-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @twitone and
Arthur Chu Retweeted Emma Harriet Nicholson
Arthur Chu added,
Emma Harriet Nicholson @Baroness_NicholBecause I foresaw (with some justification) that it would lead to degrading the status of women and of girls.This as we now see has happened and is continuing,so my sex are as a binary class in difficult now. https://twitter.com/ItsKateActually/status/1270702271421177858 …1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @twitone and
What you just said is an obvious falsehood right on the face of it and you can tell because your ally Baroness Nicholson openly disagrees The whole point of "marriage equality" is to REMOVE any language "on the basis of sex" from the legal definition of marriage
2 replies 2 retweets 53 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @twitone and
Marriage equality is the principle that what two people's "sex" or "sexuality" is is IRRELEVANT to their right to get married Any two consenting adults, of any sex, can get married for any reason they want Nicholson explicitly opposes this because it undermines the sex binary
4 replies 10 retweets 76 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @twitone and
The sheer absurdity of "LGB Alliance"-style rhetoric never ceases to amaze me Most people understand that what "gay rights" means in general is that the government should *stop caring* about what sex you are, that it *shouldn't matter* -- "get Parliament out of my bedroom"
2 replies 5 retweets 67 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @twitone and
Instead you lot have this bizarre obsession with the idea that "gay rights" means the government creating some kind of official definition of what it means to be "gay", identifying who really is gay by a scientific process, and making sure ONLY "real gays" get "gay rights"
2 replies 3 retweets 67 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @twitone and
Mate. In the UK, we have protected statuses that ensure that, for example, gay people are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. If you cannot express what a sex is or sexuality coherently, those rights cannot be enforced.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @twitone and
A person doesn't actually have to be gay to be the subject of homophobic discrimination This is long, long established in anti-discrimination law
4 replies 1 retweet 66 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @lecanardnoir and
Doesn’t matter. If no one can define homophobia, no one can define homophobic discrimination.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fletcherkathy8 @lecanardnoir and
The issue is not "homophobia" per se, it's discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation/preference, whatever the hell that may happen to be
1 reply 1 retweet 31 likes
You can see what TERFs are trying to do right now -- giving the lie to the "LGB Alliance" name, a lot of them are right now giving full vent to their biphobia and trying to walk back the idea that bisexuality/pansexuality exists and shouldn't be discriminated against
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @lecanardnoir and
Nope. It’s always been there. The technical term used to be “a bit of a tart”.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fletcherkathy8 @lecanardnoir and
Lol see what I mean This shit right here
3 replies 1 retweet 28 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.