Gay men being subject to abuse for their sexuality

[secular111]

Or Homophobia as we know it.

The belief that the trans-activists would stop by just attacking lesbians turns out to have been a miscalculation; gay men are a target now, and the community is only just starting to wake-up to the threat it is facing.

Woke Homophobia

If you cannot have a sexuality that excludes people of the opposite sex, you cannot be homosexual.

You can't make both things true. Either you accept homosexual people have the right to be homosexual - which excludes all people of the opposite sex - or you don't. Which would make you homophobic.

@Dozer

Wondering if/when people will challenge straight men on their sexual preferences!

They never @ any of these mystical cishet evildoers tho...

@DisgustedofManchester

I read a lot of those posts and a lot of them seem perfectly fine, unless you think sexuality and assigned biology are forever linked and unbreakable, which would be daft otherwise we would all be cisgender heterosexuals.

What a load of daftness.

Biology is not 'assigned'.

Homosexuality is clearly defined in Law.

Heterosexuality is clearly defined in Law.

Both are defined by sex, sex does not change.

Wtf are cisgender heterosexuals?

Actually, don't bother answering that as it will no doubt be more risible nonsense like biology being assigned.

And that's before we look at the absolute out there weirdness of informing someone who they can and cannot sleep with, and insisting they have sexual relations with people they are not attracted to for.... well, social justice reasons.

Do you believe that sexuality is a choice?

@Chickenyhead

What is wrong with being bisexual?

Have I missed something?

The sexual part of the word it seems - which is why there is the push to say bi rather than bisexual .

Apparently, the only acceptable orientation is pansexual (as per Layla Moran) but it seems inconsistent that the latter part of that is still OK.

Sorry that question was for BluebirdSong

Everyone must be open to the possibility of shagging anyone.

That's the new progressive dogma, or some shit.

Insistintence on sexuality being trans-exclusionary? Yes.

Well then, roll me in sugar and call me trans-exclusionary. Call me a bigot. Call me a TERF. I am so past caring.

It's like being called a communist in the McCarthy era. Utterly devoid of meaning.

Ohhh

No, I am Bi, not Pan.

They are different.

And I wouldn't date a trans person, same as I wouldn't date anyone with an ideology I didn't believe was healthy or based on fact. I wouldn't date an anti-vax, a flat earther or anyone particularly religious.

It's called choice.

@FloralBunting

Everyone must be open to the possibility of shagging anyone.

That's the new progressive dogma, or some shit.

It feels more than a little like it has the possibility for coercion into unwelcome participation in sexual activities.

It feels more than a little like it has the possibility for coercion into unwelcome participation in sexual activities.

surely not! 😐

@Artichokeleaves
"If you cannot have a sexuality that excludes people of the opposite sex, you cannot be homosexual."

Didn't you have that entire Super-Straight / Super-Gay stunt? Just go with that. It gets your point across while also clearly communicating to us who to shun/avoid.

@Whatsnewpussyhat

Yes, it's funny that in the UK, the legally protected characteristic of sexual orientation is so quickly forgotten to appease another group's ideology.

This

@TheWeeDonkey

Do you believe that sexuality is a choice?

Not exactly, but I don't believe sexuality is strictly defined by genitals, gametes, or chromosomes either.

It really is a delight to have someone openly saying that homosexuals should be shunned.

Didn't you have that entire Super-Straight / Super-Gay stunt? Just go with that. It gets your point across while also clearly communicating to us who to shun/avoid

Just popping your pronouns on your account generally helps people to know who to avoid. :-)

Didn't you have that entire Super-Straight / Super-Gay stunt? Just go with that.

Would be great. Shame your lot banned the subreddit and managed to get the rape centre fundraiser scrapped.

Bigots.

Not exactly, but I don't believe sexuality is strictly defined by genitals, gametes, or chromosomes either.

And that's why you're in such a muddle with it all :-)

[quote BluebirdsSong]@Artichokeleaves
"If you cannot have a sexuality that excludes people of the opposite sex, you cannot be homosexual."

Didn't you have that entire Super-Straight / Super-Gay stunt? Just go with that. It gets your point across while also clearly communicating to us who to shun/avoid.[/quote]
Oh so you will respect THAT boundary, yes?

All we all need to do is change our language again, to suit you.

I'm super Bisexual. Does this count?

You do make me giggle.

Not exactly, but I don't believe sexuality is strictly defined by genitals, gametes, or chromosomes either.

So you think sexuality is not defined by sex?

Please, continue. It's lovely to see you show your whole arse.

@TheWeeDonkey

Not exactly, but I don't believe sexuality is strictly defined by genitals, gametes, or chromosomes either.

So you think sexuality is not defined by sex?

Please, continue. It's lovely to see you show your whole arse.

I believe the poster believes sexuality is defined by them, essentially.

@FloralBunting

It feels more than a little like it has the possibility for coercion into unwelcome participation in sexual activities.

surely not! 😐

Some of the young detransitioners have spoken about experiences that have been distressing and traumatising. Despite their participation in sexual relationships under some coercion (both from individuals and the social group), they are nonetheless the ones who have been ostracised from their support communities.

It does seem like traditional power hierarchies and exclusionary tactics are still observed (as described in Sheila Jeffrey's sex castes). And, in keeping with PPs' comments about belief systems and ideologies, there is more than a linguistic hint at this in this use of shun :

communicating to us who to shun/avoid.

Not exactly, but I don't believe sexuality is strictly defined by genitals, gametes, or chromosomes either.

Seems more like you just don’t believe anyone should be allowed to say “no” to a transperson on any grounds whatsoever.

At this point, calling it - or indeed anything - “twansfobic” is on a par with hearing “wolf” floating down the mountain in a young boy’s voice…again.