Read today’s The Word is Woman email from Milli Hill and loved this paragraph about how using “woman and [inclusive term]” is also an issue even though people think they’re being more inclusive. It’s bugged me since I switched up my views but I was never really able to articulate why beyond “erasing women” but this sums it up really well!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
One of my posts on here was mentioned recently in the LGB thread. I'd posted about the gay male dance pair on Strictly, saying that I didn't really see the point of having two men dancing, because the dance styles were designed for a mixed couple, the sexuality of either dancer is irrelevant really.
A poster on that thread pointed out that the tango (I think?) was originally invented as a dance for two men, which I didn't know. Another poster piped up that this board (GC) is "often homophobic", but that they "call it out" when they see it here. (
)
I was a bit pissed off at being indirectly accused of homophobia, but I know that I'm not and I'm too old to be getting into online arguments with people that I don't know. I thought that the male couple on Strictly were very good, but is it really homophobic to point out that a female professional dancer lost a place so that a gay celebrity could have a male partner?
A poster on that thread pointed out that the tango (I think?) was originally invented as a dance for two men, which I didn't know. Another poster piped up that this board (GC) is "often homophobic", but that they "call it out" when they see it here. (
) I was a bit pissed off at being indirectly accused of homophobia, but I know that I'm not and I'm too old to be getting into online arguments with people that I don't know. I thought that the male couple on Strictly were very good, but is it really homophobic to point out that a female professional dancer lost a place so that a gay celebrity could have a male partner?
She also said she wasn't told she wouldn't be able to breastfeed.
Oh I laugh but that child is being set up for abuse where they are always going to have to cater their parents mental illness.
I don't think people should be discussing others on different threads myself as that seems witchy even for tattleOne of my posts on here was mentioned recently in the LGB thread. I'd posted about the gay male dance pair on Strictly, saying that I didn't really see the point of having two men dancing, because the dance styles were designed for a mixed couple, the sexuality of either dancer is irrelevant really.
A poster on that thread pointed out that the tango (I think?) was originally invented as a dance for two men, which I didn't know. Another poster piped up that this board (GC) is "often homophobic", but that they "call it out" when they see it here. (
I was a bit pissed off at being indirectly accused of homophobia, but I know that I'm not and I'm too old to be getting into online arguments with people that I don't know. I thought that the male couple on Strictly were very good, but is it really homophobic to point out that a female professional dancer lost a place so that a gay celebrity could have a male partner?
I must admit that I stick to just a few threads where I feel safe to post and feel comfortable because I'm used to the other posters.
Some people on tattle are very confrontational.
I generally put people on ignore if they've been rude to me because I can’t be bothered to row with people I don't know.
I saw the I see your point but I have never put anyone on ignore. For me, it is a discussion forum and I want to hear opinions on subjects I'm interested in - but it is never a good idea to go onto different threads to discuss threads or posters, why not post on the thread were the comment was madeI don't think people should be discussing others on different threads myself as that seems witchy even for tattle
I must admit that I stick to just a few threads where I feel safe to post and feel comfortable because I'm used to the other posters.
Some people on tattle are very confrontational.
I generally put people on ignore if they've been rude to me because I can’t be bothered to row with people I don't know.
---
Ha ha - I saw those posts, I wondered what I'd missedOne of my posts on here was mentioned recently in the LGB thread. I'd posted about the gay male dance pair on Strictly, saying that I didn't really see the point of having two men dancing, because the dance styles were designed for a mixed couple, the sexuality of either dancer is irrelevant really.
A poster on that thread pointed out that the tango (I think?) was originally invented as a dance for two men, which I didn't know. Another poster piped up that this board (GC) is "often homophobic", but that they "call it out" when they see it here. (
I was a bit pissed off at being indirectly accused of homophobia, but I know that I'm not and I'm too old to be getting into online arguments with people that I don't know. I thought that the male couple on Strictly were very good, but is it really homophobic to point out that a female professional dancer lost a place so that a gay celebrity could have a male partner?
!!
In the ghetto - imagine the colour scheme when all the flags are represented.
Does Manchester really need LGBT-only housing? - The Post (unherd.com)
Does Manchester really need LGBT-only housing? - The Post (unherd.com)
I won’t complain about a certain thread but I just said two women = bi or gay relationship. That’s a fact, right? Same sex attraction??? Shows how G.I. is homophobic by erasing these definitions. Past me would have been hurt about comments back but now I’m like, 
okay, you stick to your pansexual and NB identities and enjoy lecturing people about what words they can and cannot use. I’m pretty sure forced speech isn’t cool.
okay, you stick to your pansexual and NB identities and enjoy lecturing people about what words they can and cannot use. I’m pretty sure forced speech isn’t cool.Ridiculous! and how is that segregation inclusive? Would heterosexual humans and pets be allowed to visit their lgbt friends and family or would that taint the neighbourhood or will there be a sign "no space for
Although I wouldn't mind an AGP housing (my unpc mind is thinking jail/asylum) At least we'd know which cul de sac to avoid, however i dont think AGPs could live their fetish with that the competition/rivalry from other AGPs, nor without the their thrill of sane people seeing them.
