Lionel is right
Sir: Gareth Roberts’s piece (‘End of the rainbow’, 31 May) gave me pause to reflect. It’s not that Pride has become irrelevant; after all, same-gender relationships are still criminalised in 64 countries – and in eight of those the death penalty is applicable. Rather, since the pandemic, it seems to have taken a rather nasty and unpleasant turn, with those dissenting from whatever ludicrous party line happens to be in vogue routinely heckled and vilified.
Placards emblazoned with slogans such as ‘If you see a Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] then smash them in the face’ are often to be spotted on Pride marches. Those producing such placards seem to forget that it was the first- and second-wave feminists (as well as early LGBT activists) who’ve brought us to the relatively benign state of affairs we now enjoy – in this country at least.
As Lionel Shriver pointed out elsewhere in the issue (‘The war on normal’), it’s curious, if not downright laughable, how these and other such revolutions manage to eat themselves in the end.
Bernard Jennings
London SE11
Lionel is wrong
Sir: Lionel Shriver does precisely what she accuses gay people of doing. She reduces relationships to mere sex and then equates sex with only reproduction (or lack of it). Does she not know that both ‘heteronormative’ and homosexual people have sex for pleasure? Most sexual activity in the world is for this hedonistic purpose, not reproduction. She also repeats the fallacy that homosexual couples cannot reproduce. I can assure her they can, if not with each other, and play their part in advancing human evolution.
More than this, they value relationships, from which they derive companionship, affection, fulfilment and yes, intimacy, just as much as their heteronormative counterparts.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in