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

@rabbitwoman,

Garrick Club…those are the single sex spaces women are keen to make illegal. What you are saying is that women should choose the single sex spaces and challenge those they dislike. (And I do recognise power dynamic argument-but it is not clear cut).

Sport is very differently, and obviously should be single sex, for the reasons you suggest.

I am just saying that it is a complex issue.

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.

Of course men should have single sex spaces! And men only clubs - a great example is men's mental health support. It has been proven that men benefit from single sex group therapy sessions, so there are men only AA meetings, for example.

Another is sports. Mixed sex sports is just as unfair on men as women - I kickbox. When I train or spa with men they have to hold back otherwise they would hurt me. Training with other men allow them to reach their full potential.

Gay men are entitled to explore their sexuality in spaces without women - recent stories of trans men being excluded from a gay sex party and a gay sauna spring to mind.

You talk as though men aren't allowed to form men only spaces - they are. On the whole, they aren't under threat from trans men.

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.

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.

It is hard to say that a private members’ club is compelled by law to be sex-blind, but a dating app isn’t. I tend to agree with the poster above who said that, as long as the profiles are clear and honest, scroll on by.

I think some of the things Stonewall do and campaign for are fairly insidious and horrific; they should steer well clear of children!

However, in this particular instance, not really seeing it.

'However, when asked if dedicated spaces for exclusively same sex attracted people, on line and virtual, are legitimate they don't provide and answer. (The Giggle app story shows just how difficult it is to do ANYTHING exclusively for women)

When asked if Stonewall should include exclusively same sex attracted people in their mandate, no answer.'

I answered both those questions.

I have had a seventeen year old gay boy tell me that it would be trans phobic for him not to date trans men. I told him you can date who you want, it has to be consenting, and that he may be happy to date trans men but if there are gay men who don't want to date trans men then that's fine, and not transphobic.

He strongly disagreed.

I have also been lectured by a gay friend of a friend, who thought he would engage me in an email exchange off social media to try to prove me wrong, that excluding a whole group of people from your dating pool was transphobic, bigoted, and yes, he called it out when he saw it.

I believe his exact words were ' there is NO excuse for not dating trans people'.

.... And I have - had - a gay friend for many years, over 20 years. I have seen him physically gag at mention of vaginas, periods and cunnilingus - actually gag!! Well, he is currently on social media proclaiming he doesn't fancy people because of what is in their pants and he would happily date a trans man.

We laugh because a. we know it's a lie and b. he will never have to stand by his inclusive, progressive opinion because he is married. To a man.

As I said, it depends why she's in the relationship. There are a number of reasons why a lesbian would be in a het relationship. To pass as straight, to try and suppress/cure her sexuality, because of external or internal coercive pressure. If the woman is oriented towards women, then the only two options there are, if she is in a relationship with a male, is happy bisexual or coerced/self-deceiving lesbian.

The material point is that it's not a lesbian relationship, and the lesbian being in the relationship doesn't make it so, because it's a relationship with a male, who will either be bisexual or heterosexual.

If the lesbian was in a relationship with a bisexual woman, it wouldn't change the bisexual into a lesbian, but the relationship would be lesbian, because it is between two women.

From CharlieParley's post upthread

In 2018, Stonewall were asked to support the following statement:

“Exclusive same sex attraction is a valid and real sexuality, there is absolutely nothing objectionable about being exclusively same sex attracted, and those who are should be able to live their sexuality free from any form of hate, discrimination, coercion or harassment, and are fully supported by our organisation as part of the LGBT community".

Stonewall's response: "We cannot help you with that."

From
Female Only Provision:
A Women and Girls in Scotland Report
Page 55f.
wgscotland.org.uk/reports/

So, Stonewall - Stonewall - can't support same sex attraction.

And some people are OK with that?

If a transwoman (a man) was in a relationship with a woman then surely that woman is either heterosexual or bisexual?

To reiterate for the cheap seats - a TW may be in a heterosexual relationship with a lesbian. A TW will never be in a lesbian relationship, because a TW will never be a lesbian, because a lesbian is a woman, and a TW is a male.

There are no male lesbians.

*wont be mainstream, obvs

Some people will allow that term ‘woman’ to be assumed socially to be nice but not when sex matters

The reason why it will all die a natural death is men. Sadly, women’s rights and women’s spaces and lesbians’ ability to say no to penises won’t ultimately cut it, but men already aren’t accepting and that won’t change.

