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 )

Someone, what the hell does the below mean?

...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).

wijjy

Basically it means that they believe sexual orientation is a case of which gender you are attracted to, not which sex.

So their belief is lesbians fancy people who identify as women, regardless of whether these people have a penis or a vagina.

As opposed to the view here being that a lesbian is someone who is attracted to someone of the female sex only. They say a lesbian is attracted to someone of the female sex, and to someone of the male sex who identifies as a woman.

In fact even that isn’t right because presumably a lesbian wouldn’t by their logic be attracted to someone female if that person identifies as a man.

So a trans man in a relationship with another trans man would be a lesbian?

But a female identifying cis-woman who only dated other cis-women who identified as women wouldn't.

So a trans man in a relationship with another trans man would be a lesbian

I expect they would say such trans men would be gay men (You probably know but a trans man is a female who identifies as a man)

It’s like when Rachel McKinnon refused to debate anyone on the issue of trans women in sport because ...

Ah yes, Rachel McKinnon - the one who tried to claim that Martina Navratilova: a woman who has been championing LGB rights and had moved these on further than McKinnon could have dreamed of and before she was even born - was a transphobic bigot. The reason? Because she had the audacity to flag up another instance in which the rights of transwomen conflict with those of women, and to discuss these in an adult manner while the other side cried 'foul!' and took their ball home.

What McKinnon neglected to mention from behind her 'TRANSPHOBE!' megaphone is that without the input of women like Navratilova there probably wouldn't BE an LGBTQ umbrella, much less separate factions of it splitting off their own interests and asserting them at the expense of another's.

McKinnon is bright, articulate and is sometimes a pleasure to listen to. She makes much of her academic credentials. Yet her area of expertise is philosophy - interestingly enough, how to bullshit convincingly - she's not a sports scientist, nor a scientist of any sort; neither is she an expert on the human body and/or its hormonal constitution. Of course, everyone's heard of inter-disciplinary research. But making this kind of scientific background gel with a philosophical one, however many learned papers you cite, is a stretch of faith too far. Dr McKinnon is pontificating on topics of which she's mainly ignorant, in a discipline in which she is not qualified, and is using her PhD credentials to authenticate research which can at best be described as inauthentic. Or, to paraphrase Top Gun, her ego is writing cheques her body can't cash.

This so-called 'research practice' isn't original research at all and is thoroughly disingenuous: perhaps unsurprisingly so for someone whose chosen specialist research area is lying. And no self-respecting academic (or knowledgeable layperson for that matter) would buy that shit for an instant.

On a separate, and related point. I seem to recall a court case in recent years in which a lesbian teenager with a 'crush' on her best friend deceived said friend into thinking she was a boy and struck up a sexual relationship with her. She received a stiff sentence, in part because of the devastating impact this deception had upon her victim.

Clearly in circumstances, coercion of a woman into a relationship against her choosing was judged as the horrendous crime it really is. This precedent would tend to suggest that the law and the courts of this country accept that view.

Why, then, is a similar coercion of females into sex with a partner they wouldn't have chosen if the cards were laid on the table from the outset, occupying such a controversial platform of public debate?

If anything should be 'no platform', it's this!

All this the talk of women's bodies being used as commodities in this way - their free-will, physical autonomy and personal choice being completely overridden in order to suit the aggressive will of the TRA agenda - thoroughly dismays me. Especially in the wake of #MeToo.

We are going backwards, rather than the reverse.