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/

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.

You've missed out the second part, which is fairly clearly saying that not being attracted to a group of people you should be attracted to because you don't see their "gender" as valid (because you see them as the opposite sex) is transphobic.

Good lord. The green party aren't just behind the curve and they're not even a dot in the distance - they're in a completely different galaxy.

You'd need to totally re-define the words 'curve', 'behind', and 'the' in order to describe how far away from the end of it they are.

Datun, that article is beyond ridiculous.

I particularly liked the bit where trans men (a women) can describe themselves as lesbian if they want to but for me to describe a trans man (a woman) who's in a relationship with a woman as a lesbian is transphobic if that woman doesn't agree.

That's an amazing piece of writing. Every single word. Thank you. I feel an urge to learn it by heart ❤️

I love the Greens- they are terrific value for money.

They are already at risk of bankruptcy from their current legal problems around this issue but they produce a policy that 15 minutes on google would reveal (to even to most uninformed person) is illiegal.

I just can't imagine going through life being this inept and arrogant. It would be facinating to just follow the people who wrote this around for a few days. How do they order coffee or do their shopping?

How do they order coffee or do their shopping?

I think that us plebs are supposed to buy them coffee and stuff as per the how to be a trans ally article.

Hmm. But wouldn't your refusal to do 'men', Froodwithatowel, be because you consider that a person with a penis is a man and thus your perception that the identity of a person-with-a-penis-who-says-they-are-a-woman is invalid. I think you must have to do some sort of queerphobia top trumps.

Just as well that they’re politically irrelevant then, isn’t it?

I enjoyed this comment:

“Personally, I think basing your politics around an obvious untruth, so that it’s the Trumpian lunatics who end up looking like the sensible ones, is what plays into the hands of extreme right-wing ideologies — but perhaps that’s just me.”

I also wonder if anyone involved gave any thought whatsoever to how many gay and lesbian people feel about the term queer. Actually, I don’t wonder. They obviously didn’t and don’t give a fuck about LBG people who aren’t down with the ideological fashion of the 2020s.

Jeez, it's as bad as a talk I had to go to at work last week, we were told that there are various types of discrimination including "cissexism" and "heterosexism". Needless to say, the presenter identified as queer.

Heterosexism… is that a newfangled way of saying homophobia (without having to admit that people can be, and are, same sex attracted)?

Or is it some vehicle that allows people to pretend that, actually, straight, white men are, in fact, the most oppressed and victimised group of all time?

Or both maybe?

My guess is it’s intersectional bullshit gesturing towards at least one of the above.

Now that guide was a fascinating read! It makes me think how lovely it would be if I could write a guide for the whole world about how best to treat me, how my rights supersede the rights of everyone else, how I have the right to demand others to tiptoe around me and so on. And when I write that guide into internal contradictions I will just continue and expect nobody else to notice anything wrong there.

The whole thing is from Through The Looking-Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Some more detailed points below.

These things are queerphobic:

Claiming, implying or insinuating that there is a conflict between the human rights of the LGBTIQA+ community (or any part of it) and those of any other marginalised group.

So it is queerphobic to argue that there can ever be a conflict between women's rights and the rights of the alphabets or any letters within that group.

Misidentifying neutral terms that describe someone not having an LGBTIQA+ identity as insults, for example: straight, monosexual, cisgender, allosexual, perisex or endosex.

So it is transphobic not to belong to the secular-religious sect of Abstract Gender Identities, because 'cis' only makes sense within that sect as it demands that all who are not transgender or nonbinary still possess an abstract, inner feeling of femininity (if we are women) which is not at all based on being female but just happens to coincide with it. So we are not women because we are female, but because we love skirts and makeup and long hair and so on. I presume male people can't be men because they are male, but because they like beer and football and burping etc.

Using phrases or language to describe trans people which are designed to suggest that trans people are a separate category of person from the gender they identify as or that their gender identity is not valid. Examples include referring to a trans woman or non-binary person as a “biological man” or a trans man or non-binary person as a “biological woman”, which eradicates the trans person’s gender identity and/or knowledge of themselves in favour of their biology assigned at birth.

This means that gender identity must always be prioritised over biological sex and that 'the biology' of person is assigned at birth. The latter is total rubbish, given that our 'biology' is assigned at conception and observed even before birth, but it's more dangerous to privilege a quasi-religious belief about gender identities over material facts.

Heterosexism is apparently a term encompassing biphobia, homophobia, transphobia (of course!). Cissexism includes transphobia. The presenter didn't give any other examples after transphobia because, as we all know, transphobia is the most serious of all.

Misidentifying neutral terms that describe someone not having an LGBTIQA+ identity as insults, for example: straight, monosexual, cisgender, allosexual, perisex or endosex.

Absolute clowns 🤣🤣🤣

I have seen TRSOHers stating, in complete seriousness, that those who object to being labelled "cis" are indeed being phobic because by doing so, they're "erasing trans people."

In short, all that burble really boils down to is: you shall have no other god but me. For I am a jealous god.

With a bit of five year old 'you have to do what I say or I won't let you play' over the top of the Bronze Age Abrahamic stuff.

If they really were the Green party and worried about the environment, they could have saved a lot of energy by just using this:

And the rather amazing stance that everyone else has to adapt their language (in all situations - because misgendering through pronouns is transphobia even if it just happens in your head 🙄) to fit what each individual person in the flag of many letters says they want to be referred to.

But wanting to have any say in how you are referred to is transphobia and, indeed, erasing trans people.

😫

Isn't this sort of thing really counterproductive to non-male and non-female people? Won't this drive men and women away from interacting with them in every possible way?

there is a theme in this that happened in the early eighties which was that PIE (peodophile information exchange) tried to sneak into the debate about acceptable sexual expressions. As a woman I decide what is or is not acceptable to me sexually speaking, and it is up to me how i educate my children about safe boundaries. (Gay or straight) This policy is very disturbing

The Green Party can just fuck off

It is advocating for the break down of boundaries, of free speech, of equality, and of truth.

More and more I am thankful for a conservative government. I NEVER thought I would say that, but the rest seem like incompetent loonies.

I agree, it does feel like there is a mult-angled attempt at creating legal barriers that protect 'sexualities' and once those protective barriers are solidly in place, paedophiles will just spring up and announce their arrival, whilst pointing the legal barriers that protect them.

I agree. Anyone who can't yet see this is going to end up quite shortly with a 50 year old bloke pointing to his rights to attend his local nursery dressed as an 18 month old girl in nappies, and have staff pronoun and hold his hand and feed him and change his nappies, to his great excitement and his impact on other actual children around him, because his rights enforce other people's compulsion to provide the needed service/labour? And that parts of this have already happened and it is now arguable in a court room where there'll be lots of hair splitting on 'balancing of rights'? Either is in denial or is in favour.

Some men need very, very clear lines drawn between rights and wants, and even clearer lines drawn between other human being and free sex worker.

I wonder how many of the cool and groovy casual bekinders will start to have issues when it's their kid being used as a prop in someone's sex games.

They're already enthusiastically flinging their kids into puppy-butt-plug parades, womanface-story-times, pole-dancing-stripper-raves, rainbow-dildo-butt-monkey-libraries and family-nudity-shows. I would imagine they'd be delighted.