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

nauticant You are comparing someone not wanting to date a person with ginger hair with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a person with a penis.

Not especially. And why do some turn everything into being about lesbians? It was an example to llustrate a point about some people just not being able to do nuance and subtlety in how they process what someone else is actually saying.

As it happens, with some exclusions I might personally think the exclusion does derive from prejudice/preconception, with others I might believe it derives from "natural barriers" against what is being excluded.

But then I am not the arbritrator and the next person is free to believe differently. All I am saying is that people are actually free to think and discuss, as long as they do so within conduct limits.

And why do some turn everything into being about lesbians?

It's in the OP:

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....

Some posters like to raise points responding to the OP.

But maybe you're right. Maybe this talk of lesbians gives us the wrong answers so let's talk about something else.

Dammit, if only we could think things through properly and not oversimplify the issue, we'd understand why you're right about who women get to date.

It's like bloody misogyny bingo.

Ah, this is an anti-trans thread.

Why?

Not at all.

And why do some turn everything into being about lesbians?

That would be because (adopts best imitation of a Magdalen Burns drawl she can manage) the thread is about a group of lesbians who lay down in the road in front of the pride parade to protest against the appropriation of the word lesbian by male-bodied individuals.

Let me pose an answering question: why do some (men usually) turn everything about women into a general "but what about the men, the ginger people, the whole sodding world so we don't have to talk about women ever" conversation?

Actually, I think it might be time for a little bit of Magdalen:

Magdalen's take-down of Riley Dennis asking "are your dating preferences discriminatory?"

@FermatsTheorem

But is your "answering question" correct or something you've made up? I spent a few minutes googling and can't find a shred of evidence to prove your assertion.

Ha ha, you haven't spent much time on FWR, have you?

The troll on thread about Dominic Raab's misogyny
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3301572-Dominic-Raab-We-must-end-feminist-bigotry?msgid=79340801#79340801
is absolutely typical.

But seriously - you're trying to tell me you've never seen the knee jerk response some men have: thread about women and domestic violence, some bloke pops up to say "men can be victims of DV too" (yes, they can, and yes, it's terrible, but that's not what we were talking about), or thread about FGM and some bloke pops up to say "what about male circumcision?" (wouldn't do that to my baby either, but again, that's not what we were talking about...), thread about male sex offenders, some bloke pops up to say "some sex offenders are female" (well, yes, 2 whole percent, but we were talking about the 98% who're male).

It happens all the fucking time. And I don't believe for a moment you don't know that. You're being deliberately disingenuous.

JAPAB, I almost feel I should thank you for laying out your ideas in such detail over many posts. I imagine you must have startled, even repulsed, some readers who may not have been sure why lesbians were protesting at Pride London.

Reading your posts makes it clear that lesbian consent really is considered up for grabs in some circles and, by extension, the consent of all women. Comparing a lesbian sexual orientation to a prejudice against people with ginger hair is really not a good look. But thanks for elucidating.

No, Jenny. This is an anti homophobia thread. Lesbians don't do dick and suggesting otherwise is lesbian erasure. Lots of women do like dick. Just not lesbians.

As it happens, with some exclusions I might personally think the exclusion does derive from prejudice/preconception, with others I might believe it derives from "natural barriers" against what is being excluded. But then I am not the arbritrator and the next person is free to believe differently. All I am saying is that people are actually free to think and discuss, as long as they do so within conduct limits.

There's something so dishonest about this; I think I prefer the most aggressive TRAs/MRAs to this softly-softly, oh I'm not the arbitrator, I'm not forcing anyone, let's be civil.

There are no 'conduct limits', if you take the approach that women are not able to discern their own sexual preferences and/or these preferences should be open to public discussion. That's it. You can be as civil as you want, and chide others for overstepping the mark, but you're enabling a culture where women are doubted, ignored, harrassed and pressured.

And if this TRA crap stands, there'll be a generation of younger lesbians who've grown up with the pervasive impression that they're not nice, not kind, somehow morally-lacking or old-fashioned for not being attracted to trans women. Once this becomes the apparent general consensus, it doesn't need to be repeatedly stated, or brought up in every interaction. It will exists as an internal as well as external pressure. Our ideas of what constitutes acceptable sexual behaviour are as strong for women (this is what a nice girl does/doesn't do) as they're weak for men (e.g. self-serving vagueness about consent, indulgence for idea of 'sowing wild oats', tacit understanding that women should modify their own behaviour to avoid sexual assault).

This is why, just for once in history, women should be granted the great honour of having their sexual preferences... respected. Left entirely up to them. Not scrutinised, judged, discussed (however nicely). As long as it involves consenting adults, just leave it the fuck alone. And that includes not having a polite chat about how maybe they do like X even though they've said they don't, and maybe they should prioritise other people's need for validation, and maybe they should work out exactly why they don't like Y, and should think about how this makes Z feel.

"Ha ha, you haven't spent much time on FWR, have you? "

No. It isn't used by the kind of people I'd ever want to spend time with. I accidentally got engaged on a thread there which I'd thought was on AIBU.

I was called a man and got the usual 's/he' passive aggressive gendering because I didn't join in with the status quo.

I'm not being disingenuous. I just don't like it when posters think they're somehow important and not simply an anonymous username on a parenting forum and can tell people what they can or can't post about.

that really is a small number of spiteful idiots.Then why isn't the community as a whole lining up to distance themselves from the spiteful idiocy and be clear it doesn't represent community beliefs?

There is spite and idiocy on both sides of this discussion.Only one side is discussing raping, beating and killing. (Non compliant women. For not agreeing they have no right to Resist the Penis.)

