Not sure about this

I've read the quote four times and I still can't make sense of it. That means it either doesn't make sense or I really need to sleep now. I'll come back and try again tomorrow morning. But I'm not optimistic.

And I’ll never, ever forgive Stonewall for this backlash against gays, lesbians and, sometimes, bisexuals due to Stonewall’s overreach in conflating unreasonable T demands with LGB …

Well said, I completely agree. I feel there was more acceptance of my lesbian relationships 20 years ago than there is now, we’ve gone backwards. And Stonewall had a big part to play in that: it feels like a major betrayal.

Here, here. People are conflating the pressure they feel from stonewall and the trans activists with the average LGB community. I actually think it is harder, now, to be gay/lesbian/bi than it was 5-10 years ago as there is so much suspicion about.

I hope your son and his friends are ok LK1972, what a terrible thing to happen to them. 💐

Don't worry@Truthlikeness , I think you calling yourself plain old bisexual rules you out of the 'woke' set. I think the sanctioned term is now 'bi', if you have to be a weird 'non-pansexual' person.

So go forth and explore your newly-realised sexuality, if you manage to find anywhere to actually meet the 'old-fashioned'( in Ricky Gervais-parlance) lesbian/bisexual women, there's much fun to be had

About a year ago I came to the realisation that I'm most likely bisexual. I've never had a sexual experience with or dated a woman (or in fact anyone in the last decade) so it's all rather academic at this point. I've told almost no-one I know, beyond a small number of close lesbian friends, because it feels like I'm jumping on some kind of woke bandwagon.

Just to compare-yesterday my son was beaten up (not badly, he managed to get away quickly) when standing up for his lesbian friend. 14 yr old baby butch holding hands with girlfriend was enough to provoke a bunch of homophobic boys to attack. 5-10 15-year boys, picking on an obvious lesbian. In London, in 2022.

That is what oppression means. Gender non-confirming young lesbian, her girlfriend and her (bisexual, not that it matters) male friend being attacked, physically, for being who they are.

And I'll never, ever, forgive Stonewall for this backlash against gays, lesbians and, sometimes, bisexuals, due to Stonewalls's overreach in conflating unreasonable T demands with LGB - my, and my children's sexual orientations!

It's here, as predicted, and guess who's suffering? Do you think it's those that IDENTIFY as queer, whilst having a 'straight-passing privilege', or those obvious baby dykes?

Completely agree

exactly this. I've seen this kind of logical reversal used all over the place.

OP that whole twitter post comes across like a male telling females what they need and what they need to accept and reject. I have no idea who that person is and I am making the judgement from the content and the tone of the words used.

If this person considers themselves a feminist, maybe they are very young and have no fucking notion of what feminists have fought for over the decades. They have such a regressive view on what ‘females’ think and understand.

Or, do young feminists honestly believe they have to have children to be considered a woman?

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexuality though. It's about gender identity and if you are happy to be described as conforming with stereotypes of femininity, or if you're happy being described as a subset of women where the larger set now includes male bodied people (ie transwomen).

"Queer" is still for very many people a pejorative term that they wouldn't use to describe themselves. I think as bisexual women in long term relationships with men, we have to realise that we face basically none of the possible prejudice and negative responses that people who are in same sex relationships experience. I suppose pretty much the only thing is the assumption that you are heterosexual and that all your past relationships were opposite sex. Which is annoying but not a big deal.

How is using language that dehumanizes half the world’s population ‘inclusive’ or ‘more accurate’?

More accurate? Maybe except that reducing a human to body parts then may require further clarification that it is a human body part and not any other mammal.

And then, doesn’t reducing pregnancy down to body parts then remove the human female factor completely. Because l can reasonably say that as a human female, I would process the experience very differently to an ape.

And it is hardly inclusive to communicate in a way that a section of the population cannot easily and quickly understand.

The group of the human population that asserts this detached language is ‘inclusive’ is missing the rest of the sentence. It is ‘inclusive to trans people’ who wish to detach their bodily experiences from being based in what that sexed body is.

But it is NOT inclusive to humans with a raft of unique needs that require communication to be easy to understand , with prior knowledge of anatomy, and quick to process.

It is a lie that people pushing a particular political agenda keep repeating because they have been shown what not believing that lie means. Only someone hateful and bigoted would not believe so and those people deserve all the threats and all the hate thrown at them.

And that is just the first part of that sentence…. That is free from grammatical accuracy and that is not inclusive or accurate either.

OP, what has you being married have to do with your sexuality? You ask 'I am not hetero, what's your name for it?', and the answer is you appear to be bisexual, in old money. That would, I guess, be the term most women here who are attracted to both men and women would choose for themselves.

