Concept of ‘exclusively same sex attracted’

OP what is your view on the current case in Tasmania where a lesbian group wanted to host an event excluding any males - including trans women who identify as lesbian.

Do you think that they shoulD be allowed to do that?

Lesbians: are sexually attracted to women only.
Gay men: are attracted to men only.
Heterosexuals: are attracted to the opposite sex only
Bisexuals, genderists, pansexuals, trans people, questioning etc are Queer
Everybody needs to stay in their lane.

It's really very simple
if you enforce strong boundaries
and say NO to blurring/queering them.

There seems to be an ever-growing list of more and more specific categories of sexuality.

So TW/TM and those who would date/have a relationship/have sex with them need to pick one and use that to describe their orientation. Leave the words lesbian and gay alone to describe those who are.

Of course they would still be lesbians as well - assuming lesbian means ‘woman who is only attracted to other women’.

Lesbians are female homosexuals, they are attracted to those of the same sex as them exclusively, leave them and their words the fuck alone. If that description excludes some - tough, get over it.

To be clear, the LGB people who think "lesbian" includes male people and women in partnerships with MTF trans people fall into two groups: those who are prepared to sleep with the opposite sex due to their ideological beliefs in gender identity, or those who have no intention of doing so but say they are open to it.

They already have their own word. It's the bisexuals or claimed bisexuals who are trying to repurpose it.

Great! So bio women who only want to be with bio women can have their own word and they can use that word to ensure that they have their own exclusive spaces in terms of dating - clubs, sites, events?

I agree with you all re the use of lesbian (and also about it going beyond vaginas, which was just shorthand, having had no traction when I asked the same question re biological women)- my point is just that the fact that the OP wouldn't even want to give you a new word, which means what "lesbian" used to mean, to use for your own purposes means that OP isn't really acting in good faith when she SAYS she isn't into sexual coercion.

I mean, if it is totally fine with OP for a lesbian not to want to sleep with a TW, then why can't such lesbians have a word and means of organising themselves so they don't have the hassle of having to turn TW down at a point at which it could get nasty for them (or hurt TW feelings)? Denying someone language under the guise of this being transphobic is just another form of coercion and an attempt to gaslight them into feeling that their sexual preferences are not legitimate and need to be kept strictly well hidden

I firmly believe that if women invent a whole new lexicon of words, to cover biological females who are mothers, who are breastfeeding, who are solely attracted to other biological females, or who simply want to define themselves accurately, and if we then want to use those new words to ensure our safety and dignity, or to protect our sporting achievements or access to schemes that promote or award women in various industries, management, academia etc etc, then the trans lobby would IMMEDIATELY demand to be given those words too.

Yep. They will not countenance that they are not included in things that are not for or about them, reasonable and tolerant they most certainly are not.

It wasn't enough. It is never enough.
Now we don't even have the word 'woman'
Women have to say NO

This. Nothing will ever be enough because we're not dealing with reasonable people.

There is a word; it's called 'queer'! I loathe the word but understood and supported its utility for those who preferred gender or were sexually fluid: pansexuals, trans etc. I thought it would be a nice 3rd place for them all to be happy without the hard sexual boundaries that lesbians and gay men have.
It wasn't enough. It is never enough.
Now we don't even have the word 'woman'
Women have to say NO

The word lesbian is already taken, why should lesbians give it over to males.

Also there is a lot more to being an actual lesbian than just the vagina and that buys into the whole ‘genital fetish’ we are already been accused of.

In short; is it ok for a female to define a sexuality for herself that she says will never involve or include any biological males? Regardless of how males feel about this?

Is this something acceptable for a female to do in this interesting world view? To go around openly and proudly having a sex life that no male is wanted as part of, and a body that is never going to be of use to a male person?

Rather than lesbians having to find another word I suggest that those who are trying to expand the definition and obfuscate the meaning of the word bugger off and use another word that accurately describes them, why the fuck should lesbians, i.e. women, have to give away the word that describes them, has always described them and comes with a long history?

Why is it always expected that women will capitulate and acquiesce? The answer is a very loud and firm NO.

The word doesn't have to be lesbian. Could be something else. But can women have a word and category for this?

OP!

Still no answer! I have asked this question soooo many times!

Can a natal woman seeking a woman with a vagina have a word for that, to shortcut the process of looking for a sexual partner? If she just doesn't want to have sex with a TW, because she just doesn't want penis or neo vagina, can she have a word to identify that? Can those women who feel this way hold events, mark themselves out on dating sites without being hassled for being transphobic?

Let‘s see. If I am a vegan and meat disgusts me, but someone somehow manages to smuggle meat into the vegan curry I eat, and I don‘t notice it (hard to fathom, but let‘s imagine it for the sake of the argument), am I still a vegan?
I‘d certainly puke, if I were told in the aftermath…

A friend of mine who hates, I say HATES seafood (because that includes all the intestines), once unwittingly ate a bowl of clam chowder (due to a translation error, long story). Once he realized, what he had eaten, he puked his heart out.

Surely, what you eat is less personal to you than who you have sex with, no?

you're prejudiced, I'm a woman, you're a bigoted bitch, you should overcome your learned genital fetishes....yada yada yada'.

Often with a chorus of useful idiots, flying monkeys or both joining in.

You're saying no because I'm trans and you're transphobic. WOULD you have sex with a TW?'

This is exactly how it would go, and it's how anyone who understood what motivates many TRAs would expect it to go. Because it's so often a power trip. For eg there was an account of Mridul Wadhwa at a party and MW forced the issue of whether MW was a woman or not by getting the host to ask everyone even though no one wanted to say it. It's controlling.

How is this different from cultural colonisation?

Add away FrippEnos!

This business of 'I give you permission to say no to people on an individual basis but never on basis of a group characteristic without calling you names' just allows people to promote TQ+ queer politics (and its homophobia) without getting their hands personally dirty and still feeling nice about themselves. While promoting coercion, homophobia and male supremacism. They don't look at that bit. That's nothing to do with them. They just enable it to happen to other people.

Oh yes the I give you permission bit is simultaneously enraging and excruciating - just who the fuck do these people think they are? You can say no to an individual for any reason but you can't use that reason to rule out everyone that you would rule out for the same reason - I mean what the ever loving hell is this bullshit?

The sex of a person is fundamental in attraction to that person it is not a mere preference.

Lesbians are attracted to females, not all females that is where other preferences come into play, but the initial and fundamental part of the attraction is that the person is female. Do I feel sorry that transwomen do not fit into this category for lesbians? No I do not.

This business of 'I give you permission to say no to people on an individual basis but never on basis of a group characteristic without calling you names' just allows people to promote TQ+ queer politics (and its homophobia) without getting their hands personally dirty and still feeling nice about themselves. While promoting coercion, homophobia and male supremacism. They don't look at that bit. That's nothing to do with them. They just enable it to happen to other people.

Exactly! So much for gay and lesbian "pride", eh?

If people who wanted to view this as being same gender attracted would have their own words for it, and respect that homosexuality is different and fine and just as valued, there would be no problem here. At all. We'd all be fine and the LGTB+ community would just be more diverse.

But the target of this argument is that homosexuality is not morally and ethically ok, that it must change and reframe to be same gender attracted (or as I would term it, hetero or at least bi), that the word homosexual and lesbian must be taken over and adapted to the hetero/bi meaning, and homosexuals who won't stop homosexualing and saying so and arguing against the removal and redefining of their language and identity should be shamed, shunned and pushed out of the LGBT+ community.

How is this anything good or inclusive or acceptable?