Do we have it anywhere on record that Stonewall does/does not support people to express their sexuality as exclusively homosexual?

I'll underline again that homosexuality is not a 'dating preference' it is a sexual orientation, protected by law.

These cute little 'Well, you can have a racial preference, but it might attract criticism' analogies are just the bog standard TRA line of comparing women's boundaries to racism, and in this instance suggesting that the oppobrium TRAs are subjecting lesbians to is because lesbians being lesbians is akin to being cruel or racist.

because that is unnecessarily inflammatory

Definitions of "unnecessarily" may vary.

''So would you agree that if a lesbian says "I will not date or have sex with any male people, including transwomen" then that's perfectly reasonable? ''

Yes, totally.

You can also say 'I will only date people of colour, I won't date any man under 5'8, I couldn't date a fat person, I only date asian women, I only date men who make more than 50k a year, I'm only looking for a vegetarian, etc.

Some might attract criticism more than others, but people can hold whatever preferences they have. Most people have some preferences,or things they would rule out - for me 'don't read books? No thanks' or something like that. Also 'no sports fans, I hate all that'

On dating apps, I don't know never been on one, are you allowed to say 'Men under 6 foot, don't swipe right?'

suggestions has been quite clear for some time that their position is that lesbians are free to be lesbians so long as they do it discreetly because it makes heterosexual males with feminine gender identities sad.

Being openly lesbian is just not naice.

But that's not homophobic, no. Because reasons.

I would not use the phrase 'male people, including transwomen' because that is unnecessarily inflammatory, given that many transwomen do not consider themselves male people, and a large section of the public, whether you like it or not, affirms that.

What do they think they are then? Do they actually think they're female? Do they think it's surgery and hormones that makes them female, or do they think that just saying 'I am a woman' makes them female?

What has made a 'large section of the public' believe in something which is so clearly false?

A few years ago there was a male transsexual posting on here who said that before having genital surgery (20 or 30 years ago, I think), the doctors had to be sure that the patient didn't believe that this surgery would actually make them change sex (since such surgery was popularly known as 'sex-change surgery').

When did this change? And why? What happened so that now not only do transsexuals think they can change sex, but so do other people?

Okay, so suggestions thinks lesbians aren’t allowed to “shout out loud” that they’re lesbians (ie female homosexuals.)

Setting aside the “what was the point of Pride supposed to be again?” question…

Should they be allowed to say on lesbian dating apps that they’re female homosexuals? It seems like relevant information in the context. Does suggestions approve of the current situation where lesbians are banned from “lesbian” dating apps for being openly homosexual?

Should lesbians be allowed to publicly organise meet-ups and events for lesbians (ie female homosexuals) without harassment? Or does suggestions feel good about the current situation where people who want to organise lesbian events have to go underground to do it?

And I notice suggestionsplease that you have avoided my question about whether this cohort of EXCLUSIVELY SAME SEX ATTRACTED lesbians are entitled to any form of organised support or representation, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, and indeed to access services like dating apps and social events that cater exclusively for them. A long persecuted, marginalised, vulnerable minority on the grounds of their sexual orientation, one of the protected characteristics in the EA.

I will infer that your answer is in fact no, you don’t believe they are entitled to any of those things and you would in fact be one of those people seeking to actively to deny them that kind of support, in the form of opposing the LGB Alliance, for example.

Pure lesbophobia. Shameful.

'most of the time we have the common sense to know that we don't actually say out loud 'O I would never date a thin/fat/ginger/brunette/short/tall person' etc because we understand that the deliberate, explicit and overt communication of those preferences or dislikes in terms of attraction can be hurtful to others.

This a complete false equivalency.

I am not attracted to women.

It doesn't matter if they are short/tall, fat/thin, brunette/blonde etc etc etc. I am not attracted to them because they are women. Not because of a preference. But because they are women. I am attracted to men. I am heterosexual.

And if I do have preferences in terms of the men I am attracted to, I don't normally state those out loud, because as you say, that might be hurtful. But I can say, loud and clear, that I am only attracted to men. No amount of persuasion, or 'encouragement to examine my prejudices' will make me any more attracted to women. That is my inherent sexual orientation.

So why are lesbians seemly not allowed to say that put loud? It isn't a hurtful preference. They are exclusively attracted to women That isn't transphobic or hurtful. It is a statement of fact.

As a note, when I say men and women, I mean just that. Males and females.

The final sentence "And that anyone attacking her for holding this position is being homophobic?" is problematic, as homophobia is not an inherent sentiment of someone who is unhappy that someone else might be discounting more people from dating options.

WOW.

You honestly have no idea how that sounds, do you?

You really are against women having the right to sexual boundaries. To exclude whomever they damn well please from their “dating options”, without being attacked or shamed for it, or coerced into dropping those boundaries.

That’s not just misogynistic, homophobic bigotry; that’s promoting rape culture.

Thank you for showing your true colours so clearly.

I would not use the phrase 'male people, including transwomen' because that is unnecessarily inflammatory, given that many transwomen do not consider themselves male people, and a large section of the public, whether you like it or not, affirms that.

Good for you. But as I'm not a fan of bending reality I am happy to say 'male, including transwomen'. A large section of the public agrees with me, whether you like it or not.

