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 -  (3 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 -  (2 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

[–]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!