Last edited:
To be fair, they didn't mention me by name, I only recognised they were talking about me because I wrote the post!I don't think people should be discussing others on different threads myself as that seems witchy even for tattle
I must admit that I stick to just a few threads where I feel safe to post and feel comfortable because I'm used to the other posters.
Some people on tattle are very confrontational.
I generally put people on ignore if they've been rude to me because I can’t be bothered to row with people I don't know.
Like @Nelly's mum , I'm quite happy to hear opposing points of view, it's how we learn and grow, isn't it? I didn't know about the tango, for instance, and someone replied to my original post saying how dance sessions often have two women dancing together due to lack of male partners. I'm happy to be put straight (pardon the pun!) if I'm wrong, and no-one in real life cares about my opinion anyway, I'm only a woman
. I know what you mean about avoiding confrontation though, I'm far too scared to go on Mumsnet!
I was reading yesterday about a 'LGBTQ+' residential retirement complex which has opened in London with another one planned. I can appreciate that members of minority communities would feel safer with other members of their community particularly as they age and become more vulnerable or maybe a partner has died. They also often have a unique shared history, which would promote good mental health and social-connectedness as they age. I imagine it may feel quite isolating as the only gay or les person in a residential home full of straight people, just as it would if you were the only black resident in a home where everyone else was white. However, to my mind, the idea of LGBTQ+ housing means that in the current climate, any one will be able to identify into it, so as you say, you could get an AGP living next door to a les, or even a heterosexual couple (AGP professing to be a les plus his
I think this place sounds pretty ideal and I hope to God they are never pressured to accept someone who isn’t a biological woman.
Group of women form UK's first senior co-housing
Smiley Movement: a platform for positive change. Empowering people to volunteer, donate, fundraise & create initiatives. Join us in spreading hope today!
smileymovement.org
Yes it's good to discuss but some people can be rather nasty when they don't agree with you. I think in reality not many people ever totally change their viewpoint in a discussion. They might cede that they were mistaken about a point but most stick to their core views like limpets.To be fair, they didn't mention me by name, I only recognised they were talking about me because I wrote the post!
Like @Nelly's mum , I'm quite happy to hear opposing points of view, it's how we learn and grow, isn't it? I didn't know about the tango, for instance, and someone replied to my original post saying how dance sessions often have two women dancing together due to lack of male partners. I'm happy to be put straight (pardon the pun!) if I'm wrong, and no-one in real life cares about my opinion anyway, I'm only a woman
I know what you mean about avoiding confrontation though, I'm far too scared to go on Mumsnet!
It would be pointless for me to get into a row with someone on another thread about being gender critical. I know what I think and no amount of pleas to 'be kind' or suchlike are going to change my mind on this issue.
@Metropolis good points and I do get the idea of community particularly as you get older, but are there such a housing plans for other minorities for eg blacks/asians, or is lgbtq the only minority (will research online).
Women aren't even allowed the dignity of women only safe spaces for even grape and other crisis refuges.
Women aren't even allowed the dignity of women only safe spaces for even grape and other crisis refuges.
There is a woman only tower block planned for vulnerable women near me. I am kind of worried as they are allowing TIMs too which totally nullifies any sense of safety, especially if just anyone can identify into it, it could end up attracting predators. It’s so frustrating!
There seem to be quite a few housing initiatives for people from a variety of different cultures / heritages, which I think have been established for some time.
Everyone would be rightly up in arms if a person not meeting the requirements for being accepted into such housing schemes decided to ‘identify’ into a particular heritage to get a place, which is why is beggars belief that a lot of people are so acquiescent when men say they are women and can’t wait to open the door and show them inside.
Chinese elders housing | Thirteen
Find safe, comfortable homes for older Chinese people in Middlesbrough and Newcastle. Our schemes offer accessible homes, Chinese‑speaking staff, community support and 24/7 emergency help.
Ashiana
Ashiana House in Nottingham, provides independent living accommodation for Asian elders. Call NCHA on 0800 013 8555 to access support
www.ncha.org.uk
Last edited:
Hi. Hope everyone's well.
I've been reading along here and there but stopped posting as I felt my contributions weren't welcome.
I saw @Sir Lancelot's posts and I too have seen that this thread can be quite hostile.
For me, the issue is that the thread title is misleading. It isn't a Gender discussion thread, it's a Gender critical discussion thread and that distinction is important.
