Finally! A detailed reference document to define Queerphobia!

[Kucinghitam]

Go forth and educate yourselves, ye nest of vipers, so that ye shall understand why the Righteous must Scold ye to save yer Souls

https://thecritic.co.uk/nowt-so-queerphobic-as-folk/

I love a multi purpose document.
Draught excluder.
Fly swatter.
Kindling for my log burner.

'Queerphobia is bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against the whole or a section of the LGBTIQA+ community, or against someone within or perceived to be part of the LGBTIQA+ community. It is based on the perception that a person’s or a group of people’s —
● sex;
● gender identity;
● gender expression;
● experience of attraction (e.g. sexual, romantic, etc.), including non-attraction; or
● any combination of the above,
is invalid, harmful or abnormal.'

Is this suggesting that it is 'queerphobia' to say that some kinds of sexual attraction are harmful, abnormal and indeed 'invalid'?

Is that really what they're saying?

'Queerphobia is ... the perception that ... a person’s or a group of people’s ... experience of attraction (e.g. sexual, romantic, etc.) ... is invalid, harmful or abnormal.'

' the refusal to date, have sex, or form a relationship with trans people is not itself transphobic; however, when this is expressed by claiming, implying or
insinuating that it is abnormal to be attracted to trans people or that a trans person’s gender is not valid, that expression is transphobic'

Refusal to have sex with someone?! Whatever happened to enthusiastic consent?!

Queerphobia includes 'wilfully omitting a word that affirms their gender'

Jesus, the logic fails.

'Claiming, implying or insinuating that forcing a trans person to use the bathroom of their birth-assigned gender will protect women and/or children, even if it would in reality increase the chance of violence being inflicted on the trans person'

Yep, well no matter what they say, I'm going to persist in the harmful, damaging, bigoted and prejudiced belief that paedophilia is invalid, harmful and abnormal. I'm going to go even further and say disgusting and criminal (for as long as that lasts) too.

I wonder what the sanction would be if ladies of a certain age went with malicious compliance?

I liked this bit:

the Liberal Democrat party only took notice of criticism when it was pointed out that the advice potentially breached the Equality Act. In response, the party sought advice from a senior barrister, kept the advice secret, was shown a second opinion from another senior barrister, and asked the first barrister to review the second barrister’s advice, before finally admitting that both sets of advice reached the same conclusion: the party is bound by the Equality Act — and its definition could result in unlawful discrimination of members with GC views. As a result the Lib Dems retracted their policy. The new version explicitly states that “Holding and expressing gender critical views, whether in internal debates or publicly, is protected by law”.

Stupid laws about boring old equality.

What makes the Green Party think they can re-write equality law? Lesbians and gay men are not same gender attracted.

I got bored of the first batshit document, so hopped over to the linked document.

'f) Tacit transphobia is still transphobia.

Actions designed to harm or take away trans people's human rights are still transphobic even when not expressed in explicitly transphobic language, or not expressed in language at all. This tacit transphobia is often referred to as ‘dogwhistle’ transphobia. For example, one UK based transphobic hate group bought a full page advert which read: ‘Woman: an adult human female.’ The statement itself is not transphobic, but when the context for the statement is that the group in question believe that trans women can never be female the transphobic intent is clear. Similarly, when a football ‘fan’ throws a banana at a black player during a match, the racist intent is clear even though bananas are not inherently racist.'

https://www.transactual.org.uk/transphobia

My bold.

Anyone who believes that a transwoman is not female is 'transphobic'.

What is a transwoman, transactual?

Oh, fantastic. The example of media bias is ....

The Guardian.

'a) Systematically preventing trans people from engaging fully in media “debates” about transphobia and trans rights. A good example of this is The Guardian’s coverage following the publication of the Labour Declaration of Trans Rights. The Guardian has effectively demonstrated an editorial policy aimed at defending accusations of transphobia.'

Oooh.

So when I get told as a lesbian I have to do men, which is based on a perception that my sex and experience of attraction is invalid, harmful and abnormal (because I perceive sex and am exclusively same sex attracted).....

