Shocking behaviour towards lesbians at Leeds 'pride' today

[CaptainKirksSpookyghost]

Thread 2

Previous thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3656142-Shocking-behaviour-towards-lesbians-at-Leeds-pride-today

The discussion is circular, it always is with early and Roses.

The information isn't tho. And this one has hit the mother lode. .

For instance, I had no idea that Peter Tatchell led Brighton pride.

Great post @EarlyWalker - that's exactly how I see it too.

NOTED. NOTED. NOTED.

When people say lesbians do have penises, They mean one thing. That the legal definition of lesbian doesnt apply to them.

They are saying they can cone along and muscle in on any female only space.

And if you dont welcome them, don't accept them without question in to female only space you will be intimidated and called a bigot.

See, it works both ways.

9th rule of misogyny: Men [and their non-men allies] always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say.

Telling other women what to do and think is misogyny in itself and so is that they're only thinking like that to appease the men. That they can't think for themselves.

They are saying they can cone along and muscle in on any female only space.

That's it precisely. Lesbianism is the ultimate female only space. No room for males, no room for penises. It is simply impossible for males, and penises, to come under the definition "female homosexual".

NOTED. NOTED. NOTED

OK GOOD THEN. WHY ARE WE SHOUTING
I CAN AGREE WITH EARLYWALKER'S POST, IT WAS A GOOD ONE.
CAPTAIN EVEN SAID SO TOO.

The discussion is circular, it always is with early and Roses.

It is yes, but only because we're one of the very few that don't feel they can post or refuse to be bullied off.
Actually call it out instead of disappearing.

I'm old enough to remember PIE. An astonishing number of prominent people, including politicians, got sucked in by the rhetoric.

Paedophiles never gave up. They've been working their way into any setting which offers opportunities to access children ever since.

Queer theory, child transition, and the move to celebrating fetish at Pride and in LGBT organisations generally have created a slew of potential opportunities. Actually having a photo of the man with a hard on watching kids playing in the pup play tent is a rare but illustrative example.

Kids with gender identity issues are targeted all the time online by older people who claim to be transgender. Some of them may be transgender but it doesn't make much difference. Inviting underage kids to contact you to discuss their issues with gender is totally inappropriate in any circumstance. I remember a Reddit thread discussing an individual who was offering to obtain hormones for kids and inviting them to go this person's house so they could inject them. Whether this individual was actually trans made no difference. The behaviour was egregious. Inexcusable.

Any vehement rejection of the idea that safeguarding should be a priority in the LGBT community is in itself a giant red flag.

Roses, you've stated before that you believe people cannot change their sex - so why would you think that female homosexuals, as a group, can include biological males?

^Did you miss where I posted about consent?
Nobody is forced to sleep with anyone.
There's laws against forcing people.^

I think you misread the question here Roses, because that answer has nothing to do with the question asked of you.

I wasn't going to say anything, but it felt like common sense to question it.

That text identifies as italic lol

(The lol proves it's a joke, just to be clear)

I'm old enough to remember PIE. An astonishing number of prominent people, including politicians, got sucked in by the rhetoric.

They did. They are. What's unforgivable is flat denial and deflection in the face of facts.

I remember a Reddit thread discussing an individual who was offering to obtain hormones for kids and inviting them to go this person's house so they could inject them.

And the breast binder company. Telling young girls to make an appointment so they could have their binders fitted by hand.

The 'lifelike' penis packers for three year old girls. Made by sex toy manufacturers. The special pants to tuck a three year old boys penis.

It's sick.

Actually call it out instead of disappearing.

Call what out? You’re doing nothing noble here, you’re displaying a startling lack of concern over child safeguarding and are lesbophobic throughout the thread.

Why are lesbians portrayed as the meanies? The order of events was:

1. Women and lesbians existed.

1. A group of ‘observed male at birth people’ decided they were women, too.

1. Previously (living as) hetero men claimed both “women” and “lesbian” for themselves and wanted everyone to see them that way.