More than anything this is what I DO NOT understand - why are the TRAs not being rejected by the LGBT community and their behaviour condemned as unacceptable.....

More than anything this is what I DO NOT understand - why are the TRAs not being rejected by the LGBT community and their behaviour condemned as unacceptable.....

this is a really good point, and one i was mulling over this morning. Are the rest of the LGBT community condemning these tweets and threats, and we are just not seeing the threads because we're in an echo chamber? It would be really heartening to see some condemnation of these threats.

Matcha, as an illustration, on Reddit a very young lesbian shared that after reporting being sexually assaulted and beaten up by a transwoman she was ostracized by her social circle, including her girlfriends. They unanimously considered the TW so much more deserving and vulnerable, despite the TW being male and a sex offender.

Heartbreaking. And beyond grim.

The answer appears to be that gay men have very little interest in women's rights, Beenandgone. Indeed plenty of them find women disgusting (the fish trope, fex). And they perhaps have more in common with men who identify as women than they do with lesbians.

Because you're right. There is no community condemnation. Pink News? Stonewall? Nothing. Silence. Mainstream news sites report on the lesbian protest as "anti trans" rather than pro lesbian.

The rainbow people don't seem to give a single shiny shit about the homophobia displayed by transactivists. It's disappointing.

Matcha, if people are not interpreting and filtering everything as if it is all being said about lesbians specifically, then they'll do this about women.

But then that does help the rhetoric doesn't it. So take someone who disagrees that in principle dating preferences and the reasons behind them are off limits for comment - that is ANY kind of exclusion, race/trans/whatever, by ANYONE. Next filter it down to portray things as if it is specifically women, or better yet lesbians, who are not off limits, and doesn't that help the rhetoric.

You can then hint and aver and make guilty-by-association with anyone who is vaguelly saying something similar but takes it to extremes, make slippery slopes leading to legalised rape, or how it will encourage the rapoists...

All kind of reminds me of the things some trans people say to shut down discussions of specific points. You can't say that because it leads to actual violence, some people will be encouraged or use it to legitemise their violence...

OK well guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I generally think it's a free country to discuss this sort of stuff for those that want to or think it untrivial, you don't. Or maybe it is only when it is women but OK to discuss men who, for example, racially discriminate? Not sure as you filtered it all down to being about women. Whichever way, fair enough.

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act:

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,
(b)persons of the opposite sex, or
(c)persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

People are correct when they say this has nothing to do with who you are allowed to exclude or to choose as a sexual partner.

------------

The EA makes some types of discrimination unlawful when based on a protected characteristic such as sexual orientation. One type of unlawful discrimination is harassment:

(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

(2)A also harasses B if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).

(3)A also harasses B if—

(a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and
(c)because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.

(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—

(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

(5)The relevant protected characteristics are—

age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

This describes exactly what's happening.

Lesbians are being subjected to an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment because of unwanted conduct, including sexual conduct, related to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

I think a lot of people are upset to discover that the LGBT organizations they support and are members of are not only misogynistic but homophobic as well.
And so they should be.

Pencils: where is this hostile environment, though? And what is it consisting of? There's a whole lot of waa waaa waaaa but nothing specific. (Apart from some thread on Reddit, which really could be anything by anyone, after all.) Yes, there are people with youtube channels going waa waa waaa lesbians are BAD if they won't date transwomen, but there are people with youtube channels going waa waa waaa it's an infringement of human rights to be asked to bake a cake for someone you disapprove of. idiots on the internet do not matter.

If an individual harasses another individual by making repeated, unwanted sexual advances, this is wrong whoever is doing it. It's wrong if a lesbian does it to another lesbian.

Pencils: where is this hostile environment, though?

Is this a serious question?
Easier to point out the very few non hostile environments available for women.

What I don't get is why the solution to someone being discriminatory against anyone, for ever reason, is to make them have sex with the person they discriminate against, or even to suggest that that would be the right thing to do. Why has it got ANYTHING to do with sex? It's really weird. Nobody says to racists that they're discriminatory for not having sex with black people. The idea is ridiculous. Someone with a serious discrimination problem is not going to have sex with people they're discriminating against. You wouldn't even bother arguing with them. But that's what's happening to lesbians, because having a sexual orientation has been conflated with discrimination, and apparently in their case and theirs alone, the 'cure' for the fact they are 'bigoted' against sex with penis is.....sex with penis.

It's absolutely bizarre. If people think lesbians are genuinely bigoted against trans women, why aren't they trying to educate them instead of telling them to get over it by having sex with trans people? It's so transparently just gaslighting.

Nobody says to racists that they're discriminatory for not having sex with black people.

Actually they sort of do. There certainly are plenty of videos on Youtube on how it is discriminatory to auto-exclude different races from your dating pool. Also similar pieces on overwieight people or those with disabilities.

I don't think the people who espouse these ideas have to necessarily think of the people they are referring to as "bigoted" or "racist" etc. They might believe them to just be people who have gotten indoctrinated by socierty or the influence of other prejudices, into a certain pattern of thinking, and they want to nudge them into rethinking their nos and the reasons behind them, to unlock that potential within them.

Some people are like that. They think the reasons people have for rejecting sex/dates derive from false factors like prejudice or social indoctrination and want to talk about it.

I suppose in some cases we should be grateful for such discussions. How many people were not having sex because in their thinking it was immoral or shameful etc. If Youtube had been around in the 60s you'd no doubt have countless videos trying to get people to examine the reasons for their non-sex and whether they are valid.