to think that we could have a different sort of discussion on trans issues that might be helpful?

[BertrandRussell]

We can discuss the nature of womanhood endlessly. Philosophical discussions are always absorbing and interesting and very necessary and there should be plenty of space for them. However, it seems to me that there are practical discussions that need to happen which always get subsumed into the theoretical. There always have and always will be transpeople, and for the vast majority of the time it’s not an issue. Or shouldn’t be- there are transphobes in the world who should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Of course trans people deserve all the rights and protections that everyone has. However, there are some areas where the rights of transpeople are in direct conflict with those of non transpeople, and the conflict looks unresolvable. But we need to find resolution- and quickly. Could this thread concentrate on how we do that, and not be sidetracked?
To me, the urgent issues are-

1. How do we make it possible to preserve spaces where women who have been hurt or traumatised by a man can be sure they won’t meet a male bodied person?
2. How do we record crime so that it does not look as if there is a rise in violent crime-including rape- committed by women?
3. How do we preserve women’s sport so that it is not taken over by male bodied people who have an automatic physical advantage over people who were born female?
4. How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted?

The problem is they want to be women not a separate category of trans women. As such they won't accept a third space for trans or a different sporting segment because that would mean admitting they were not women. That's why there will never be agreement. The only way through this is segregation by sex. Anyone can call themselves what they want but if they have a penis they use the loos made for other people with penises. The exception for me is people who have transitioned who I do think should be able to use women's spaces. I don't understand why transitioned trans people are not put in a separate category to those who still have their sex related genitals.

Earlywalker

Because I thought we were trying to move away from labelling people so hastily?

And having 72 + different labels for "gender" isn't labelling people.

Of course it is. A huge problem here is that some of you think if someone doesn’t agree with every word or statement that is said, we must be on the complete opposite side.

Everything I question is responded to with ‘they do it too!’ Or ‘you think x y z because you said a b c’ I have a problem with ‘x’ and you tell me why ‘a’ is bad.

This is why nobody is getting anywhere.

Earlywalker

This is why nobody is getting anywhere.

Not entirely.

When you have diametrically opposed sides then there will never be a solution that meets both parties requirements.

When you look at the OP's point they are extremely valid.

A woman should not have to give up an exclusively female space to someone of biologically the opposite sex.

Crimes should be reported by biological sex otherwise it messes with the numbers.

A woman shouldn't have to compete in a sport that is segregated by sex with someone of the opposite sex.

And women shouldn't be forced to have sex with anyone that they don't want to.

But apparently women should give up these hard fought for rights because biological males feel that they are female.

Notice that nowhere in that have I mentioned the societal construct of gender. Yet apparently these seeming obvious (even to a male) points are up for debate.

It's irreconcilable in my view. That's why we aren't getting anywhere. You believe and I don't.

Assuming you’re talking to me - What do you not believe in?

I didn't really mean to address you specifically but what I mean is some people believe we can change sex, that men can become women etc, and some people don't believe that. I said this near the beginning of the thread, everything else in my view is window dressing. Perhaps I am wrong and you are right, in a sense that doesn't matter, it's belief or lack of belief that is the crux.

I don’t believe humans can change biological sex. I don’t think that’s a belief either, more a fact as your sex is biology which cannot be changed.
The difference in opinion tends to revolve around when this matters and how best to mitigate risk to all parties.
I personally believe that we shouldn’t be fighting off one oppressed group against another as that’s not going to solve anything long term.
Rather than the constant ‘you are a man’ vs ‘I am a woman’ it would be far better to recognise transgender individuals as such.
An example from the last page of this post, why are GC feminists critiquing the notion that ‘lesbians must include transwoman in their dating pool’ while at the same time declaring that lesbians who do include them, are not ‘real’ lesbians?
It seems to be going backwards.

EarlyWalker

If my minor child expressed an attraction to MB, I'd be concerned about two things: that this represents some internalized colorism (my child is mixed race - I would want to be sure he knows that lighter black skin is not instrinsically more attractive than darker black skin), and I'd want to be sure he understood that the way MB looks is a very male porn vision of 'woman', and that the vast majority of females do not look this way.

I wouldn't label the attraction one way or the other.

However, if as an adult my (male) child was exclusively in relationships with other male people, regardless of their gender presentation, I would absolutely consider him to be gay, and his relationships to be homosexual.

Would I scream at him as he entered the kitchen with his partner 'Oi, you're gay, you're not lesbians!' No. But if the subject came up - 'Mum, we're lesbians', I would have no problem politely explaining why I don't agree. Lesbianism doesn't include male bodies.

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under equality law.

Gay men and lesbians have spent decades campaigning to be accepted as Born This Way. Not for some homophobe to come along and erase it all.