If the thread were named correctly it would stop someone like me jumping in to criticise someone for disrespecting someone's pronouns as I know there'd be no point. The fact is there is no room for discussion as everyone here is GC and if you're not GC your opinion is likely to be disregarded or simply laughed at.
Ultimately, I'm never going to say that trans women aren't women because I don't believe that.
This thread taught me about AGPs, which I wasn't aware of before. It is frightening that there are men wanting to take advantage of trans-ness and pretend to be a trans woman to gain access to women's spaces. Unfortunately, there are always going to be predators out there and I don't think it's fair or accurate to to put the blame on trans-ness for that.
Trans is real, trans is valid. As is non-binary. We can agree to disagree on that. Or disagree to disagree!
This thread criticises people for using and 'pushing' certain terminologies but I was told off for referring to a gay woman as 'queer'. I am a bisexual woman (yes, a biological woman) who identities as queer. I now know it's offensive to GC lesbians to refer to them as queer. My point is you are always going to inadvertently offend someone with your choice of words.
This is the only thread where I've felt scared or apprehensive to post for fear of rudeness and rebuttal. And I was polite and willing to learn and yet distrusted and put on ignore by certain people.
I happily looked at GC resources shared and even shared some of my own GC aligned findings. Did I dare send anything supportive of trans people? No. This isn't a two-way street.
So although I learned things from this thread, I remain an advocate for trans people and won't be contributing further.
Cue responses about science and biology and 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' and 'we knew we were right not to welcome you here' or 'I'm not reading all that'. If you want to learn about why trans people are valid human beings feel free to watch some Contrapoints videos on YouTube.
I've been reading along here and there but stopped posting as I felt my contributions weren't welcome.
I saw @Sir Lancelot's posts and I too have seen that this thread can be quite hostile.
For me, the issue is that the thread title is misleading. It isn't a Gender discussion thread, it's a Gender critical discussion thread and that distinction is important.
If the thread were named correctly it would stop someone like me jumping in to criticise someone for disrespecting someone's pronouns as I know there'd be no point. The fact is there is no room for discussion as everyone here is GC and if you're not GC your opinion is likely to be disregarded or simply laughed at.
Ultimately, I'm never going to say that trans women aren't women because I don't believe that.
This thread taught me about AGPs, which I wasn't aware of before. It is frightening that there are men wanting to take advantage of trans-ness and pretend to be a trans woman to gain access to women's spaces. Unfortunately, there are always going to be predators out there and I don't think it's fair or accurate to to put the blame on trans-ness for that.
Trans is real, trans is valid. As is non-binary. We can agree to disagree on that. Or disagree to disagree!
This thread criticises people for using and 'pushing' certain terminologies but I was told off for referring to a gay woman as 'queer'. I am a bisexual woman (yes, a biological woman) who identities as queer. I now know it's offensive to GC lesbians to refer to them as queer. My point is you are always going to inadvertently offend someone with your choice of words.
This is the only thread where I've felt scared or apprehensive to post for fear of rudeness and rebuttal. And I was polite and willing to learn and yet distrusted and put on ignore by certain people.
I happily looked at GC resources shared and even shared some of my own GC aligned findings. Did I dare send anything supportive of trans people? No. This isn't a two-way street.
So although I learned things from this thread, I remain an advocate for trans people and won't be contributing further.
Cue responses about science and biology and 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' and 'we knew we were right not to welcome you here' or 'I'm not reading all that'. If you want to learn about why trans people are valid human beings feel free to watch some Contrapoints videos on YouTube.
Even if this wasn’t a GC thread and was a discussion on both sides, what do you think would give you the right to criticise anyone for not using chosen pronouns? Most if not all of us are competent adults and capable of choosing appropriate words and speech to communicate without likes of you telling us off.
Now off you trot back to being a good little handmaiden.
LOL I’m not watching Contrapoints and his silly breathy laydee voice.
Maybe we need to start naming this threads Gender Critical or Gender Ideology? That would be fine by me.
Maybe we need to start naming this threads Gender Critical or Gender Ideology? That would be fine by me.
Ah yes, that old line. There will always be predators anyway [so there’s no need for safeguarding women and children from them]
Let’s keep the men happy even if it puts women and children at more risk.
Funnily enough the men in my life don’t have an issue with being excluded from women’s spaces because they are decent, respectful human beings. They don’t think their exclusion means we are calling them predators either.
I remember you posting and I've just looked back on some of your posts, nothing unwelcoming that I can see. I can see posters liking your posts and interacting with you, you commented that it was good to have warm, witty responses ( or something similar).
So I'm not too sure what the issue is - maybe posters just don't agree with you re non-binary and pronouns?
I know for me, pronoun policing is forced speech, it is not about how that individual feels it is about controlling how other people behave, interact and refer to them. I find the concept of non-binary really regressive and it relies on sex and gender role stereotypes - not surprisingly, this ideology is not something I have any time for.
- Status