Peoniesandpeaches
I specified looks and surgery as that has been my experience. All of the trans/cis relationships I know where they identify as lesbians (I work predominantly with the lgbt) have involved that.
It’s incredibly arrogant to assume I haven’t kept up with the debate just because I disagree with you.
So, a person can appear as male as they were born and still have a female gender identity. If they identify as female would you think their appearance or lack of any medical intervention was an issue to being a lesbian?
Just noting that this wasn't answered, by someone claiming to work predominantly with "the lgbt" (people, I assume they meant to say). I'd actually be quite concerned if I was a gay person working with someone who, as far as I can tell, thinks it's looks and surgery that makes someone the opposite gender. Is this official guidance as to where to "draw the line" so to speak?
I'm not really knocking it as it's a really tricky area - many people will accept someone who has, superficially at least, made some effort to change themselves, as "really meaning it", and won't accept someone who hasn't obviously changed anything. But why should looks be the basis of whether you're female or not? I find that depressing for the many women who don't conform to ideals of femininity.
I'm not saying I have the answers - I'm pretty 'live and let live' in real life - unless living is stopping someone else living, so to speak - just musing, really. Some people won't accept any XY people as XX, some will accept all purely on their say-so, and some will accept some who look a certain way or have undergone "sufficient" pain.