To feel sad that I can't support LGBT+ anymore

[loveyouradvice]

Just that really

I realised this when DD wanted to talk about Pride and my instant reaction was to talk about the brave Lesbian protest about lesbianism being same-sex attracted..... and all my DD wanted to talk about was the joy and the fun and how all her mates had a really good time....

And I realised that has gone for me... being engaged with the L & G community when I was younger was such a rich part of my life...

And I feel very sad to have lost this... the joy and the support...

And yes, as I write this I can see how selfish this sounds ... that I am sad it is no longer simple, that my automatic and heartfelt support of anything L & G and of Stonewall is no longer there.... that it is now divided and controvesial

Well, the Guardian have surpassed themselves.

They've managed to print an article in today's paper about lesbians protesting at Lesbian and Gay Pride about lesbian erasure, holding signs saying ‘Lesbian = Female Homosexual’ ‘Lesbian Not Queer’ and ‘Transactivism Erases Lesbians' without quoting any of the protesters, saying what the protest was about or indeed using the word lesbian anywhere in the article.

But we're not being erased, oh no....

So, this is why I'm confused, if this is about lesbian "dating pools" it's okay to insist that includes surgically approximated penises but totally not okay to include something that used to be a penis but now to all intents and purposes is nothing like one? Because being sexually attracted to that organ that looks like a female organ would mean they're no longer a lesbian but actually bi?

Rat, your post gets close to the tone deaf argument I've seen that says if a lesbian uses a strap on then why isn't she open to my lovely lady penis?

And the answer is that a penis is not a sex toy. It's a male organ.

And what on earth is "something that used to be a penis but now to all intents and purposes is nothing like one?"

You mean a penis. A transwoman's penis is still a penis. Nothing can change that.

And I have to break it to you that a neovaginas are totally different to a woman's genitals. They don't smell, taste or function in the same way. They're not even in the right place, as the aperture is created where the shaft of the penis emerges. A horny man might not notice these anomalies. A lesbian would.

Transmen very seldom go for phalloplasty because the results are dismal. Nearly all of them have vulvas and lesbians may well find them attractive. They're gender non conforming women, which is characteristic of lesbians as a group anyway.

Oh, and dating pool? It's shorthand for the availability of potential sexual/romantic partners. As I've just said on another thread, conflict between transwomen and lesbians will only be resolved when transwomen acknowledge the fact that the number of people who will be interested in sex with them dramatically decreases post transition

Maybe it is. I'm from the city. The city in the country that was deemed one of the most homophobic in Western Europe in fact. Maybe you're right with your theory. To be fair to you though most of the lesbians I know say they're trans inclusive (even if they admit behind closed doors they would never date a transwoman). I feel they're paying lip service but believe as much as I do that transwomen can be considered as full females.

I did say I was confused Prawn, and I genuinely am!

when transwomen acknowledge the fact that the number of people who will be interested in sex with them dramatically decreases post transition

I think they really do know this.

I think a lot of transpeople know that they will struggle to find partners. People who know they will struggle to find partners are at risk of becoming whiny and resentful, which sets up a vicious circle in which the more bitter they get, the less desirable they get. However, trans people do find partners, and some form lasting relationships, and some have various playmates because they are not interested in monogamy.

I think it's quite possible that some of the stuff you see online about 'why you should date transpeople' is lonely individuals who resent their loneliness, not necessarily malevolence. Obviously there is some stuff which is annoying but (once again) stuff that isn't actively abusive, just either shit advice or someone whining, is not only done by transpeople.

I’m interested to know what gay men think about this. The majority of my gay male friends wholeheartedly support trans rights and cannot understand why we, as natal women, hate the term Cis and won’t accept the whole some women have a penis, deal with it brigade. They also don’t seem to grasp what is happening in the lesbian community and what they are dealing with.
I wonder, if you asked a gay man, would he have a relationship with a trans man who still physically presents as female? I’m not convinced they would but I may be wrong. I’d be interested to know what their stance would be if it was the other way round

The gay couple I know where very vocal about transwomen being women, until I asked them whether they'd date a trans-man. Interestingly the answer was no regardless of surgical status.

