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

Pre the current transactivist movement, my experience (and that of many other lesbians) is that we received this pressure from outside the LGB movement from people who were (and called themselves) heterosexual men (and also sometimes from family/community).

E.g. Straight men deliberately targeting you because you were a lesbian and that was a challenge, telling you you were a "man hater" (ie bigoted) because you wouldn't have sex with them, being told that you just hadn't met the right man yet and needed to give it a try, conversion therapies (one woman I knew was sent for therapy to cure her, another one - from a non-UK background - was exorcised), I have been targeted for sexual harassment because I am a lesbian, some lesbians are subjected to corrective rape etc

When we entered the LGB community we were told that this was wrong. that there was nothing wrong with being a lesbian and that we were entitled to our boundaries.

Now, since the trans umbrella expanded, in particular to include heterosexual cross dressers, the pressure is coming from within our own community - For us, opinions like JAPAB's aren't just something you very occasionally see on Mumsnet - It is a constant and from within our own community and the suspicion of being 'non-inclusive' (ie not having sex with people with penises) is from much on lesbians specifically.

@JAPAB - Most of the GBT/"progressive" people who think lesbians need to be re-educated to overcome our "prejudice" about having sex with people with penises seem to have started doing so since the current transactivist movement took hold focusing on the belief that lesbians should have sex with people with penises who identify as trans. However, from what you are saying, is it broader than that? Do you think we were also wrong before that ie to have been "prejudiced" against having sex with (non-trans-identified) men?

When there are four groups potentially affected by this (straight men, gay men, straight women, lesbians) why do you think it is specifically the fourth group that is getting the vast majority of the pressure on this?

The men who refuse to date 'fat chicks'
The people who refuse to date outside their own ethnic group
The people who will only date those who are one biological sex and can prove it.

All these people have the right to set those boundaries. Your body, your choice who gets to touch you. No one should nag you or insult you or otherwise abuse you for saying 'No', civilly, to someone who indicates that they would like a sexual or romantic relationship with you (assuming that person asked nicely).

However, if people think that those who won't date [certain category of people] are bigoted and say so in general discussions, that's up to them, as well. It's their opinion.

There seems to be a lot of scaremongering about evil trans penis bearers pursuing women everywhere. And, given the fact that it appears, at least, that some of the people spreading stories about evil transwomen are those who refused to support the campaign for reproductive rights in Ireland, and there's certainly some indication that some radical feminists are perfectly happy to cosy up to the religious right in the 'battle against transgenderism'... I think some people are starting to reach 'peak anti-trans radfem'.

You’re just bandwagoning on the extremist stuff and using it to stick the knife in the millions of perfectly reasonable and ordinary people in the LGBTQ communities.

Way to make it Allllllll about you.

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.

Yes, really. Any reason or no reason at all, this is fundamental to the concept of consent.

From first principles, any talk of someone having a "moral basis" for their personal choice is the diametric opposite of consent. Every law that has ever allowed "legal rape" has been predicated on this kind of reasoning.

That's why when people want to debate who someone else chooses to date as if they need a moral justification needs to be presented, by us, with an Absolute No. There can be no debate on other people's consent, it is their absolute right for any reason or none.

If this is 'extremist stuff', why aren't the (L)GBT organisations condemning it? Why aren't you arguing against JAPAB and saying that their view doesn't represent you rather than condemning lesbians for speaking up against it?

There were some perfectly reasonable and ordinary people at Pride, holding signs saying perfectly reasonable statements like "lesbian=female homosexual". They are the ones being condemned by "our" organisations while the transactivists are trying to hunt them down, saying that they want to trample all over them, piss on them, kill them and burn their bodies so that no part of their body remains etc etc Naturally, the (L)GBT organisations have nothing to say about that part.

That was @hideandgo

Sexual orientation is not a prejudice, its protected in law, and everyone telling lesbians to get over it can just fuck right off.

Thats rape culture. Dont be homophobic and dont support rape culture, its not hard.

^ and they do that because they see women as vulnerable to their aggression.

Some straight men may feel very similarly about this issue (and why not actually, straight men have the right to choose, too) but nobody is harassing and threatening them because they are not seen as a 'soft target'.

You have a bizarre budding casus rapum philosophy mixed with targeting of women because men will fight back. It's a textbook example of something we should all unite against, in my opinion.

I will add, because this is important - I have known trans people who have never expressed these disgusting ideas or behaviour. To the extent i think these "activists are NOT representative of trans people on the whole.

Let's draw a thick line between ordinary trans people who deserve to be treated with humanity and respect, and these "activists" who espouse terrifying ideas about personal choice, and threaten people etc.

Well said SGB

Sexual orientation is not a prejudice, its protected in law, and everyone telling lesbians to get over it can just fuck right off.

