Batshittery from the Guardian

[PlayerOneReady]

And yes they really did refer to lesbians as ‘non men loving non men’

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/05/i-am-16-and-identify-as-an-ace-lesbian-but-i-dont-want-to-come-out-to-my-parents

@jumperandJacket
feels romantically attracted to girls but not sexually attracted (yet), is uncertain about all of this and finds it changes day to day

Can you expand to explain what you meant by that statement?

Is society going to claim that admiration and a wanting to emulate a person of the same sex or opposite sex is romantic attraction, or that all friendships are platonic romances?

The whole homophobia and sexual coercion that emerges from trans ideology is based on teaching children that sexed bodies female or male don't exist and sexual attraction is based on a list of personality traits.

If its not romantic love based on sexual attraction where do these romantic attractions originate from?

@Lovelyricepudding

As for not commenting on a piece in a mainstream newspaper because it may have been written by a child: if there is any valid criticism of this then the place to direct it is solely towards the Guardian. One they publish it it becomes part of their output/propaganda and completely open for critique, ridicule,

Yeah I think I think this.

Although I think I also think that U 18s shouldn't be able to consent to any kind of exposure on social media so maybe I am a hypocrite?

Twitter has an example of somebody using they/him/hers pronouns and thanking a theatre for reproducing them in a theatre programme:

twitter.com/AlexThomasSmith/status/1441437817041678343?s=20

@SolasAnla I'm merely trying to put what the writer says into more conventional language. I don't find the idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction strange at all (I can certainly remember feeling like this as a young teen) nor do I think that it means just admiration- not sure where you have got this from.

I feel people are projecting an awful lot of their general dislike of trans ideology onto a letter which is entirely harmless. I see a female who is attracted to other females but (being only 16) isn't into actually having sex yet. A kid who feels confused and as if they have to put themselves into a box but can't find a box that fits. Whatever your views on gender identity, I'd say an appropriate response was sympathy, not mockery and sneering.

I think Annalisa Barbieri is an extremely good agony aunt, one of the best, and I'd assume she makes checks on all the people who write to her. For that reason, I think it's likely to be genuine, even though it's nuts.

What it boils down to is that this girl is a lesbian. She's attracted to other girls, but these days that on its own is apparently not enough. So it all has to be dressed up in this ridiculous language about ACE and whatnot. Not to mention the she/they pronouns, whatever the heck that's about.

It's very sad - up until about 20 years ago teenage girls would have been terrified about coming out as lesbian, so we seem to have had a brief period in history when it was deemed OK, and now it's not OK again.

@JumperandJacket

The author manages to shoehorn in all the trans ideology mantra while (at 16) writing to a newspaper's Dear Agony Aunt column.

You taking taking the letter at face value that's a choice.

Deciding to question if a 16 year old would write that letter rather than talking online is also a choice.

a letter which is entirely harmless.
That is your value judgement about a newspapers editorial choice. Your value judgement is not shared by everyone on MN.

I'd say an appropriate response was sympathy, not mockery and sneering.

Thats a value judgement too and insisting people who don't accept the letter at face value accept it at face value.

Should examining the social context, a 16 year demonstrating how society has moved from telling girls "you can be anything you want" to "put yourself in that little box", be limited to or by sympathy rather than subject to uncomfortable debate?
Is "be kind" the new "no debate"

You said:
I don't find the idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction strange at all

I see a female who is attracted to other females but (being only 16) isn't into actually having sex yet.

I am asking for the clarification on the romance element of attraction and what is the meaning of the word attraction in the context of that phrase.

Is the writer
a) sexually attracted to women and not sexual active or
b) not sexually attracted to women and not sexual active

So if the authors claim of being only same sex attracted would male fall into the group of people she could feel romantic attraction towards? Can she form a romantic attraction with a 5 year old or a 95 year old?

If its not sexual attraction what is your definition of romantic attraction?

@JumperandJacket

I thought the answer was very sensible. I feel for teenagers having to get their head round things in this age of labels.

I liked the answer too. Gave the right message in a way you felt the teenager would listen to.

Personally I find it very sad that a 16 year old is spending so much mental energy and emotional capital in trying to find what seems to be a smaller and smaller box in which to define her identity and orientation.

This is where the whole LGBTQ+ of hundreds of labels is very damaging.

The simple fact is that the majority of people don't care if you want to identify as a pansexual demi girl or similar.

In fact this level of angst comes across as both self centric and tediously boring - of interest only to the people spouting this crap on social media.

As to the reply I can say for certain that and attempt by my children to educate me on pronouns would be given very short shrift.

It might not be a popular response but I can't see how indulging this identity alphabet is actually helpful (in the same why I wouldn't jump to affirm a child with gender dysphoria).

The poster is a lesbian from what's been posted. Great. Be proud of who she is, get on with life with real friends and step away from social media propaganda.

I'm hoping Andrew Doyle has been busy again. It would be preferable to a 16 year old experiencing that much angst over which words to use to describe aspects of herself specifically enough to satisfy current cultural norms amongst teenagers.

I think it's more like, e.g., Peter gave it to them and then she passed it to X

But - if that's it, and I have seen that used so I don't doubt that is what some mean, this person is ok with female pronouns, so what is the point of the they?

[quote EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]Twitter has an example of somebody using they/him/hers pronouns and thanking a theatre for reproducing them in a theatre programme:

twitter.com/AlexThomasSmith/status/1441437817041678343?s=20[/quote]
"It mightn't mean much to some", the person writes. Too right. It renders everything completely meaningless.