"Lesbians being anti-trans is a lesbophobic trope"

@BonfireLady yes this is the key point. Whilst about 10% of women are lesbians, I would guess from an unscientific survey of my social circle that a good 90% of lesbians are, at any given time, either already coupled-up or for some other reason not seeking a partner at any given time. So approximately 1% of the whole female population are lesbians who are currently actively seeking a partner.

The census actually found 0.5% of people are trans (though obviously this data is somewhat flawed). I don't know if general figures for sexuality apply in the trans-identifying population but if they do that would suggest that 0.5% x 90% of transwomen are sexually attracted to females. So that's 0.45% of the whole male population who are transwomen seeking relationships with women. Obviously not all of those are on dating sites targeting lesbians - some will be respectful of boundaries or in a relationship with a bi or heterosexual woman, but still the ratio is going to be that if a site or social situation doesn't have any gatekeeping around a quarter of the "women" seeking to link up with women are going to be male. If then 50% of the actual female lesbians self-exclude from those sites and restrict their dating pool to friends-of-friends then the number of transwomen out there looking for a "lesbian" relationship will actually start to outnumber the women. And if the transwomen don't link up with each other (which they tend not to) that means that all females on those sites are going to get more requests and contacts from males than from females. And it's not fun.

A lot of these statistics are guesses. It would be good to have actual figures but doing the research to find the correct numbers would be deemed transphobic and forbidden.

No, all good. It came just below my comment so I thought I'd accidentally said the exact opposite of what I meant 😂

I wonder if anyone has ever asked Keir Starmer if he would (hypothetically, he's married) date a "woman" with a penis. His assertion that 99.9% of women don't have one is a relatively comfortable place for him to be if his estimated 0.1% are also not trying to date him. But what if he was on a dating app and suddenly this "0.1%" were there, and they made up a significant number of all the people who were interested in him. Would he politely refuse? On what grounds? Would he make it simpler by stating on his profile that he wanted to date biological women only. This is what Lucy Masoud (have I got the name right?) said on her dating app profile and she got excluded for transphobia and then harassed.
Someone should ask him.

My response was meant to be in relation to lesbians (very understandably) not wanting to date a ‘woman’ with a penis. Did I read the room wrong (wouldn’t be the first time for me 😂)

Yeah I think that the nuance is helpful and important.

Phew! I'm well aware that some of the things that I say are not necessarily in line with others' views, even where we share the same views on gender identity belief.
It's highly likely that there will be occasions where I articulate my thoughts spectacularly badly. I've been accidentally misunderstood before (I totally understand why) but only on a relatively nuanced points. I thought this might have been that total fail moment 😬

If I've ever done so, I'd much rather be pulled up on it so that I can have another attempt.

My impression @BonfireLady is that it was a response to the original post without having read the whole thread.

Is that in response to my comment above? If so, I've definitely not explained myself well 😬

So now women are being called bigots for wanting to date other women. What a time to be alive.

Definitely a constructive exchange of views. It's a bumpy ride but that's because views on this differ significantly.

That vegetarian/pescatarian analogy was absolutely genius - it's respectful all round whilst also making the boundaries clear, at the point when that clarity is important. It's when that boundary is changed unconsciously that the wilful misinterpretion and repurposing of a word can happen without consensus. When that shift happens, it displays a complete lack of respect to anyone who was happy with the word in its original sense and pushes them in to a situation where they need to effectively claim it back, in order to reinstate the boundaries.

It also describes how to identify any "forced teaming" i.e. where two groups of people have been clumped together to make a point, without the differences between the groups being acknowledged (where those differences are important). This is something that is seen on both sides of the debate IMO. I'll get shot for saying this but I have also seen it here on this board, to falsely team different groups of people within the trans community when making points (that I agree with) about important boundaries relating to women's spsces.

I have bookmarked it and will be borrowing it.

I agree, the reason I hang around this forum is the occasion constructive exchange like this, though sadly I don’t find they come along very often

@aseriesofstillimages thank you - it's very nice when these threads result in developing a better understanding between two points of view. I have also found this thread useful for developing a better understanding of viewpoint that I don't share, but talking and clarifying and explaining has been very positive here.

