Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Gay men's magazine bullied into grovelling

896 replies

aliasundercover · 26/11/2020 20:37

twitter.com/BoyzMagazine/status/1332052779871965186

Looks like they're gunning for gay men now. Anything other than complete agreement is no good.

Readers here will be used to this sort of insanity:
twitter.com/robholley/status/1332054419337334789
I wonder if it will wake up those who have not seen it before?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
ArabellaScott · 29/11/2020 14:05

Just dropped in to see how the thread is going.

I see some people are keen to make a point.

Backing out again, now ...

RealityNotEssentialism · 29/11/2020 14:06

@MoonPomme

RealityNotEssentialism Ha, that video is followed by a ted talk called 'how not to take things personally'
Brilliant!
Quaagars · 29/11/2020 14:09

L, however, has nothing to do with penis owners - whether they choose to involve their dick or not

LGBT does though and that was what was being referred to?
Also not sure why people ask something and then others go "not interested, didn't want to know?"
Why ask then?!

WaveWalker · 29/11/2020 14:09

@ArabellaScott

Just dropped in to see how the thread is going.

I see some people are keen to make a point.

Backing out again, now ...

Don't forget to back out gently and carefully.
PotholeParadies · 29/11/2020 14:16

jj, if your posts become a bir less homophobic and misogynistic, I'll stop mentioning it. Deal?

And no, seguing from lesbians to LGBT to personal anecdotes about your own perspective in lesbian sex as a penis owner doesn't cut it. Lesbians don't have penises to avoid using.

Sexual dimorphism means women have unique bodies from men. We are not simply penisless people; we are not defined by being not-male.

So for heaven's sake, stop trying to use lesbians as a shield to justify sex toys in the classroom. I believe the legal age to buy sex toys is 18, so why would it be appropriate for staff teaching RSE to bring them into a secondary school classroom ?

In classrooms up and down the country, there will be children who have been subjected to sexual abuse. RSE classes need to be inclusive of these children and not be triggering.

jj1968 · 29/11/2020 14:20

@PotholeParadies

There's no age restriction on buying sex toys in the UK.

In classrooms up and down the country, there will be children who have been subjected to sexual abuse. RSE classes need to be inclusive of these children and not be triggering.

Of course it should. But there's no reason to think they would be any more triggered by discussion of LGB sexualities than they would discussion of heterosexual activities.

christinarossetti19 · 29/11/2020 14:26

@Quaagars

L, however, has nothing to do with penis owners - whether they choose to involve their dick or not

LGBT does though and that was what was being referred to?
Also not sure why people ask something and then others go "not interested, didn't want to know?"
Why ask then?!

Could you indicate the post where someone asked JJ1968 for details of their sex life Quaagars?

A number of posters have specifically and only spoken about lesbianism. That is, sexual desire and relationships between two women.

That's not a problem is it? Lesbians don't have to continually ally themselves to gay men and bisexual people, do they?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/11/2020 14:26

jj1968 I might be in a minority here, but I honestly don't want to hear about your sex life.

I very much doubt that you are.

Impatiens · 29/11/2020 14:27

Of course it should. But there's no reason to think they would be any more triggered by discussion of LGB sexualities than they would discussion of heterosexual activities

ppl weren't objecting to 'discussion of LGB sexualities'. They're objecting to explict discussions about sexual practices.

Impatiens · 29/11/2020 14:28

I don't want to hear about anyone's sex life - just to be inclusive.

christinarossetti19 · 29/11/2020 14:30

jj1968 and no-one, not one person in this thread, has said that RSE lessons in school shouldn't cover same sex relationships.

The two 'sides' of argument aren't heterosexual vs homosexual sex in RSE.

They're foregrounding safeguarding, safety, health and emotional welfare in RSE vs advocating promoting fetishes and very adult sex toys to children.

