Concept of ‘exclusively same sex attracted’

This thread will rumble on and on until we accept that everyone deep down is bisexual.

That's why I said it will go to 1k. Because many people aren't going to accept this.

Yes, OP has form for this.

You don’t get that incest (in the context here) is CSA?

Do you wonder why some of us have Langcleg in our usernames years after she was banned? She really understands safeguarding children, gaslighting and coercive control, that's why.

“😂”

Yeah, CSA is so hilarious.

And this article isn’t “very interesting”, it’s queer theory addled shite.

As has been every other "interesting" article posted by OP to back up her genderist views.

And this article isn’t “very interesting”, it’s queer theory addled shite.

“Or put another way: there have always been sexual instincts throughout the animal world (sex). But at a specific point in time, humans attached meaning to these instincts (sexuality). When humans talk about heterosexuality, we’re talking about the second thing.”

Disingenuous arsery. Claiming to speak for all humans, indeed!

On the contrary, for most people when they talk about heterosexuality they are quite simply talking about those instincts, pure and simple. That’s what sexuality is. It’s not what meaning you attach to it, it’s the fact of who you want to have sex with.

If this is the kind of PoMo drivel you read and take seriously, no wonder you have such a hard time grasping what people’s real life experiences are.

This thread. Fucking hell.

A whole thread of trying to undermine the right of women to be exclusively same sex attracted. Trying to undermine the concept of exclusive same sex attraction. Trying to deny women who are exclusively same sex attracted the right to a name for their sexual orientation, not to be confused with any other type of sexual orientation.

And you pretend OP that it’s about allowing women who are attracted to people of both sexes as long as those people “present as” women to define themselves as lesbians if that’s how they wish to define themselves.

No. It’s not. Your agenda is blindingly clear, and blindingly offensive.

Adult human females exclusively attracted to other adult human females no longer have a name for themselves, for their sexual orientation. And you are trying to make out they're some kind of weird substrata of lesbians, not what everyone has understood to be lesbians for ages and ages.

Such bullshit. It’s grotesque. I’ve been disgusted with your “everyone’s bisexual at heart” bollocks before now, but this thread is a new low, even for you.

A well known TW who appeared on Big Brother gave a very good demonstration of this - the affront they took at being turned down by another (male) contestant was educational to say the least.

You've hit the nail on the head PeriodBro it is the presumption of yes which seems to be hardwired in (some) men that male trait doesn't diminish when they declare they have changed sex, odd that.

At least, it should be.

But we've had these discussions on here before. Women's boundaries are up for discussion, and other people's judgements on whether or not it is acceptable for women to - be attracted to women, or find men's bodies disgusting, etc.

Women are obliged to explain their orientation and preference to nobody.

Good point, Blister. Again, it's about a presumed 'yes' that women have to explain why they actually would rather not.

Consent is an ENTHUSIASTIC yes, not just an absence of no.

So this whole thread is about how repulsive the OP assumes lesbians find male bodies?

Not about how lesbians actually define their desire but how much they do or don't desire the bodies being proposed to them?

I thought the homophobia had hit rock bottom but then... it kept going...

I'm saying it too: I find men's bodies disgusting and repulsive.
And I had a wonderful loving father. I loved him dearly and he had a gross,flat, hard, masculine body. Ugh
I'm sure a straight woman would find him very attractive, in fact many did.
..I'm a lesbian; that's simply the way I feel. And it's fine!

If a person deceives someone about something important about themselves, knowing the other wouldn’t have sex with them if they knew the truth, then that’s wrong and probably illegal.

It is illegal to deceive someone about your sex if you have sex with them. Sex by Deception. You should ask Alex Sharpe about it, quite a prolific writer on this subject.

I don't care whether anyone thinks women might have concluded that they're not interested in men too hastily. The whole world pressures women to consider men as sexual options.

It does.

This is rooted in a belief that female biology is a provided resource for males, and has no point or purpose unless it's serving use to males.

Hence the belief that homosexual females are either deluded and in need of sorting out to serve their proper designed purpose (of being used for sex by males) or that they are bad in refusing males. I think the TQ+ jargon for this is 'gatekeeping their vagina'. (I cannot believe I actually have to repeat this misogynistic lunacy.)

Its incel ideology.

Believing that homosexual females should be bi (or are a weird minority who are kidding themselves because who could really not be all about sexually servicing males, and should be made to behave properly and get with the het) is most likely rooted in a belief that females aren't really entitled to bodily autonomy or a sexuality/life not focused on the service of males.

One fuckton of TQ+ logic is about females and the need for them to revolve their meaningless little lives around the much more important needs of males. Especially the very oppressed poor males.

(Insert rape and death threats here for females who say unfemale things like 'no', and 'fgs will you do something about your misogyny because the bloody dark ages aren't coming back' and 'no emotionally healthy female would ever shag anyone of any sex or gender who has zero interest in whether she consents or is enjoying it and expects her to provide sexual access to her body out of social duty'.) These are the kinds of distorted, prejudiced views of females that boards like this were set up to help females stand up against in the first place.

So, you think someone not telling a heterosexual male they are about to have sex with who has a replica vagina and is not female is ok? That a transitioned male can make that decision for that person?

Sorry- I dont think that is a distinction eg in law.
Thinking of case law around hiv transmission.

yes, I am very concerned that Stonewall are actively trying to change the laws around sex by deception. And Sharpe seems to be very much involved with that.

Where do you stand on that OP? Have we covered this?

It is ok for a trans person to not disclose their birth sex to a sex partner?

aseriesofstillimages

As its been put on here.
Where do you stand on gender identity fraud?
Do you think that its ok for a trans woman to 'fool' a woman into a sexual relationship and use a prosthetic penis?

Or do you think that it is sex by deception and therefore sexual assault as it is not what the consented to?

But I really struggle with why GC people would want to tell a woman - a lesbian - who is in a relationship with a trans woman that they are wrong to consider themselves a lesbian

Because reality? A transwoman is a male. If you're a woman, in a relationship with a male, you are not a lesbian.

We don't need to pretend there is anything difficult to define here, we all know what the words mean