To think that gay and lesbian people should be able to have a conference in peace

[nothingcomestonothing]

Transactivists have tried to disrupt the LGBA conference by releasing insects into the venue. It's disgusting . Because they don't think gay men and lesbians should be allowed to meet peacefully without them.

No one is stopping transpeople from having events by themselves, why shouldn't gay men and lesbians be able to meet if that's what they want to do? It's just repackaged homophobia - same sex attracted people aren't allowed to have their own conference.

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1844763982453670350

Can you be clear do you include this in that?

Do you have a problem with a gay person who
recognises that same-sex orientation is inextricably linked to biological sex, not gender

or a group that meets with that in common?

If a man has a sexual relationship with a trans woman does that make him gay?

I would argue yes, though I fully respect his view that he wasn't. If as a couple they were refused service, I would regard that as a homophobic incident, for which the service refuser should be sued.

being trans is the experience of gender which is at odds with one’s sex registered at birth.

But gender and sex are two different things, right? How do we know which genders are ‘at odds with’ which sexes? There are so many different genders- how do we map them to the sexes?

I would argue yes, though I fully respect his view that he wasn't

That's interesting. So you "fully respect" that person's own knowledge of their sexuality, but at the same time you think you know better?

If as a couple they were refused service, I would regard that as a homophobic incident, for which the service refuser should be sued

I would agree with this, because the action of refusal would be motivated by homophobia on the part of the service refuser.

That’s a really good question.

Spoiled brats who are desperate for attention and scream transphobia when someone dares to disagree with them or seek to have their own space.

I feel desperately sorry for trans men and women who just want to live their lives and not be represented by a very vocal group of idiots.

The standard definition of "vegetarian" in the UK has for many years been someone who follows an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet. They can (but don't always) eat eggs, milk products and honey, but don't eat animal flesh, including fish.

There are also people who describe themselves as vegetarian, but who eat fish (either with or without specifying that). And there are some people who call themselves "mostly vegetarian" (sometimes omitting the "mostly"), which means they're not vegetarian, because they sometimes eat meat or fish (just like every other omnivore).

When people do things like this it can cause confusion about what "vegetarian" means and what (actual) vegetarians eat, and can make people less inclined to take vegetarians seriously.

So some vegetarians are vocal about the existing, known definition of "vegetarian", and what does and doesn't qualify.

They might point out that there's already a word for "vegetarian but eats fish" (i.e. pescatarian), and it's not vegetarians' problem if pescatarians don't like that term. (I know some argue that people don't know what it means, but there are as many pescatarians as vegetarians in the UK, apparently — if they all started using the word, the general public would soon catch on.)

Or they might say that a "mostly vegetarian" is a type of omnivore rather than a type of vegetarian (or point out that "flexitarian" was coined for these people), so they should call themselves something accurate rather than teaching everyone around them that a "vegetarian" can eat non-veggie when it suits them.

Vegetarians need their word. It's useful to them and everyone around them. Since I'm not one of those people who wants to co-opt the word for my own purposes, I'd say that the people who are most affected — people who eat milk and egg, but don't eat meat or fish — do actually get to say that people who don't fit those criteria are not vegetarians.

So, say that vegetarian groups started to be filled more and more with meat-eaters and fish-eaters insisting they be referred to as vegetarians. And say some actual vegetarians agreed, for whatever reasons, and decided that vegetarianism should be inclusive of those who eat fish, or who only sometimes eat meat.

In those circumstances, why shouldn't those vegetarians who see the value in having a word for themselves advocate for their position? Why shouldn't they get together to campaign just for their own interests as people who follow the ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet, for clear language, for pescatarians to call themselves pescatarians and flexitarians to call themselves flexitarians, and for vegetarian to mean what it has always meant?

I think a lot of people had sympathy for the mental health struggles that many trans people experience. That is until lesbian women started being called transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a person who has a penis.

She would be bi-sexual. The biological bodily parts are an intrinsic part of sexuality not the feelings or outward presentation.

Words have meanings. We all have to use them to mean the same thing or communication is impossible. If a word changes its meaning over time it has to become the majority usage. The vast majority of English speakers understand the word lesbian to refer to a woman (adult human female) only sexually attracted to other women. If a woman is sexually attracted to a transwoman, i..e a male, she is not a lesbian, no. She is either straight or bisexual.

I don't understand your second sentence. Of course a man attracted to a woman isn't gay. Gay men are exclusively sexually attracted to other men.

So let me ask you this. If a lesbian woman is attracted to a trans woman does that mean she is not/ is not allowed to call herself a lesbian?

That woman can call herself whatever she likes and I probably wouldn't say anything to her if it's not any of my business. However, she's bisexual. Vegetarians who eat fish aren't actually vegetarians, either. Happy for a specific word to exist that describes, like "pescatarian".

Well yes - I fully respect my friend's belief in God, but I absolutely DO know better that there is no God!

Interesting you noted this post of mine and not the one with the awkward questions....

@LockForMultiball

There are also people who describe themselves as vegetarian, but who eat fish (either with or without specifying that). And there are some people who call themselves "mostly vegetarian" (sometimes omitting the "mostly"), which means they're not vegetarian, because they sometimes eat meat or fish (just like every other omnivore).

X posted the same point, great minds etc

She would be bi-sexual

Wow.

I find it astonishing that people on this thread believe that they have the right/ legitimate mandate/ qualifications to label and judge other people's sexuality (in ways that directly contradicts those people's own self knowledge of sexuality), and yet you are one's who are fighting homophobia and rights for sexual autonomy?

Makes no sense whatsoever.

So you think experience of sexuality is akin to a religious belief?

I’m absolutely embarrassed for the brainwashed authoritarian kids who did this. Going down the pet shop to get a load of insects to pointlessly kill.
What a pathetic, anti-democratic way to behave. Have your little protest outside, or better yet do something positive and spend time and money on organising your own bloody conference.

@PiggleToes

It's a word needed by women who are exclusively same sex attracted to other women. People can call themselves whatever they want, but not everyone has to go along with whatever someone says.

This was supposed to say "If a man is attracted to a trans woman, does that make him gay?"

Then that's fine for them.

LGBA was founded by lesbian women and gay men who were hounded for being 'transphobic' because their sexuality is based on sex.

So trans people must be allowed to define how their sexuality is orientated (to include gender) but other LGB people are committing a hate crime when they define their sexuality by sex?

Big double standard.

The Cotton Ceiling debacle was very close to the old story of sexual coercion by men for many women.

And meanwhile those who wish to include gender in all areas of life seek to silence by noise, by violence, by intervention, those who do not. The huge demos against Let Women Speak, the violent threats at rallies and on X, the release of insects - censorship.

It isn't acceptable.

This was supposed to say "If a man is attracted to a trans woman, does that make him gay?"

Not necessarily, he might be bisexual.

It's hard to make sense of gender in any other terms. What does it mean to have a female brain in a male body, for example? How is that different from saying you have a soul which is separate from your body? The brain is a body part like any other and just like every other body part is full of cells which could be DNA tested and would show what sex the individual is. Therefore I have to assume that the 'female brain', 'ladybrain' etc referred to in discussions about gender is actually referring to personality or some quasi-religious belief, not literally the brain.

So any man who is attracted to any trans woman is automatically either gay or bisexual?

Bisexual or gay, yes.

So any man who is attracted to any trans woman is automatically either gay or bisexual?

Yes, that's correct.

Though some more succinctly than others