Pride doesn’t represent me

[Vegansausageroll]

Just been watching Joe Lycett’s big pride party.
It was all sexualised smut. It’s ‘furries’ , kink, drag, sex and innuendos galore. This isn’t all what pride is about! It’s supposed to be about our sexuality and our rights and not being ashamed of who we are. But there is no representation for young people like I was! I want people to be themselves and express themselves but it all just seems so extreme now!

I’m a middle aged gay woman. I like books and countryside walks!

I am very worried about equal rights and the way they are, once again, under threat.
I have nothing in common with the people that now dominate ‘pride’. The last woman’s group I went to has long been shut down, as have the lesbian groups I used to attend back in the day. I’m worried gay youth are being sent a message that their sexuality must be linked to a certain type of ‘lifestyle’ when many of us just want to live a regular life the same as our straight friends - the only difference is the sex of our partners 🤷‍♀️.

But how do you know they are women? No one can define woman so how do you know these people are women?

Its tacky shit that businesses are exploiting. In the same way valentines day isn't actually about love anymore.

Im bisexual, im quiet, love Reading, and I dont feel represented, its all a gimmick and it makes me feel uncomfortable

I don't know anyone who thinks its a problem that kids in school are told they have to behave respectfully to people who are different than them, which includes people who don't agree with their values.

That's actually quite different than being told you have to like Pride, or anything else. It's like the difference between being told you need to get along respectfully in society with Mormons, and you need to like Mormonism as a religion.

I do think people are associating that kind of thing with the whole phenomena of Pride season, the creep where it went from a day to a week to a month in some places, the fact that it's just overwhelming compared to almost every other holiday besides Christmas.

I also think it's not really getting the objection to think it's about people being "colourful". It's more that Pride is understood, and also presents itself, as in some sense representing the LGB+ community. SO it's not just that people like the OP don't feel represented, they feel that people with sexualities other than heterosexual are being presented as people who are ok with a type of sexuality that they may not be ok with at all. There are gay men who think going to gay festivals where you have sex with 100 men you don't know is not only not key to being a gay man but is actually really unhealthy and maybe even ethically questionable.

I think that if Pride wants to make the claim that it is really about that community as a whole, they need to consider what things the community shares. People who want sex positivity or kink parades can do that without claiming invoking people who don't share their interest or disagree with it.

And that's all the more true where they make claims to be able to represent the views of people in the political realm. "London Pride condemns whatever" type of stuff.

Kids bullied at school for not swallowing the line, gay kids bullied for - well saying they are gay or Tom boys/‘effeminate’ boys (and not trans)/refusing to announce their sexuality, blokes in paramilitary like gear turning up at woman’s events and hurling abuse and insults (plus the odd scuffle), gaggles of screaming young women protesting at anything they are told is ‘phobic, men creeping around at women/LGB events with cameras…

the whole ‘be kind’ message is getting a bit lost isn’t it? Women are fair game to these little twonks.

Pride never has and never can represent everyone in the community, whatever they claim.
Could one event for straight people represent everyone?

Lesbians being kicked out of pride parades for not saying males can be lesbians. Men marching with signs saying kill terfs, a phrase used to describe women (many lesbians) who won’t say TWAW. Lesbians called transphobic for not sleeping with males.

Sure, pride represents the community, if you’re male or toe the party line.

"Lesbians being kicked out of pride parades for not saying males can be lesbians. Men marching with signs saying kill terfs, a phrase used to describe women (many lesbians) who won’t say TWAW. Lesbians called transphobic for not sleeping with males.
Sure, pride represents the community, if you’re male or toe the party line."

Yes. This. Two of my best and oldest friends are lesbians, the old-fashioned cunty type - i.e. female homosexuals. Women.

Pride and Stonewall, both organisations, are well-entrenched on men's sexual demands, men's sexual entitlement, men's sexual exhibitionism, and men's sexual supremacism.

As we've seen on this thread, with the "lesbians are whoever men say they are" posters.

Well if you think that's the case maybe they should reconsider their branding?

I mean, that's the underlying question, isn't it? Is being gay a small fact about an individual's sexual preference, or is it an identity?

And if the latter, how does that affect any political claims made for that identity?

I shouldn't have to declare my identity to you.

Oh the irony! So you hold no truck with pronouns on name badges, in email signatures then?

That's correct. I have no intention of putting my pronouns in an email signature and consider the issue problematic.

Isn’t there an easy solution here? Some lesbian groups can simply state they are ‘trans inclusive’ much like some womens refuges are doing ? People don’t have to agree with one another or subscribe to anything they don’t believe in. But women, trans and biological, all have the right to feel safe?

This is the whole point of the Q though? Your sexuality is your sexual preference, queerness is more centred on identity. Gay people getting married, living ‘normal’ lives are less queer or perhaps not queer at all.

Well, that would seem simple, but you've seen the ire aimed here at women wanting lesbians to be female only!

The issues is NOT some groups accepting men if they want to. The issue is that they also demand that groups that do NOT want to acquiesce to their own standards - we get vilified if we don't, funding dries up and we find we cannot defend ourselves because, well, language.. words just don't mean what they used to and it all descends into verbal absurdity!

Have you ever been challenged on that? I can see it would induce some anger, from other trans allies!

I believe there are more valuable ways of spending time than fixating on and obsessing over definitions.

This doesn't achieve much in the way of value for anyone - we know for example that there has been no demonstration of detriment to women in the countries that have used more relaxed forms of gender identification for years now.

The moral panic has always been tempting for some - the creation of an easy adversary to focus on, the tropes used to stigmatise an entire group in the attempt to polarise people. The moral panic against trans people that we see presently is an echo of the moral panics we have seen throughout history against other minorities. It's a very unfortunate human tendency that is important to resist.