Aggressive men, who have transitioned and identify as women are driving this, hence an attempt to change the goalposts on the non socially constructed aspects of women, specifically biological functions and sexual attraction. Hence, we have dissociation of the “woman and girls” from biological functions such as menstruation and pregnancy and breastfeeding and coercion of lesbians to accept “ladycock”

However, men are the reason why TWAW and TMAM will be be mainstream. Their specific health needs are still clearly identified, they aren’t “prostate havers” or “people with testes”. Men who are attracted to women and not to men won’t accept “ladycock” and won’t be coerced, bullied or shamed into it.

Please post evidence to support your assertion that is not a misinterpreted answer to that yougov survey that is immediately negated by the question where the support for males who identify as women but still have a penis accessing female single sex spaces declines significantly.

No. The minority is those who believe that males can change sex. Some people will allow that term ‘woman’ to be assumed socially to be nice but not when sex matters.

In 20-30 years there will be body of evidence (possibly anecdotal given the current bastardisation of record keeping) that shows whether making trans women interchangeable with female people disadvantages female people.

So either

1. the whole ridiculous mess will have gone away and we will be back to "sex exists and sometimes need to be mitigated, the only genuine difference between men and women is their bodies, everything else is just social, and gender is a harmful social construct that doesn't help anyone and needs to be challenged not appeased"

2. we will have decided gender really does exist but so does sex and will have sensible solutions that allow for single sex definitions, rights and provisions when sex matters but honour gender preferences the rest of the time

3. social and cultural power will have imposed genderism but female people will have woken up to their disadvantages as we always do and a new form of feminism will be emerging

4. it will have been shown that trans women are materially indistinguishable from female people so the social group of female will have become obsolete

Honestly, given that there's already clear examples where trans women and females have statistically significant differences I'm not betting on 4.

based on your personal belief that trans women aren't women.

Based on the scientific fact that all transwomen are male , no belief needed.

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

Yes it is. It's a minority belief. The world is changing whether you like it or not.

Everytime BlindaB has brought it up on previous threads, she has decided to completely ignore posters linking the survey commissioned by Wings Over Scotland which shows that, when asked in clear, unambiguous terms, whether the general public believe that TWAW or that self ID should mean that transwomen should be allowed to access single sex spaces, the answer is no. And not a minority no, but quite a large majority no.

The Yougov survey itself shows this, something Bilinda has consistently handwaved away as unimportant.

Ticking the 'interested in women' box which covers men who think they're women.

Excuse me while I piss myself laughing.

Oh, I'm just waiting for that PinkNews YouGov survey to be trotted out yet again as 'evidence' that most people believe TWAW. Everytime BlindaB has brought it up on previous threads, she has decided to completely ignore posters linking the survey commissioned by Wings Over Scotland which shows that, when asked in clear, unambiguous terms, whether the general public believe that TWAW or that self ID should mean that transwomen should be allowed to access single sex spaces, the answer is no. And not a minority no, but quite a large majority no.

But this will be ignored, as it is on every other threads, because it doesn't fit the TRA narrative. It's inconvenient.

And so we will continue to be told that the view that human beings cannot magically change sex is a minority view. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yes it is. It's a minority belief.

what, the belief that humans can't change sex?

yeah, sure

you really are very good value

I think that's for her to decide. If all her other partners weren't trans, then she meets a trans woman and has a relationship - she stops being a lesbian? And who makes up these rules? Because I think it's pretty misogynist to suggest that you can tell a woman if she is or isn't a lesbian, based on your personal belief that trans women aren't women.

I think that's for her to decide. If all her other partners weren't men, then she meets a trans man and has a relationship - she stops being a lesbian? And who makes up these rules? Because I think it's pretty misogynist to suggest that you can tell a woman if she is or isn't a lesbian, based on your personal belief

I think that's for her to decide. If all her other partners weren't male, then she meets a male and has a relationship - she stops being a lesbian? And who makes up these rules? Because I think it's pretty misogynist to suggest that you can tell a woman if she is or isn't a lesbian, based on your personal belief

So it boils down to two possible questions.

If your view is "I think it's pretty misogynist to suggest that you can tell a woman if she is or isn't a lesbian, based on your personal belief" what is the actual point and meaning of the LG & B? Why bother giving names to sexualities if sexualities themselves are undefinable?

Or if on reflection your view is not in fact that, and you think you can, in fact, define sexualities, why does the Stonewall / TRA redefinition of gay and lesbian as mixed sex/same gender attracted stand and the pre-existing definition of gay and lesbian as same sex attracted - the definition that was in use when people actually fought for LGB rights, the definition they fought under because that is what they were - have to go?

It's not a belief, it's true.

Use whatever language you want, say it as many times as you want, but transwomen are not women.

Go on, say it again. It still won't be true.