So, this is leading to quite an interesting conversation. I'm going to clarify a few things, and then in a bit I'm going to delete, because under present conditions of conflict, it is not safe to leave anything lying on this site that may be referred to the twitter police. https://twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1344022719675969538

1. Right wing discourse especially in America framed the opposition to gay rights in terms of 'a behaviour that was a choice' in order to suggest that behaviour could and should be changed.
2. The pro-gay rights response to this was 'born this way.' i.e. that homosexuality is an

innate disposition.
3. I'm going to leave aside the question of whether it is innate or not. I believe it probably is, at least in many people. That's not the point here.
4. But one of the points is that the legacy has been that progressive discourse has assumed that we

must believe homosexuality to be innate, and this cedes the moral ground around homosexuality to a fundamentally conservative underpinning. That's it's okay because it's natural. That's wrong. It's not okay because it's natural, it's okay because it is okay. Whether it is natural

or not.
5. So, the point I was making is that homosexuality, or any desire humans have, doesn't make sense completely distinct from homosexual behaviour. Desire is desire *for* something. Or someone. Or to do something to someone. We can't make sense of the desire to eat

chocolate cake independently of the existence of chocolate cakes. And that's true whether or not we actually ever eat a chocolate cake.
6. So when I said 'being gay is a behaviour' I probably should more clearly have said 'being gay is a desire to perform a certain behaviour

and/or the performing of that behaviour.' I'm not claiming that people who have homosexual desire and never act on it are not homosexual. Although I am probably claiming that there is a difference between potential and actualised desire.

7. What I was trying to get at here, is that there is something going on in the trans/gay parallel which is to do with this idea of 'desiring to perform a certain behaviour' and the sense of social repression around that desire and its fulfilment. I think this is why

so many gay men identify with the trans narrative.
8. But this is completely different from being female. Female people do not experience being female as a desire to be female. That would be complete nonsense. You do not desire things you are. You can be happy with them or not

happy with them. You might want to change them. But you do not desire them.
9. And female people do not experience being female either as 'a desire to do woman things or perform woman behaviour'. Being female is not a desire to perform a behaviour or a performing of that

behaviour. It is simply a state of material being, which exists completely irrespective of what that female person desires or desires to do or not do.
10. Because being gay is a desire for a behaviour or a performing of it, something is going on in making the gay/trans parallel

which is propagating the idea that 'being a woman' is a state of 'desiring to be a woman, to perform woman behaviour and the performing of that behaviour', which seems to totally makes sense from a trans perspective (and apparently makes sense to some gay men and lesbians, and

also seems to make sense to men who seem to think female people are actually just walking embodiments of 'woman behaviours').

But it makes no sense to me as a female person who is female irrespective of the fact that I think 'woman behaviours' are a sexist sack of shit.

I am female irrespective of my behaviours. And I persist in being female even while one of my over-riding experiences of the world is that 'woman-behaviours' are harmful to female people. And I refuse to be defined by them.

Which is to say, the gay/trans parallel works for

trans people, and it works for some gay people, and it works for sexist men who think women are femininity.

But it doesn't work for the experience of female people, at all. Especially not female people who insist on not being defined by socially prescribed woman-behaviours.