At this point they realised the problem and are now vocal supporters of lesbians protesting on this point.

That doesn’t surprise me. Most gay couples I know come out in a rash if you talk about them being with a woman. So if they are prepared to defend trans women on this issue they need to be able to say they would do the same if it was the other way round and I don’t believe they would

Anyone has a right to exclude an entire class of people from their pool of potential partners. For any reason.

They do, but that right to do something does not entail the additional right to not be criticised for doing that something. Nor the right to stop other people talking about this stuff in general.

As long as they keep to within limits of course. ie not be hostile or aggressive.

So following that reasoning, it would be OK to criticise me for saying I am straight and only interested in hearing from men?

And I have to break it to you that a neovaginas are totally different to a woman's genitals. They don't smell, taste or function in the same way. They're not even in the right place, as the aperture is created where the shaft of the penis emerges. A horny man might not notice these anomalies. A lesbian would

If you're going to discuss neovaginas, at least get your facts right. The aperture is not created where the shaft of the penis emerges.

Obviously the smell, function and taste is different. Because it's not a vagina.

I've just said on another thread, conflict between transwomen and lesbians will only be resolved when transwomen acknowledge the fact that the number of people who will be interested in sex with them dramatically decreases post transition

I am sure many transwomen realise that. And some don't.

Seeing as how transwomen are individuals and all

On the question of whether people have the right to exclude an entire class of people from their pool of potential partners, you write:

They do, but that right to do something does not entail the additional right to not be criticised for doing that something. Nor the right to stop other people talking about this stuff in general.

JAPAB, sorry, but are you on glue? The overwhelming majority of people are either homosexual or heterosexual. And you think they should be criticized for that? It's hardly controversial.

Sexual orientation is pretty fixed. We all exclude the sex we're not attracted to. I'm a heterosexual woman. I'm only interested in male partners. I have zero interest in transmen, because they're women.

Thing is, sex is not a human right. No one is owed it. And deciding who you want to share your bed with is intrinsically discriminatory, and rightly so.

As for "people talking about this stuff in general", why on earth would you? It's not as if other people's sexual orientation was up for discussion.

I find it difficult to understand these issues because I'm pan sexual.

Would it be too unreasonable to start using some extra terms: gay transman and gay transwoman? Would that not solve some of the problems identifying who has what and who they want to sleep with?

Obviously everyone has the right to choose who they want to be with but I think there's a lot of overreacting generally about transrights when what we really need to do is continue strengthening women's rights because we're still not equal to men.

Super,: your idea falls down at the first hurdle. They make no sense.

What do you mean by a gay transman? Would that be same sex attracted - lesbian - or based on gender identity, which would be opposite sex attracted - heterosexual?

Back to the drawing board.

Nothing has actually changed at all has it?

Men getting violent because women don't want to have sex with them. It was ever thus.

What the man is wearing at the time doesn't change the basics.

Prawnofthepatriarchy The overwhelming majority of people are either homosexual or heterosexual. And you think they should be criticized for that?

Yes, the majority of people are monosexual, but then I believe that there are two forms of monosexuality. The first is exclusive attraction to people of one type of chromosome. You might call such people chromosexuals. Chromosexuals indeed do not have the "natural ability" to form normal decent relationships with trans people of the wrong sex, be attracted to them etc.

People of the second form do have this natural ability. You do get people who ID as straight men or lesbians who date trans women for e.g. I have seen women who ID as straight but will say something like "well I am 80% straight, can still be attracted to women". They don't want to ID as bisexual because I suppose they think that makes them sound more equitable, when really they are primarily straight in terms of the majority of who they are attracted to or have relationships with.

Anyway, there are people who have the "natural ability" to form normal decent relationships with trans people but prejudice, preconceptions etc. stifle that out of them. Just as there are people who have that "natural ability" with people of different races or nationalities but ditto about the stifling. So they too discriminate.

