Concept of ‘exclusively same sex attracted’

Setting aside the problems with presuming to correct another person’s understanding of their own identity

This is such an odd statement.

Another persons 'understanding of their own identity' is of no bearing at all to others attraction to them.

I can 'identify' as being as gorgeous as Margot Robbie, but if that's manifestly not the case it would be ludicrous to expect others to go along with it. It would be a fiction in my own head.

Setting aside the problems with presuming to correct another person’s understanding of their own identity

People don't always understand definitions correctly and we are not obliged to go along with their misunderstanding even if we think that its in good faith.

Here's an archived copy for the DM-phobic: web.archive.org/web/20220828113758/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11153811/Police-remove-LESBIANS-Pride-march-Cardiff-Officer-tells-gender-critical-women-leave.html

I'm fairly sure that this quite nicely in here

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11153811/Police-remove-LESBIANS-Pride-march-Cardiff-Officer-tells-gender-critical-women-leave.html

Yes its the mail get over it. I'm sure that you can find it else where

But I am not sure what annoys me more.
That this isn't the first time that lesbians have been moved on from a gay pride parade.
That they weren't supposed to be somewhere that claims to represent them. (they weren't registered to attend! make of that what you will)
That the police said "whatever you are", whilst protecting trans people (the irony)
Or that pride claims to represent the views of the entire LGBT+ community which it clearly doesn't.

For me this runs alongside the LGB alliance being named as a hate group by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

Setting aside the problems with presuming to correct another person’s understanding of their own identity, I can’t see how this absolutist approach is logically sustainable.

People with an understanding of their own identity that isn't congruent with what society sees in them is not at all rare.
The idea that one is obliged to buy into anyone's definition of 'self-identity' is absurd. It is also unsustainable.

That is why for society to work there are objectifyable criteria and definitions in place, be it age of consent, age of retirement, sex-based protections, taxation based on actual income. (The numbers of really well-off people who consider themselves actually too poor to pay taxes are legion).

The thing is that words have defined meanings. And you can't change a definition just because a person who suddenly fancies a feminine male would like to remain in the 'lesbian' category.

It is not the end of the world to fall out of some definition based categorization. It simply is what it is. What is so awful about falling into the bi-category based on definition based classification? I frankly don't see the problem.

Oh... well that probably does answer the three situations that aseries would agree with centring the males needs.

I mean, I think I remember them saying that it would be quite alright for an infant to receive a less nutritious meal to allow a male to be centred in the feeding regime of an infant if they stimulation some kind of liquid (as yet, composition untested) to feed that infant.

Like, you know. The infant doesn't matter, as long as the male feels like they get the experience and all.

There are words for that kind of horror and those who believe and promote it, pity I can't use them as I should be able to.

I could not imagine what a teenaged girl would feel in that hospital situation.

Nor could OP. She simply wasn't capable of empathising with the girl.

Oh... well that probably does answer the three situations that aseries would agree with centring the males needs.

I mean, I think I remember them saying that it would be quite alright for an infant to receive a less nutritious meal to allow a male to be centred in the feeding regime of an infant if they stimulation some kind of liquid (as yet, composition untested) to feed that infant.

Like, you know. The infant doesn't matter, as long as the male feels like they get the experience and all.

I could not imagine what a teenaged girl would feel in that hospital situation.

Sorry to imply your mother might disapprove of incest!
Now I think about it, you've talked about her before. As I recall you said you were going to ask her if she would mind mixed-sex hospital wards, but that you anticipated she wouldn't mind.

During the same thread, you also suggested that if a teenage girl in hospital found it intimidating to have a man opposite her or in the next bed, the solution to the problem was for the male patients to come over and introduce themselves.

That is, insert themselves nearer to an intimidated vulnerable girl in a situation where she can't get away, and initiate a conversation.

I hope your mother wouldn't mind mixed-sex hospital wards, because I don't think you are capable of advocating for her to staff if she wants single-sex anything and doesn't receive it.

Exactly this.
Actually this thread is so vile only a Bunbury jellyfish can save it.
Jellyfish knitted hat pattern

www.thebigknit.devonartist.co.uk/YourPatterns/JellyFish.html

and who have their penises cut off?

We don't know whether her friend's partner still has a penis or not. Or is taking hormones. The OP never said (though it's a long thread and I might have missed it.) Not that it's really our business.

And I have other questions about this (possibly hypothetical) lesbian friend's relationship. Also questions which can only be answered hypothetically, because they're also not our business.

Many women have sex they don't really enjoy for the sake of the relationship. That's why "being a lesbian" was seen as an active choice and not just secretly recognising an inner preference. It meant choosing to stop having the kind of sex you didn't find satisfying in relationships with partners you didn't want to have sex with, and choosing to seek out sex and relationships with the kind of partners you did find satisfying.

So unless you have a fixed ingrained notion that no-one sticks with a less than sexually satisfying relationship, the friend's choice of words raises a doubt about how satisfying she really finds sex with her partner. Especially if she has only been attracted to women before this one relationship, and she still wants to call herself a lesbian..... funny that.

But we can't ask the friend, and even if the OP knows the answer it's not something the she's going to tell us. Or at least I hope not! No good friend would share that wiith us.

<quietly picks up the edible sea creatures and backs away to the bad science thread>

Me neither Eresh, and you could put oysters in that category too, repulsive looking things, how someone first looked at them and thought wow, that looks appetising beats me.

I'm categorically not ready for that jelly!

