Concept of ‘exclusively same sex attracted’

But unsurprisingly, if a trans woman considers herself to be a woman, it will be upsetting to be told by someone that they don’t regard her as a woman.

Why is a male’s feelings so much more important than living in reality?

What the actual fuck is this statement?

What other aspect of a person’s belief that is not backed by science is to be enforced to be affirmed by others?

This shows just how supportive of propping up a male’s need to be viewed as they wish, not as reality reveal you are. No one. Absolutely fucking no one should be coerced in any way, emotionally or otherwise to do this.

If you wish to live like this, fine. if you are shaming anyone else who chooses otherwise, then the shame should be carried by you.

But unsurprisingly, if a trans woman considers herself to be a woman, it will be upsetting to be told by someone that they don’t regard her as a woman.

It isn't reasonable to deny scientific reality to avoid people's 'upset' and we do no favours to anyone pandering to this nonsense

TW can 'consider themselves' whatever the hell they like, but they are not owed affirmation in their scientific illiteracy by anyone.

Are you basically confirming that we are not allowed to upset males?

How far do lesbians have to go to not upset them? All the way?

Being upset is part of growing up...

'no thanks, I'm only attracted to females'

Trouble is, lesbians know exactly how this one goes.

'Are you saying TW aren't women?'
'You're a genital fetishist!'
'How do you know you won't like ladydick until you try it, it'll have a completely different mouthfeel to a male penis' (I kid you not, I have actually seen this one argued)
'Transphobic bigot!'
Death threats, rape threats, shaming, exclusion, flying monkeys, yada yada yada

To me there is no difference at all between this reaction and that of the hetero male who identifies as a man who tells me at the bar to get my coat, I've pulled, and when I point out I'm a lesbian unleashes the

'darling you just haven't met me yet'
'I bet I could turn you straight'
'frigid bitch'
Violence threats, rape threats, shaming.... (actually no death threats or flying monkeys though, maybe I've been lucky there).

Really I'm at the point of you call me a genital fetishist, unnatural bitch, or whatever other nasty misogynistic homophobic slur you want to throw around, I really do not care any more what you wish to call me and other homosexual females if it means you and male people will get the hell out of my face and stop trying to argue us into non consenting sexual access for males.

You crack on.

Okay, how about 'no thanks, I'm only attracted to females'

'no thanks, I don't find males attractive'

I await further instructions on how to be polite when turning down unwanted male attentions. God forbid women ever hurt male feelings, eh?

If you're a transwoman, then putting a female homosexual in the position of having to say no to you is probably not too kind either.

And yes, this is key. Being pestered by males is often unwanted attention that can be intimidating to women, because you never know how they will take it.

And besides "no" should be sufficient.

Yes absolutely, what I was getting at, which was avoided by OP up to this point, is that if a woman wants to say that she is a lesbian as an answer to why she isn't interested in a male, that should also suffice.

You can't just walk up to your friend, Susan, and say 'I don't like calling you Susan so I'm going to call you Jemima instead'. You can't just tell women and lesbians that their definition of their own identity is wrong. Just be honest. Lesbian means lesbian. Use 'pan sexual ' if you're not happy with 'straight' and want to specify attraction to a combination of sex/gender identity ie: 'I'm attracted to women and transwomen but not men and transmen'

If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it

Why is it the responsibility of the person that has been put in the situation to be nice to the person that has put them there?

And besides "no" should be sufficient.

Op: If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it,

Lesbian: You are a man in a dress: go away
we need to stop all kindness and puncture this with the sharp bite of reality.

as for the transman, as a lesbian I discussed something close to this a few pages back in my own life: chatting up a cute butch lesbian possible date, who then called herself 'he' .... I turned her down and told her frankly that I love women and men physically disgust me, so calling yourself 'he' was an utter turn off.

Ladies: truth over kindness!

If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it,

If you're a transwoman, then putting a female homosexual in the position of having to say no to you is probably not too kind either. Female people do not have a higher responsibility of kindness. It's not the job of lesbians to protect male egos or to provide any other services.

If a trans man came onto a lesbian and she said ‘no thanks, I’m a lesbian’

Why would a female homosexual say 'I'm a lesbian' as a reason to say a polite no to another female? The gender identity is not relevant in homosexuality, it makes no odds at all. It's the sex class that matters. In the case of a TM propositioning it would be quite simply whether or not the attraction was reciprocated.

Is 'no thanks I'm a lesbian' not kinder than 'I find you hideously unattractive', for example? 🧐

We're back to "who cares that "vegan" means something, I want to be a bacon-eating vegan, I don't care whether vegans then get served bacon because people think they eat it".

If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it

No. They should simply accept that her being a lesbian means they aren't included in her dating pool, like any other male.

It was a badly thought out, badly made law, and Hansard demonstrates every possible thought out and discussed pitfall has come to pass plus a whole lot more because they did not foresee how far it could be exploited.

It should not be a legal entitlement for anyone to be counted as something that in material reality they are not. And thereby entitled to the spaces and resources created and set aside to meet the specific needs of those who do have that material reality and cannot identify out of it via a legal fiction. This should not be a 'right' for anyone. Law has to be based on material reality and clear shared meaning, and this experiment has been an appalling failure of responsibility for many groups, homosexuals, females and children in need of safeguarding in particular.

I agree Eresh or if not then radically reformed, and the EqA needs to be tightened and more explicit.

If, for whatever reason, a GRC is deemed necessary it should be an additional document and the sex on the Birth Certificate is not changed, it is supposed to be recognising gender not sex after all.

The secrecy around a GRC is ridiculous it's what has opened the door to the weaponisation of opening all spaces to males, it was always going to do so and it's criminal that the Act went through knowing this would be the inevitable outcome.

Plus the use of stereotypes in the Act is insulting and offensive.

I do believe that the GRA needs to be repealed. It's a poorly thought out, largely superfluous law which is weaponised to open up spaces to all males.

Although it's possible to exclude males with GRC from female spaces, the wording of the EA implies there is a higher bar to do so. So I do see that group as slightly different.

The problem isn't just one of legality, it's also the issue of the "privacy" rights with the GRC so you would have to be able to make the case that they were definitely male, but you can't demand to see the GRC. I do see it as more of a grey area.

No arguably about it - in certain circumstances it's perfectly legal to exclude bio males with a GRC from women's single-sex services, just as it's legal to exclude bio males who don't have GRCs. They aren't being excluded on the basis of their gender reassignment, they are being excluded on the basis of them being male.