I don't really understand what this means, everybody's sexual orientation is protected in law. Gay, straight, bi, pan, whatever; we're all equally protected from discrimination on the basis of our sexual orientation.

Now forgive me if this is not what you personally are saying, but some people here seem to be implying that you can only "legally discriminate" in terms of who you yourself would be prepared to sleep with because being gay is a "protected characteristic". But that's just a bonkers misrepresentation of the Equality Act. The protected characteristic means it is something YOU cannot be discriminated against for, not that is allows You to discriminate along the lines of your orientation. You can do that anyway! The law that allows you to do that is not the EA, it's the law that says that no-one has a right to touch your body, and anyone who does so without consent is breaking the law.

Honestly, I think some people are getting massively confused about how Equality Law protects sexual orientation. Just to repeat, it doesn't protect your right to exclude one sex or the other (you can legally not sleep with whoever you like), but it does protect you from discrimination from others for doing so.

@RatRolyPoly again very good points.

Unemoonit, if you don't believe that lesbians are under pressure from transwomen, take a look at these search results: twitter.com/search?q=pridelondon%20terf&s=09. Or just search Twitter for #terf.

And ask yourself why neither Pride London orbleading TRA is condemning the this.

There is and never has been this violent rhetoric from lesbians or gender critical feminists towards trans people.

Or leading. Bloody phone.

@Prawn: I think you misunderstood my points, maybe.

You're right, Unemoonit. Sorry.

You're right, Unemoonit. Sorry.

Though I recommend any lurkers who find it hard to believe that lesbians aren't being attacked by transactivists check out the Twitter link I posted.

UneMoonit Yes, really. Any reason or no reason at all, this is fundamental to the concept of consent.

Consent is about the right to say yes or no. Nothing about it requires there to be no moral dimension to the choices someone makes and what those choices are premised on. If that was the case people could not get criticised for consenting to sleep with a married person for instance.

But I'll ask you the same question I asked a PP. Is this innoculation from criticm only applicable to the reasons and decisions people make for whom they date? Whether they would date a married person or never date an X person, it is all off-limits. What about refusing to make black friends or allow homosexuals in your house?

UpstartCrow Sexual orientation is not a prejudice

If one is a "chromosexual" then no, it is not "prejudice" if they just simply naturally are unable.

If one IDs as straight/gay/lesbian but does have the "naturla ability" (as some such people do date trans people) then it is possible that a blanket ban could derive from prejudice just as it can with a blanket ban on different races or anything else.

Of course people are still free to think that even when it is prejudice, it is still off-limits for criticism or general discussion.

Everything about it requires that there be no "debate" about the moral basis among other people.

Sexual consent isn't granted by, or answerable to anyone else, it is the final say on what happens to you. The premise that you are answerable to other people and their morality for how you decide, is exactly the same premise on which legal rape was based.

However much you try to dress it up you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for pushing this line of reasoning, literally every bit as ashamed as if you were espousing eugenics. I don't know how much more strongly I can word it than that. There is no context in which a woman (or man) can have their consent be answerable to anyone else, and legitimizing the idea, to whatever end, is deadly dangerous for us all.

^^ A hearty yes to everything Unemoonit said.

Sexual consent isn't granted by, or answerable to anyone else, it is the final say on what happens to you. The premise that you are answerable to other people and their morality for how you decide, is exactly the same premise on which legal rape was based.

Agree.

Again, I think there is some confusion about the law and sexual consent. Everyone has the right to refuse anyone else as a sexual partner, for any reason. (I think there are still some countries where heterosexual marriage does remove a woman's right to refuse her male owner sex, which is of course disgusting and disgraceful, but this is not true of the UK. At least, not since 1992.)
And, sadly, there are people who will criticize others for refusing sex (with the person doing the criticising, or with other people, for other reasons.) If you openly state that you will not date anyone outside your ethnic group, you have the right to have that preference (once again, you have the legal right to choose for yourself who you will/won't accept as a sexual partner), but other people may think you are a bigot, and may say so. Among the young, it's not uncommon for people to be teased about their lack of sexual experience, particularly if they are up front about the fact that they don't want sex, or would prefer to wait until marriage. This, again, is bullying and rude behaviour. Though, equally, it is rude and unacceptable behaviour for people who do not want to have sex until marriage, or until they find the 'right' person, to tease, harass or condemn others who want to have lots of sex with different partners.

It's not completely unheard of for cis lesbians to take a refusal badly; to sulk, to tell the woman refusing them that she is a handmaiden of the patriarchy or not a proper feminist, or is prejudiced in some way.

Some people are rude, entitled, selfish bullies. But this is not something that only started happening when more people started coming out as trans, or when trans issues began to be discussed more openly. The fact that some people behave badly when rejected is not the fault of trans people.