Speccie - BBC's woke guide to gender

[Freespeecher]

From the Steerpike column, and includes this pearl:

'Auntie's description of 'homosexual' might raise some eyebrows given its definition as: 'Homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own "gender."' '.

Discuss! It is also pointed out that this is the Stonewall definition, so the Beeb would appear to be just about the only group working more closely with them just as a lot of others are backing away.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bbc-s-woke-guide-to-gender

Good. Delighted to see it. The more sex and gender get casually conflated, and the more the conflaters refuse to provide a meaningful definition of "gender", the more other people who have a clearer idea get to define the term.

"Homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own "gender"

That looks to me, to be a deliberate conflation of sex and gender, because we know that homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own sex.
By using the Stonewall definition they are making a case for lesbians being attracted to transwomen, which we of course know is ridiculous.

It just takes language away from being anything meaningful or recognisable.
If there are a multiple of genders, how would you describe anything related to the sex of the couple, it’s masked and camouflaged as though it’s an irrelevance. Who’s interests are served by this?

The whole 'genital preference is transphobic' thing is so ridiculous. So it's fine to be attracted to blondes or tall people, or people who share your hobbies, or people who have big muscles etc, but expecting to be able to specify which sex you're attracted to? That's literal violence. Obvs.

@lazylinguist

The whole 'genital preference is transphobic' thing is so ridiculous. So it's fine to be attracted to blondes or tall people, or people who share your hobbies, or people who have big muscles etc, but expecting to be able to specify which sex you're attracted to? That's literal violence. Obvs.

You're allowed to be attracted to anything, except for the actual body parts you use to have sex with, apparently.

After Saville and the rehiring of Martin Bashir, because he seemed like a nice chap, there's not a lot left of the BBC that's worth defending from the Big Bad Murdoch.

[quote Freespeecher]From the Steerpike column, and includes this pearl:

'Auntie's description of 'homosexual' might raise some eyebrows given its definition as: 'Homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own "gender."' '.

Discuss! It is also pointed out that this is the Stonewall definition, so the Beeb would appear to be just about the only group working more closely with them just as a lot of others are backing away.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bbc-s-woke-guide-to-gender[/quote]
archive version of article: archive.is/rYnRM

This is a useful twitter post with some of the legal arguments and a link for complaining if you want to do so

twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1425428776490618888

Just followed one of the links, seems that queer Miley is now under fire.

www.out.com/celebs/2021/1/20/how-miley-cyruss-preference-remarks-show-underlying-transphobia

From the Equality Act 2010:
12 Sexual orientation
(1) Sexual orientation means a person’s sexual orientation towards—
(a) persons of the same sex,
(b) persons of the opposite sex, or
(c) persons of either sex

By using the Stonewall definition they are making a case for lesbians being attracted to transwomen

But, now that some trans people pass as their acquired gender, doesn't the traditional definition suggest that lesbians would be same sex attracted to (gender passing) trans men? Does the definition need updating to reflect attraction to people who appear to be the same or opposite sex?

@yetanotherusernameAgain

By using the Stonewall definition they are making a case for lesbians being attracted to transwomen

But, now that some trans people pass as their acquired gender, doesn't the traditional definition suggest that lesbians would be same sex attracted to (gender passing) trans men? Does the definition need updating to reflect attraction to people who appear to be the same or opposite sex?

No.

Oh, I've confused myself now. I've realised changing to "appear to be" by itself doesn't work either, it needs to be in addition to "being the same sex", eg

"Attraction to people of the same sex and who appear to be that sex"

I'm trying to work through the logic:

Trans women are men by sex category, therefore a relationship with a lesbian woman wouldn't be a same-sex relationship.

Likewise, trans men are women by sex category.

Lesbians are unlikely to be attracted to trans men who pass as men (in the same way they wouldn't be attracted to men).

With me so far?

So by rejecting the TRA line that lesbians should consider trans women as partners, on the grounds that TW are actually men, wouldn't the logical argument be that trans men are actually women and therefore lesbians should consider trans men as partners (as that would result in a same sex relationship)?

Which led me to thinking the definition should include an element of appearing to be a particular sex, in addition to being that sex.

Or maybe we should just reject the notion that anyone "should" consider a particular type of person as a potential partner and leave it to individual choice?

And now I've had another confusing thought. If a natal woman and a trans woman were in a relationship that appeared to the outside world as a same sex relationship, if they received abuse or discrimination based on the perception that they were lesbians, would they miss out on any legal protections because by definition they are heterosexual not lesbian?

I thought of this:

....and it turns out to be beyond parody, because someone has edited it to be "less transphobic and more tolerable" with plenty of comments below from folks who fancy a visit to the gents with David Tennant/Davina.

How many of them are doing what is tradtional in a gents and taking the piss, I have no idea.

[quote zanahoria]Just followed one of the links, seems that queer Miley is now under fire.

www.out.com/celebs/2021/1/20/how-miley-cyruss-preference-remarks-show-underlying-transphobia[/quote]
According to that article, Miley is getting 'dangerous' in her views!

That article about Miley Cyrus sounds like someone telling off a schoolgirl for being silly in the playground. Or a husband informing his wife she's been rude to his mother.

'Miley, I love you, but I'm going to need you to make it right' - erm, piss off and mind your own business, perhaps?

The BBC is rammed with people on the left.
The left is rammed with people who've been indoctrinated and follow the TRA line
Nothing new here.

