Diva editor, responds to 'lesbian rights alliance' article in the times.

I'm just going to post Bowl's post in full just to reiterate this

It starts to chip away at the edges of both reality and other people's rights.

Yup. And critical thought. you must not think some things, end of
The ability to express that thought you must not say some things, end of
Women’s boundaries you must accept people in your spaces who are the other biological sex and that you feel uncomfortable around, otherwise 'transphobic' #nodebate
Children’s safeguarding too much here for a sentence - medication, disclosure, given confusing and false truths about changing sex, the reality of gender, disclosing to others
Children’s boundaries as above, and you must accept other biological bodies into your spaces, otherwise 'transphobic
Children’s bond with parents (confidential disclosure is pushed by several lobby groups including ones who train he police/schools/NHS.)
Women’s abilities to protect their children you are on the wrong side of history unless you buy into this new and damaging to so many lives ideology

None of the above is healthy.

Public discussion is healthy.

That's the other reason Garam isn't responding to my question. If there's no opportunity to scold and punish women for saying no to cock then where's the fun in that?

It starts to chip away at the edges of both reality and other people's rights.

Yup. And critical thought.
The ability to express that thought
Women’s boundaries
Children’s safeguarding
Children’s boundarie
Children’s bond with parents (confidential disclosure is pushed by several lobby groups including ones who train he police/schools/NHS.)
Women’s abilities to protect their children

None of the above is healthy.

Public discussion is healthy.

I've just followed a Facebook trail of friends of friends and discovered this being discussed by a professing Christian gay man, and my word the vitriol being spewed towards the eight lesbians was a sight. Some valiant person was attempting to speak sense, but person after person was piling on with the T slur, transing everyone involved in the Stonewall riots, declaring that there was nothing at all for lesbians to complain about and finally a whole load of fingers in the ears 'lalala, I can't hear you!'

I found it very interesting because this was an ostensibly evangelical Christian crowd, so, arguably the rightful owners of the 'puritanical' label.

A forum that's generally puritanical Pfft, I raise you Centre Parcs threads!

But if it was a puritanical website, surely it would pride itself on having sexual hang-ups!

I'm not sure you know what that word means! (Insert familiar meme here, oh younger mysterious Mumsnetters, who'd never attend WPUK!)

And, as always, Mumsnet is not a 'hive mind' - it's made up of mostly females, and some non-females, who range from hugely-puritanical to really, really not. And the great thing is, females can come here and discuss a whole range of sex stuff here and get responses from that wide spectrum of views.

What bothers me more about your post about the female wife with a transwoman husband, and how it signals what the true 'erasure' is really going on right now.

You demonstrate the true erasure that's happening - of the work that the lesbians and gay rights movement has achieved over the years.

That being attracted to biological sex isn't a lifestyle choice, it isn't, like the definition of woman according to some, 'a shifting constellation' of undefinable things. It's the purist definition of being attracted to the same biological sex.

And to your assertion that a female who has never been attracted to female bodies, whose male-bodied husband has declared themselves as 'identifying as female', can suddenly identify as 'lesbian' as a result, 'cos they can identify how they like' - it's hugely insulting. But you know this really.

It starts to chip away at the edges of both reality and other people's rights.

Which seems to be the intention in many other ways too.

It's transparent. And more and more people are calling you out on it.

And before Garam tells me no, that’s rubbish. No it isn’t, because TW could identify as a lesbian and have sex/relationship with a straight woman, just like I could have sex/relationship with a straight woman and still call myself a lesbian, because lesbian means only sleeps with women.
It’s not that these people want to be a lesbian, it’s that they want to fuck a lesbian.

Note the refusal to answer the question about whether two trans identifying dicks equals lesbian sex.
I think the answer Garam was looking for but didn’t want to say is no, because in order for TW to be a lesbian, they have to be fucking an actual lesbian. It’s the lesbian who is the validator in this relationship, not the identity of the TW. That’s why shagging a straight woman isn’t enough.
When dealing with a fragile ego, only the most sought after accessory will do, and a great big middle finger to straight men, because TW can get into the places that they can only dream of.
The most toxic of toxic masculinity.

I found mine behind the gooseberry bush.

The stork brought mine AAK ... is there another way??

Loosen my stays, I’m about to faint....

Maybe "puritanical" is this week's "word that has historically been used to pressure women into doing things that they don't want to do".

Last week is was "prudish".

Any guesses for next week's? "Frigid", perhaps?

We see you

"Lesbian sex" does not involve penises in any way. I really wish my bisexual sisters could learn to be OK with IDing as bi instead of trying to shoehorn themselves into the definition of "lesbian".

For me it was lesbians (and possibly gay men) who persuaded me that bisexuals didn't exist (this was the 1980s) and I was in fact lesbian. I was young and didn't know any bisexuals at the time. I still don't really know any bisexual women as we don't really have a community, so it's nice to hear from people on this thread!

I don't know what's more amusing; calling Mumsnet, the online go to for a weekend bumsex thread, puritanical, or suggesting that two be-penised people giving each other head might be reasonably termed lesbian sex by virtue of the self identification of the participants.

I guess all the mothers here got pregnant via immaculate conception too?

In fact I am really done with people putting the word 'trans' in front of a category to which they do not belong as a way of claiming to be part of it.

...she is whatever sexuality she defines herself, and neither myself nor you have any input on that.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

At some point the majority of the population will recognize that they are being subjected to authoritarian obedience training as described in classic literature.
The sooner the better.

Transatonyms

For a forum thats generally puritanical, some people seem to have a lot of sexual hang-ups

Do you know what puritanical or hang-ups mean?

They are near-synonyms

It's like me saying: 'for a donkey, you do seem to bray a lot'

I posted this in another thread but it's worth bearing in mind when reading anything from the supposedly lesbian media:

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-didnt-you-say-something-sooneryoure-asking_us_59d560dee4b085c51090ad64?

The only actually lesbian media that I am aware of is afterellen.com. (That started out as a lesbian website, was taken over by - mainly straight - 'queer' women but is now back in lesbian hands.)

For a forum thats generally puritanical

Genuine question: is that your impression of MN?

Unsure how much multiplying goes on with 69ers. But for what it's worth.

What is it about the TRAs on here? They haven't got the your/you're distinction AT ALL.

I was actually busy getting stats from a study carried out by a Follower of Gender - because I know garam can be picky about sourcing - and trying to work out how many lesbians would consider sex involving penis on account of identity.

But it's so full of Humpty Dumpty gobbledegook, I gave up.

I thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink it's 23%. But who knows, when words can mean anything? I think it's better just to laugh at 69ers.

static1.squarespace.com/static/527403c4e4b02d3f058d2f18/t/5b1141a670a6ad1221be99ff/1527857575352/Transgender+Exclusion

Wouldn't be the first time a bloke had accused a woman who wanted to wait of being puritanical...

Yy AAK, that is totally what is happening...