21
PodcastGender Insanity Lets Men Do Unspeakable Evil - Julie Bindel
Good interview with Julie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WntY0N6ndxY
Julie Bindel - who is a lesbian and often writes about gender & feminism from that perspective - explains why trans ideology is so dangerous for women, and what she really thinks is at play. It includes a certain story about a lady with a stiffy.
See her writing on Substack: https://juliebindel.substack.com/
Chapters: 0:00 Julie Bindel Highlights
1:10 The unspeakable evil of trans
4:10 they tried to shut Julie down
5:40 they don’t really believe trans women are women
9:10 but was Julie wrong before about biology?
12:10 Practical Problems With The Ideology
13:10 The Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe
16:55 But Can We Do Anything About Psychopaths
19:10 Accusations
22:10 But do all trans activists want to hurt women?
24:10 How feminists can help TRAs
26:40 Trans women ARE in women’s prisons
28:40 Prison INSANITY
32:10 Why this is so important
34:10 Julie Would Have Gone Down There
37:10 Early Onset is Like Exorcism
39:10 Conversion Therapy
44:10 Controversial: Being Gay A Choice!
46:10 The Gay Gene
49:10 The cross-roads & Dr. James Cantor
52:10 Andrew As A Lesbian
54:10 When Julie Met Strippers
55:40 Insane Protest at Do No Harm Conference
58:10 Woke Men Physically Attacking Women
60:10 A Heretic Julie Admires
Love listening to her and Helen Joyce.
I want Meghan Kelly to interview JB. Her interview with HJ was so good
It really was! I have tried to find every Helen Joyce interview I could find, she never disappoints! ❤️
I'm really interested to hear what lesbians on Ovarit think about what Julie had to say about being gay being a choice.
I have no problem with the notion that being gay is a choice. I dislike the modern obsession with "innate identity". I can't read minds and couldn't care less about how people view themselves, and believe people, however they identify, have volition and are responsible for their own actions. While I started to experience attraction to women from a relatively early age (though I cannot say whether this attraction is innate or learned), I still had to make the conscious decision to only form emotional, romantic, erotic, and spiritual bonds with other women, and this decision was not driven by some animalistic urge. Besides, whether sexual orientation is innate or not, the majority of women throughout history who have been heterosexually partnered had little choice, and saying attraction to the opposite sex is the norm overlooks the fact that women have been routinely forced or coerced into dependence on men.
She explains how that quote was stripped of the context she was trying to explain in a newspaper article at 44:10 Controversial: Being Gay A Choice!
Sheila Jeffreys sometimes mentions it on the WDI channel on YouTube. They make a valid point.
Yes; I saw her interview with chinese lesbian feminists on the WDI channel years ago and have always wanted to make a post about it.
[Comment deleted]
I'm bi and I was confused by her argument for sure. She said something like a woman coming out as a lesbian later in life indicates that sexuality is not something you are born with, because some of those women were actually pretty happy in their marriages with men but at some point decide to only pursue women. Now me being bi, I can say it's not something that is always just 50/50, in fact I think most bi people report 'fluctuations' where one month you're only really interested in men but a bit later you suddenly feel more attracted to women again. I don't understand why she seems so certain that these women were not just bi to begin with.
I think she was referring specifically to situations where women who have had previous relationships with men then have a relationship with a woman, realize that is an option for them, and then never feel attraction to or interest in another man again. Not people who's attraction fluctuates. She also said that a so-called gay gene has never been found, and she doesn't think it exists because there would also need to be a bisexual gene, and a separate gene for women who come out later in life after having had relationships with men. She does seem to see those as separate categories and still acknowledges that bisexuality does exist, but that women who come out later in life are still lesbians, despite some people denying them that claim.
Thinking there has to be "a" gay gene is a misunderstanding of genetics. Most traits are not due to a single gene (strictly speaking, a single allele), for example, eye colour and hair colour are the result of several genes that result in a phenotype of say "red hair and green eyes". There are a few Mendelian traits like cleft chin or having wet earwax but the list is rather short.
Anything behavourial, like trait neuroticim or depressive disorder, has been shown to have a significant genetic contribution, however, the in utero environment and external environment also play a role in whether or not such genes actually get expressed.
So I would think that there would almost certianly not be a single gay gene or a separate one for bisexuality. There's more likely a contribution from several genes that predisposes someone to same sex attraction and the in utero environment likely also plays a role. The environment almost certainly does, as seen in cases of lesbians who don't realise they're lesbians until later in life, possibly due to stigma or in my own case, not realising it was even an option for someone like me.
I agree.
This whole argument always rubs me the wrong way, because we at the same time expect from trans people to accept the reality of what they actually are. But part of our “side” can’t even own the word “bisexual”, because….I don’t know? They think being “late in life gold star lesbians” works better with how they see themselves? Well.
