Lesbian's and the Trans debate

[DJLippy]

I was wondering what peoples thoughts were regarding the impacts that transgenderism was having specifically on lesbians and the 'erasure' of lesbian identity. I am concerned that many public debates are ignoring their concerns. I don't think the LGBT 'community' is representing them properly and I think that women need to understand and address the specific concerns they have. Lesbian, bi-sexual and straight women should speak up together because I think that we have an insight that men lack.

If you haven't done so already I would ask everyone to check out Magdalen Berns who speaks so eloquently about the trans debate but it's impacts on young gay and lesbian people.

www.youtube.com/channel/UCvTTakI97sQ4SkMnsH8r0qQ

I think there are two main areas that I have identified are of particular concern.

1. The extremely high (2:1) rates of referrals to gender-dysphoria clinics of girls and young lesbians. Heather-Brunswick Evans work is very interesting here, especially as regards the impact that porn and an overly-sexualised media is having female self-identity. I have heard people express fears that this is in effect 21st century conversion therapy whereby young gay and lesbian children will be effectively steralised and neutered.

2. The encroachment of transwomen on lesbian spaces . I think that Reiley J Dennis is a brilliant example of this. In my opinion he is a predatory and dangerous misogonist who is using the 'trans' cover to bully and intimidate young lesbian or sexuality questioning women. This was really brought home to me yesterday after I had a conversation on twitter with a male lesbian which quickly escalated into a creepy and overtly sexualised interaction. He obviously did not have a 'female' brain - he behaved like a classic misoginist sex pest, who did not respect my boundaries even after I made this clear to him that he was making me feel uncomfortable. It really gave me an insight into how this would impact on lesbians. I think that we take our spaces for granted. I lived in Manchester which is known for it's gay scene but still it only has 1 lesbian bar. It's important that these spaces are protected, especially for young lesbians who need a safe space to explore their sexuality.

This is not meant as an attack on trans people. I am not saying that all trans people are dangerous predators or that they don't exist. However, there is an alarming rise in transgender treatments and a small minority of very dangerous and aggressive autogenophiles. It's right that we should ask questions.

I hope to start a discussion and invite comments from anyone with an insight or any worries. This is just two areas I found of particular concern from my own research I'm hoping other people can share their expertise. I know that I am not a lesbian but it reminds me of that famous line about Nazi Germany.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one ..."

I think that it would be really helpful if we started to educate ourselves about the threats that lesbians are facing and started to speak out more. Lesbian, Bi-sexual, straight or male: United we stand, divided we fall.

And as sexual orientation is a protected characteristic, these words do have meaning. Legally.

It's not as black and white as you're presenting it. The patricharcy disregards women's sexuality, that's why lesisbianism was never criminalised. Dictionary definitions described it as 'romantic or sexual attraction', they don't touch on the actual sex aspect because sex has a very narrow definition in law.

The common law definition of adultery requires a penis, so infidelity isn't grounds for a divorce and non consummation isn't grounds for an annulment.

I'll concede but lesbianism involves women but, as we've touch on before, I don't accept your definition of 'adult female'. Female is a biological term, relating to sex as a biological concept. I know myself to be more than some DNA and hormones. Your mileage may vary.

the thing is it is black and white. Women are biological adult females. Men are biological adult males. Homosexuals are people with a sexual orientation towards their own sex. Lesbians are female homosexuals. The lesbian community has always had a fringe of bisexual women or heterosexual women tourists, but lesbian as a definition cannot ever include a biological male.

I perfectly understand that heterosexual men think sex isn't really sex unless it involves a penis. And heterosexual men make laws.

But the laws surrounding lesbianism and whether it can constitute adultery, doesn't change the definition of the word lesbian.

Unless we are basing sexual orientation on biological sex, sexual orientation because a meaningless, subjective definition at an individual level.

Something that equality law does not recognise, otherwise you will have no basis for homophobia.

In the same way that if you don't recognise biological sex, you can't identify sexism.

The whole point of changing definitions and blurring distinctions is to obscure sexism and homophobia.

