To not be surprised to see threads on LGB being questioned now?!

[SuperNewMe]

Just typed a reply and the thread disappeared quickly (makes a change as when it's trans related ones they stay?!)
So it's not a TAAT, it's just to say that after all the anti trans rhetoric you see on here sometimes, it comes as absolutely no surprise that there are now more threads attacking lesbian and gay couples ( not natural was the phrase used)
Not to mention one still on the go as far as I'm aware that refers to LGBTQ as "special rainbow people"
YABU you're imagining things
YANBU things seem to be ramping up against LGBT people in general
(I say this as someone who's straight and not trans)

I actually agree with this.

I support the rights of anyone to identify any way they like. I strongly disagree with misgendering and the way that trans people are often spoken about on here and and I want everyone to be equally protected and have safe spaces. But I also don’t want to share women’s spaces with anyone not born a woman, because I’m concerned about the number of men (not trans women, but actual men) using self ID as a means to gain access to vulnerable women. And like it or not this is already happening.

According to some that makes me a terf. I don’t feel that’s the case at all. I have no issue with trans women. I don’t want them or anyone for that matter to feel threatened or unsafe and I wholeheartedly support them and their right to identify as women. I just want everyone to have the right to their own safe and secure places, including women.

@SchoolQuestionnaire

I think that was my starting point until I really thought about it and realised that it's not up to me to say that it's OK for even the most lovely trans woman to share spaces with women who want places to be genuinely single sex.

Or when I thought about how can we tell which trans women are lovely and which are just men pretending to be trans to gain access?

Then I thought about schools and how can it be fair for teenage girls to have to share toilets, changing rooms and residential dorms etc with trans girls?

And then nothing short of complete compliance is enough for the activists who simply don't care that this is not in the interests of women and girls who deserve not only to be safe from any male but also to have their dignity and privacy observed.

And then there is the cotton ceiling stuff where lesbians are being denied same sex attraction because it's bigoted not to be attracted to trans women if your objection is their sex.

So this is not about individual trans people it's about women and girls and our rights and needs as a sex class.

@SchoolQuestionnaire I think you will find most people labelled Terfs are not discriminatory and are wholly supportive of an adults rights to dress how they like, to be feminine or masculine how they like, to change their name and to do so freely without criticism. I certainly do.

All this means is that, apart from maybe the question of misgendering, you agree with the "TERFs".

I think many of us would be OK with pronouns if that were all that was being demanded of us. But it isn't. As another PP noted, nothing short of complete capitulation is acceptable.

Ultimately, if you say that trans women are women except when it comes to prisons, toilets, rape crisis groups and sports, what you're saying is that trans women aren't women but we should pretend they are because it's kind.

But pretending is what has got us into this mess in the first place, which is why many of us no longer feel comfortable or honest using opposite sex pronouns to describe trans people.

But I also don’t want to share women’s spaces with anyone not born a woman, because I’m concerned about the number of men (not trans women, but actual men) using self ID as a means to gain access to vulnerable women. And like it or not this is already happening.

According to some that makes me a terf. I don’t feel that’s the case at all.

Well I'm afraid you're wrong. They definitely makes you a TERF in extremist TRA eyes. Nothing but total acceptance of TW as women is good enough for them.

Trans exclusionary means what it says on the tin. If you want to exclude trans women from women's spaces that makes you trans exclusionary.

It doesn't matter that you want to exclude all males, or that you would include trans men and female non binary people.

Trans exclusionary means what it says on the tin. If you want to exclude trans women from women's spaces that makes you trans exclusionary.

It doesn't matter that you want to exclude all males, or that you would include trans men and female non binary people.

As transwomen are male why would they think they have any right to be in female only spaces? Moreover, if transmen and female non binary people are included how are female only spaces trans exclusionary?

Haven't read the whole thread.
Yes there's been a rise in homophobia.

It is my opinion that the rise has been due to the LGB and the TQ either being conflated or lumped together.