And that doesn’t even take into consideration that the whole argument crumbles at the latest when we look at countries where for example gay men get still pushed off buildings. Are you telling me that my evangelical aunt was actually correct back in the day, and they could just decide to be straight?
I do think there's a difference between your sex and your sexuality... The material referent for sex is unambiguous for the vast majority of people. There is no question that "trans women" are men. But what is the material referent for sexuality? It seems there are two camps: those who see it as an innate characteristic ("born this way") and those who base it on their behavior - who they actually love and have relationships with. I think in this interview Julie takes issue with the idea of innate sexuality precisely because, like trans ideology, it lacks a material referent.
Thinking, for example, about incarcerated men who are "gay for the stay". If a heterosexual man forms a real sexual and romantic relationship with another man while in prison, is he bisexual? What if he continues to identify as heterosexual and only has relationships with women outside of prison? Would you say he is in denial about his sexuality?
I do think there's a difference between your sex and your sexuality ...
I agree. Sexuality is a psychological construct wholly reliant on one's subjective self-identification. Sex is an unambiguous, corporeal characteristic, discernible and classifiable via objective, empirical means
The nuances of sexuality are illustrated by instances where people participate in same-sex relations, yet obstinately self-identify as "heterosexual." This confused "heterosexual" identity is a consequence of the internalization of heterosexist societal norms. The human brain, much like a sponge, absorbs societal standards and molds one's self-perception in accordance with them
[Comment deleted]
So how would you define bisexual? Is it anyone who has ever felt an attraction to both sexes, however fleeting? Or only those who have acted on attraction to both sexes?
Also, I think your evangelical aunt was wrong to say that you can decide to be straight in the same way she is wrong to say that abortion is killing a person. It may (or may not) be true, but isn't it completely beside the point? Some people were convinced to allow abortion and gay marriage on this basis, but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue in either case.
It confused me as a bi woman too. I wonder if she means the expression of one’s sexuality versus innate attraction? I was puzzled by it.
I always thought being gay was a choice…..because I’m attracted to both men and women
I really like JB, but it is dangerous and incorrect to say being gay is a choice
If you look at all that LGB people have risked and lost throughout history to be with the person they love, it’s so apparent
I'm disgusted by her internalized biphobia
Phobias are irrational fears. It's not irrational or -phobic for women to choose not to pursue men
Women are making a rational decision based on a cost-benefit analysis of "straight" relationships, and determining that the potential drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits
I don't believe FemmeLesbian has a problem with women choosing "not to pursue men" at all. I believe she has a problem with the term "political lesbianism," as do I. I'm straight and I use the term "female separatist" because I feel calling myself a lesbian when I'm not one hurts actual lesbians. I can't imagine any feminist having a problem with the idea of women not chasing men.
Thanks for answering.
It sounded to me like Julie had a bit of a different take on it than, for example, Sheila Jeffreys. Can you tell me more specifically what she said in this interview that you found offensive? Or were you commenting more broadly on the topic?
I know this is a really contentious topic but I am genuinely interested in understanding the issue so I appreciate your response.
I'm not offended by political lesbianism and the assertion that "sexuality is a choice." They can empower people to explore same-sex relationships
It would be useful to differentiate between sexuality as an abstract construct and its tangible, practical expression. The latter is contingent upon personal choices and experiences
We have control over how we express and act on our sexualities. I contend that a woman who exclusively forms romantic, sexual attachments with other women can be considered a "lesbian" from a practical standpoint, even if she wasn't born a lesbian
[Comment deleted]
The question of whether sexuality is a choice is less important than the question of how LGB people are treated
Let's accept, for the sake of the argument, that sexuality is a choice. It would in no way absolve us of our obligation to ensure that other gay/lesbian people are treated with decency, free from attempts to alter their sexual preferences
[Comment deleted]
... and indirectly encourages corrective rape
"Heterosexuality" isn't the correct way. Whether or not our homosexuality is a choice, rape is a horrific, abhorrent crime that violates one's body and rights. It should be condemned in the strongest possible terms
[Comment deleted]
It was you who uttered the odious phrase, "corrective rape"
The phrase presupposes that the epitome of "correctness" is none other than the oppressive confines of "heterosexuality," and that rape is an instrument to "correct" those daring to deviate from its norms
I merely exposed the absurdity of the phrase. "Heterosexuality" can't be the "correct way," and rape can't be a "corrective" measure
... essentially attacks the majority of the female population
... go to therapy
The majority, man or woman, don't reign supreme in the kingdom of logic and reason
I'm a lone voice of dissent. I won't "go to therapy" to blindly follow the herd
I was just listening to this interview, I haven’t finished it yet, but she speaks so much sense. When I was young I thought she was too radical (I know, I know …) but now I see her with different eyes. She’s a fighter and I admire her.