there are other people like you, and only other people like you, there, is comforting.

Bisexual people have other options open and therefore have less of the siege mentality. Being left for a man is galling for many reasons, and lesbian women who have had it happen to them feel betrayed. In reality, it's just one of those things, and perfectly understandable when you look at the number of available lesbians versus the number of available straight men. I think Pew did a survey showing 90% of bisexuals are in opposite sex relationships, and I was surprised it was as low as 90%.

Women who have been with men, either as bisexuals or as late bloomer lesbians, often learn how to behave in a relationship and in bed in a different way to how lesbians who have never been with men do. All that can be unlearned, and a "gold star" lesbian is just fortunate, not morally superior. But there is a reason why lesbians in general are wary of bisexual women. I had to unlearn my own biphobia which was linked to some deep rooted internalised misogyny (overshare moment).

There are also lesbian relationships between partners who are not suited to each other that begin out of a lack of other potential partners and continue longer than they should for the same reason. If you're only attracted to and attractive to 1 or 2% of the population, max - and of that tiny percentage many are closeted or partnered or you just don't find them attractive or they don't find you attractive - there's a good chance you might find yourself single for longer periods than you'd like.

There are a million reasons why even if society is non-judgemental, people with the option to form opposite sex relationships will do so over same sex relationships. Conceiving children, the larger number of potential partners, whatever. So in reality I don't think we will see a huge number of additional same sex relationships no matter what society says.

Bisexual women have a hard time too; high levels of abuse from male partners, assumptions of promiscuity, pressure for threesomes etc. I can see why a lot of bisexual women keep their bisexuality to themselves. Until "society being less judgemental" becomes "men stop treating bisexual women as just kinky" then those women are likely to stay closeted.

Also, straight women have no reason to partner with bisexual men, either. There is no shortage of straight men, and men in general are pretty homophobic, so it's not unheard of for outwardly homophobic men to have illicit sex with other men. The "MSM" acronym is used by organisations like HIV charities to get around those men's reluctance to even refer to themselves as bisexual (or indeed closeted homosexual but in an arranged marriage - there are a fair few men in that category).

I think biphobia is something that needs to be addressed, I'm hoping the LGB Alliance do some work on it, because there are a lot of issues that get swept under the carpet and bisexuals have their own needs that aren't really covered by any organisation at the moment.

Most people who have experienced abuse would know the tactics well that an abuser employs, and the harm it leaves behind. ALL of Tatchell et al's work is to advantage those who wish to make use of someone with lesser power, and spin this as being justifiable. It does not in any way advantage the person designated as 'for using'.

Women are having a distressingly similar experience in making women's spaces mixed sex.

Gay people fought for years to make people understand that being gay is not a fetish or anything to do with paedophilia.

And then you have 'prominent gay rights campaigners' such as Tatchell, who just cannot seem to shut up about other people's, including fucking 15 year olds, sexuality and sexual experiences, and how grown men having relationships with boys aged 9-13 is OK if them kids themselves were OK with it.

Feminists/women have long been warning that one of the problems with TRA/genderist policies and legislation is that there will, inevitably, be backlash. It will not come from feminists.

Instead of anyone heeding the warnings, of course the whistleblowers and those trying to raise the alarm have been accused of being 'transphobic' and 'harming trans people' etc.

Transphobia exists. It's not feminists that are guilty of it. And it's not going to be feminists doing the vigilante justice. I mean, if the twitter activists think Mumsnet is a pit of terrifying vipers, I can't imagine what they're going to say when they meet the real world.

I suppose it will look a bit like

communities will return to vigilante justice.

People always forget that one of the reasons for criminal justice changes in the 18th century was to prevent mob riots after crimes had been committed, because those riots damaged so much property and affected the economy of rapidly urbanising areas.

You can make a very historically sourced argument that the State jails criminals so the mob doesn't kill them, disturbing the peace in the process.

And a lot of subtle vigilante justice took place prior to the 20th century. I've read reports of notorious individuals suddenly being found dead in peculiar places with enough money for their funeral in their pocket, for example.

The lack of understanding of basic human instinct, or the capacity for empathy and attachment is stark in all branches of this political movement. It's all about using others and finding ways to make this ok, without recognising that those others are sentient beings who will have feelings about this and are very, very unlikely to just nicely co operate. And the more you compel them, the angrier and more resistant they are likely to become.

It’s really good isn’t it? Calmly pointing out facts in the face of heckling abuse. The link between queer theory and paedophilia is incontrovertible.

Thank for this film upthread very illuminating

What concerns me about this new wave of pushing at boundaries is that it appears to have done a lot of undercover work first and used Denton's as its guide and insisting gay be inclusive of Q+. However, no matter how 'normalised' Peter Tatchell et al think paedophilia can become, there is a complete disregard for how people feel. Young people aren't likely to feel paedophilia is normal just because someone says it is, or just because educators think wider discussions on sex will normalise. Nasty.