1. Some women agree to call themselves cis, agree that TWAW, agree that males can be women and lesbians.

1. Other women say (trans people are beautiful, insert emotional labour) “Women have vaginas - not penises. We didn’t ask to be women, or lesbians, but we are. TW are great but they are not us.

1. Why did you claim their words instead of choosing new ones just for you?

1. Why are lesbians now being abused for sticking to the original definitions?

FormerMediocreMale - displaying fetishes in public in front of children is reducing boundaries and enabling paedophiles

Precisely.

How on earth are you refuting this?

Roses, you've stated before that you believe people cannot change their sex - so why would you think that female homosexuals, as a group, can include biological males?

OK, you don't like that answer, fair enough.
I'll re-word then.
If some lesbians do want to include transwomen, why can't they?
Some must otherwise they wouldn't have been condemning the protesters at Pride.
You don't HAVE to accept them.That's up to you.
Which is why I mentioned consent.
Anyone saying you do have to consent to transwomen is lying as no-one has to consent to anyone.

You’re doing nothing noble here

I honestly think they believe they are. Not showing a shocking disregard for every framework put into place after every abuse scandal in the past. And that disinterested readers will agree with them.

It's um... well. What can I even say?

that's up to you should read

Did you miss where I posted about consent?
Nobody is forced to sleep with anyone.
There's laws against forcing people

The question wasn’t about consent or rape. It’s about the definition of lesbian and challenging anyone who is trying to include males in that definition. A male cannot be lesbian, lesbians have the absolute right to defend that. We all should be united against homophobia.

If some lesbians do want to include transwomen, why can't they?

They can. They'll just stop being lesbians and start being bisexuals, what with it being about sexual orientation, an' all.

Call what out?

The constant digs and slurs if you disagree with anything.

If some lesbians do want to include transwomen, why can't they?

Consenting adults can have sex with whoever they want, nobody here is saying otherwise. It’s about definitions. Women who have sexual relations with both males, transwomen or men, and women, are bisexual.

Words have meanings.

The constant digs and slurs if you disagree with anything.

Right. So it’s not your position on child safeguarding or your lesbophobia that’s being criticised, it’s just ‘digs and slurs’ in your eyes? And those digs and slurs are what you think you’re here to focus on and ‘call out’, while you show complete disregard for child safeguarding. Righto.

Right. So it’s not your position on child safeguarding or your lesbophobia that’s being criticised, it’s just ‘digs and slurs’ in your eyes?

No.
Not that.
FFS.
Stuff like we must be sat here with hard ons.
That we're men.
Shit like that.
Constantly.

*But you are trying to imply that these people invited kids in to feel sexual when all you have is one image. These people in their own fetish tent may well have been engaging in sexual games, then some children walked past and came in to stroke the dogs and BAM pedo! I don’t know what happened, neither do you.

I don’t think one picture of someone ‘excited’ in a fetish tent while kids stroke the dogs without context is indicative of pride being pedo friendly though.

The man in question may we’ll have been, I don’t know.*

I know this has been questioned over and over (I've been out since 11.45 so I'm playing catch up) but this is just breathtakingly disgusting.

There is no 'well, we don't know' in this scenario. Children were explicitly invited to this tent and asked to 'come and play with the pups'. One of those 'pups' sported a visible erection while engaging with the children. That man was sexually aroused while playing with children. That man is a paedophile.

I work with children. I have safeguarding training frequently. If I passed that image on to our DSL (Designated Safeguarding Lead) in connection to one of our children the police would be there within the hour. This is a fact. This is law.

Early and Roses - you have 100% played your true hand in minimising and defending paedophilia in this thread. There is absolutely nothing that either of you can say at this point to undo what you have said. You are so determined to defend trans ideology that you are willing to overlook a man in fetish gear with a visible erection while engaged with children that were specifically targeted to visit that tent.

You have lost any (very little) credibility you had with your defending this.