BBC responds to backlash to article about lesbians being pressured into sex by some trans women

OK. Just shows the ridiculousness of having to contort language. 'Woman is trans' is often used to mean men. If you mean a woman then still having to repeatedly stress you do not want to sleep with them sounds like you are being harassed. As for not wanting to date someone who is a devotee of a specific belief system, I don't see an issue with that.

Agreed... but at the moment it seems lesbians need to.

Why? Do gay men have to justify their choices?

But also because I disagree with almost every bit of the ideology that TRAs put forward and would never date someone if their political views were in direct opposition to mine.

Yes, yes, yes and this is such a key point. I would not date someone who voted for UKIP. This does not mean that I am questioning their right to exist or phobic of them. It does not mean I consider them inherently evil or psychopathic. It does mean that our political views are completely incompatible. I would also not date a straight man who was a TRA (I am straight).I don't think I'd date a man who stated his pronouns. Choosing not to date a trans person who has the body of someone you otherwise might date is not transphobic (well not necessarily, there may of course be some people who don't want to for that reason).

@NoNotMeNoSiree

TRAs protesting a conference about violence against women and girls

The Filia conference addressing violence against women and girls worldwide was protested by TRAs. Many of the women contributing to the conference are survivors of rape and sexual abuse. They and their children were met with slogans including “suck my dick, cunt”

TRAs protesting young women raising awareness about drunks spiking
The Girls Night In boycott of nightclubs to protest the massive increase in spiking women’s drinks was criticised by TRAs and pressurised to change the name to ‘Durham Night In’ etc. Spiking is wrong whoever the target is, if TRAs see TWAW why could they not have assumed it meant them too and / or put out a statement ‘in solidarity of our ‘cis’ sisters’ or ‘Transwomen support this campaign on behalf of trans/ cis alike’? Instead of attacking and undermining?

TRAs now saying that lesbians are lying

The narrative that lesbians are NOT being pressurised, or not enough to care about, that the BBC made the article up etc. The ‘cotton ceiling’ workshop is documented. Stonewall have removed the word ‘homophobia’ from their campaigning and put out a weasel-worded statement about sex based sexuality choices being akin to racism etc. So who is believing and standing up for lesbians here?

Of course insults, discrimination, abuse and avoidance of trans people simply for being trans is transphobic.

But having a sexuality which is focussed on biological sex is not. For anyone with any sense, honesty or empathy.

Agreed... but at the moment it seems lesbians need to. Also, to be picky, lesbians do not need to reject trans people in order to defend their sexuality, they need to reject TW only. A trans man might be rejected by a lesbian for any number of reasons, but a trans man by definition cannot be a threat to a lesbian's sexuality.

If a lesbian is repeatedly having to say that they don't want to sleep with a transwoman
...
Then the transwoman is clearly providing unwanted sexual harassment

Two statements -

(1) I find it almost impossible to think that I would ever date a trans person. There are many reasons for this, not least that trans women are men and I don't date men, and trans men (ie women who are trans) present as men and my preference is for women who present as women. But also because I disagree with almost every bit of the ideology that TRAs put forward and would never date someone if their political views were in direct opposition to mine.

(2) I would never date a trans person.

I can 100% see why a lesbian might say statement (2)... but in the interests of trying to keep ordinary people on board - people who know what a sexual orientation is, are pro-gay-rights and anti bigotry - I think statement (1) is better.

Obviously if a male bodied trans person claimed to be a woman and a lesbian then that other lesbian should tell that man to fuck off with his sexual harrasssment and homophobia.

I'm not convinced that telling lesbians what they should and shouldn't say is very helpful either though. Runs the risk that if they get a word wrong then they're the 'aggressor' rather than the victim if their preferences are violated.

Maybe the best thing is that nobody should ever feel the need to explain or defend their own sexuality.

If a lesbian is having to repeatedly stress that she does not want to sleep with a woman because that woman is trans, then there is an argument that there might be an element of transphobia

If a lesbian was repeatedly having to stress that she does not want to sleep with a man then there is an argument that there might be an element of sexual harassment and homophobia.

why would you automatically exclude this person other than transphobia?

Because they've just said something that indicates a whole load of tedium in store, perhaps. Much the same as if you had met someone, got on great then they showed you photos of a room stuffed to the gills with Thomas the tank engine books and toys.