However, as you're married to a man and quite likely would seem like a hetero couple to most observers. Just like my marriage.

Not sure I really need people to know what I used to get up to before I was married to my chosen life partner, who happened to be a man. As I have no plans to be unfaithful to him with either sex I see no reason for sharing my sexuality with people. I suffer no discrimination though due to my bisexuality, and neither, likely, do you.

Perhaps that's why people are getting riled up, in your identifying into a repressed minority, 'queer', you seem to suggest that there's a degree of minority oppression that's applicable to you. As you're married with a kid, there just isn't

at the risk of diverting from the point (welcome to the gang!), what do you mean by queer? What’s queer about being married to a bloke but being bisexual?

Yes! Exactly.

As though the oppression that women have fought, the treatment as chattel, the lack of the vote, the need for the equal pay act, the reluctance of companies to hire women in their prime fertility years, etc. was related to our being "feminine" and identifying as women and nothing at all to do with our biology, and our monopoly on pregnancy and the burden of reproductive labour.

If you are a woman who is married to a man, you really, really need to fuck off with your "I'm a queer person" bullshit.

The more I read this, the more it amuses me tbh.

I have an EDI training session in work next week. When we get to the questions part, I fear I may have a very profound question to ask, regarding what the company is doing to ensure that in decoupling womanhood from femininity, motherhood is protected, and that we do not occlude the struggles of our female (non-feminine), feminist ancestors to overcome the patriarchal oppression. If I think on it some more, I might be able to throw some critical race theory in there too 🤔

This reminds me of a trans man’s Twitter post saying how there is nothing feminine about having a baby it was the hardest toughest most gruelling thing they had ever done. Implication: it was really super masculine of him to have had a baby becuz women can’t do anything hard. Femininity innit.

I cannot understand that tweet (I get the gist), it's like a novel complicated sailor's knot that only the sailor himself can open, because it is so personal to the plonker who wrote it.

As a woman juggling the kids and looking after my own mother, I don’t have time to pontificate about decoupling femininity BS!

I just think, FFS, I’m a woman who has often had to be masculine in order to survive in life and my career, be a leader or whatever but also nurturing etc etc, and sometimes slept with other women but mostly men, and sometimes felt not that sexual and sometimes felt quite sexual and sometimes to men, sometimes to women…

I don’t need to define or wrangle about any of it, it was just me being me.

However me definitely is a woman, biologically and culturally. Whether I was wearing a suit giving a speech in trousers with my hair tied back or breastfeeding my baby. I don’t need to shout it or wear a skirt, that’s just a truth.

Simple really.

I'm sorry, but it's thoughtless nonsense. The person who wrote this doesn't know what they are talking about. Pregnancy is already 'decoupled' from femininity, in that there is no requirement to be feminine to give birth. 'Femininity' refers to cultural stereotypes like women being Barbies or Disney princesses. There is absolutely no inherent coupling between pregnancy, birth and femininity : plenty of butch, masculine women get pregnant. This person presumably means they want to decouple pregnancy from the concept of 'female', but this is not more accurate or inclusive language because ONLY females give birth.

And as for 'cis' women being 'allowed' to refuse motherhood without refusing womanhood...again, while womanhood and motherhood are closely connected conceptually, it has NEVER been the case that a woman who refuses motherhood is thereby seen to no longer be a woman. Even in the Medieval ages it was legitimate for women to refuse motherhood by becoming nuns, and they were still perceived to be woman. Women are still women, no matter whether they have given birth or not. This isn't some new revelation that we need trans theory to legitimate.

I also appreciate speaking to bisexual women on here, and so sorry if this comes across as grouchy, but I consider myself bisexual because I am attracted to both sexes. The idea that bisexuals are just attracted to 'bits' is a tad insulting. I think everyone of every orientation is attracted to people as people.

It is typical word salad that people think makes them sound clever but actually makes it obvious that the ideology is built on nothing but shifting sands.

How on earth could it be "more accurate" to decouple pregnany from being a woman? Men cannot get pregnant. Only women can get pregnant. That is objective, provable fact.

Ask yourself why its always women who are disadvantaged by gender ideology. Why has the NHS removed the word women from its female cancer/menopause pages but not removed the word men from male cancer pages? It is women being pushed out of sports. It's women being put at risk in prisons, rape centres, women's refuges, hospital wards etc. TRAs are trying to obficate this with all the upside down language and word salad to try to convince people who don't use their brains that they're not misogynistic.

War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Erasing women is feminist.

Could you explain in words of one syllable, why you think that?