Letter from feminists against Pride protest

I was in a twitter convo with Stella Duffy when she decided to leave twitter. Here is what I tweeted to her:

"You clearly define womanhood as the feminine gender, & beyond the sexism + misogyny of that, you are saying that 'women' includes feminine men, & thus that your sexuality has revolved around stereotypes. But do you understand most lesbians' sexuality doesn't? Can you accept that?" (To which she replied how would I know that most don't define their lesbian sexuality this way, and she then criticised me for being anonymous online, and called it 'very telling' - I can't quote her because her tweet is gone).

I replied: "Yes Stella, I am anonymous online as many women are. I first went anonymous as it is my only way to safely engage & talk about my experience of rape & domestic violence. Many women are in the same position, how on earth can you found a women's equality party & not understand the barriers to women re participation in public life? Perhaps especially for working class women like me? Also, trans activists in Edinburgh, where I live, have called for women like me to be beaten up on sight. Do you think I should put myself in danger in order to have a voice? Do you understand that what is telling about my anonymity is that I have been subject to violent misogyny, including from trans activists? And re lesbian sexuality, surveys show that most lesbians define their sexuality based on sex & will not date those of the opposite sex even if they believe in lady brains & think they have one. If you were fine with that you would not attack them for fighting against the homophobia that says their sexuality is inherently objectionable/transphobic; you would instead be fighting against that homophobia yourself".

Then she said she felt bullied and wanted to deactivate her account.

The thing is she was just getting reasonable tweets like mines, challenging her position, a position she could not defend, and they were not great in number either, but I didn't push anything with her as she then said she has MH issues so I just told her to take care of herself. But time and again we see with those who write/sign their names to letters like this that they don't have a clue about the implications of their position. The fact that Stella doesn't even understand the need for anonymity online for many women was just another sign that women can say they stand for equality and liberation and even start political parties for this purpose and still not actually be feminist.

Also let's not forget ATH Edinburgh says that violence against feminist women is proportionate & necessary. They actually promote VAW. This letter is a thorough embarrassment. No wonder no-one has stuck around to defend it.

@NotBadConsidering your post at the start of this thread is excellent.

Who is going to offer to write a piece for that paper exposing the crap ofAction for Trans Health and explaining that the whole point of these activities is to compromise women's freedom to choose not to be with men?

I know what a lesbian is even though I am straight!

And the private lives of old ladies who live together are private.

As should be the lives of lesbians who do not want to be rapishly coerced into accepting males as sexual or romantic partners.

Where are the lesbian lawyers and why are newspapers even printing this abusive rapey shit!

There was a couple of ladies who lived together near where I was brought up decades ago. They clearly loved each other. They were companions and both had chosen not to be with men. It was a lesbian relationship.

Usually the people who pronounce women who manage to live happily even though they have “chosen not to be with men” to be lesbians without further evidence are .... men. Women have less trouble imagining friendships between women.

Who decided this was a lesbian relationship? Was it just you or did the whole town discuss the relationship between these women?

Yikes.

I can never understand how people can put their names to things without properly researching them.

Action for Trans Health are seriously bonkers, with their Edinburgh chapter calling for the release of all trans prisoners which obviously includes many sex offenders, and training so they can perform surgery on themselves.

How can people like Dr Leanne Dawson, put their professional name and university accreditation to something so barking?

I am an academic and would be MORTIFIED if I had signed something publicly without due diligence. On the other hand maybe she agrees with A4TH aims? . I don’t know which is worse really.

There was a couple of ladies who lived together near where I was brought up decades ago. They clearly loved each other. They were companions and both had chosen not to be with men. It was a lesbian relationship.

So my 2 old aunts (sisters) never married or had children but lived together. Were they lesbians? 2 women choosing to live together for company and financial reasons? Brave New World.

You’re right daim, we agree on something. Hate will never win.

And the hate we’re seeing here is coming from males and directed at women. Thankfully, women are and will continue to speak out against the vile misogyny of the transactivists, in greater numbers every day!

Either you work for the liberation of all or you work for the liberation of no-one

But back to the letter - the above would look lovely on a fridge magnet, but it's absolute nonsense read one way, and ominous threat read another...

They don't even follow it themselves - calling for support for organisations which limit their scope to trans, or to women (whatever the definition) or to immigrants (all of which is fine by the way, I'm completely fine with people campaigning on single interests - it's ridiculous to expect otherwise).

Then again, if I read it the second way, it's more, "do it our way, or we'll stop you doing it at all" which, TBH, fits my experience with this better.

Lass:

Donating to Action for Trans Health which seeks to improve trans people’s access to healthcare.

