Stonewall don't believe in same-sex attraction.

[AntsInPenzance]

From their glossary:

HOMOSEXUAL
This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.

It's good to have an authority on made up stuff.

Yep. To be blunt, according to them, lesbian sex can be two males giving each other fellatio, PIV sex between a male and a female or two women.

Anything, in fact. Likewise any other sexual orientation.

Stonewall haven’t believed in same-sex attraction for years now . They’ve gone from fighting for LGB to fighting against us - they’re essentially a bunch of misogynistic homophobes. Or homophobic misogynists, take your pick.

I still smile at the discussion of 69 and the wave of deletions that caused in FWR.

Yep its been that way for a while.

Another example of how egging people on and being egged on by others always results in eventually having to follow things through to their logical conclusion even when that loses you credibility and respect and money/custom .

Perfect example of why we need boundaries and how saying no might have been "kinder" in the long run.

Its worse than that...

If their definition is based on how people identify rather than their actual sex:

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

It is amazing that Stonewall claim not to believe in same-sex attraction these days (although nearly all of them will believe it in private and particularly would accept nothing other than that in their relatiohnships).

It makes me think of when David Jenkins was consecrated as Bishop of Durham and caused a massive fuss by questioning the literal truth of some miracles in the Bible. You'd have thought there'd have been a similarly massive fuss in Stonewall.

How can they campaign against homophobia when, according to them, it doesn't exist.

Their entire raison d'etre has gone. They should not be funded, or solicit funds, on the basis of something they say doesn't exist.

The term 'gay' is more generally used.

Does this piss anyone else off? I grew up with the understanding that gay implied male and the female equivalent was lesbian. Now the latter's seen as a dirty word (unless used by men to describe themselves) and women are expected to shift to using the male variant.

It's the same old pattern of male as default and female as degraded other; when problems arise (as they always do because of that underlying assumption of female=other) we're expected to adjust our language so the male-variant becomes the human-variant and the female-variant becomes verboten.

Surely their definition of homosexual is more a definition of pansexual? Or have I misunderstood what pansexual is?

"Pansexual" is attraction to "any gender" (regardless of sex). As opposed to "same gender" (regardless of sex).

I thought when put into proper terms, "pansexual" means attracted to people irrespective of their sex. Clearly we already have the word "bisexual" for that but in this time of pretendy definitions, that would "exclude" people who claim to have no sex by virtue of being "gender fluid" or "non-binary".

The amusing thing about "pansexual" is that I suspect most of them are heterosexual but are embarrassed to be so mundane.

pretendy

Love that word!

Now just waiting for the obligatory post of the Sandy Draws Badly take on pansexualism. It's always good for a giggle.

While I wait for the cartoon - I suspect pansexual came about because bisexual carries certain baggage due to being characterised with reference to monosexual attractions.

We say homosexuals are attracted to their own sex and heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex ergo bisexuals are attracted to both sexes.

Meanwhile there's a shitload of people out there scratching their heads and thinking "But I'm not attracted to a sex; a person's sex is utterly irrelevant to whether I fancy them."

This is usually referred to in scathing tones as "hearts before parts", which is a bit of a shitty and othering way to characterise other people's lack of a reproductive-sex-class orientation.

Pan means "I couldn't care less what sex you are".

Pansexual often means a young woman who is attracted both to men who have a masculine presentation and men who (sometimes) have a feminine presentation.

Pansexual - Someone who is bisexual but believes in gender stereotypes and thinks bisexual is boring and old fashioned.

So, theoretically, if the pansexual feels attracted to the asexual, there's a dilemma! Surely someone is going to hear the word 'no' spoken. Won't that be panphobia?

Stonewall: HomoGENDERals are allowed ....HomoSEXuals are transphobic 🙄

Stonewall science: Queer theory. SEX is a social construct. Gender identity is real

Stonewall mission: Abolish sex based rights.

I can see I'm going to end up playing devil's advocate on this thread!

If you're only attracted to one sex then the sex of potential partners matters. If you're capable of being attracted to both then their sex doesn't come into the equation, yet you're required to declare an orientation based on this thing that you experience as an irrelevance.

Obviously (as nauticant points out) some people use the word to disguise a heterosexual orientation. But some people use it because they don't have a sexual orientation in the traditional sense.

Here you go, Tyro.

Ta, Gasp0de - my day is made!

Seeing the above has made me remember this, also from Sandy....

Sandy is a genius.

The term 'gay' is more generally used.

I got the impression that a lot of younger lesbians (along with anyone else who wants to) use 'queer' nowadays?