Quaagars · 29/11/2020 14:31

I meant as in where Datun for example on previous page says something, but it obviously isn't to be questioned or to have a different LGBT view - because if someone does say along the lines of "hang on a minute" it's "who asked, didn't want to know?"
Yet it's apparently fine for "GC" people to talk repeatedly about penises but if anyone else mentions that word it's like "ew, didn't ask."

christinarossetti19 · 29/11/2020 14:34

Do GC people talk repeatedly about penises?

Why can't you say GC women? We're on MN where the majority of posters are women. Why not say GC women?

And if you don't understand why it's different for women to talk about penises in the context of 'there's no such thing as a lesbian with a penis' (RIP the late and the great MB) than for a poster to start detailing what they do or don't do with their penis, I'm afraid that you've sort of demonstrated your less than clear grasp of these issues.

7Days · 29/11/2020 14:36

That's not quite what happened is it Quaagers?

nepeta · 29/11/2020 14:37

MadBadDaddy:
I found the Trans Actual document to be concise, clear and informative.
I don't consider it over-broad, it just says "don't be an arsehole to transgender people"
I don't see how 'asking questions' would be problematic, when operating within the spirit of those guidelines.

That piece on transphobia is so wide that it amounts to stating that unless trans activism can decide what rights every single person in the society is allowed to have the situation is transphobic.

In reality rights do often clash and negotiation is required. My neighbor may want a giant tree near the border between our lots and I may want to have light in my house and in my garden. We can't both have what we want, yet we might both view our desires as rights.

In reality rights often clash and that particular piece implicitly always privileges trans rights over all other rights, going as far as stating that discussing the possibility of clashing rights is transphobic. Trying to maintain the rights of female-bodied people, in particular, is seen as transphobic.

Do a thought experiment and replace trans rights with the rights of some group you don't particularly care about, say natal women. Then read the whole thing with that change.

It won't apply in all parts but it certainly applies in several parts, including where the language women have had for centuries is now stripped away from us. I think you will spot the ways the piece is not fair by doing that.

jj1968 · 29/11/2020 14:37

@christinarossetti19

jj1968 and no-one, not one person in this thread, has said that RSE lessons in school shouldn't cover same sex relationships.

The two 'sides' of argument aren't heterosexual vs homosexual sex in RSE.

They're foregrounding safeguarding, safety, health and emotional welfare in RSE vs advocating promoting fetishes and very adult sex toys to children.

Who's said anything about promoting fetishes.

All I've ever supported is factual safety information being given to young people on common non heterosexual/procreative sexual practices.

PotholeParadies · 29/11/2020 14:40

Perhaps poorly phrased. I meant that high street stores that sell adult products have age-restrictions on entry.

If you're too young to choose to go into somewhere like Ann Summers for a browse, I don't think anyone should be bringing their stock into the classroom.

Multiple people with children at secondary school have said that "LGB sexualities" are covered in school in the same way as heterosexuality. You, however, have been wanting in depth coverage of individual sex acts, up to lecturing a class on how to clean strap-ons.

(Incidentally, while we are discussing Ann Summers, etc, stores that stock sex toys sell them with cleaning instructions and stock cleaning products in the same section.)

Impatiens · 29/11/2020 14:42

All I've ever supported is factual safety information being given to young people on common non heterosexual/procreative sexual practices.

But haven't explained why you think that's necessary/appropriate.

MoonPomme · 29/11/2020 14:43

"Who's said anything about promoting fetishes."
The materials that lgballiance were objecting to.
Kind of the point of the thread.
Jesus this is painful.

christinarossetti19 · 29/11/2020 14:43

What are 'common non heterosexual/procreative sexual practices'?

You've lost me there.

You have advocated children being provided with information about strap ons. I'd class strap ons as fetishist tbh, certainly in the context of classroom discussions with children.

midgebabe · 29/11/2020 14:46

Whereas most people don't think it's appropriate to go into much detail about what people actually do. and many people are doubtful that some of the suggestions for material to include are as common as you seem to think.

