LGBT News "Lesbian" feminist claims to have chosen her sexuality

I can't stand the concept of political lesbians. Most of them only do it because they hate men and believe "becoming a lesbian" is a honorary way to spite men and free women from the patriarchy.

But in all honesty? It's bull. Not all lesbians hate men, and of course straight/bi women -can-. It has nothing to do with sexuality, and it forces us into a harmful stereotype. Especially when political lesbians continue to date men anyway and said men find out about their reasoning to identify that way- they use it to believe that real lesbians can be 'turned' with a nice guy since 'we've all had bad experiences with them' (false).

 

The title seems that she's just another person who claims to have "changed" and what not.

The title is just... really misleading. She's spot on with many of what she's said. For those who haven't already, I highly suggest you watch the video. She didn't talk about how people choose their sexualities or how nobody is born gay. She actually mixed the subject on how it doesn't matter if it's a choice and she acknowledged the scientific findings on how people are born gay.

One of the things I most agree with that she said is that we can't always use the excuse that "we can't change our sexuality" to fight for equality. Like she said, racism still exists even though we know you don't choose your skin color. Homophobia will still exist even if people know you can't choose your sexual orientation.

The title seems more like an attention grabber rather than the message of the video. No, I don't see anything that suggests she wants other people to reject their sexuality. Her message was probably one of the most pro-LGBT speeches I've seen yet.

 

Saying that she chose to be lesbian feeds into the political and religious right. They also believe that being gay is a choice.

 

That person is so full of crap. I read the Guardian every week, and am ashamed that I am indirectly supporting this person.

 

I think towards the end what she says becomes apparent: her claim seems to be that basically living a gay life is a choice, not sexual attraction as such- this is where the 'bravery' thing comes into play- you have to be brave to live your life authentically.

I guess the danger in her argument is that it denies a gay identity to people who happen to be closeted & living with a straight partner.

I am not so sure about what I think of her general argument, but I do broadly agree with her attitude which views being gay as a good thing, and gay relationships as superior.
I see it as affirming- on the other hand also not particularly well expressed.

 

I was ready to burn this woman at the stake until I watched the video. I thought that she was one of those women that Fallingdown7 mentioned, which do so much damage to lesbians.

Instead, this is a woman who talks about having sexual and romantic attraction toward other girls at a young age, feeling pressured to feel attracted to boys instead, and after becoming a feminist she felt liberated to explore her attraction toward other women and identify as a lesbian. There is nothing controversial about that experience.

People are misunderstanding her message, which is one that I've made in the past and that I agree with wholeheartedly. She is making the argument that we don't know what causes sexual orientation, and that it doesn't matter. That even if it were a choice it wouldn't be a wrong choice. She is pointing out that people in our community mistakenly believe that if we can find a genetic link that it will be a cure to bigotry, and she rightfully points to black people and women as examples of that being a false assumption. After all, being black and a woman is obviously genetic, but it doesn't stop sexism and racism.

She talks about self-identifying as a lesbian as a positive choice. The word positive in that sentence is very important. She means this not in the sense that positive is good and negative is bad, but rather in the positive liberty vs negative liberty sense. It's the difference between EMBRACING your sexuality, declaring yourself gay, and being proud of it (positive). -VS- Being FORCED to accept your sexuality because you can't change it (negative).

In one instance it is about self-affirmation, it is something you choose for yourself in spite of what society tells you. It is empowering. In the other instance it is dis-empowering, you didn't have a choice, it was something forced upon you by chance and circumstance, and it is just you getting dealt a bad hand in life--like a genetic disease.

She is right to make this argument, because if homosexuality is ever conclusively proven to be genetic, there will be scores of people trying to declare it a disease. You will suddenly find tests that could be performed on fetuses in the womb, and you will suddenly begin to find all those pro-life folks more than willing to abort their gay babies to "save them from an unnecessary struggle in life against their inborn sin." There will be scores of others looking for a medical "cure" to homosexuality.

If, on the other hand, you view CHOOSING to identify as LGBT as self-affirming, self-empowering, a fundamental part of your identity and who you are as a person then it does not matter whether or not it is genetic. It is obviously within our power to live a lie, to pretend to be straight, but all of us who come out of the closet are choosing to do so in spite of the consequences that we might face. This is an act of bravery, an act of courage, and it is something that should be applauded by society.

It comes down to how we want homosexuality and bisexuality to be viewed in the future. Do we want to be seen as individuals who have an unfortunate genetic disease, or do we want people to view our sexuality as a fundamental part of who we are as individuals--something that we would willingly choose without shame or regret if we had the choice.

 

You have a point Aldrick. I recently saw someone claim that homosexuality and cancer are both genetic defects that nobody would willingly choose, and the former should be treated like the latter. I don't often find things offensive on the internet, but that was hard to read.