I suppose, to really nail it down, I am trying to suggest that it is entirely unhelpful for women to say "I would never sleep with a trans person". It risks being perceived as bigotry if nothing else, including by the general public.

Lesbians should stick to the line "I don't sleep with men" and trust that the vast majority of the population understand that not sleeping with men means not sleeping with any adult human male, trans or not. "I don't sleep with men" is going to be called out as transphobic as well by TRAs, but an ordinary person is going to treat that accusation as idiotic.

If a lesbian repeatedly stresses that she does not want to sleep with a woman because that woman is trans, then there is an argument that there might be an element of transphobia. Lesbians are attracted to women, and if the only thing wrong with the woman is that the woman is trans then it does look like it might be a bit transphobic.

Surely it's entirely possible, and legitimate, for a lesbian to be both homosexual and 'homogenderal' ? While others might be homosexual and 'heterogenderal' and prefer more butch women and/or transmen.

I would like to stress that I agree 100% that sexually rejecting anyone, for any reason OR NONE, is perfectly acceptable.

It is perfectly reasonable of a lesbian to assume that an FtM trans person will have beliefs, issues and/or physical traits which leave the lesbian cold.

I suppose my point is that it is all orientation (which is a definitive thing) or preference (which is much less clear cut).

Avoiding trans people (of the sex you fancy) is a preference, not an orientation. And as such I cannot help but leave open the tiny possibility that a trans person might have none of the undesirable attributes I might assume them to have.

Part of me thinks this is a pointless tangent - TW are upset with lesbians failing to validate them, not heterosexual women for failing to have normal straight sex.

But part of me thinks that my point is absolutely key. IMHO the wholesale and inevitable rejection of trans people by non trans people, ordinary men and women, is not because they think trans people are evil or second class citizens. TW are rejected because lesbians like women not men, and straight women tend to like men who accept reality and don't make a spectacle of themselves, not men who deny reality and expect you to validate their insane denial as they smear lipstick badly across their blatantly male face. The rejection of trans people is not simply because they're trans, it is because of the things that typically go along with it.

Actually, another thought experiment. You go on a blind date. You meet a man who is straight. Everything he says and does is perfect, and he looks great and shares your GC views. At the end of the date he says "obviously I have a male body and I my orientation is that I like straight sex with women... but I identify as non-binary - I just feel that my inner self transcends gender. Anyway, that's enough of that, just thought I'd tell you, I know I am a man, I have no interest in adopting feminine gender expression, let's never mention that I am non-binary again!"

I'd not a blame anyone for saying "FFS, what horseshit, I'm out". But equally I kinda think that this hypothetical man is absolutely perfect apart from an ultimately meaningless claim to be non-binary, so why would you automatically exclude this person other than transphobia?

I'd imagine that if you did reject this man many TRA would simultaneously claim that the man wasn;t really trans but you were transphobic anyway!

Personally I would choose my words very carefully!

IMHO this would be a reasonable position. "I am only attracted to men. I cannot imagine being attracted to a man who presents in a feminine way, or who seeks access to women's single sex spaces, or who denies women their sex-based rights. I certainly couldn't be attracted to a man who honestly denied reality so much that he claimed to be a woman. But, saying all that, my dating pool is people with male bodies who are attracted to women and it is possible that I could meet a male-bodied person who identifies as trans and ticks all the boxes. Highly unlikely but not impossible. If I did they'd probably reject me for insisting that the PIV sex we were having is heterosexual sex and failing to validate their delusion that they're a lesbian!"

Just my opinion

But this is just more of the same what we did that, what if we said this? What if toilet cubicle doors were floor to ceiling and had a basin in them, what if the male rapist in a female prison was flanked by security, had a GRC, what if it was just post op men, what if, what if, what if.

Women can say no, you know. Unequivocally. With or without reasons. They do not have to choose their words carefully.

They can reject men sexually for all or any of the reasons connected to them subscribing to transgenderism.

Women's sexual proclivities are not subject to discriminatory judgement. We're not an exercise in equality.

They don't have to future proof their decisions against some hypothetical situation which might constitute a what if.

Open letter 'nothing of the such'
So that's logic AND the English language they're failing in then.