Lesbianism is same sex attraction between two female homosexuals.

And is protected by law.

*Lesbianism is same sex attraction between two female homosexuals.

And is protected by law.*

Thank you Datun. It most certainly is.

So if people don't believe people can change sex then what they are saying is that men can become lesbians.
There are some married man who would describe themselves as straight but who sleep with men, are they straight because they define themselves as such.

I used her as an example because I think she’s quite attractive. And I’m now wondering if you see all woman who wear makeup and have long hair as ‘porn versions of woman’? Because I know plenty of woman who are attractive and made up and think it’s very rude to define anyone in this way, And confused by what you mean by this?

Also, as someone who is also mixed race I find it strange that you choose to mention her colour first. Someone can be attracted to a mixed race person without it being solely down to their skin colour.

So if it’s about genitals what about trans people who have had surgery? You say a lesbians not a lesbian if she has penis, so are you saying a lesbian can remain a lesbian if she sleeps with a transman with a penis more so than a transwoman without a penis?

You keep talking about homophobes, do you not think it’s homophobic to suggest a lesbian who includes transwoman in her dating pool is no longer a lesbian? It’s not ok for you to erase her identity either and for you (or anyone) to say what makes a good lesbian.

You do not see a transwoman as anything more than a biological man, that’s fine, if you’re a lesbian, obviously you don’t have to sleep with them and that is 100% your choice. If a lesbian sees her as a transwoman rather than a man, and is attracted to and wants to sleep with her then keep your nose out out and stop telling people who they can and can’t be attracted too.

generic ‘you’ as different posters said different things.

But lesbians are attracted to women.

So if a woman dates a trans man you are all saying that she is a lesbian. Is that right? Except she is dating someone that looks male.

Why would a lesbian be attracted to a male looking person? I've a person with a male looking body and facial hair?

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under equality law

That means you cannot do things such as discriminate in employment or goods/services provision, on the grounds of someone's orientation. Or assault people on it etc etc.

It doesn't mean that it is illegal for someone else to call themselves a particular term, or to argue for its redefinition to include them.

The point is not whether or not a lesbian chooses to include transwomen in her dating pool. The point is whether or not she should be considered a bigot if she doesn’t..

I understood your question Bertrand and apologise for de railing- of course she shouldn’t! I just couldn’t stay quiet at some of the blatant homophobia, basically calling transinclusive lesbians ‘not real lesbians’ on a forum or woman who are supposedly very concerned about lesbian erasure.

I just couldn’t stay quiet at some of the blatant homophobia, basically calling transinclusive lesbians ‘not real lesbians’ on a forum or woman who are supposedly very concerned about lesbian erasure.

This is just another example of the humpty dumpty, upside down world doublethink.

The homophobia is in the redesigning of the word lesbian to include women who sleep with men (regardless of what they call themselves).

It's appalling that younger lesbian women are being sold this idea which under any other circumstances would be called conversion therapy.

twitter.com/largemargo/status/1135252141050867714

Obviously that tweet is just bizzare.
Telling a lesbian she’s not allowed to be a lesbian if she’s attracted to someone who looks like, sounds like and calls herself a woman, maybe even with a (reconstructed) vagina, is just as homophobic as telling her she has to be attracted to that person because she’s a lesbian.

The homophobia is in the redesigning of the word lesbian to include women who sleep with men (regardless of what they call themselves).

So women who sleep with trans men are in a lesbian relationship? I can see how that might be the case, but is it the case if the trans man is post op and on T so has a very male appearance?

I can't see how sleeping with a post op transwoman prevents a woman from being a lesbian but sleeping with a post op trans man means that you are.

Please can someone explain this to me. Are you all saying that sexual orientation is based on DNA, rather than physical appearance?

Earlywalker

I agree with you.

Some of these posts are making no sense to me.

Some of these posts are making no sense to me.

Do you think that two trans women having penis in anal sex with each other is lesbian sex?

Nothing makes sense when you try to frame it around humans changing sex.

I'm straight. My husband is a man. Now he tells me he's a woman. With a penis. And that makes me a lesbian.

Sheesh.

Japab, how will we enforce that law if we can't define who that group is. Can I complain that a service discriminated against me because I am gay, if in fact I am not.

Telling a lesbian she’s not allowed to be a lesbian if she’s attracted to someone who looks like, sounds like and calls herself a woman, maybe even with a (reconstructed) vagina, is just as homophobic as telling her she has to be attracted to that person because she’s a lesbian.

Yes, saying that someone CAN date a member of such and such demographic amd be lesbian/gay/straight, is not the same as saying that anyone who is lesbian/gay/straight HAS to date members of that demographic.

The person saying the latter is saying a very different thing than the person saying the former.