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

Doesn't that level of faux-intellectual sophistry ever leave you with a headache, JAPAB?

Sex with someone under age - the reason we have laws against sex with people who're underage is because they are deemed incapable, in virtue of their youth, of giving full and informed consent. Therefore it's a form of rape. Therefore the person doing it to them is harming them.

Refusing to have sex with someone with a penis because you don't like penises - no-one is harmed in any real way by that refusal (unless you buy into the whole incel crap).

So, one is an action which causes a person actual harm, on the basis of which we judge that action to be immoral.

The other one causes someone to sulk for a bit - which has never, as far as I know, been judged to be grounds for considering an act to be immoral.

I can't believe you make the posts you do in all seriousness. Or perhaps, I would rather not believe you make the posts you do in all seriousness, because if you mean them, you are either thick as mince or deeply deeply disrespectful of women's boundaries.

This would be very convenient for you, because what you were actually doing was questioning whether people had sufficient "moral grounds" for not consenting to people having sex with them - a completely different thing.

I don't think I was. All I have ever been doing is disputing the notion that people's exclusions/decisions/whatever you want to call it are something that is off-limits for moral judgment.

Whether I personally think right or wrong someone's decision to cheat or decision to withhold sex purely for the purposes of "blackmailing" their partner into agreeing with a decision they don't want to agree with, or only date black people or noever date black people, is not the issue. I dispute that this is all off-limits. Or that it not being off-limits leads to a slipperly slope of rape being legalised.

Doesn't that level of faux-intellectual sophistry ever leave you with a headache, JAPAB?

He lives for it.

FermatsTheorem So, one is an action which causes a person actual harm, on the basis of which we judge that action to be immoral.

You pick one of the examples I gave and explained why you considered it immoral. Then explained why you do not consider another example immoral.

You are able to do this precisely because we can discuss the morality of these things. They are not off-limits.

Um, did you know that suicide rates are higher in bi people than in either heterosexual OR homosexual groups?

Here's a systematic lit review to prove www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24839908

What point is that in relation to?

This, from the OP:

"And I guess I didn't mention the Bs as they have always felt the group that have the easiest ride and so uncontroversial... just a statement of how they approach their sexuality"

Shouldn't there also be a discussion on why lesbians feel this way and how to manage this if it's all in their heads as TRAs claim?

If no one is pressuring lesbians to have sex with transexuals then why are so many women feeling this up to the point of boycotting a march that's supposed to be representing them?

Why is their voice being silenced in favour of the issues that transexuals face?

Also, where is the public denouncement from transexuals regarding this? I'm quite certain there's quite a few that do not agree with coercing lesbians so why are they not able to speak out?

I've seen quite a lot of comments from trans people and supporters of trans rights stating that it is not acceptable for anyone to pressure anyone else into accepting someone they do not want as a sexual partner. I've also seen articles questioning how much this 'pressure' actually exists (outside of silly sods ranting on the internet). Is it really the case that transwomen (with dicks) are not just present in lesbian social spaces from time to time, but actively harassing cis lesbians for sex and throwing a strop when told 'No thanks'?

There are plenty of lesbians currently declaring online that they have no problem at all with transwomen, which might suggest that, you know, there is no universal lesbian worldview or experience, either.

@CheshireChat , (L)GBT organisations etc say that the lesbians with these views are a tiny, insignificant minority but are falling over themselves to issue statements condemning them. Even if the cotton ceiling brigade were a tiny minority, why do they never issue a similar statement condemning them when these organisations are supposed to represent lesbians?

Even on this thread where you had a) lesbians raising this as an issue and b) someone presenting pro-cotton ceiling ideas, we had a number of posts addressed to us, saying that, while they didn't agree with it, it was just a tiny minority, not really an issue etc but not engaging with or criticising the poster right there in front of them espousing those views because it was more important to tell the women to shut up about it.

I never meant to imply there's a lesbian or transexual hive mind, just that it's an issue that's cropped up repeatedly.

This will also be area specific I bet as transexuals are definitely a minority so even if a relatively small number behave this way then it will tarnish the whole movement, particularly as they're encouraged by a vocal group online.

