Stonewall change definition of transphobia - questioning gender identity ok now

[fromorbit]

Huge climb down. Looks like those pesky terf women were right all along AGAIN.

Saying that trans women are men is no longer "transphobic" according to Stonewall.

Dennis give good analysis and provides text:
1/ The gender borg have every right to be furious with @stonewalluk for sneakily ditching their belief in gender identity in their new definition of transphobia. Political transvestitism holds that men in dresses have soul-like female gender identities - Stonewall now denies this
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1885735444836388921.html

The reverse weasel move is an attempt to find a safe place to claim lost ground, but opens them up to attack from TA fanatics as well as looking more absurd to normal people. They staked everything on hating women and gay people and now want to retreat when it is unpopular.

I would probably classify as asexual as my sex drive and interest in relationships is close to non-existent. Luckily for me, I have more options nowadays than becoming a nun.

I've also met quite a lot of self-described asexual people, having been a student in the last 10 years. But I never met one who wasn't either diagnosed with, or had a lot of traits of, ASD or ADHD. I'm diagnosed with one, share a lot of traits with the other - I suspect my weird brain doesn't produce hormones in the right quantities, but I always put off going to the GP in case they tried to tell me I was just asexual.

I do think your no is respected a little more* if you say you're asexual rather than you're neurodivergent and don't do relationships.

*Which is to say not a whole lot.

The issue with the label asexual, for me, is that it describes people by something which they are not.

Like, I’m not an artist, or a poet, and I dislike arithmetic. I’m not a-arithmatic. I suppose ‘tone-deaf’ is the closest term.

There was a radio show recently investigating people’s response to music. A musician played a piece and described the emotions it roused in him. Another man said, basically, that’s nice for you. He had no response to that piece, or any other music. They found a word for it- can’t remember what it was. But it was irrelevant to him.

I don’t think a word to describe an absence is particularly helpful, and I would think it focuses the mind on that absence unhelpfully when it could be focused on all the things they are interested in and are important to them.

Bloody good no one came for them with flags, decades ago

You’re so right. It’s sinister. Any susceptible or even just as per normal slightly confused, young people. It’s a cult that’s more damaging and widespread than any we’ve known before. Horrendous.

On the plus side I feel that rainbows can take their rainbowness back. There are so many flags now that the rainbow flag is almost obsolete. The misappropriation of the rainbow is over!

Yey say the rainbows. We have our colours back! ROYGBIV 🤪

@myplace- yes, that's it exactly. Describing the lack of something is a bit strange to me.

I don't really understand visual art. I like paintings that look like photos because I think it's really clever to be able to do that. But aside from that, I just find paintings and sculptures incredibly boring. They don't move me at all in any way and I very often don't understand what the artist is trying to 'say'. I sometimes wonder what it is about my brain that is different to the brains of people who love looking at art.

Music really does move me though. I have a friend who doesn't appreciate music at all- funnily enough the same person who is 'asexual'!

I am very much 'asexual' as a menopausal woman, but it started long before the menopause. Not interested in the slightest and never have sexual thoughts or dreams. Is it possible to be asexual only for part of your life? If so, can I have a badge and a flag?

I am very much 'asexual' as a menopausal woman, but it started long before the menopause. Not interested in the slightest and never have sexual thoughts or dreams. Is it possible to be asexual only for part of your life? If so, can I have a badge and a flag?

A born-again asexual?

You are entitled to a badge and a flag and a tambourine, surely.

Tambourines all round!

But I’m not going to require them back should you suddenly find a celebrity of either sex wildly attractive and have an unexpected steamy dream.

My libido is definitely on the wain in these peri-menopausal years. I was pleasantly surprised to find myself romantically attracted (I think that's the right phrase from the new Stonewall definitions) to Jonathan Bailey in Wicked with lots of lustful thoughts. Well, it might have been sexual attraction but I'm not entirely sure where the line is, given he was on a screen so we had no chance to explore this mutually. Oh, and him being gay might also be a barrier from his perspective when it comes to mutual lust/urge/romance.

Regardless, I'm sure I can have a flag for my demi-sexoromantic-unrequited orientation. And then I can call him a bigot and tell him that the problem lies with him for not recognising my identity. What's next, him demanding a genital inspection and rejecting me on this basis?

Anyway, I'm glad I get to keep the tambourine.

I don't mind the term 'asexual', it does actually describe something which although by no means rare, is perhaps distinctive enough to merit its own word?

What I do mind is all the Pridery, flags, days, etc etc. associated with it by Stonewall et al.

