This would be good and also very funny, but it won’t happen. In any case, all the Truss appointees from 2020/21 need gone. Truss put them there to undermine the EHRC’s purpose and to turn it into what is effectively an anti-trans lobby group.
If you’re out of the loop: the reason why it would be very funny is because Hunt is one of those “gender-critical” bogeymen. Stonewall was this really timid and obsequious organisation before she took over (this is why cishet people preferred it in the 2000s).
They didn’t even campaign for gay marriage until 2010, IIRC. Not long before the bloody Tories said they were in favour of it. That kind of toothlessness is why nominally “pro-LGB” transphobes think it was better back then. They want more gays like Ben Summerskill who know their place, so to speak.
Good a time as any btw to remind you all that “gender-critical” ideology is in fact inherently homophobic: it seeks to define men and women on the basis of a normative, pseudo-scientific “role” in heterosexual reproduction. And they seek to enshrine that in law.
This is why there’s a shared political interest between LGB and T people btw: the notion that there exists proper “roles” for people wrt sex is a gender norm. We’re both oppressed by these cishet norms.
Idk how even pro-trans people sometimes miss this and see the LGBT+ alliance as good but also, idk, some kind of leftover from a time when “gay” and “trans” weren’t as markedly distinguished as they are today. No. It’s because we all find ourselves confronted with (cis, hetero) gender ideology.
So just jot that down for the next time some dope asks you why LGB and T are grouped together when the first three describe sexuality and the last one doesn’t. Yes, being trans isn’t a sexuality, but to object to “LGBT+” on that basis completely missed the point.
I wonder how much age is an issue, because I remember petty clearly when being gay was framed as not being a "real" man/woman, or being a "failed" man/woman. Heterosexuality was an integral component of gender roles. Have people really forgotten that? Or do they just want others to forget it?
I have, for a long time, been trying to popularise the realisation that “biological sex” is culturally determined. You can plot a graph of, for example, breast size by adult population and there will be two “heaps” in that graph. They will broadly correspond to “men” and “women”, cont …
But you can plot that same graph for a whole load of different things and get the same distribution, more or less: oestrogen levels, hair length, length of urethra, height, gamete size.
Some of these things we call “biological sex”. Some we do not. Cont …
The point is that while these dual-clustered distributions are very real, where most people in one cluster will be “men” and most in the other “women”, some we decide are representing “biological sex” and some we do not.
The choice is made by social consensus, and is only really peripherally …
… informed by science.
It’s very nearly arbitrary, in fact.
A lot of transphobia is justified by pointing to certain outliers who misalign on some of these distributions, but not all, and saying “you are in this bit of the data, therefore your trying to behave like the other is aberrant” cont
Now, the point of all that is it’s really really easy if you accept that thinking, to look at the particular distribution that is “to whom are you sexually attracted”, and determine that same sex attraction is absolutely one of those aberrant behaviours too.
In conclusion …