It's Queerphobia is it? What happens when someone does a queerphobia at me? Is someone counting up the dead fairies? Do I get a flag?

They're completely lost aren't they? Sad to see a "political "party that should be centring science & reality in terms of ecology and climate change actually promoting fantasy & flat earthism - via a policy of bullying that resembles the old communist states 🙄

I think you've misread it.

They say the refusal to date / have sex with a trans person is not in itself transphobic. But to say that being attracted to a trans person is abnormal is transphobic.

''Everyone has the right to use the labels that they feel most closely fit with their identity and/or knowledge of themselves. Knowingly using a label for a person that doesn't describe their identity and/or knowledge of themselves can denote bigotry, prejudice and/or discrimination.''

It reads like it was written by very mediocre first year university students.

It's true the law does not prevent people from using labels to signal what they believe their identity is (within reason, some labels (titles really), are protected). However, from having the right to use a label, it does not follow that everyone else is therefore forced to use that label or that to not use that label is bigotry, prejudice or discrimination.

They don't seem to realise that other people have rights too, and we have rights to non-belief. We don't have to affirm other people's special identities, and it's not necessarily bigtory, prejudice and/or discrimination to not validate or affirm other people - particularly if the reason for refusal is a simple lack of belief in the other person's ideological world view.

So let me get this straight...unless we're centring, praising, pandering to and sacrificing ourselves for trans folks at all times, we're queerphobic?

I think you've misread my comment.

I'm not interested in their description of transphobia, transphobia as a term and idea has been so thoroughly overused as to be utterly meaningless.

What I'm concerned by is the suggestion that anyone has to 'refuse' to have sex with someone.

It's assuming a blanket assumption that (women, particularly) have a default agreement to sex that requires a woman to state 'no' - and the wording implies furthermore that she is required to explain her reasons.

I've discussed this before on this board, and I know some people struggle with ideas surrounding consent.

Consent isn't about someone saying 'no'. Consent requires an enthusiastic, fully informed 'yes'. Women are not service sexbots that have to explain why they don't want to have sex with people.

Women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions of with whom, and when, and in what circumstances they are interested in having sex, without anyone judging their motivations or questioning their reasoning.

Nobody should assume that a woman is open to sex with everyone and has to say 'no'. Everyone should assume that everyone else is NOT interested in sex with them unless it's made explicitly clear they are.

Saying 'I am a lesbian, and attracted to women' is a sexual orientation or preference. A positive choice.

Consent is not and should never be defined by the groups a woman isn't attracted to.

Nobody needs to make a list of 'who they won't have sex with'. It's absurd to even suggest it.

How dare you let your gaze rest anywhere but my navel? Validate my navel-gazing!

So they have overused transphobia so much they have had to invent a new word that includes LGB to give it some credibility, whilst not seeing how much it contradicts itself.

Sounds about normal for this group.

Oh no, not the Green Party again! Haven’t they got more pressing issues to draw our attention to eg climate change?

Climate change is very much secondary to men's sexual rights.

I'm sure they'll find a way to explain to us how climate change is actually caused by queerphobia.

In fact I'm sure Pink News or something similar had an article not so long ago about how trans people are particularly vulnerable to climate change.

Add in the second part: to say that you won't have sex with a male person because you're homosexual and they're male is to say their 'identity is not valid'.

You must validate the male person's identity with your body by abandoning your homosexuality, laying back and thinking of Stonewall.

I cannot answer that without swearing. But the answer in short, is no.

No.

Very, very, very much no. Gender identity of a male does not trump homosexuality in a female, and female people's bodies are not validation tools for male people. And any male person who thinks they are is not dating material whatever their identity. They are run a bloody mile material.

I'd also question: why is to say to someone, however gently, 'I am homosexual and you are in fact biologically male' is invalidating their identity as a trans person,

but saying to someone 'you should re learn your genital prejudices and learn to do some males in the name of social duty' is not invalidating their identity as a lesbian and is fine.

The double standards going on here are more in the realms of unpaid sex worker/abusive relationship than mutual respect, aren't they? I suppose my first criteria for anyone I want to get intimate with is 'has the capacity to see me as equally human'.