SSM Plebiscite

[LP]

Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

While I agree in general, the use of an adjective like engaging is very subjective, unless every-time you have witnessed this behavior you have actually asked "the victim" the question to validate that perception. Provocative isn't it, the choice of adjective from a certain perceptive cannot be labeled invalid, but it doesn't mean because it can't be invalidated that it is valid!

The problem with the door opening example, is that there was no protest at the time, the lack of protest wasn't a valid reaction, and no feedback was offered to the persecuted. Thry's point on this matter is very valid. Subjectively I could say the act of opening the door was nothing more than being engaging, yet it was label as offensive because of a personal perspective, and a committee agreed! When or how can that be predicted, it seems chaotic?

That door opening case as an example is just as valid as Jenkins reference to lesbian conversions, are we really free to pick and choose which carries greater weight? It seems arbitrary to discount one and reinforce the other.

It's not right Baggers, no matter whether positive discrimination is the right solution or not!