DiscussionWhy do LGB Alliance and LGN keep giving a platform to Julie Bindel, when she repeatedly makes homophobic and biphobic claims?

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HelloMomo 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I don't much like or agree with her, but I am basically in favor of heterodoxy. We still don't really have much in terms of conclusive scientific evidence of how sexual orientation forms. If she has a controversial take on that, ok then.

Mostly, I'm just quite against the forming of a new orthodoxy which everyone must adhere to or be deplatformed.

It seems like she's what we'd call a febfem, who's found a lot of happiness in that choice. And I dunno, creating new words and them trying to enforce those words on people from older generations who didn't use those words/concepts is just too much of a TRA-style move for me to really feel comfortable with it.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't much like or agree with her, but I am basically in favor of heterodoxy.

I'm all for open debate and dialogue on a subject that we haven't found the final answers to. However, the key word here is dialogue. She completely ignores the science on the other side, and simultaneously parrots stereotypes about the demographics she claims to represent. "Lesbian relationships are all beautiful and perfect!" is some benevolent sexism BS, and she is still sitting there shitting on bisexual people. I do appreciate you looking out for supporting a diversity of views... but I guess I find this frustrating because she's not homosexual, yet claims to speak for homosexual women, taking up space that an actual homosexual woman might have used to describe our issues. And in doing so she choose to reinforce a bunch of stereotypes about same sex attracted people. AND, she has every incentive to use us as a convenient minority group to forward her political goals, literally calling her aim that of "political lesbianism". She doesn't seem like she's acting in good faith. And so I wonder, why should we put up with this when we don't put up with it from TRAs...? /rant lol, just my thoughts.

And I dunno, creating new words and them trying to enforce those words on people from older generations who didn't use those words/concepts is just too much of a TRA-style move for me to really feel comfortable with it.

Are the definitions "homosexual = exclusively same sex attracted" and "bisexual = attracted to both sexes" really new, though? I agree that although she might be febfem-- might, she also just might be a politically-motivated straight woman!-- it's not like we have to force her to call herself that.

edit: lol

[–]strictly 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I agree that although she might be febfem-- might, she also just might be a politically-motivated straight woman!

I think it’s unlikely that she would be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. She doesn’t seem to understand that straight women are straight, i.e she thinks it would be easy for a straight woman to just choose to be attracted to women, that doesn’t seem like someone who knows what it’s like to be exclusively attracted to males. She is also in a relationship with a woman and has mentioned having girlfriends as a teenager. I think a woman who is exclusively attracted to men but doesn’t want to be with one due to political motives would rather stay single as there is no homonormative pressuring straight women to be in lesbian relationships so I think it would be quite rare that a straight woman would choose to torture herself like that decade after decade.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think a woman who is exclusively attracted to men but doesn’t want to be with one due to political motives would rather stay single as there is no homonormative pressuring straight women to be in lesbian relationships so I think it would be quite rare that a straight woman would choose to torture herself like that decade after decade.

I think that many straight "political lesbians" might act in this way, as you described, but someone who is leading an ideology and who claims that "lesbian relationships are the best!" might well get into relationships with women in order to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, for the sake of the ideology rather than for the sake of reality (the reality of her sexual orientation). Humans who fervently believe in an ideology have done far stranger things.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think that many straight "political lesbians" might act in this way

I think straight political lesbians are usually women who choose to be celibate and think the word lesbian should refer to being a feminist instead of homosexual woman.

Humans who fervently believe in an ideology have done far stranger things.

I think the more painful something is the less likely a person would be willing to do it especially long-term and without outside pressure. I think there exist more bisexual women in the world than straight women who are willing to suffer in same-sex relationships. Also, the reason I think Julia Bindel is a political lesbian and can be attracted to men is because Julia Bindel says she is a political lesbian and can be attracted to men. She also says sex with women is hot in the article where she criticize bisexual women for not going febfem, and she has talked about having been bullied as a teenager for having an obvious crush on a female friend. I think it would be selective of me to only trust the part where she says she is a political lesbian but not the part of being attracted to women, especially as there is no contradiction between being attracted to women and refraining to be with men for political reasons, febfems exist, and her actions make more sense in my opinion if we take her word for it.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think there exist more bisexual women in the world than straight women who are willing to suffer in same-sex relationships.

I am not convinced one way or another; they are both small groups but I think there are more straight women like that than you might think. It's a little tangential but I actually just posted about an example of a straight woman who was in a same-sex relationship due to gender identity ideology confusing her (the "some people claim that straight women never do this" comment was not in reference to you, to be clear!).

But, I would be curious to see actual numbers on these groups. This is all speculation though, I think it'd be hard to obtain those numbers.

She also says sex with women is hot in the article where she criticize bisexual women for not going febfem

Yeah, but she could just be lying, since she lies about the nature of sexual orientation. Generally, I think it's really important to believe people when they tell you something about their sexual orientation, but we're talking about somebody who is trying to hide/erase homosexuality and who believes that sexual orientation is a choice-- when it is not.

edit: Forgot to respond:

especially as there is no contradiction between being attracted to women and refraining to be with men for political reasons, febfems exist, and her actions make more sense in my opinion if we take her word for it.

That's true, she still could be febfem. But we still would not be "taking her word for it" because she claims she is lesbian, lol, not bisexual. This person has proved time and time again over a period of years that she is fine with spreading misinformation, regarding claims that have been debunked, so I think it's reasonable to question some of her other claims that are less easily debunk-able, as well.

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would be curious to see actual numbers on these groups

Between 7-10% of women say they are mostly heterosexual so the total number of bisexual women isn’t super tiny in my opinion if we count the whole range of bisexual women, and a mostly heterosexual bisexual woman would still be able to get something out of a same-sex relationship. We might have different preconceptions of how many strictly straight women there are who would be willing to be in same-sex relationships though, which is fair.

Yeah, but she could just be lying, since she lies about the nature of sexual orientation.

I think there is difference between intentionally saying something you know is false and being wrong (due to biases or not). I think Julie Bindel is wrong about the nature of sexual orientation, and if she is bisexual it would make sense that she is wrong if she is generalizing from one example (herself) and thinks everyone is capable to be attracted to both sexes because she is. In her arguments that is what her assumption seems to be, that everyone is bi but can choose to be behaviorally homosexual.

she claims she is lesbian, lol, not bisexual.

She uses lesbian as synonym to political lesbian, someone who is attracted to women and can be attracted to men but chooses to be behaviorally homosexual (as she has criticized women who have same-sex relationships just to make a point it seems like she thinks attraction to women is important too), that is what we call febfem. That is not the same thing as claiming to be a female person who only has the capacity to be attracted to the same sex, she specifically claims that isn't the case for her. So translated to our words she is claiming to be female exclusive bisexual and not a lesbian but she wants lesbian to be the word for febfem (as she doesn't think homosexuality exists).

[–]HelloMomo 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I know it's jsut a typo, and I'm only teasing here, but yes, the definition of "bisexual = attracted to opposite sexes" is indeed new to me XD

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whoops, thank you lol. Will fix!

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bindel's claims are not scientific ones. They're n=1 anecdotes of herself. That's fine, I'll engage with that.

"It can’t be that there is a difference in our brains, because it would have been discovered by now…"

A heightened desire for scientific knowledge does not produce it more quickly. Lack of scientific output does not predicate an answer. I appreciate Bindel's faith in those of us that practice the discipline, but we're not magicians. We still don't know what causes Alzheimer's disease, and believe me, plenty of smart people are working on it. Following Bindel's logic, clearly, Alzheimer's ...can't be that there is a difference in our brains...