And now I've had another confusing thought. If a natal woman and a trans woman were in a relationship that appeared to the outside world as a same sex relationship, if they received abuse or discrimination based on the perception that they were lesbians, would they miss out on any legal protections because by definition they are heterosexual not lesbian?

No, they wouldn’t miss out on any legal protections. Protections against discrimination depends on the reason you were discriminated against (ie the perceptions of the person doing the discriminating), not whether the person being discriminated against actually has the protected characteristic. So if you are discriminated against because someone thinks you are a lesbian it matters not at all that you are not a lesbian; if a transwoman is discriminated against because someone thinks they are a woman it matters not that they are not a woman; if a white man is discriminated against because someone thinks they are black it matters not that they are in fact white etc etc.

Thanks @PaleBlueMoonlight, that's reassuring to hear.

@PermanentTemporary

That article about Miley Cyrus sounds like someone telling off a schoolgirl for being silly in the playground. Or a husband informing his wife she's been rude to his mother.

'Miley, I love you, but I'm going to need you to make it right' - erm, piss off and mind your own business, perhaps?

I don't think it will come as a huge shock to learn what kind of woman and lesbian the writer of the piece, Mey Rude, is.

I also found the piece interesting when it referenced Miley's 2019 transgression of inferring homosexuality is a choice. I know nothing much about what she said at all. But I do know Miley is bisexual and to a certain degree bisexual people can make choices about which attractions the acknowledge. It's not unusual for bisexual people choose to ignore attractions to people of the same sex if they want to live as heterosexuals. Or for bisexual women to choose to only date women. It may be a subconscious choice, which isn't the same as making an informed conscious choice. But it's not the same as only being attracted to people of one sex either. And while it's more usual for bisexual people to initially assume they are straight and later discover they also have same sex attraction. It's also not unheard of for a bisexual person to assume they are same sex attracted and later discover they are also attracted to people of the opposite too. Which is what it seems like Miley was saying? She initially assumed she was a lesbian because she found men horrible, then later experienced attraction to men too.

Tbh, my biggest concern about her feeling that way, is that she was a child star in an industry dominated by men known to sexually abuse the children and women. She has described horrific treatment on the set of Hannah Montanna, which badly affected her mental health. She was pushed into a topless photo-shoot at 15 years old, which left her reeling with distress. She developed substance abuse problems as a result, which she has hopefully moved past. If a teenager/very young woman is feeling like men are disgusting, the much, much bigger issue is why as a society do we tolerate the abuse we know is prevalent in the entertainment industry. Not rain ire down her for inferring she had a degree of choice, in something that she did have a degree of choice in, just because it's not a choice for most people.

I know that obviously, there are serious issues with implying that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice.' But it seems to me that Miley made a subconscious choice to only acknowledge her attraction to women when she was very young, very possibly as a result of the behaviour of many of the adult men around her. Then later she made a conscious choice to acknowledge that she was also attracted to men and that all men weren't like many of the men she grew up being taken advantage by. And instead of maybe just clarifying that as a bisexual, Miley could make this choice and that the real scandal is how she was treated as a child and teenager that left her feeling like men were awful. "Journalists" like this Mey Rude, instead just chose, and continue to choose, to add to her abuse.

That Miley article is deranged.

Having a gender preference, or even genitalia preference, in who you sleep with is obviously not a problem, but to reduce dicks and balls to “men’s bodies” contributes to dangerous beliefs about trans women.

@yetanotherusernameAgain

Oh, I've confused myself now. I've realised changing to "appear to be" by itself doesn't work either, it needs to be in addition to "being the same sex", eg

"Attraction to people of the same sex and who appear to be that sex"

I'm trying to work through the logic:

Trans women are men by sex category, therefore a relationship with a lesbian woman wouldn't be a same-sex relationship.

Likewise, trans men are women by sex category.

Lesbians are unlikely to be attracted to trans men who pass as men (in the same way they wouldn't be attracted to men).

With me so far?

So by rejecting the TRA line that lesbians should consider trans women as partners, on the grounds that TW are actually men, wouldn't the logical argument be that trans men are actually women and therefore lesbians should consider trans men as partners (as that would result in a same sex relationship)?

Which led me to thinking the definition should include an element of appearing to be a particular sex, in addition to being that sex.

Or maybe we should just reject the notion that anyone "should" consider a particular type of person as a potential partner and leave it to individual choice?

And now I've had another confusing thought. If a natal woman and a trans woman were in a relationship that appeared to the outside world as a same sex relationship, if they received abuse or discrimination based on the perception that they were lesbians, would they miss out on any legal protections because by definition they are heterosexual not lesbian?

You are the only person here saying that lesbians “should” be attracted to any group. I hope you take your own suggestion and reject the notion that anyone should consider a particular type of person as a partner. In fact, any decent person would reject that notion.

Empirically, lesbians are more likely to consider trans men as partners than trans women. I can’t be arsed to get the citation for you.

Same sex attracted people need to be able to name themselves, and be vocal about who they are. You might remember there used to be a whole movement about it. There were rainbows and so on? That’s why it’s a problem to have people who don’t belong in the category identifying into it. Same sex attracted women have had their language, their culture and their spaces colonised.

@QuimReaper

That Miley article is deranged.

Having a gender preference, or even genitalia preference, in who you sleep with is obviously not a problem, but to reduce dicks and balls to “men’s bodies” contributes to dangerous beliefs about trans women.

Everything has to centre TW. Even when a subject has nothing to do with TW, it must be about the absence.