I see from your explanation that lesbians really do have to walk through a minefield over this issue and in seeking to maintain their boundaries around consent. Poor lesbians.

nauticant:

So would you agree that if a lesbian says "I will not date or have sex with any male people, including transwomen" then that's perfectly reasonable? And that anyone attacking her for holding this position is being homophobic?

Here's my take on it. It is perfectly reasonable for a lesbian to say they will not have sex with any male people and they will not have sex with transwomen. I would not use the phrase 'male people, including transwomen' because that is unnecessarily inflammatory, given that many transwomen do not consider themselves male people, and a large section of the public, whether you like it or not, affirms that.

But yes, they are perfectly entitled to state clearly those things about themselves.

The final sentence "And that anyone attacking her for holding this position is being homophobic?" is problematic, as homophobia is not an inherent sentiment of someone who is unhappy that someone else might be discounting more people from dating options.

Of course we all experience attraction in different ways and have sexual preferences - most of the time we have the common sense to know that we don't actually say out loud 'O I would never date a thin/fat/ginger/brunette/short/tall person' etc because we understand that the deliberate, explicit and overt communication of those preferences or dislikes in terms of attraction can be hurtful to others.

So if we hold any of them that is information we are generally private about, but of course this still influences who we want to date and have sex with, and there should be no expectation that preferences can be overruled.

So that, I think is the difference. It seems some people want to shout out loudly 'O I would never be attracted to a trans woman.' That's not necessary - you don't have to shout it out loud but you can have it as your preference and no one should expect you to do otherwise.

In Prime Minister's Questions that is.

The trans activist responses on this thread reminds me of a trick Tony Blair learned to use when the New Labour government started to lose its appetite for openess and honesty. When asked a question rather than answering it he'd refer the questioner to an answer he'd given in the past to a similar but different question.

I would also like to know why both Bilinda and suggestions believe that they are speaking for the majority of transwomen? They have both made comments to this effect.

Why do they feel that they do and can speak for the majority of transwomen?

And what evidence, apart from anecdotal evidence from their mates, do they even believe that they do in fact speak for the majority of males who identify as women?

Leave aside, for the moment, what Stonewall think, how common the examples of pressure are, even the whole TWAW/TWAM issue.

I would like to know what you two think, as individuals, about this specific point, which neither of you has answered.

Do you agree that it is perfectly ok for a lesbian to be clear she is exclusively same sex attracted? That it is not transphobic to be exclusively same sex attracted, and to be open about that fact? That it is in fact homophobic/lesbophobic to deny these particular lesbians the right to freely express their sexual orientation?

And do you think that those lesbians who are exclusively same sex attracted should be entitled to have some form of support and representation, as a group? And should be entitled to have their own dating apps, etc, as a discrete group? And to crowdfund for those if they need to?

This is what I would really like to know. Siimple yes/no direct answers.

If you can’t give simple, direct yes/no answers then I think we will all have a good idea of what you really think about women’s rights to own and live out their own sexual orientation.

I see what you're doing @BilindaB and its not nearly as clever as you think it is.

It certainly isn’t a majority belief that TWAW/TMAMA.

What most people seem to believe is if you’re trans that’s ok. And pronouns get used. And folk say things like “well, he’s a woman now.” BUT that by no means equals people are believing TWAW - any more than when someone says “I’m starving, I could murder a pizza” that they think the pizza is sentient and they are taking its life. Or when people say “my sister would kill me if she heard me say that!” They don’t actually mean they need police protection, just that their sister will get the hump.

I could list more of these but I hope you get the point.

Most people don’t really think trans people are the sex they wish to be (I know someone will say gender but when you’re asking for sex based rights gender is irrelevant.) but they’re kind and decent enough to use the preferred terms.

People are all for trans acceptance- but they forcing of belief on others is not going to make people suddenly believe the miraculous can happen.

Why is that never enough? I have Christian friends who are probably a little bit saddened that I’m an atheist but they don’t threaten to rape or kill me because I don’t believe what they do. They invite me round to their houses and make me a coffee and let our kids play together. They are kind to me despite my refusal to believe that God is real. And I do the same despite thinking their belief system is wrong.

I mean, I could even be friends with someone who wears bootcut jeans because I’m very tolerant of other’s beliefs.

I'm sure that Einstein's view of Gravity is a minority belief: The apple does not fall. The space between the apple and the ground folds up, etc.

Does that mean Einstein is wrong? Should we take a vote?

Something Bilinda hasn't answered:

If some males are women, please define "woman" without a circular argument.

Stonewall’s comments highlighted above suggest that attraction is personal and should never be coerced. This is the key point for me.

They then suggest that people should ‘educate’ themselves and would accept more people. I don’t agree with this, as think sex-based attraction is fairly primal, but it, again, is not coercion.

Wpuld you define coercion for me, please? Because having experienced conversion therapy, I can tell you that accepting someone feels one way and 'encouraging' them to educate themselves out of it is coercion.

As for single-sex spaces, that all gets quite fraught. If you can form a club for women only, what about men-only clubs? Yes, there is the power dynamic argument, but i can also see a counter argument.

No counter argument for lobbying for removal of a safeguard which will force female prisoners to share cells and showers etc with intact males, vulnerable female patients to have to sleep beside people they know are male and domestic violence victims to share refuges with people who terrify them.