[UK] Council accused of indoctrination for proposed "Progress Flag" decorations at London Pride

PenseePansy

Yep, it's an eyesore... and such a pointless one. The rainbow is all that's needed! It stands for everyone who's same-sex-attracted. And we're the ONLY people who should be represented by that flag. Straight people need not fuckin' apply! So get your gross chevron the hell away from us!

PenseePansy

I can only assume that they must have a LOT of time on their hands. And I guess that, when you're committed to something like this, it takes a vast amount of time and energy to keep the realization that it IS utter nonsense at bay. Maybe that's what living with a delusion is like? Being in frantic denial 24/7? Sounds like hell! Could that explain why they're so intent on infecting everyone else with this crap? Misery loves company?

PenseePansy

I can't help thinking that it's as though these people have never experienced sexual attraction themselves. They really don't seem to have a clue about how it actually works.

PenseePansy

Yeah, I don't get why this doesn't go without saying. That "blocking puberty" = locking these kids into permanent prepubescence, i.e., early childhood. Developmental disability by design. How many people (particularly parents) think that THAT sounds like a good idea?

And even beyond the damage that it does to their reproductive systems, there's my main worry: what's it doing to their brains?

PenseePansy

Even aside from the lamentable online penchant for intolerance and groupthink, I suspect that this might have something to do with how just plain cluelessness about bisexuality is the default: specifically, the assumption that it requires being "50/50", and making no distinction between the sexes. Like, your attraction to them "should" be interchangeable. So when you express that you in fact see them as pretty damn different? HOW VERY DARE YOU. Bad bisexual! You're not following The Rules! Etc. Which is of course idiotic, especially since (from what I can tell) perceiving men and women in a decidedly apples-and-oranges way may well be the norm for us.

Another potential (and related) factor: that bisexuality is often misinterpreted as meaning "sexually indiscriminate", so you must be obligated to lust after the proverbial Anything That Moves. Which makes having any sexual preferences-- or, god forbid, aversions-- unthinkable. Equally moronic, but since biphobia tends to be more the rule than the exception, hardly surprising, unfortunately :(

PenseePansy

My apologies for taking so damn long to respond to this, 'Flutter. (I wanted to at the time you originally posted it, but my offline life has been in high gear lately.)

While it certainly isn't the case that I've opted out of relationships, I would like to say this: please don't get hung up on the sense that you need to have a "this-is-The-One" feeling in order to have a relationship. Sure, that's a common way to experience it, but it's not the only way. And it may not be YOUR way. The important thing is, do you want this person in your life? Beyond the level of friendship/acquaintance? For the foreseeable future? That's what matters, not whether it fits some conventional notion of how such a person should make you feel.

Maybe it's simply that you have the sense, counter to the standard construct of love (but not many real-life experiences of it), that there ISN'T just one person for each of us; rather, there are a range of individuals with whom we could have that LTR bond. They don't have to be "the only one in the WORLD!!!", you know? They just have to be the one you choose... and who chooses you :)

PenseePansy

ikr? What are we, three-year-olds? Who else would believe something so, well, childish?

I guess that the MILLIONS of girls/women who wear jeans are male now? Da fuq?

At least until they put a nightgown on, anyway! Then it's HEY! PRESTO! INSTANT SEX CHANGE 🙄

Good thing for these jerks that Kurt is dead, otherwise he'd verbally slap 'em so hard their moms would feel it.

PenseePansy

Further proof that nobody, including TRAs themselves, really believes this gender-woo crap.

I mean, the BBC is all "TWAW!1!", right? And yet, their headline for this story is: "Nepal Registers First Same-Sex Marriage"!

Um... what? Wouldn't that mean that this is two men getting married? How the hell could it be "same-SEX" otherwise?

So, yeah, BBC (and all you other thugs enforcing the Transquisition): quit with the sorry-ass propaganda. Because it doesn't convince even YOU. The truth always ends up leaking out. Revealing you for the hypocrites (and liars) that you are.

But it HAD to be "same-sex" marriage in order to be a story at ALL, didn't it? Because if it was a same-GENDER marriage... it would have been legal already. As it ALWAYS HAS BEEN SINCE FUCKIN' TIME BEGAN. Yeah, because THAT'S what your oh-so-precious "gender" means, TRAs: N O T H I N G.

PenseePansy

Welcome back! I wish I'd said that earlier... but I've been going through a lot, too, and am still struggling to get back to the modest level of semi-functionality that I had before. It's not because I didn't miss you! Or that I'm not glad to see you again! <3

PenseePansy

Have you noticed how often it comes down to this? Whether you'd date a trans person? Does that sound like the #1 concern of a genuinely oppressed/persecuted group? If they were really facing what they claim to be, it wouldn't even make the top 20.

PenseePansy

Who, somehow, can't see themselves as women and still acknowledge their attraction to men. Isn't that what's going on here? Because it sure looks that way to me.