I think there is a strong possibility it's being exaggerated, simply because it follows the format of other moral panics I have seen before (right down to the alliance between some radfems and the US religious rightwing).

I would rather not believe you make the posts you do in all seriousness, because if you mean them, you are either thick as mince or deeply deeply disrespectful of women's boundaries.

You sum up Japab's views succinctly, Fermat. I'm glad this thread is in AIBU as many eyes will witness Japab's nasty double think and misogyny. It's almost like a handbook to the TRA/MRA position. Women's consent is up for grabs.

Japab, I'm not prepared to argue with you any more. You've said your piece. It's an ugly piece, set out in excruciating detail over many posts. And other people will judge it.

It is genuinely eye-opening to see support by some on this thread for the view that if a lesbian does not want to have sex with a male bodied person (who identifies as a trans person) then, although she is entitled to maintain her sexual orientation in this way, it is reasonable for her to be judged as a bigot because she is "being transphobic".

Lesbians saying no to dick is a"moral panic"? Have you any idea how rapey that sounds? Next thing you'll be calling them hysterical, Reanimated.

Yep, Nauticant. There's ample evidence of TRA/MRA sexual entitlement all over the thread. As I said, almost like a handbook.

"Yes, if course you can withhold consent, but if you do it means you're a bigot so you might want to reflect on that."

That is not consent.

I agree.

I hope I've made my point well in this thread because I believe it's an important one.

I also believe the standpoint JAPAB has put forward really speaks for itself.

For the record I am neither a lesbian or a radical feminist, merely a bystander who has had my eyes opened by this. I believe others may, too, so I would entreat people not to get it deleted by getting carried away.

"Yes, if course you can withhold consent, but if you do it means you're a bigot so you might want to reflect on that

Yet another example of how the meanings of words have changed

Transphobic and bigot now mean not having sex with someone who really really really wants you to have sex with them

Its really diluted the shock value of using those words

FFS. The moral panic is the insistence that no lesbian can go about her business without dozens of aggressive transwomen trying to have sex with her.

Everyone makes choices about who they will accept or reject as a sexual partner. Some people think it's their business to criticize the choices made by others (handy hint: no it isn't). People are entitled to think that a person they know is making a poor choice (eg to stay with an unsatisfactory or horrible partner, to reject a 'nice' person for some reason, to have 'too much' sex) but it's just the way of the world that people have a range of opinions.

The moral panic is the insistence that it is only lesbians (natal female lesbians) who are being pressurized to have sex they don't want, and that it is all the fault of trans people that this pressure occurs.

In many cases the lesbian involved will be a young woman, possibly still coming to terms with her sexuality, facing the prospect that saying "no, I won't have PIV sex with transwomen" might mean social death once she has been labelled as a "transphobic bigot".

'The moral panic is the insistence that it is only lesbians (natal female lesbians) who are being pressurized to have sex they don't want, and that it is all the fault of trans people that this pressure occurs'

No, the issue is that it is ALL kinds of women who are being pressurised to have sex they don't want, and it is the fault of men that this pressure occurs. It has been ever thus, and just as feminism is making headway on rape culture, it takes a new guise in the form of trans women - people who have or have had penises - putting pressure on women to have sex with them. How can you think that is ok?

Prawnofthepatriarchy It's almost like a handbook to the TRA/MRA position. Women's consent is up for grabs.

Excepr that it isn't, and no-one has said that it is. Some people just don't do nuance or subtelty do they. It is possible to be discriminatory in your dating preferences.

Agreeing with a general principle that people are actually allowed to think this, to be critical, discuss it (as long as they keep their conduct towards others within limits) gets translated by those who do not do nuance or subtley into a suggestion that consent is up for grabs.

"I don't date gingers because I believe they are sinister"
"That's a bit prejudiced isn't it?"
"Oh so you are saying that whether I can consent to date ginger people or not is up for grabs"
yep, some people just don't do nuance or subtlety.

JAPAB Did you miss the fact that Alison Moyet has been driven off Twitter by trans activists? She didn't consent to being called 'cis'.

You are comparing someone not wanting to date a person with ginger hair with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a person with a penis.

I can't work out whether you actually believe this stuff yourself or whether the point is to throw up any response, whatever it is, just so that a counter-argument is presented.