I hope we never get to the point where homosexuality is proven beyond all doubt to be genetic. They will simply switch from the 'it's a choice' argument to 'it's an illness that needs to be cured' argument.

 

You know, even if sexuality is purely a social construct (which I don't have an opinion on what causes it just to clarify), I don't think it even matters. Socially influenced preferences aren't choices either. And social constructs aren't bad- if they were we'd have to ban all preferences like books, movies, TV, monogamy, computers, clothing, and even things like kindness and empathy since a lot of humans are natural born killers without society to tame us.

Regardless of how sexuality is formed, the only argument in my opinion is that it needs to be left alone. Either way won't convince people. If I was born to like women, then homophobe scientists will try to prescribe me medicine. If I was socialized to like women, then homophobes (and also the majority of the gay community as well) will force me to "open my mind/try some experiences". Either way It's garbage. Sexuality can be fluid, but so is -EVERYTHING ELSE-. Religion and food tastes are fluid concepts but I would never say a present day-Christian HAS to become an atheist right now or someone who hates the taste of pizza HAS to love pizza right this minute. If it changes you shouldn't be ashamed of it, but you shouldn't have to change it either. That's what the real argument should be.

 

I've been saying similar things to the above about the nature versus nurture debate for some time. However, I still believe politicized sexual orientation as harmful. In all of political philosophy, nobody on the left is more abusive than a lesbian feminist.

 

Exactly. We are already seeing the transition among the Christian right. More and more of them are moving away from the "pray the gay away" toward the "we all have our crosses to bare and homosexuality is yours--so you must choose to be celibate" argument.

When we argue that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is genetic, it is a weak and vulnerable argument. It's the equivalent of apologizing to straight people and saying, "I'm sorry! I wouldn't have chosen this if I had a choice!" This invites them to imagine a world where they can "cure" us in the same way they'd try and cure cancer.

If, on the other hand, we stand there and argue: "I'm proud of being gay, and even if you came up with a way to make me straight, I wouldn't choose it, because being gay is a fundamental part of who I am as a person." This is a much stronger argument--it forces them to fight us on moral grounds, and it forces them to identify what specifically makes being gay wrong. I may not have chosen my sexual orientation, but I certainly choose to embrace it and I proudly choose to identify as a gay man. It is part of who I am as a person.

I don't want straight people's pity, and I sure as hell don't want a "cure." The only thing that needs curing in our society is bigotry, because being gay is a normal, healthy, and good thing. It is something that people should feel pride in, and feel comfortable openly choosing to embrace.

This is her argument.

=================

[YOUTUBE]4Es9sUFUDj8[/YOUTUBE]

Notice how she compares being gay as being bi-polar? We are already moving in that direction. Here are gay men talking about their own experiences with "celibacy."

[YOUTUBE]D-do16NFy3s[/YOUTUBE]

He seems happy with his choice, but we know how it will end. The guy below has seen it happen many times before.

[YOUTUBE]xulo258Ne54[/YOUTUBE]

---------- Post added 25th Apr 2015 at 01:03 PM ----------

Yes, I agree. When I first read the thread, before watching the video, I was ready to massacre her--we've both seen these types before. Straight women who appropriate lesbian identities due to their hatred of men, who harm the feminist movement, harm lesbians (for all the reasons Fallingdown7 mentioned), are anti-trans*, anti-male, etc. Hell, they are even harmful to women across the board, due to their rigid views on what is and is not acceptable for a woman--they are basically the new face of patriarchy but with a vagina instead of a penis.

Instead, I get a middle aged well spoken British woman making a well reasoned argument. Now what will I do with all the pitchforks and torches I gathered up? What about all this tar and all these feathers I purchased?

 

Yes, we cannot run away from the fact that sexual orientation is innate--that's just a fact. People don't choose their sexual orientation. However, how we frame the issue is hugely important, and I like the word you use there "supplementary."

The crux of the argument should be that even if it were a choice, it would not be a bad or wrong choice. We want society's view of sexuality to expand beyond just heterosexuals as being "normal and natural" and "those poor unfortunate souls who struggle with Same Sex Attraction (or SSA as many of them call it now)."

It is very much true that if someone came to me with a red pill vs blue pill offer--take one of the pills to turn straight and the other to remain gay--I would take the pill to remain gay without regret. So, while I personally did not choose my sexual orientation in the beginning, were I given the choice today I would choose to continue to remain gay. Why? Because it is part of who I am, and I don't see anything wrong with it. I have a deep love for myself as a human being, and that includes a deep love for everything that makes me gay. I would not be who I am today without my experiences as a gay man--both the positive experiences AND the negative experiences.

I will concede that her delivery was not perfect, and the opening was obviously intended to be click bait. However, her message was quite clear, she discussed having an attraction to girls at a young age, feeling the pressure to like boys, joining the feminist movement and then beginning to self-identify as a lesbian as a result of those experiences that she found liberating.