I suspect that, while the reasons for this vary-- fetishizing gay men, yes, but also things like sexual trauma and what TV Tropes has dubbed Het Is Ew-- there's one overarching theme: what we might call gynophobia. Both trying to escape it... and having internalized it so deeply that this means disowning the femaleness of one's body altogether :(

PenseePansy

Or a dinosaur astronaut!

PenseePansy

Fair enough. And I don't suppose we ever necessarily will know, at least if we have to depend on the likes of The Advocate (still can't believe that this is the world we're living in, where I'd ever be typing those words...), should the facts that eventually emerge be deemed to make trans look bad.

Julien, do sometimes find yourself feeling as though you're living in some dystopian novel, too? :(

PenseePansy

I think it's because girls and women often (perhaps even usually) go the trans route in an attempt to escape misogyny: they think that not "identifying" as female means that they won't be treated-- and, especially, mistreated-- as female. So they're less likely to exercise the sort of caution that women normally do where male strangers are concerned. Sure, a man could have suffered the same fate in this situation... but for a woman? The risk is much greater. Yet transgenderism assures them otherwise. Because they're MEN now! That's exactly the kind of pernicious lie that gender-woo specializes in. And ruins lives with. Whether by destroying people's hard-won rights, their bodies, their sexuality, their connection to who they really are... or even getting them killed. It's just a variation on an all-too-familiar theme. That this denial of reality comes at a high price.

PenseePansy

As J.B. Priestley observed, "'Be yourself' is about the worst advice you can give to some people."

PenseePansy

dare you to know how it feels to be between two worlds

Oh yeah... we bisexuals wouldn't know a thing about THAT...

Not, of course, that you'd ever spare a moment's thought for US... or anyone besides your relentlessly navel-gazing, crap-poetry-spouting self...

PenseePansy

They rarely, if ever, date each other based on GENDER, though-- that's the point. Sure, t4t is not unheard-of... as long as that t is of the SEX that they're attracted to. Which is precisely what they deem intolerable (and deserving of death-and-rape threats/violence/cancellation) when anybody ELSE does it.

Meaning that THEY don't believe in this "sexuality is about GENDER not SEX!1!" crap either. So why the hell should we?

PenseePansy

This is what I always think. Notice that the kweers/'spicy straights'/hijackers of gay identity only emerged very recently... after LGB people had done the all the hard work of making it comparatively safe to be gay in the western world. Where were they all those years, when being gay in, say, the U.S., could well mean being locked up in a mental hospital, and/or jail? Were they calling themselves gay-- 'transbians', 'gay transmen'-- then? HELL NO. Because it couldn't be treated as a game back then.

And that's all that being gay is to them... a game. With gay people as mere pieces on a gameboard... for them to play with :(

PenseePansy

To paraphrase Syndrome in The Incredibles: "And when everyone is ~~super~~ special... no one will be."

PenseePansy

Yeah... this reminds me of how, in French, "vous" is both the plural and "formal singular" form of "you".

But of course such usage makes zero sense in English...

PenseePansy

I am now every gay man's ~~dream~~ nightmare

FIFY!

PenseePansy

I think we'd all agree that being torn limb from limb and devoured sounds preferable.

PenseePansy

Dear god... this is less withering sarcasm than simple statement of fact, isn't it? THAT'S what we've come to :(

PenseePansy

Yeah, I see your point-- this is something that I've been concerned about myself, actually, in a more overarching way: that our emphasis on biology could be misinterpreted and misused to mean women = baby machines and LGB = unnatural. Because the real physical differences between men and women have all too often been exploited for that purpose.

So that's a much more all-encompassing issue to be addressed. To restrict myself to the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments that you've predicted, here are some of my responses:

Yes, this is why a gay man, for example, cannot marry a woman (she won't ever turn into, or be a substitute for, a man), and therefore why same-sex marriage is a necessity.
Marriage being a human creation, it is what we say it is. In many U.S. states, marriage was once defined as being between a man and woman of the same race. Then the definition was changed to allow mixed-race marriage. This did not somehow invalidate marriage as an institution. Even the fundamental redefinition of marriage as being about the relationship between the people entering into it (as opposed to their familial/social obligations)-- the emotional bond they share-- became so seamless a part of what we mean by "marriage" that few today would believe it had ever been any different.
The existence of same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone else's rights: opposite-sex couples are just as free to marry as they ever were.
This is an invalid comparison, as transgenderism and sexual orientation (such as homosexuality and bisexuality) not only have nothing to do with each other, but are in fact antithetical. So concerns about indoctrinating children with genderist ideology should not be applied to matters based on same-sex attraction.
Same-sex marriage does not force speech or a credence, any more than the opposite-sex marriages of which one disapproves (for religious or other reasons) do. Just because a marriage takes place doesn't mean that you have to like it, or believe in it. You're free to do neither. Just the same as always.

PenseePansy

the arguments we make against gender theory can also be applied to marriage

This isn't evident to me. Can you please explain?

PenseePansy