To think that if you claim to support lesbians you should agree with this statement?

[TheLWordNotTheQWord]

"Exclusive same sex attraction is a valid and real sexuality, there is absolutely nothing objectionable about being exclusively same sex attracted, and those who are should be able to live their sexuality free from any form of hate, discrimination, coercion or harassment, and are fully supported by our organisation as part of the LGBT community”

Four major UK LGBT organisations have declined to support this statement. All of them claim to represent - and receive government funding to support - lesbian women:

"LGBT Health did not respond to any of our attempts to secure a response from them in regard to our statement, even after discussing our email with us in a phone call and reassuring us they would respond. LGBT Youth Scotland replied to say they had received our emails, but did not give their support for our statement and ignored our further attempts at contact. Stonewall told us ‘we cannot help you with that’, so they formally declined. And the Equality Network told us they never provide support for statements they don’t write themselves, however they did go on to confirm with us that they do not consider women to be lesbians on the basis of being female homosexuals, because the only way they define the term ‘lesbian’, is based on gender identity (so for example they would not, then, consider women who are solely attracted to other females regardless of their identity, as lesbian women)."

(see page 24: secureservercdn.net/160.153.137.99/hjn.a49.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FEMALE-ONLY-PROVISION-REPORT-1.pdf )

It's by Women and Girls in Scotland and it's well worth a read.

Here are the first two paragraphs of the introduction for the hard of clicking:

Women and Girls in Scotland is a grassroots, feminist, women’s campaign group, including working class women, LGBT women, survivors of male violence and mothers. We formed to campaign for the sex based rights of women and girls in Scotland, as it had become clear not only that there is an increasing erosion of these rights, but also that there is a concerted attack on these rights and indeed on the very concept of sex itself. We observed that neither the Scottish Government nor any relevant funded organisations were taking any steps to address this, and nor have they made any attempt to consult with women and girls in relation to changes impacting us, such as changes to single sex provision.

We believe that women and girls still need to be protected on the basis of their sex, as females still suffer exploitation, discrimination, inequality, injustice and oppression due to our reproductive sex, and this is recognised in human rights and equality legislation. As such, we are undertaking a process of reviewing legislation, policies and proposals in order to identify where the needs of women and girls are not being considered or met, and we are working to address where this is the case.

@WiddlinDiddlin
I’m not a lesbian but I think OP is saying Lesbians are only attracted to women ie not men and it’s their right.
I’m unsure why that’s complicated.

Thanks PencilsInSpace. I don't click random links on MN hence asking OP to elaborate.

Looks like they don't wish to appear to support the organisation in question. It's not possible to conclude they wouldn't agree with the statement otherwise, unless they answer the questions a PP posed above.

If the Ku Klux Klan would ask me to endorse their statement that pineapple does not belong on pizza, I would still say no, even if I have never agreed with anything more in my life. Are you actually comparing the two or have I read this wrong? Do you believe that lesbians have a right to be same sex attracted and exclude anyone not of the female sex from their dating pool?

Are you actually comparing the two or have I read this wrong? Do you believe that lesbians have a right to be same sex attracted and exclude anyone not of the female sex from their dating pool?

It is irrelevant what I think. The LGBT organisations who were asked to endorse this statement see the organisation behind it as anti-trans, one of the groups they advocate for, and that is why they will not endorse it.

Agreeing with a reasonable statement doesn't 'affiliate' you with an organisation.

However, one organisation did apparently give a clarification of their position:

And the Equality Network told us they never provide support for statements they don’t write themselves, however they did go on to confirm with us that they do not consider women to be lesbians on the basis of being female homosexuals, because the only way they define the term ‘lesbian’, is based on gender identity (so for example they would not, then, consider women who are solely attracted to other females regardless of their identity, as lesbian women)."

Is that a defensible position?

I’ll take that as a yes, then.

It is irrelevant what I think. The LGBT organisations who were asked to endorse this statement see the organisation behind it as anti-trans, one of the groups they advocate for, and that is why they will not endorse it.