There'll be too much pushback and people will be very suspicious of those pushing this ideology

[quote AutomaticMoon]@Helleofabore That was Foucault who tried to get age of consent abolished in France. Kinsey himself has said that it shouldn’t disturb children to have sex with adults, it’s only societal judgment that makes child adult sex harmful.[/quote]
I was referring to Foucault.

Tatchell has also referred to ‘intergenerational sex’ as sometimes being beneficial to children and also referred to it has not always harmful.

Foucault also believed these things.

Obviously they are not the only ones, of course. My question was rhetorical though. I know this part of Foucault’s contribution to the world. Peter Tatchell is often crossing lines into unacceptable views yet get rolled out as a media resource and still is talking directly to children about sex ed. I cannot understand why the media continue to give him any attention at all.

When I worked in hiv job govt 90s.

Relevant literature etc used men who have sex with men. Because plenty men who consider themselves straight, do have sex with men.

The labels are to describe a group that has certain issues etc because of something they share.

Now it's the word that describes that's the key, and arguing over who qualifies.

That's just. Missing the point, petty, and frankly weird.

True as well.

Things at the moment are really strange.

I've seen arguments about things like. Can you be a lesbian really if ever done anything with a man? You must be bisexual. It's wrong to call yourself a lesbian.

I also realised when Schofield recently said I'm gay.

That given wife years however many kids. Saying I'm gay is a real massive kick in the teeth for her. That he never fancied her, never wanted her sexually.

I mean I have zero idea about him but I remembered Freddie, Elton j both gay having had LTR with woman.

Schofield on TV when is child it wasn't exactly the 30s or something.

That's just something I thought oh at.

And I thought in general. Not specifically about any of those 3 men.

Gay is a much more definite and respected orientation than bi.

If well known, I am certain saying I'm bi would be met with less cheering than I'm gay.

Someone similar situation to PS, I reckon if said bi. Lots more questions. Why leaving wife? Why are you telling us? What does leaving wife have to do with being bi? What if actually going on here...

Plenty of straight people have had same sex experiences. They just don't broadcast it.

I assume there's an awareness of the toll globally and historically of socially enforced heteronormativity?

Whether subtly, fairly obviously, or in your face?

Sorry rephrase not sure comprehensible.
The massive harm done to untold numbers of humans globally and through history, and that is still a huge cause of suffering now. Due to societal/religious/traditional etc views about heterosexuality Vs other sexualities. And about what heterosexual relationships should be like.

And you're not disagreeing with him. You're disagreeing with the article he was (poorly) summarising in a few words.

Disagreeing is obv fine. If you have read the thing you're disagreeing with.

Enough, have you read the piece?

Why do you conclude even just from the tweet that it means anyone, eg you, will be somehow considered as bisexual when you aren't?

[quote AutomaticMoon]@CheeseMmmm Interesting that you think normalising child abuse is nothing to get worked up about.[/quote]
Where do you get that from my comments?

Tatchell is saying nothing that people like Kinsey haven't said before. I think sexuality for many is a spectrum and it shouldn't matter what sex of adult you have sex with at any time. It's your own business and no one should be prosecuted for it but I also don't think you should get special diversity points either. Ideally in our society it will cease to matter. I think a lot of people are attracted to both sexes but few are equally attracted to both sexes, most people are near the ends of the spectrum.

I disagree with him. Labels don't hold people back when they just identify preferences. I'm not held back by the label heterosexual and don't want it blurred to bisexual as, for me, that would be a lie.

@CheeseMmmm Interesting that you think normalising child abuse is nothing to get worked up about.

@Helleofabore That was Foucault who tried to get age of consent abolished in France. Kinsey himself has said that it shouldn’t disturb children to have sex with adults, it’s only societal judgment that makes child adult sex harmful.

Plenty to discuss in the actual piece if anyone wants to?

Ok I found the actual tweet and started looking at article he posted with it.

It's a what if, and his view as to what might be is fair enough.

I do think the author is way way too optimistic though. Like. Sorry fella. Sounds good to be less hung up with sexuality labels. That stuff. But sadly not going to happen any time soon. The way I see things going.

Optimists are happier though so for that I'm happy for the author

The piece gives context for the tweet. He really should have put a could or a might or something in though. But. Clicks I suppose.

I'm not fussed about all of this tbh. Nothing to get worked up about from where I'm sitting.

mobile.twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/1481604496534945795?cxt=HHwWhoCymZLc248pAAAA

Excerpt from linked piece-

'Yet now, perhaps, we are at a place where these labels may be holding us back. There is something truly freeing about the concept of a sexuality that no longer requires a label; where individuals can live and be accepted without defining their sexuality. If homophobia is increasingly vanquished, the need for specific communities based on sexual orientation and the need to advocate for our specific legal rights look set to decline. When we reach a stage of human evolution, where we are no longer being denied and abused because of our sexuality and the world becomes more accepting, it seems likely that people will become less fixated on “gay” or “straight” and instead identify (if at all) somewhere in the middle'