Oh my word. Completely the wrong thread. Sorry for dropping jellyfish. 😳

'Jellyfish is known for a delicate, slightly salty, flavour that means it’s eaten more as a textural experience. Its slimy, slightly chewy consistency means that Chinese and Japanese gourmands often eat it raw or sliced up as a salad ingredient. “I once had a Michelin-starred chef prepare a jellyfish tasting, and one fish expert said that it was like the best oyster he’d ever tasted,'

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2017/sep/25/are-you-ready-for-that-jelly-why-its-time-to-start-eating-jellyfish

I would.

@aseriesofstillimages
"I’m more just baffled. You seem to have such ingrained, inflexible beliefs about what women are like and what men are like you can’t conceive of anyone not fitting preconceptions."

What preconceptions would those be exactly? Please list them.
Is number one on your list that lesbians (women who are sexually attracted to other women) should now be attracted to men who take hormones and who have their penises cut off?

The Op with the mention of incest gives a good example of someone keen to adhere to Queer theory's desire to subvert societal and definitional norms.

This.

Pansexual and Queer were the agreed upon terms. I was there in the Lesbian community when it was starting around 2007(?) and felt they would be useful for those attracted by gender, pansexuals, some bisexuals, those who delighted in subverting norms aka Queer theory...
The Op with the mention of incest gives a good example of someone keen to adhere to Queer theory's desire to subvert societal and definitional norms.

I'm a normal boring woman who indeed thinks societal norms exist for a good reason and I just happen to be same sex attracted (and I like it that way!) , which is why I left the noxious LBTQ+

I agree, lesbian can’t be an umbrella term. It’s a very specific descriptor of a female who is ONLY open to relationships with other females. I’ll leave it up to the women with a vested interest to decide if ‘Sapphic’ could be useful (as it currently covers bisexual women, it could certainly include cisbian women, who are bisexual in old terms).

There is no need for an umbrella term really, there hasn’t been an agreeable one thus far, hence all the letters (and the admittance of defeat by adding a ‘+’ for any future letters that someone might come up with!)

Well yes, that’s the sticking point isn’t it? It’s always driven by misogyny and the associated colonisation and occupation of women’s words, spaces & rights.

Still, we’ll just have to keep on being rational and talking to the majority.

Transbian/Cisbian is like 3rd spaces for toileting and changing, those who believe in an internal gender essence can use third spaces (including the gender believers who aren’t trans themselves) and the majority can carry on as before, using F/M as the division. What helps absolutely no one (including trans people) is collapsing all the currently perfectly serviceable categories/terms/laws just because a few people don’t like how those categories are described.

that’s why superstraight was actually a really nice (a kind!) idea - transitioned-males need not fear dating other males as long as other males have clear terms to define their own orientation.
The superstraight dude even offered to budge up himself and create a new category, whereas I would suggest it’s going to be easier to implement if we left ‘straight’ in it’s old, widely accepted definition and introduced ‘transstraight’ and ‘cisstraight’ for the people who are usually heterosexual but willing to have homosexual relationships in limited circumstances (based on external presentation/aesthetics of the factually opposite sex partner).

if the tumblr kids can make up infinite xenogenders and associated pronouns (that have no utility in a material world) I reckon us oldies can cope with a few extra portmanteau type categories that make it easier for everyone to communicate exactly what they mean (and thus resist the hostile takeover of women-words).

I’ve always admired the practicality of the terms ‘homoflexible’ and ‘heteroflexible’ that seem to only really be used when one person in a preexisting relationship transitions* as the new terms both centre the reality of the subject’s inborn sexual orientation whilst acknowledging that the other partner in the relationship has made changes (even if only in outer presentation or to the name on the gas bill, seeing as changing sex isn’t actually a thing).

*not that anyone should be expected to stay and certainly the evidence suggests transwidows should flee before the transition related credit card debts accrue.

I agree it would be helpful if they would use different words (but not use "lesbian" as an umbrella term though). As I said, "homogenderal" could be a useful word.

If those friends called themselves ‘cisbians’ and their partners ‘transbians’ a lot of this tension would erode.
like, I don’t think it should be necessary as it should be completely acceptable to just be a bisexual woman who used to date other female people but who now has a male-who-transitioned partner but I have sympathy for those who would prefer a snappy term to describe this scenario and representation (and descriptive language) IS important so new words seem like the best way forward… especially in a world of dating apps where ticking boxes is a thing and if you only like women and transitioned-male-born-people rather than women and men more broadly a ‘bisexual’ tick box probably isn’t enough.

More words would mean some social groups could limit their membership to lesbian only and others could be open to lesbians, transbians and cisbians and that way everyone would know what to expect and whether they will be welcome.

it would also maximise the chances of getting a good match on a dating site and transbians need not worry about being rejected by lesbians as the women who want to be with transbians would be using the cisbian descriptor.

the new word ‘cisbian’ is properly in line with gender identity beliefs (as it is complimentary to ‘transbian’ and is derived from ‘transgender’ and ‘cisgender’) but the old fashioned cunty lesbians who don’t have gender identities will not need to have it applied to them against their will because it won’t mean ‘female homosexual’ but will instead mean something like ‘female homogenderal’.

it will also help in female to female dating etiquette because content-to-be-described-as -cisgender females can weed the naughty tervern lesbians out of their dating pool at a single glance.

problem solved - OPs scenario is a cisbian/transbian relationship.

now… any ideas on a name for bisexual men who only like male-men and female-born-transitioners (and not standard female-women?) not that it’s OUR job to do the menfolk’s work for them but it is interesting to talk about language (or at least it’s interesting when the new language proposed doesn’t seek to eradicate actual female people and their rights in law).

Tragay and cisgay kinda works?

(and leaves plain ol ‘gay’ for the plain ol’ homosexuals!)

Because this whole movement cannibalises and colonises everything to do with women.
It's the ultimate dick move.
And the people who push it are in service to misogyny.