I think you make some very reasonable points, and this is a much more intelligent and nuanced version of the vegetarian analogy than I’ve seen before.

Well, quite.
I guess I was hoping to highlight that the clash of rights between exclusively same sex attracted women (to organise a lesbian only community event) and trans women (to be treated as women in all public life) has for two decades now been decided in trans womens' favour in Australia. But perhaps "trans activism" would be a better phrase, because the word "rights" implies legitimacy.

My main point was the /twenty year old/ article, which uses all the same arguments @MerlinsLostMarbles and co. beat lesbians over the head with, exsplaining how to lesbian properly.
Bloody hell, fellas. Twenty years not long enough? Give it a rest.

If a woman likes women and also female presenting males then bisexual fits. What with female presenting males being male. And female and male being the two sexes, hence the bi terminology.

It's not difficult.

Are you both going around with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears singing “La La La”?

Nancy’s statement is typically illogical. Disabled people have sexualities and sexual orientations. Disabled females are still female and may be lesbian, straight or bi. Disabled females are female regardless of talents, personalities, hobbies, haircuts and ways of dressing. Black people still have sexualities and sexual orientations. Black females are still female and may be lesbian, straight, or bi, regardless of their talents, personalities, hobbies, haircuts and ways of dressing. Desiring a sexual/romantic relationship with someone in a biological sex class means that the sex of bodies and genitals matter.
And btw, many of us who are older lesbians have had genuinely nice trans friends for decades. We have coexisted peacefully, have close friendships even today. They understand that sexual boundaries are not transphobia. Not once have they coerced women to sleep with them, claiming that they have “lady-dicks” or their penis is a female organ and therefore has a “different mouthfeel”. (And in fact are appalled by the current TRA rhetoric).

A psychological function that is intrinsically male, a concept bound up in a fundamentally masculine view of womanhood that is misogynistic in nature, and totally alien to lesbian experience.

A psychological function.

It's not my problem what they call themselves; I thought that was the point of 'queer' .

Lesbian is taken.

I honestly don't care what word they use, make them up all day, put them on flags, have t shirts, I'll applaud them on and hold their coats. Absolutely nothing wrong with adding more words and categories.

Just leave the existing ones alone and stop forcibly redefining other people to the point that homosexual women are being bullied out for refusing hetero sex with a male. On the grounds that this is 'lesbianism'.

I totally agree that no lesbian GROUPS should be expected to be inclusive.
No MALE should be included in anything lesbian.
But I have to admit that some women who are basically lesbian are less picky than me, and they are women and PP above has a point that it's not really appropriate for other people to say "well you are bi then" if they have no interest at all in male-presenting males but find feminine-presenting males attractive. Yes it's probably inappropriate for them to use the word lesbian but it is no less inappropriate to say bisexual. How about "femisexual"? Or perhaps "femigendual"?

The whole “you must be inclusive” thing infuriates me. There are so many groups that I am not included in - because I don’t fulfil the criteria to join, or because they are not intended to support or serve me, but are vital to support and serve others - but somehow I manage not to stamp my feet and scream and scream and scream until I’m sick (because I can, you know) about their failure to include MEEEEEEEEE!!

There is only one group that does not exclude any man, woman, boy, girl, binary, trans person etc etc etc - and that is the human race. Everything else is for some people and not for others - and there is nothing wrong with that!

NO.
Lesbian is taken.
Men; feck off.

I completely agree.

None of the things they are using the word "inclusive" about, such as womanhood, lesbianism or women's sports, are supposed to be inclusive of male people. Not including male people is literally the point of them.

I really don't like the whole 'inclusive lesbians' thing. It basically translates as 'nice women do what makes men happy and don't have boundaries'.

Inclusive would be the capacity to tolerate that some women are female homosexuals, and to permit them words and identities of their own.

Inclusion has become an utterly poisonous word. Like 'kind'.