But they are supposed to advocate for L as in LGBT? So what is the point of the L any more? If all Ls are Bs? Weird how G can still be G though. Almost as if there is something different about the L.

If the Ku Klux Klan ...

Fucking hell that escalated quickly!

Ku Klux Klan - It’s like when Rachel McKinnon refused to debate anyone on the issue of trans women in sport because no one would expect a black person to debate the KKK.

I understand you may not have meant a direct comparison PP but given the way women are spun as being as bad as the KKK, and Nazis etc on this issue, it was a bad analogy.

So.. those who disgree can't read, haven't clicked the link and introduce a new concept - Defensive Lying - via the Ku Klux Klan!

OK! Can any of those posters explain why a lesbian NOT wanting to have a sexual relationship with a male bodied person is a bad thing and why it is also bad to support them in that choice?

Just that... why shouldn't they have freedom of choice in who they fuck?

If the Ku Klux Klan

Fucking hell that escalated quickly!

Yup. Might as well say, ‘lesbians drop your knickers for the female dick or you’re as bad as hitler’. Who knew that simply saying those of the female sex want to sleep ONLY with others of the female sex was akin to genocide. FFS!

So if I fancy a gay man. Is he obliged to date me and have sex with me, a woman?

I read the report (the section on lesbian women anyway). I made the comparison because I knew it would make it obvious to anyone why organisations might refuse to support a statement that is perfectly reasonable because of a certain context. As I said before, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. No need to get so defensive.

OK! Can any of those posters explain why a lesbian NOT wanting to have a sexual relationship with a male bodied person is a bad thing and why it is also bad to support them in that choice?

Because there’s no such thing as a “male/female body”. We don’t call a nose “male” so why should we a penis “male”?

To fancy only people with a vagina is “gynae centric”. “You don’t fall in love with the vagina, you fall in love with the person, so why would you exclude an entire group of people on that basis?”

And so on, blah, blah, blah. Twitter has been really quite an eye opener for me on the sheer insanity of the trans movement. Not even sure it’s the fringe elements either.

No need to get so defensive. There you go, again telling women what they should be doing. Your misogyny and homophobia is more and obvious with every word you write.

fyette

One organisation went on to say they don’t agree. The others could easily have said “while we agree with the sentiment, we do not wish to endorse any statement from your organisation as we consider you to be transphobic” or whatever. They didn’t, and frankly anyone who isn’t new to this debate will know exactly why - they don’t support lesbians’ right to only date natal women, or if they do, they consider it transphobic.

So if I fancy a gay man. Is he obliged to date me and have sex with me, a woman?

If you change your name and call yourself Hequakes...then still no as men are allowed to make the distinction.

@S1naidSucks

I'm a bisexual feminist & love vaginas, but ok.

I'm a bisexual feminist & love vaginas, but ok.

So it’s just women that say no to dick, that you have an issue with, then. Still homophobic in my opinion.

Any hate group could send in a reasonable statement and have it endorsed. Lack of endorsement for the statement is not the same as disagreement with it, is it?

So it’s just women that say no to dick, that you have an issue with, then. Still homophobic in my opinion.

I have no issue with such women, and have no idea how you gathered that from my posts.

Because there’s no such thing as a “male/female body”. We don’t call a nose “male” so why should we a penis “male”?

You can see the flaw there, surely. Barring accident or incident all humans have noses, eyes etc. But, for some strange reason about 50% of humans have a penis, the other half something else. There's an identical split in other things too... science explains them using the term sex... male and female!

Twitter has been really quite an eye opener for me on the sheer insanity of the trans movement. Oh! OK! That'll explain That!

Sorry Butchy I forgot the which might have been important

Surely that statement is just the literal definition of being gay. The fact that you are only attracted to people of the same sex.

I cannot see anyone having any problem with the statement unless they are homophobic.

I know not everything in this world is black and white, but this issue seems that way to me. Refuse to accept the statement and you're homophobic. Unbelievable that anyone would not support it.