It's the last line before the signatures.

lass it's on the WordPress link.

And vegans will eat chicken nuggets 🐣👌💝

It's not hatred to say women exist and are different from men. If that is hatred to you, then you're in for a very long sad life grieving it.

This is great 🏳️‍🌈

Hate will never win.

Oh, and they endorse Trans Heath Action

Do they? Where does the letter say that?

The "sexual" part refers to biological sex, not the act of having sex. Thus heterosexual means attraction to someone of the opposite sex, and homosexual means attraction to someone of the same sex.

Oh, and they endorse Trans Heath Action, whose batshit mainfesto includes such gems as "We demand resources for hair removal anywhere on our bodies, and the option of local anesthetic during these procedures" (good to know your hip operation is on hold while a middle-class male working in IT has their chest hair lasered off on the public purse). and "We demand immediate release & pardon for all trans prisoners" (which presumably includes the 60+ rapists and violent sex offenders currently in the UK prison system who ID as trans).

This tells me all I need to know about those signing, tbh. To support such an extremist group..yeah.

And it's another attempt to derail

Yep

And it's another attempt to derail. Let's talk about the content of that statement and the signatories.

The new definition erases that.

WHAT new definition? Where has anyone - on a thread or any of the protesters - said that "lesbian = female homosexual who compulsorily engages in sex with another female"?

Alternatively, many trans activists' definition of lesbian obsessively focus on the sex part i.e. it involving a penis. Funny how they don't focus on platonic relationships

Just more DARVO.

Taking it to the logical conclusion of trying to force lesbians to accept penises, it would be:

"I'm redefining chicken nuggets to mean carrots, and insisting that vegans eat them, and kicking anyone out who won't."

And now:

"Anyone who's ever looked like a carrot-enjoyer is clearly a vegan."

I'm not saying I agree with Snappity but what I think she is saying that the lesbian couple she is referring to might possibly never have had a sexual relationship or even wanted one. Therefore their relationship was , possibly, not founded on sexual attraction but purely by companionship and platonic love.

By contrast I know 2 gay men both of whom are out now but who had a very closeted relationship. They never had sex because one of them was also a devout Catholic convert. They were sexually attracted to each other but they never had sex. There was more to the attraction than sex but ultimately the relationship foundered.

I think what Snappity is trying to say that the protestors' definition of "homosexual" includes the latter celibate relationship but excludes the former, possibly equally, celibate relationship. Although who knows the lesbian couple might also have been desirous of sex but prevented by taboos from having it.

If that is what Snappity is saying I could imagine in my old age if my husband were dead sharing a house with a female friend for companionship and convenience. I may well love that friend but that would not make me a lesbian and I would not accept being called a lesbian.

I’m a vegan but I eat meat half the week. I’m redefining what it means to be vegan so as to be inclusive of meat eaters. Anyway who says I’m not a vegan is hateful and bigoted.

Bigot. LOL!

How on earth do abortion rights and trans rights go hand in hand? I would say they literally have absolutely no relationship at all?

Only in that transmen may need both rights, but no, there's no direct relationship otherwise..

How on earth do abortion rights and trans rights go hand in hand? I would say they literally have absolutely no relationship at all?

But you are reducing lesbianism to sexual interest or sexual attraction

No, I really wasn't - you were the one saying that having sexual intercourse was important to a definition of being a lesbian - I'm saying that sex is neither here nor there..

But you are reducing lesbianism to sexual interest or sexual attraction when historically lesbianism has included those things but has been about romantic interest. Lesbian relationships can be platonic.

Yes - attraction.

I think we also disagree on the word 'platonic' because in my world, a romantic relationship is not platonic.

I have a platonic relationship with many men and many women, their sex doesn't matter, because it's platonic. I am attracted to men - I only have romantic relationships with men - because I am heterosexual.

Two women living together as friends, isn't a lesbian relationship, and more than I was in a heterosexual relationship with a male housemate at Uni.

I think where you're getting confused, is that historically, many lesbian couples would have described themselves as friends, and externally, many people wouldn't have considered lesbian sexual intercourse to be sexual intercourse at all, because no penis was involved.

I was hetero sexual before I had ever had sex, I was heterosexual between relationships, I'm heterosexual now. There is no requirement to actually have sex when stating your sexual attraction

But you are reducing lesbianism to sexual interest or sexual attraction when historically lesbianism has included those things but has been about romantic interest. Lesbian relationships can be platonic. That has historically always been the case. The new definition erases that.

I’m a vegan but I eat meat half the week. I’m redefining what it means to be vegan so as to be inclusive of meat eaters. Anyway who says I’m not a vegan is hateful and bigoted.

See how ridiculous it sounds?