To feel sad that I can't support LGBT+ anymore

[loveyouradvice]

Just that really

I realised this when DD wanted to talk about Pride and my instant reaction was to talk about the brave Lesbian protest about lesbianism being same-sex attracted..... and all my DD wanted to talk about was the joy and the fun and how all her mates had a really good time....

And I realised that has gone for me... being engaged with the L & G community when I was younger was such a rich part of my life...

And I feel very sad to have lost this... the joy and the support...

And yes, as I write this I can see how selfish this sounds ... that I am sad it is no longer simple, that my automatic and heartfelt support of anything L & G and of Stonewall is no longer there.... that it is now divided and controvesial

I looked at that twitter link. ONE tweet implying that it would be acceptable to move the protesters away in an aggressive manner. All the other tweets, while expressing anger or upset, made no mention of encouraging violence.

While I am aware that there have been some disgusting and entirely unacceptable tweets, over the past few years, to and about radfems who are opposed to trans activism, there were none on that thread.

Skarros I've reported your post. Using that slur breaches Mumsnet guidelines.

UneMoonit please stop scaremongering. It is a very, very long way between saying that people are allowed to make moral judgments on someone else's sexual behaviour or decisions and the factors behind them, and legalised rape.

And also a long way between saying that Person A is allowed to think that person B is wrong for sleeping with a married person or anyother example, and saying that person B is "answerable" to person A.

Person B is under no obligation to explain themselves or seek A's approval here. But B is still allowed to make a judgment. And discuss this stuff in general terms.

ReanimatedSGB Everyone has the right to refuse anyone else as a sexual partner, for any reason.

A point nobody here has disputed. They also have the absolute right to reject whomever they want as friends, or as houseguests, and so on and so forth.

Not one iota of that is being contradicted by saying that other people are allowed to criticise the decisions people make or the reasons behind them. As long as they keep their conduct to within limits. eg not harrass some specific individual etc.

JAPAB: we are making the same point. People get to choose who they want to get intimate with; other people may consider them bigoted, but those other people don't get to bully them about it.

These ideas are not completely new. I remember many years ago meeting people who believed that we are all naturally bisexual, but most of us get conditioned by society into thinking we are heterosexul. And others, if they have a same-sex experience, get conditioned into thinking they are homosexual. Only bisexuals are being true to their nature.

No I don't share that belief anymore than I believe what some trans people believe, that most or all monosexuals have the "natural ability" to form normal relationships with trans people but this gets conditioned out of them by living in a "cissexist society". So I suppose on their belief only the monosexuals I referred to as "type 2" above are being true to themselves.

But, well, people who do not share my beliefs are free to say them aren't they (as ever, if limits are stuck to).

UneMooni Everything about it requires that there be no "debate" about the moral basis among other people.

One other point I will make about people "debating" this stuff is that you never know, It might always lead to the relevant people, off their own backs, rethinking their attitudes.

If a lot of people were needlessly excluding gays from their houses then while such "debates" might be ignored by the majority of such people, it might lead to some of them rethinking. The responses to needless discrimination do not have to be either forcing people to do things, or silence.

If a lot of people were needlessly excluding gays from their houses then while such "debates" might be ignored by the majority of such people, it might lead to some of them rethinking.

So you're comparing people excluding gay people from their house with lesbians excluding penises from our bodies?

I don't think you have answered my earlier question. I described how (in the pre-transactivist era) we as lesbians were pressured to have sex with men, men would come into gay bars to try to pick up lesbians and turn us, being told we hadn't met the right man yet etc (along with a lot more forceful situations). Then finding the lesbian community we were told that there was nothing wrong with what we were, that our orientation was natural and that we were entitled to have boundaries. Do you still think we were wrong back then and that what we were being told was bigoted and we should have continued to consider men as sexual partners?

This whole "cotton ceiling" issue - tgforum.com/wordpress/the-cotton-ceiling - hasn't suddenly sprung up from nowhere, it stems from a whole history of entitlement to women's bodies and attempts to convert lesbian and gay people.

Your view that there are two types of lesbian, the kind with an inherent defect which affects their ability to have "normal, decent" relationships and the majority for which it is a moral failing which we can and should overcome - Do you really think I've never heard that before? Never been subjected to those kind of attitudes? Never seen lesbian and gay people suffer because of it? It's the same old shit in "progressive, woke" clothing.

Iseveryusernamealreadytaken Your view that there are two types of lesbian, the kind with an inherent defect which affects their ability to have "normal, decent" relationships and the majority for which it is a moral failing which we can and should overcome

Now there's a misrepresentation and half :)

Anyway, as I said several times, while I do not believe people excluding various classes of people from their dating pool is something off-limits to discussion or criticism, if people do so they should stick to limits such as not harassing people.

You give examples of people being pestered or harassed. So clearly the perpetrators are wrong.

It is a pity some people take things to extremes. I've read reports from over the world where people who publically opposed same-sex marriage received death threats.

The people who did this did not keep to the limits and so are wrong. But lets not derive general principles from what the extremists do, and end up saying people are not allowed to discuss discrimination or same-sex marriage or anything else, because some of the people on the same general side of the fence cross the line.

UneMoonitplease stop scaremongering.

