Cambridge Union debate - This House Believes modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community

[ItsCoolForCats]

I'm starting this thread mainly so I can post this link because Maeve Halligan is a force to be reckoned with:

https://x.com/i/status/2055119527914938412

They lost the debate, which was to be expected given the state of universities on this issue, but Thea Sewell said they got a respectable number of votes. Hopefully they have planted some seeds in people's minds.

Other speakers were Buck Angel and Helen Webberley (for the other side).

Full debate is here https://www.youtube.com/live/wE0JY9d7f-w?si=4ZIVmcxyevo0DQvB

Yes…
This “gender” malarkey is massively overused.
What does it mean?
Can’t we just use the word sex.
Genitalia/ biology/ hormones are immutable. Sex is immutable whether heterosexual or homosexual.
The whole “gender” theory stuff if just a way of manipulating language so women no longer have safe spaces or protected rights.

When you think about the comparison of Hulk Hogan with a vagina V Megan Fox with a penis it becomes obvious to me its sex traits rather than sex where attraction lies. And this bears out in research about attraction where particular features are sought like broad shoulders & height in males & wider hips in females.

In the same way that Zack Polanski’s hijacked the Green party ( he’s not interested in the Green agenda) the trans movement has tried to hijack women’s rights- use the language of gender equality etc . When really it’s an undercover operation to undermine women.

I mean, it does though.

You taking the word "lesbian" and saying you want to use it to mean someting else doesn't undo the reality of what it used it mean. It just means you don't use the word to mean the same thing.

It's like if I decide the word "dog" also covers a few fish it's 100% true to say some dogs can breathe underwater. However, any creature to which the word dog previously applied is still going to drown if you throw it in the sea. The dogs and the fish are still totally separate groups with all the differences they always had. They don't suddenly become more the same just because you just threw a new name over the top.

So your statement only applies to the subset of "lesbians" you have added into the group when you changed what the word means. It doesn't change anything about the people in the original group. So honestly, it's kind of meaningless.

You've pulled one name over two groups but you've not really created one inclusive group at all. It is still just two subgroups with very different profiles that literally can't in be combined because the defining criteria are mutually exclusive.

Gender is a set of variable socially-constructed stereotypes, varying over time, class and culture.

Biological sex is something factual and verifiable: a person is either a man or a woman - it's not complicated, it's not a spectrum, it's not a matter of opinion.

Being attracted to people of your own biological sex is something that applies to all lesbian and gay people. It's what makes us lesbian and gay.

If lesbians were attracted to people because of their gender, not their biological sex, that would make them something other than lesbian.
It would be like being attracted to a certain 'type' of person, but a type of person who could be of either sex.

Which is fine - but it's not being a lesbian.

Lots have words have unrelated sub groups like 'water'.

LOL all you are doing here is telling us where your attraction lies!

🤣🤣

Err, I'm actually telling you where your actual attraction lies & tip: it isn't your gametes or chromosomes.

👍🏼👍🏼

Indeed. And just as seawater and tapwater are not interchangeable when it comes to drinking, lesbians in the original sense and the extra "lesbians" you added under the name are not interchangeable when it comes to sex.ual attraction.

It’s likely to be their chromosomes though - as a straight woman I can appreciate women as attractive objectively but I don’t personally find them attractive even if they tell me they’re men

They are when it comes to sex traits attraction.

Sez you. But you iz wrong. Because you makez it up.

What is “sex traits attraction”?

It's Ez saying they'd rather sleep with Hulk Hogan with a fanny than Megan Fox with a willy, or something.

Being attracted to traits/characteristics usually associated which one sex. Hence the Megan Fox V Hulk Hogan analogy.

There’s an old ( misogynistic) joke about a man who goes to bed with an apparently young beautiful woman. And then she takes off her wig, teeth, make up, corsets etc …
So people can be “tricked” … up to a point. But once in the bedroom… things become clearer.

Hulk Hogan is dead, Megan has that being alive thing going for her at least!

I dunno, technology is pretty advanced these days. That's why men are in such a 'panic' about trans women.

lol, are they really?

So who would find Hulk Hogan with a vagina attractive ?And who would be looking for a Megan Foxx with a penis?
Id say that’s a niche market.

The problem with your analogy / projection is that I have literally no idea which of the two you think I'm supposed to fancy! In fact I don't even know myself!

I don't really fancy either of them when they have the rights bits so swapping them around didn't really iluminate anything for me, except in the sense it told me a bit about how you think about sexual attraction.

Sure. Their 'hysteria' on such matters is probably born mainly of two fears:

A. Women & men are interchangeable…which threatens their hierarchical dominance
B. They won't be able to 'tell the difference'….which threatens their reproductive capacity.