Definition of female as biology and chromosomes is not reductive. It's liberating. Only when we realise we are still and ever a woman, however you present, whatever your sexuality, are we free of the stifling oppression of gender.

Women are biological adult females

Biological adulthood isn't a concept with our species, it's not a specific point in all cultures.

Some cultures have the 13th birthday as the point of adulthood, some see it as the monarch, others sexual maturity, some marriage. In our own we're a bit fuzzy if it's the 18th or 21st birthday. So 'female' is a biological term but adulthood is a cultural term. And so is 'woman'.

Here's a less scientific, more feminist take:

"You're wrong, you're utterly wrong; you shame me with your wrongness. Of course there is more to us than biology, some gammets and a shot of hormones. Adult human female my arse, how dare you reduce my experience to that? How dare you say that my chromosomes are all I'm made of? Females might be born but women are made of every experience they ever have. Don't tell me that my gender is a force from without because no society would ever have shaped my gender; no patriarchy could have made this woman.

Tell the cancer patient that her biology is all, that those mutating cells are her essence, tell her she was born to die because physicality is her destiny. Tell the woman with one leg that she is only three quarters of a woman because that's how much flesh she is. Scream 'barren' in the face of the infertile woman because that's a biological fact. Don't tell me that menstruation shaped me more that's a lover's touch or a moment of insanity. Don't tell me that my female oppression defined me more than the light, beauty and love in my life. I lost a child, don't tell me that nature doesn't make mistakes."

It looks like you are appropriating cancer and infant mortality to prove that men can be women. Can you confirm please?

Here's a less scientific, more feminist take

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Comedy gold.

categorisation is not reduction. and you seem hung up on legal definitions, sure 'adulthood' as a state of biological maturity is recognised at different points in different systems, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am female and a lesbian, these are not the only things I am, but in the cases where they are relevant those categories are important. saying I am these things doesn't limit me.

My feminist reading is simpler: sex is material and real, it describes a couple of important things: what role one might potentially play in reproducing, some aspects of physical strength that are relevant for e.g. sport. On top of that basis is build thousands of years of patriarchal culture that teaches us that sex is meaningful in other ways: that women are nurturing and men are decisive, that women are submissive and men assertive. this is gender, we taught that it's natural and springs from sex - and a lot of current transgender thinking is about explicitly making this 'natural' again, making it the determinant of sex/gender as a (purposely) confused idea. but it's not nature it's culture. the purpose of feminist is to strip away gender to liberate women.

As a lesbian woman the boundaries that can be established on material real categories are important: my protection as both a homosexual and a woman rely on them and my ability to meet, assemble and organise for pleasure or politics with other women / lesbians requires being able to hold those boundaries, base on the material not on some post-modern individual truth.

Unless we are basing sexual orientation on biological sex, sexual orientation because a meaningless, subjective definition at an individual level.

Well, as a society we're quite civilised, we don't root around up other people's skirts or watch people, about their sexual activity. On an individual levels, yes I'm a tad annoyed when someone compares my lesbian experience to their own of living a life of heteronormative privilage + a drink in a gay bar once but the world doesn't stop turning.

In the same way that if you don't recognise biological sex, you can't identify sexism.

We can and we do, using the concept of gender. You seem to be quite successful at pulling out examples of sexism in our society where the deviding line is gender, where DNA isn't taken and passports aren't checked using bathroom rooms or changing rooms.

We have no problem naming toxic masculinity, without changing the concept to toxic maleness because we know it isn't something that drips naturally from the male.

Women are discriminated against for NOT performing gender (trying to look feminine) and that is sexism.

Haidees: 100% agree

sex is material and real, it describes a couple of important things: what role one might potentially play in reproducing, some aspects of physical strength that are relevant for e.g. sport.

I agree.

On top of that basis is build thousands of years of patriarchal culture that teaches us that sex is meaningful in other ways: that women are nurturing and men are decisive, that women are submissive and men assertive. this is gender, we taught that it's natural and springs from sex

This is more nuanced. Culturally a woman's biology has shaped gender but there have always been exceptions. Boudica Is no less a woman for violently and decisively seeking revenge on the men who raped her daughters. That doesn make her less of a woman, conversely the avenging mother figure is more of a woman.