And some people have suggested that saying x, y or z is common or normal may put pressure on children. Rather than cover8ng "common" sexual practises, we would like education to focus on being able to say no, only doing things you are totally comfortable with , with no expectation that you are abnormal if you don't feel comfortable with things other people think are normal. This is pretty similar across any type of relationship.

Many people are really surprised that children would need to be taught what to do, most of think that isn't the problem, the problem is making sure they protect themselves mentally and physically.

PotholeParadies · 29/11/2020 14:52

And some people have suggested that saying x, y or z is common or normal may put pressure on children. Rather than cover8ng "common" sexual practises, we would like education to focus on being able to say no, only doing things you are totally comfortable with , with no expectation that you are abnormal if you don't feel comfortable with things other people think are normal. This is pretty similar across any type of relationship.

This!

I don't care who uses strap-ons. I do deeply care about lesbian teenagers hearing that strap-ons should be a part of their sex life. I also would prefer it if male teenagers weren't encouraged to think that bollocks, as lesbians get fetishised enough by phallocentric men.

nepeta · 29/11/2020 14:52

MadBadDaddy:

As for 'defending women's sex-based rights against sex based oppression' you'd have to explain how they are attacked by trans people's rights.
From what I understand, by using the word 'sex' and not 'gender' they implicitly put themselves in opposition to trans rights so are designed to exclude trans women, so yes that would be problematic.

I think you answer the question in your first sentence with your second sentence. If we cannot mention biological sex then we cannot mention sexism and then we cannot fight against sex-based oppression and then feminism will be toothless. Ultimately we cannot collect data on the basis of sex and we cannot organise politically to work for the issues female-bodied people share.

The initial subjugation of women, as a class, was not based on gender identity but on biological sex, especially the two major differences between male and female human beings: Only women can gestate a child and women, on average, are smaller, slower and weaker than men.

Those differences explain why women ended up in an inferior position. Repeated pregnancies, lactation and so on kept women away from the public areas where power was doled out and those things, combined with the smaller bodies, meant that women were less able to defend themselves against both men from other tribes who might have wanted access to their reproductive systems and perhaps even the men from their own tribes.

The oppression of women has in all societies been based on sex, not gender identity. Misogynistic tenets of the three major Abrahamic religions are sex-based, for instance, and all the discriminatory laws of the past were sex-based. Women were not allowed to vote on the basis of gender identity but on the basis of sex. (Note that it is really 'perceived' sex which matters there, i.e., what others assume someone's sex is, so in that sense trans women would also be affected by sex-based oppression (and obviously nonbinary female-bodied people).)

Sex discrimination in the labor market is because only female-bodied people can get pregnant. Some bigotry is based on gender stereotypes, true, but the underlying reason for the discriminatory outcomes is sex-based.

Sexual harassment and sexual assaults are overwhelmingly directed at those whom the harasser or assaulter regards as female, and it is rather rare for female-bodied people to be the ones who harass or sexually assault.

It seems that among the woke we are not allowed to have a name for the group which is likely to be subjected to sexism etc., because naming that group is transphobic. This is a terrible framing of the situation because it implies that fighting against sex-based oppression is a transphobic act.

nepeta · 29/11/2020 14:57

MadBadDaddy:

An interesting point made during IDEVAW was that if "sex based oppression" is biological rather than social (thereby excluding trans women, which was the point trying to be made), then there is no possible solution to it, which does seem like GC painting itself into a corner, TBH,

This is misunderstanding what sex-based oppression means. The oppression itself is not biological, but the variable which is used to decide who will be targeted by it is biological.

Sex can be brought into various scenarios as the explanatory reason for some discriminatory treatment when sex is actually completely irrelevant in the specific context. That is the definition of sex discrimination.

Also, a whole bundle of inaccurate stereotypes can be attached to biological sex and then those stereotypes are used as an explanation for the exclusion of women in the past from certain occupations and so on.

midgebabe · 29/11/2020 14:58

I guess the only reason that trans rights attacks women's rights is if transrights want women's rights rather than their own rights. I don't know why they want women's rights not transrights but there you go.

Swipe left for the next trending thread