From a wonderful old documentary that David Thompson has dug up:
What I could never understand – and I did resent – was [heterosexual feminists] going home to men at night. It just seemed such a contradiction. And often I would get very angry when I would challenge them about this, and they would say, “Well, that’s just the way I am. I just don’t fancy women.” Having no understanding at all of the fact that sexuality is a social construct and that we all make choices depending on the way we want to live and the world we want to see.
So those of a more conservative and religious persuasion are right then? People are gay out of choice. And if that is the case they don’t need any particular protection from discrimination.
Is that what she’s saying? Or does she want to have it both ways?
Thanks. The thought of Ms Bindel ‘having it both ways’ isn’t something I wanted to read after lunch!
And if that is the case they don’t need any particular protection from discrimination.
…as long as you’re willing to concede the same for religious people, people with unfashionable political views, etc.
A friend of mine was at a seminar; the speaker intoned that “sexuality is a social construct “. My friend asked “what about hormones?” “Hormones are a social construct too”.
“…as long as you’re willing to concede the same for religious people, people with unfashionable political views, etc.”
I’m perfectly willing to concede that. Each of us should enjoy the same protection from discrimination as the other guy (which is to say, non-intrusive and not extending much beyond outlawing violence or the threat of it).
She sounds pissed ’cause they we’re getting laid & she wasn’t.
ALL science is a social construct, of the white male hegemonic variety, natch.
So gravity, thermodynamics, etc, don’t really exist and those windmills can supply all our energy needs.
Anyone who disagrees is a racist and a fascist.
“Or does she want to have it both ways”
I doubt it, having seen her photo in the Grauniad.