This is a journey that is similar to most of the ones we traveled to varying degrees. We realize our attractions at a rather early age, encounter people who tell us it's okay, and then we start to gain confidence which allows us to embrace our true selves. The only thing that is unclear in the video is whether or not her sexual orientation is bi-sexual or lesbian, but that doesn't matter because she exclusively dates women and lesbian is the label she has chosen.

It would be quite different if she had said that she was only romantically and sexually attracted to men, but had CHOSEN to be a lesbian because of her dislike for men and that other women should choose the same. That is what I had assumed I was about to see when I first read your post.

Okay, I think I recall those statements now. I didn't link them with her, but I remember them now that you mention it. Ugh. Well in that case she is just a disgusting second wave feminist. However, that doesn't undercut the points she is making in this video or the points that I am making.

I wasn't planning to link "trans*" to anything. The asterix is there to include all forms of non-binary and cross-binary gender and sex identity. In other words when I write trans* I am including people who identify as gender queer, agender, bi-gender, as well as those who identify as MtF and FtM. It's an umbrella designation.

Some feminists, particularly second wave feminists, are stuck in the gender binary view of the world. They are not our friends, they are our enemies, just as the religious right is our enemy.

Alright, after reading the article I disagree with roughly 85%-90% of it. It is fairly clear that Bindel is a "real" lesbian rather than someone who "chose" to be a lesbian for political reasons. However, she also appears to be sympathetic to that point of view. I find that disgusting, NOT because lesbianism is equated with political activism. Every time a gay man or woman comes out of the closet it is an act of social and political activism--willingly or unwillingly--because our existence and our lives are politicized by our enemies. The problem is that she is sympathetic toward a group of women who are appropriating the identity of lesbians and their struggle for their own (heterosexual) political agenda. That is what is offensive and disgusting.

 

So she's not really a lesbian she just plays one in real life
it's fun to pretend
i wasn't born heterosexual but i play one in real life sometimes too but that's just for safety to avoid harassment and rape but whatever .

The whole sexuality is a choice first only works in the favor of people who are attracted to more than one gender but for those of us who are only attracted to one it's very harmful .
I can't make myself like men and i have tried to like men to the point where i actually got raped because of it .
If you're a attracted to more than one gender and you choose to call yourself whatever name i think that's a lot different than my situation or choosing you're sexuality . You just choose to call yourself a name the same way i can choose to call myself straight to avoid lesbophoia or homophobia .
labeling you're self as something and sexual orientation are not the same thing .
It's like me going to high school reunion telling people I'm a doctor instead of telling people I work at a supermarket .
Doesn't mean I choose to be a doctor I just call myself one .

 

Her points that we should be proud of our sexuality I completely agree with, but the notion that I would choose to be gay is simply incorrect. I didn't choose my sexuality, and to my knowledge neither did 99.9% of the LGB community. I am gay. Given the choice, I would still choose to be gay, but the only reason I would choose to be gay, now given the choice, is because I am gay now; being gay makes me who I am, so no I would not change, but I'm not going to lie, being straight would be a whole lot easier, so if I was given the choice before I realised, of course I would have chosen straight. But I am gay now, so I would choose to remain gay. She's trying to help. But she really isn't. Instead she's made me incredibly angry, despite there being a great logic in what she says. Unfortunately she gets the fundamentals wrong; sexuality is not a choice.

 

I do not agree with this. You can't just "choose" a sexuality to make a political statement

 

:eusa_clap
I agree and i get what she's trying to say as well but this is more helpful to the far rights and homophobes than it is progressive . let's not also forget that lesbians get harmed for not being attracted to men and harassed .
And people saying Bs crap like this is a reason I stay in the closet because they make it unsafe for me it's not helping .
Also i believe i was born a lesbian and like thesolemngay is born gay , i would choose it again and again if I had the choice but i don't .
I'm not telling heteros to feel sorry for me , and i don't want them feeling sorry for me .
i'm saying just like how heteros are born straight I'm born a lesbian and they should mind their fuckin business stop telling me how to live and leave me alone .
And the whole we choose it garbage and yes I'm calling it garbage feeds into the saying that everyone is born straight until they turned gay which many homophobic people believe . By saying this you're doing the homophobes work .
And I must ask how many of you guys choose to be bisexual , pansexual asexual ?
If you did explain how that happen and on what day did you get up and said I'm gonna be bi or pans or asexual today ? Since i hear gays and lesbian choose it all the time does that apply to the rest of the group as well . Can i choose to be a bisexual or pansexual too and does that now make me bi or pans or asexual ?
I know all get hate for this but I often here people who are attracted to more than one gender rallying around this it's a choice saying. And when people say you choose something like sexual orientation there saying you're sexual orientation isn't real and you just picked out thin air .