It is not helped by the fact that any criticism of trans ideology is interpreted and reported as an "attack on the LGBTQ community" as if we are some homogenous mass with a hive mind.

We are absolutely not.

Some of the most vocal rejection of the TQ has come from within the LGB, and some of the worst homophobia that I've ever experienced has come from within the TQ.

I have nothing in common with heterosexual males who want to wear dresses and i have nothing in common with heterosexual females who are hopped up on yaoi, yet both of those demographics claim to be either lesbians or gay men.

The divorce between the letters can't come soon enough for me.

Well, they're not. Which is why TERF is inaccurate. The people being labelled TERFs are not trans exclusionary, they are male exclusionary, and there is nothing remotely radical about the idea that males should be excluded from female only spaces.

But it makes no sense to say you're not a TERF but you don't agree with trans women being allowed in women's single sex spaces, because to the people who use the word TERF, that is exactly what one is.

It's always amusing when someone is totally clueless about everything but thinks they have all the answers to things they don't even understand. It's a key feature of this movement, its activists and hangers on.

You’re contradicting yourself somewhat.
You say that ‘no one should ever be questioned or coerced about their sexual practices’, but also that a ‘person’s expressed sexual preferences can absolutely be a reflection of prejudice’, so you are judging them for their preferences.
‘Not questioning’ would mean to just to let people have their personal preferences and accept that sexual attraction either happens or doesn’t, and there’s nothing to discuss or analyse.
The opposite of it would be thinking that, with the right arguments, a person can be persuaded to ‘become attracted’ to someone they weren’t initially attracted to.
To me, that’s coercion. Like men trying to guilt-trip women to sleep with them against their wishes or telling lesbians that they just haven’t been with the right guy.

I do think it’s transphobic and sexist and wrongheaded to define a person wholly in terms of their genitals.

Nobody’s defining people ‘wholly in terms of their genitals’, but as PP said, ‘genitals are a pretty good indicator of biological sex in nearly all humans’ - and people should be allowed to be are attracted to the sex they’re attracted to, don’t you think?

Dating and attraction is inherently discriminatory, there is nothing wrong with ruling someone out of your dating pool on the basis that, for any reason, you do not find them attractive. Few 25 year old men would be attracted to me, a plump, middle aged woman, attractive; I'm surprisingly fine with that.

Exactly. I find it baffling how some people seem to think they can police who others are or aren’t attracted to and guilt-trip them into being more ‘accepting’.
I remember reading about pansexuality years ago, and it said in that article how it was probably the most tolerant approach.
Even then I found it irritating - if someone says they’re pansexual I would hope that’s just how they’re genuinely feel, so there’s no more merit to it than to hetero- or homosexuality.
Nowadays it’s not even about pansexuals anymore (haven’t heard that term in a while), as according to some people any kind of sexual orientation and preference is considered phobic, sexist, exclusionary and so on.

If it’s not just genitalia, then which parts are the important parts? Or is it a particular package of parts that determines sexuality (all biological of course, nothing social, cultural , environmental to see), and please elaborate on which precisely is the required package.

So you think genuine sexual attraction is a social and cultural construct? What about the animals out in the wild - is their mating behavior also determined by cultural norms?

Faux naivety.

Ok, you seem to know a lot. You can tell us how men with this feeling they have the wrong gender, become women.

And when on that pathway they become women. Like is it the time they say "I am a woman " or is it as soon as they take estrogen, is it after their chest develops?

Clue for you, it's as soon as they say the words "I am a woman"
Soooo we would dearly love to know how they become women.

I go by the term MERF. Male Exclusionary....

@sophiasnail what is an in your face about it lesbian?

@Tandora I’d be interested to know what social and cultural experiences you think have caused me to ‘wrongheadedly’ believe that being a biological woman is necessary for me to find a person attractive?

And how is it that, if maleness and femaleness are nebulous conditions and very difficult to tell apart, how I have never accidentally been attracted to someone who turned out to be a man?

I feel like maybe you don’t look at women enough, because fuck me, the difference is glaring.