What I do mind is all the Pridery, flags, days, etc etc. associated with it by Stonewall et al.

I once made the mistake of telling a friend I thought I might be asexual. She then brought it up in front of her friends because it made everyone in the room "LGBT".

I was uncomfortable with this non-consensual teaming and told her so as a) I didn't like her friends enough to want her to share this and b) it was my business who I told or didn't tell.

She was a very enthusiastic fan of I guess you'd call it "Pride culture" but ironically was very good at referring to people in ways they didn't identify - up to and including misgendering trans people, which one would have thought she'd have taken great pains not to do.

I don’t think a word to describe an absence is particularly helpful, and I would think it focuses the mind on that absence unhelpfully when it could be focused on all the things they are interested in and are important to them.

I disagree. I think it can be very helpful in understanding that person (or yourself, if you are that person), even if it is not the most important or most relevant thing about them.

Just as the word woman is necessary to describe a specific demographic, the word asexual is necessary to describe another demographic. Whether these words are relevant is an entirely different matter. A person's sexuality is irrelevant to which changing room they use, whereas their sex is relevant. And neither is relevant on a name-badge.

I don’t mind the word “asexual” per se, except for certain things. Firstly its broad definition includes people who have sexual desire. It makes no sense. And this has arisen from people saying “what about me?!” and needing to be fitted in somewhere.

Second, because it’s been validated as an “identity”, children too young to understand themselves have latched onto it as an explanation for their current state of mind, and more worryingly, I have seen it used to dismiss the risks of puberty blockers. Puberty blockers have remove a child’s future sexual function and I have seen it written “child X identifies as asexual, so not concerned about this.” This is hugely concerning to me.

What about an aromatic flag?

One that's soaked in or sprayed with lavender oil or attar of roses every so often?

Acorus calamus, the rush that was strewn on floors in th'olden days. I'd post a picture but...🤷‍♀️

I always have to do a double take for the word aromantic as I instinctively read it as aromatic.

I'd quite like a flag sprayed with Chanel No 5 please.

A little black flag?

That's actually correct, good that they changed it. 'denying someone's gender identity' (persistently, on purpose) would be:
"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group"
Which is the definition of bigotry. Phobia is just "being unreasonably afraid of"

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group"
Which is the definition of bigotry.

Just to add to that point.

Women who accurately recognise that is impossible to change sex do not have an unreasonable belief.

Women who do not believe in gender because they understand the sexism of gender stereotypes which affect them negatively do not have an unreasonable belief.

This is why believing in sex is recognised by the courts in this country as a belief worthy of respect in a democratic country.

I think you got it right there, it is as you write all about 'beliefs', and opinions. Thing is, we sometimes prefer to stick to simple beliefs, because the complex reality gives us a headache.
I don't think that is a problem by itself, it is not unreasonable to belief things, but when false beliefs start determining our actions and the actions are unreasonable, then there is a problem

Thing is, just because someone believes something about themselves, if it’s not verified, then they can’t demand everyone else believes it. Not believing a man is a woman is not bigoted, it’s just a fact!

This.

I can PROVE that men are not women. Therefore it's not an unreasonable belief. Because it's not a belief. It's a provable fact. It's just that legally it falls under the protection of being a belief - but it's based on the point that it's a demonstrable fact based on science. Thus all scientific work which demonstrates something is protected because democracy society values scientific work and it should not be sidelined and/or prohibited by religious zealots because otherwise this destroys the foundations of democracy.

We don't reject genderism because it's too complex for our little brains, we reject it because it's homophobic, misogynistic, batshit crazy and has no basis in reality.

Asexual reminds me of a nightmare I once had where I cut off my little toe and it grew into a new me who tried to take over my life😱. In my defence I had a broken little toe at the time and I had gone to bed saying I couldn’t think straight because the pain was taking over so had zonked out on strong pain killers.
I had also been trying to grow roses from cuttings so it kind of makes sense.

Apologies, no offence intended, I could have explained better, although I tried, I'll try better. it's in the words 'on purpose' and persistently.

It is not that having a difference in opinion or belief which makes whether something is bigotry, or phobia. Indeed you cannot just go around and shouting 'bigot' to everyone who sees things differently, that would be .... 'bigotry' ....

However, imagine a transgender colleague at work, and on purpose, misgendering that person, that would be rude, and persistently doing so would be bigoted, because it is 'reasonable' to do not see a transgender in a certain way, but it is 'unreasonable' to behave like that, because of ones belief.

When interacting with people, different origins, different belief, different preferences, you name it, the world is a large place. Why not be polite ?