They follow the same format, they take an anecdote and repeat it, and present it as if it reflects the nature of a group as a whole rather than the actions of a single individual. They focus and accentuate the differences in the populations to create the in-group, out-group phenomenon that demonizes the other. They use catchy sound-bites to mischaracterise their target in the minds of others. It happens time and time again with both ethnic and sexual minorities.

The anti-trans sentiment is just the latest manifestation of an age-old human tendency.

This generally coincides with periods of economic instability in a country so we can probably expect these tendencies to get worse unfortunately, given the present economic outlook.

Lots of posters here purport to be lesbians (and yes I have to use the word 'purport' because how do I know? Same way it would be fair for anyone here to say of me that I purport to a lesbian)

There are plenty of studies and research out there that can be used to cast lesbians into the next target of moral panic. People wanting to do that will use exactly the same techniques, same argumentation process, will be singing from exactly the same hymn sheets as the present GC anti-trans debate employs. They will find the statistics to differentiate us, to dehumanise us, to portray us as deviant, problematic, predatory, criminal. They will take anecdotes and portray them as representative of us as a demographic.

When people go down this route and legitimise it with trans people, they are opening the doors to becoming the next target themselves, and they will not be able to resist because those who wish to demonise them will highlight that they are using exactly the same tactics that they themselves employed on another.

But isn’t the “verbal absurdity” also impeding trans women looking for support? I don’t doubt that the majority of trans women are aware that their very presence can be terrifying for some women. This is also why most trans women don’t lurk on dating websites coercing women into sex. But if you’re a trans woman and a rape victim, for example, where do you go for support?

This is very pretty and deflective rhetoric, with a hint of emotional blackmail, but that's about all.

What you see as "anti trans", others see as "pro woman". And you obviously think you're being progressive and forward looking. But women standing up for their rights have always been characterised as hysterical, amoral man haters. This is just the latest reincarnation of that, except that you've problematised the words for male and female people, so you hide it that way. Hell, the insults of choice for this movement - which always knows what a woman is when it wants to use them - are slurs on feminism itself. Radical feminism at that. Not because these people actually know what actual radical feminism is. But because "radical" is scary, invokes the worst stereotypes about the women's rights movement, and what better way to shut women up?

Of course you want to make out that words don't have meanings and don't matter, when you need obfuscatory language. If you want to call a male person a woman, of course you're going to sneer about "fixating and obsessing over definitions" as if it's not important, because it shows you up.

And that way lies men in women's changing rooms, sporting events and hospital wards. And we can't say what's happening, lest we be accused of not knowing what's important and "fixating and obsessing over definitions".

What you are telling us is that words don't matter, language doesn't matter and meanings don't matter. This is never a prelude to anything good.

As for the threat about "becoming the next target"...haven't you noticed that we ARE the target?

On that note are women with an alleged ‘terf’ agenda also targets of moral panic?

Joe Lycett …..I believe he does not present the sewing bee anymore as they have men’s week with male models. Certainly he invited one of the male models out to ‘play’ ON CAMERA. The invitee turned his head away and looked disgusted, then just said NO. I suppose they are quite often harassed, just like female models.

But if you’re a trans woman and a rape victim, for example, where do you go for support?

Any rape support service that isn’t clearly advertised as being only for women.

This is all just pure deflection, and a really poor argument.

If I don’t have to “obsess over definitions”, do I get to apply for, eg., scholarships for BAME applicants? Free school meals for my daughter? An assistance dog? Saga discounts on holidays? Prostate screening? PIP?

What if I really really want that scholarship? Or those free school meals? Or really really believe I should be awarded disability living allowance? Or get to have an assistance dog? Should that make a difference? If I tell the PIP assessors that I identify as disabled, will they award me the payment? If I fervently believe that my new puppy should morally entitle me to maternity leave because I personally feel like I have a new baby, should my employer agree?

If it’s politely explained to me that these are things for groups of people that I don’t fit into the definition of, or that I’m not entitled to them, do I then get to accuse others of “moral panic” and “exclusion”?

Why are definitions important in some cases, but not for women and gay people — most especially gay women?

Just because I might fall into some protected groups under, say, the Equality Act, does not mean I get to go around having every other protected group’s adjustments as well. We all know this. Definitions are clearly important - legally and socially, and morally too — it’s why I don’t get to have that scholarship and those free school meals just because I feel I really really want to have them.

Why all of a sudden do “definitions” not matter when it’s women’?

One of the many trans specific centres stonewall could have set up if they hadn’t been too busy threateningly women? This is what stonewall and other trans group should have been doing, not bullying people
they could have really helped trans people.

That's not an easy solution at all! Do you understand that when a woman is fleeing violence she can't choose which refuge to go to? If the refuge has chosen to include male bodied people in there, many women can not then access the much needed refuge.

Your version of inclusion actually excludes the people who are meant to be the only one included! Same with lesbian groups to a lesser extent, as its not a vital service like refuges , its not like there are millions to choose from, when you include men in them you are excluding many actual lesbians.

When are you going to learn that pushing women out of womens spaces in favour of males is NOT inclusive and kind, and you are doing the exact wrong thing?
We have a right to women only spaces. We fought very long and very hard for them. Stop giving away our rights just because you don't value them!

So just to confirm, people become trans the moment they utter the words ‘I am trans’. No one can dispute this cos ‘transphobia’. So If trans means nothing, how can we determine who should use which spaces? Why are vulnerable women being made to share spaces with make bodies against their will, however traumatic they find it? Why not have third spaces for trans people and those who do not mind mixed sex groups? Stonewall could do this easily. Why are they so determined to erode women’s single sex spaces for male feelings?

Women become lesbian when they utter the words I am a lesbian. You do not have to have sex with a woman or a relationship you know?