I've done no scaremongering, I've laid out in clear and unambiguous terms why we don't debate the "moral basis" of who other people can allow to sleep with them. I've said it is a dangerous premise to accept, which it is, not because it's some illusory bogey but because this very premise has underpinned legal rape of women in our own societies in the past and continues to be the basis for rape with impunity, today, now in some parts of the world.

I find it sickening that you are going to continue with "debating" whether how other people exercise their consent is "ok". I really don't want to read it any more, how dare you.

Anyway, as I said several times, while I do not believe people excluding various classes of people from their dating pool is something off-limits to discussion or criticism

It's rape culture and you are enabling it.

please stop scaremongering. It is a very, very long way between saying that people are allowed to make moral judgments on someone else's sexual behaviour or decisions and the factors behind them, and legalised rape.

She's not scaremongering. Pressure to sleep with people for fear of being called transphobic is sexual coercion. Dismissing it is rape apologism.

But I wouldn't expect an MRA to grasp that.

Stop collating people who wanted to stop other people doing things with women's bodily integrity and rights. We see you.

UneMoonit OK fine. Cheat on your partner, sleep with someone underaged or an animal. Who we choose or not choose to sleep with is completely and utterly beyond any moral judgment.

I've done no scaremongering, I've laid out in clear and unambiguous terms why we don't debate the "moral basis" of who other people can allow to sleep with them.

Can allow? Who is talking about what people can or can't allow? Think we've established that people have the absolute right to choose who to exclude from their dating pool, their friendship pool, or any other private matter.

While at the same time, it being a free country, other pwople are allowed to hold moral judgments on why some decisions might be made.

Stop collating people with paraphilias which are harmful to others with women's bodily integrity and rights. We see you.

UneMoonitOK fine. Cheat on your partner, sleep with someone underaged or an animal. Who we choose or not choose to sleep with is completely and utterly beyond any moral judgment.

Did you just equate women having absolute control of their personal consent with betrayal and depraved abuse of the vulnerable?

I've seen very similar comments from people who believe in theocratic control of people's sex lives. Way to assuage anyone's concerns that you seem to be espousing the logic of rape culture, great job.

It is a very, very long way between saying that people are allowed to make moral judgments on someone else's sexual behaviour or decisions and the factors behind them, and legalised rape.

Actually, the societal concept of what’s acceptable matters a lot.

Remember the case of the young women murdered by a man she’d apparently picked up at a bus stop, taken home at first meeting and engaged in risky sex involving choking with? He strangled her to death.
The reporting of the case was strongly influenced by the fact that she’d ‘been into’ this with a previous partner and that ‘this is all normal now.’
But choking someone you’ve known about an hour to death isnt normal is it?

What’s societally accepted and promoted is important because it sets the tone and context of what people can expect to happen to them.

I'm beginning to think some of the more extreme people might have actually had this phenomenon pegged from the start, because if there wasn't nastiness and a dislike of women underlying that comment I would be very surprised.

Not yours. Babel!

UneMoonit Did you just equate women having absolute control of their personal consent with betrayal and depraved abuse of the vulnerable?

No, I am making the point that if you insist that there can be no debate about the moral basis of people's sexual decisions, then....there can be no debate about the moral basis of people's sexual decisions. Why, do you think the latter would be wrong? Sleeping with married people or cheating wrong? Well, you can't think that can you.

OK fine. Cheat on your partner, sleep with someone underaged or an animal. Who we choose or not choose to sleep with is completely and utterly beyond any moral judgment.

There's a big difference between judging someone for their (harmful) sexual actions and judging someone for choosing not to have sex with someone. If someone doesn't want to have sex with someone, are you really saying that there are circumstances where they morally should feel obliged to have sex with that person and be subject to judgement for not doing so?

If men/transwomen feel denied sex - and some will feel genuinely feel hard-done-by - should women who don't want to have sex with them put their feelings to one side and have sex with them for their sake - and, if they aren't willing to, should they be judged for that?

Anyone who isn't both heterosexual and monogamous is going to have experience of other people criticising their choices. Sometimes this criticism is in the form of personal pressure (from family members, friends, employers etc) which is unpleasant and unfair; sometimes it's bullshit op-eds etc. To an extent, some people who are heterosexual and monogamous are going to experience criticism from others who consider them boring, or bigoted (even if they have never expressed any negative opinion of anyone else's sexual orientation/choices/preferences). What this shows is that there are too many people incapable of minding their own business when it comes to the sexual behaviour of others.

No, I am making the point that if you insist that there can be no debate about the moral basis of people's sexual decisions, then....there can be no debate about the moral basis of people's sexual decisions. Why, do you think the latter would be wrong? Sleeping with married people or cheating wrong? Well, you can't think that can you.

You are quite clearly changing to the word "decisions" to pretend that somehow acts against other people (or animals?) were somehow what was being discussed. This would be very convenient for you, because what you were actually doing was questioning whether people had sufficient "moral grounds" for not consenting to people having sex with them - a completely different thing.

Do you think we are all three year olds or something? That you can conflate personal consent with bloody child and animal abuse and it will sail right past us all? What an insult to the intelligence.

I wonder if there's a particular reason you're assuming people on mumsnet would be stupid.

Actually, the societal concept of what’s acceptable matters a lot.

Yes, laws are built on it. But then it is a bit of a leap to say that social disaproval of, say, cheating might lead us back to it being illegal to commit adultery again, and a whopping great jump between people simply expressing a negative moral judgment on someone's sexual choice and rape becoming legalised.