That Boudica got properly angry and some other women don't get properly angry but they all have the same socitial constrains and basic biology, suggest that something else is going on, something innate.

- and a lot of current transgender thinking is about explicitly making this 'natural' again, making it the determinant of sex/gender as a (purposely) confused idea. but it's not nature it's culture. the purpose of feminist is to strip away gender to liberate women.

No, this is a concept of a specific school of feminism. First and early second wave feminism was focuses on throwing off the idea of biological determinism. Some late second wave feminists believed in it and the third wave have thrown it off again.

It's a concept embraced by some feminists, it's not something every feminist believes.

From what I can make out, much transgender thinking goes down the queer theory route, which has parallels with third wave but isn't exactly feminism.

There isn't One True Way here.

Maybe you could go explain to girls dying in menstrual huts that biology doesnt define them or their experiences?

Menstruation isn't killing them, being kept in dirty huts is killing them. Huts aren't biological, they're a cultural phenomenon. You and I share the same biology with those women but we're not being kept in huts.

Biology isn't a concept. Sex is defined by reproductive role, and 'what's going on' is not innate but is patriarchy, weaponising gender through socialisation.

The cultural phenomenon is going on - you got it. The cultural phenomenon is patriarchy. Gender is its tool. Whether we perform or not, our sex is still defined by reproductive role.

Women are discriminated against for NOT performing gender (trying to look feminine) and that is sexism.

That's abdolutley true and it's one of the reasons why I think that we should, try and push the boundaries of what is accepted 'feminine behaviour'. Society need to be as accepting of female masculinity/butch behaviour, as it is of anything else.

Maybe the answer to so many young people approaching gender clinics, is not being so hung up on how they present themselves. The biological determinist view gives us very clear pink and blue boxes. If we built a society that didn't stick with gendered clothing , gendered pronouns and gendered spaces, effeminate boys and masculine girls wouldn't be rushing to be 'trans', they be accepted as normal variation.

Biology isn't a concept.

Biology is a fact when it relates to our physical make up. Biology is a concept when comes to examining how much impact it has on the part of us that isn't physical, the part that happens in our minds, soul/spirit/whatever.

Gender is its tool. Whether we perform or not, our sex is still defined by reproductive role.

Sex does define your reproductive role. Your reproductive role might define a portion of your wider role/identity but there is more to us that our reproductive role. Women might have it bad but we haven't totally internalised The Handmaiden's Tale.

I feel like you missing my point: boudica isn't less or more of a women that any other else based on what she did (or anything else) she's exactly the same amount woman as any other woman, it's a simple biological binary.

There is no 'biological determinism'- the weird misreading of radical feminist thought - your only a woman because of chromosomes, thats literally all it means, it determines nothing about personality, behaviour anything else, it's not a blue box or a pink box, those things are social, it's just reproductive role. what we need to do is sever the connection between the body (real) and gender roles (social), this isn't done by inventing more gender roles.

Still screaming: of course there's more to us than reproductive role. Who is saying there isn't.

what we need to do is sever the connection between the body (real) and gender roles (social)

You can't create a false division between what's bodily 'real' and what experienced 'social'. Firstly, some things that are experienced come from within, many mental illnesses don't show a structural change in the brain but they are very real for those who suffer. Secondly we're still not close to knowing what's nature, what nurture and what's a combination of them both.

this isn't done by inventing more gender roles.

I'm not trying to invent new gender roles, I'd be happy to throw all gender roles out of the window, I'm suggesting that we recognise all the aspects of gender performance, that are already there. I see very effeminate boys and very masculine girls but mostly I see kids with a massive range of behaviours, covering every shade of 'gendered'.

I see women who want to spend hours on their grooming and wear constricting clothes and those who are the diametric opposit. They should both be safe and respected.

I think you're all agreeing with each other...

No, not agreeing. Stillscreaming is a social constructionist. We're all our own disembodied avatars. This ideology is just lovely for the hyper-privileged and consigns all the actually vulnerable people to entrenched and structural inequality. But that's alright because all the hyper-privileged people enjoy gazing at their navels.