"Similar gender" relationships on R4 WH.

[aweegc]

Anybody hear Woman's Hour today? Section on man-child and the presenter (Jessica Creighton) was talking to a researcher. Initially talking about heterosexual relationships then JC asked about same sex relationships. The researcher referred to them as "similar gender" relationships and "similar gender/sex" relationships. I don't know if the latter is "sex/gender" or "sex-gender" but WTAF? What even is a "similar sex" relationship?

Researchers like that just make me think that sometimes too much time to think is not beneficial. Far better to be a plumber and get on with something actually useful - far more helpful to society too. It's like reinventing the wheel with an off-centre axis and insinuating it's somehow more advanced!

Thank you to Jessica Creighton for sticking with the term "same sex".

Similar in maths means the precise same shape and size. So, similar gender/sex could mean matching in every way - transwoman with transwoman or lesbian with lesbian.

Or, (and much more probably) it could be completely nonsensical bollocks.

'Similar gender relationships'

What immediately springs to mind is not same sex relationships, but PBunce and EIzzard could each have 2 exclusive relationships depending on what they were feeling like that day. And none of their partners would have a leg to stand on: "Of course I wasn't unfaithful on Tuesday. I was with my boygenderfriend because I was boygender on Tuesday. Today I'm girlgender and you're my girlgenderfriend. I would never be unfaithful to you when I'm in girlgender mode!"

TLDR: completely nonsensical bollocks.

Oh God what a load of tosh.

** I'll take a serving of this:
Or, (and much more probably) it could be completely nonsensical bollocks.
with a dollop of that:
completely nonsensical bollocks.
and wash it down with a large glass of this:
what a load of tosh

😃

Isn't gender (not even sex any more) a spectrum? Hence "similar gender" relationships, between individuals who are around the same place on the spectrum.

Would be my guess

This is coming out of Stonewall too - that homosexuality is defined as having ‘a romantic and/or sexual attraction to people of the same gender’. It’s in their glossary of terms on the site. It’s essentially a redefinition of homosexuality to be inclusive: so if you’re exclusively ‘same-sex’ (being biological sex) attracted you’re demonstrably transphobic in their world view. Actually, anyone who is attracted to members of a group of only one biological sex is transphobic, so that includes heterosexual people. I bet many trans people are actually transphobic too, in that sense. I’d argue that attempting to redefine sexual orientation according to gender woo is demonstrably homophobic and heterophobic. And Stonewall can GTF 😏

Listening to this just now. Canadian professor.

twitter.com/sarivananders

'‘there’s a cultural belief that desire is something that is in you, it’s innate, biological, physiological, natural, um, and so then when people have an issue, don’t have desire or have low desire, they tend to think well it must be a problem that’s in them, a problem with their biology, their hormones, their psyche, fixes are going to have to be biological, clinical, counselling’'

Her stunning conclusion is that women are less attracted to men who are arseholes. Groundbreaking. Decorated with gendersex and other bullshit to make it seem somehow more interesting, I suppose. Like a sprig of shitty holly on top of a stale, boring, stodgy old Christmas pudding.

Nellodee · Today 15:05
Similar in maths means the precise same shape and size. So, similar gender/sex could mean matching in every way - transwoman with transwoman or lesbian with lesbian.

Or, (and much more probably) it could be completely nonsensical bollocks.

No, it does not mean the same size in maths:
^GEOMETRY
(of geometrical figures) having the same shape, with the same angles and proportions, though of different sizes^

It is just nonsensical as you thought.

Seems to me that "You're transphobic" because you don't believe in gender is the new "You're going to hell" because you don't believe in my god.

I listened to the interview. The gender stuff was irritating. But what really got me annoyed was the idea that this person had somehow obtained grant funding (presumably) to do the research needed to prove the conclusion that women don't feel inclined to have sex when they find themselves in a relationship with a man-child.
Well duh! I'm sure any woman could have told her that. Why the need for 'scientific research' to prove it???

Genderism is a religion, most definitely.