Is it the right of people to discriminate against classes of people not due to "natural blockages" but because of prejudice? Yes of course. Are other people allowed to criticise this sort of thing and have general discussions about it? Yes (if kept to limits).

People are even allowed to believe that most or even all monosexuals are "type 2" but get "stifled". Even if others believe that all people who call themselves heterosexual or homosexual are naturally unable.

They do, but that right to do something does not entail the additional right to not be criticised for doing that something. Nor the right to stop other people talking about this stuff in general.

Except there Is no conceivable criticism of someone else's personal choice in this matter.

This is a red line. You can either have a situation where consent is non-negotiable and nobody else gets a say in it, or we can have a situation where other people can apparently debate who someone should let in their pants. Pick one.

I don't think anyone With a functioning mind should pick the second option.

No conceivable VALID criticism.

Is it the right of people to discriminate against classes of people not due to "natural blockages" but because of prejudice? Yes of course. Are other people allowed to criticise this sort of thing and have general discussions about it? Yes (if kept to limits).

I thought your last post was a bit creepy, JAPAB. This one is grotesque.

Except there Is no conceivable criticism of someone else's personal choice in this matter.

Really? What if someone excluded ginger people from their dating pool because they believe gingers are inherently sinister? OK that was a made-up example but there are people who exclude groups from their dating pool due to prejudices or preconceptions or fear of the unkown and etc etc. Don't see why criticism of unnecessary discrimination is "inconceivable".

People can exclude anyone they like from their "dating pool" for any reason at all whether it is because they are ginger or male or female or white or Asian. Any reason at all and no one has any right to question that choice.

No one owes anyone else access to their bodies.

It is very interesting that all of the criticism is directed at who women want to have sex with.

Men of course have the absolute right to decide (including it would seem the right to override another's choices).

No justification is required for excluding people from your dating pool whether you are doing it on an individual level or as a class.

Any criticism is a direct attack on the concept of consent.

Prawnofthepatriarchy which part do you disagree with? That there are people who ID as straight/gay/lesbian who have the "natural ability" to form normal decent relationships with trans people, as indeed some do?

That it is possible to exclude groups due to prejudice or preconceptions rather than "natural barriers"?

Or perhaps you agree but think nevertheless this remains off-limits for criticsm?

If so, does this inoculation from criticism only apply to dating exclusions?

I mean, if someone refused to ever be friends with a black person is that off-limits for comment?

What if you knew someone who refused to let their child's gay partner in the house, would you reason that it is their house, they have the right to decide on houseguests, and this decision and the factors behind it are beyond criticism?

Well, whatever your rules here are, while I agree that in most private walks of life it is entirely a person's right to exclude, , I will have to djsagree that the factors that lead them to actually make an exclusion are off-limits for criticism or discussion. Or can't be talked abhout generally.

I am gender critical, but I do still try to support LGBT+ as much as possible.

The trans people demanding that lesbians sleep with them are a small, but vocal, minority. They do not speak for all trans people. Most trans people just want to live their lives comfortably.

I was upset when I saw how the gender critical lesbian group were treated at Pride. However, Pride is an event for trans people as well as lesbians, so it is important that everyone respects each other. I agree with the lesbian group, but I don't think that Pride was the time or place for their protest. Moreover, they were not registered to march.

What I don’t understand is why someone would want to sleep with someone they believe to be bigoted and prejudiced? Surely those are fairly unattractive quality in a potential sexual partner? If I thought someone, or a group of someones, had an irrational hatred of me, I’d just avoid them instead of trying to coerce them to have sex 😳

I've been a member of loads of LGBT-related groups over the years, including a very old-school lesbian group, a not-so-old-school lesbian group, a queer group, and a few groups that are very general 'LGBT' groups with a very broad membership. In none of them have trans people been excluded, and in none of them have trans people been a disruptive or dominating force. Including trans people has made these groups better, not worse. I have never felt pressured to sleep with anyone at all.