IMHO this would be a reasonable position. "I am only attracted to men. I cannot imagine being attracted to a man who presents in a feminine way, or who seeks access to women's single sex spaces, or who denies women their sex-based rights. I certainly couldn't be attracted to a man who honestly denied reality so much that he claimed to be a woman. But, saying all that, my dating pool is people with male bodies who are attracted to women and it is possible that I could meet a male-bodied person who identifies as trans and ticks all the boxes. Highly unlikely but not impossible. If I did they'd probably reject me for insisting that the PIV sex we were having is heterosexual sex and failing to validate their delusion that they're a lesbian!"

Just my opinion

This post uses dictionary definitions of man and woman.

If a lesbian repeatedly stresses that she does not want to sleep with a woman because that woman is trans, then there is an argument that there might be an element of transphobia. Lesbians are attracted to women, and if the only thing wrong with the woman is that the woman is trans then it does look like it might be a bit transphobic.

If a lesbian repeatedly stresses that she does not want to sleep with a man because that man is trans, then that is not even vaguely transphobic, it is an expression of sexual orientation.

I take the point, but I would like to stress that sexually rejecting anyone, for any reason, is perfectly acceptable. If a lesbian doesn't want to go out with a FtM trans person, they do not have to. It's perfectly reasonable to not want to go out with someone who hates their body, or the fact that they are female. Lesbian transwidows (who are possibly the most sidelined voice in a host of squashed down voices) should feel under no obligation whatsoever to stay with partners who require controlled language etc.

You can have enthusiastic consent and female autonomy, or you can have 'you might be transphobic if...' You can't have both.

If a lesbian repeatedly stresses that she does not want to sleep with a woman because that woman is trans, then there is an argument that there might be an element of transphobia. Lesbians are attracted to women, and if the only thing wrong with the woman is that the woman is trans then it does look like it might be a bit transphobic.

I posted this last night. I'm female and straight. I can't imagine ever wanting to sleep with an MTF trans person, despite seeing them as unequivocally male (as I completely reject the idea that they are women). Does my lack of attraction to this group of males in and of itself make me transphobic?

Obviously where you fish in your dating pool is down to your personal preferences, tastes and kinks - you might have a very small corner where you look for extremely attractive masculine men aged 30-35 who went to oxbridge, or you might be open anyone with at least some of their own teeth. But, by definition you'll always be lookin in the pool containing people of the sex(es) you are attracted to.

If a lesbian repeatedly stresses that she does not want to sleep with a woman because that woman is trans, then there is an argument that there might be an element of transphobia. Lesbians are attracted to women, and if the only thing wrong with the woman is that the woman is trans then it does look like it might be a bit transphobic.

If a lesbian repeatedly stresses that she does not want to sleep with a man because that man is trans, then that is not even vaguely transphobic, it is an expression of sexual orientation.

It's time to start using the terms male bodied and female bodied trans people as a stepping stone to getting to accurate language where a "trans woman" means a woman who happens to be trans, not a man playing at being a woman. Not least as the two most important things we need to know is their biological sex and whether they identify as trans. We don't need to know how some man perceives himself and wants to be perceived by others.

It might not be as widespread as TRAs like to claim, and it is certainly not a result of gender critical feminism or female people asserting boundaries, but let's not make the mistake of minimising it/taking a "this never happens" route. That's their tactic and we are better than that.

They are claiming disproportionate levels of violence to this group than to other groups, as a way to cancel out any issues of other groups. In this country that is not true. That is what I was referring to.

It was very much written in the style copied from Lunar Landing Doubters or 9/11 'Troofers' - those who believe the attack on the WTC was performed by aliens, or Mossad or something. Written as a stream-of-consciousness, with no structure.

I wonder if it was a group effort, but no one contributing to the draft was willing to give way and perhaps allow the editing of a passage or paragraph, or even allow some sections to-be-dropped. So everything was included. It could have benefited from some substantial editing and a proof-read, but I guess 'folx' couldn't wait for a second draft and sent it off in their excitement.

Interesting that The Guardian is staying away from this subject entirely. Wouldn't they be expected to reprint the letter in full? Surely the authors would expect it to do so. On this occasion perhaps even Viner will be content to watch TOJ dig himself into a hole of his own making, whilst it watches from the sidelines.

I reckon the narrative is now out of the TRA's control, on both social media and IRL and they have insufficient skills and ability to recapture it. Issuing death-and-rape threats on this occasion isn't working. Plus The Guardian will have gay-and-lesbian staff, some of whom might not take kindly to their employer backing rape apologists (again). And it likely can't risk another roasting from Julie Bindel!