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.

What a load of utter wank!

Whatever evidence you want to throw in, from Eve, original sin and pain of childbirth (there is the explicit link to biology), to every claim that women should stay home and look after the kids (that they birthed and breastfeed -- not always stated because it was seen as bloody obvious), it was women's biology that othered us and defined us, not our non-white-maleness. Ancient greeks and the derivation of hysteria, biology again...................

But nope, seems thousands of years of the patriarchy, based on our biology, must be disappeared or denied......................

in a world that's full of people pretending to be lesbians

Wow. Personally I find lesbians really easy to spot, they're female people who exclusively date / maintain relationships with other female people.

I can see confusion and paranoia might well reign if you start blurring that definition

!Wow. Personally I find lesbians really easy to spot, they're female people who exclusively date / maintain relationships with other female people.

I've not been sent the special X-ray specs to allow me to spot those people online. I've found the Internet to be full of people who make outrageous claims about themselves.

You can really tell that nobody teaches women's studies any more, can't you?!

Patriarchy began with the dawn of agriculture and domesticated animals, when land and animals became property that could be passed on through generations. At about the same time, religions changed from feminine/moon religions to masculine/sun religions. Every human society since then has been patriarchal so that males could control property by ensuring they passed it on to their own sons. Until the twentieth century, when a combination of technological advance and women's activism gained some freedom for women. Freedom that pomo-addled idiots are now intent on giving away.

Social constructionism has to be the most patriarchal, regressive, idiotic ideology going. It's going to ruin millions of lives if we don't stop it - either through a vicious right wing backlash or by organising a left wing that is actually of the left. I'd prefer the latter. And if dysphoric transsexuals have any sense, they'll be getting the hell out of this movement before it destroys them.

I've not been sent the special X-ray specs to allow me to spot those people online

Nor me, but because I and others here base our communication on a shared assumption of material reality, it doesn't occur to me to disbelieve Juzza when she says she's a lesbian, or expect her to undergo some kind of surreal online lesbian culture test.

As Lang points out, all this pomo is messing with your ability to think straight or interact in good faith.

Patriarchy began with the dawn of agriculture and domesticated animals, when land and animals became property that could be passed on through generations.

Oh right, so not because of biology then? I'm assuming had the same sort of bodily set-up before farming came along?

*WOMEN had the same sort of bodily set-up, that is.

It wasn't so important to control their reproductive capability before the advent of property because there was nothing to pass on.

Oh right, so not because of biology then? I'm assuming had the same sort of bodily set-up before farming came along?

Oh, FFS. How can you read that and say not to do with biology then? What do you think biology is? The emergence of private property via agriculture meant the subjugation of women so that men could control inheritance through women's biology. How can you read a shortish post in perfectly plain English and not understand it?

I say again - social constructionism is a fucking cancer. It rots brains. Lawmakers and institutions steeped in this ideology are making public policy for millions of people. Yet they couldn't recognise material reality if it got up and slapped them in the face with a wet fish.

For thousands of years men justified their treatment of women by arguing that women were nothing more than the dirt men planted their human seeds in.
We can thank the very agriculture that we invented for that, I suppose.

It could be animal husbandry to blame, I suppose.
What it really comes down to is what it has always come down to.
Male dominance by any means necessary.

It could be animal husbandry to blame, I suppose.

LOL! But seriously - there's a reason pre-modern societies were usually matrilineal and turned patriarchal after the advent of agriculture and, with it, private property.

Lang, look, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that you and I are looking at the same set of circumstances and seeing a different causal relationships. And that's okay, because societies are complex with many competing factors, and they're also different - across the globe and through time - people do not agree on one defined heritage or patriarchy. Or rather we agree on the root, but disagree on the path it's taken and what that means for modern femism. You and I disagree.

I've posted my historical analysis previously on MN, but safe to say it doesn't differ hugely from yours. Except in my analysis I find that the feature by which groups were oppressed is by their deviation from the dominant group, and that aggressive dominance became a make phenomenon at the time of tribal branch-out (so communities meeting one another), and grew exponentially through the age of empire followed by colonialism. I'm not much of one for this property idea, as I think people were farming communaly in one way or another well before women were oppressively subjugated. And that the idea of personal property as opposed to community property came much later than the start of female oppression.

Heritage OF patriarchy, not or! Bloody typo completely changes the meaning.

And a MALE phenomenon, not a MAKE one. FFS bloody phone and fat fingers.

All great ape species, our closest relatives with who we share a common ancestor, have dominant males who exhibit violence, sometimes gratuitously. Agriculture may have led to patriarchal structures, but the dominance and violence was always there.

I agree with that Reality, competitive aggression is typically masculine in many species.

And there has never been a matriarchal human society, anywhere or at any time in history. You’d think with all the diversity of complex civilisation, that at least one would have given it a go. Does anyone who doesn’t believe in a biological root to female oppression have an explanation for that?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been societies and communities within which women were not oppressed, so there was simply no discernable sex-based oppression. That women have never been dominant over or oppressed men (i.e. a true matriarchy) isn't really the point.

... Although I guess that rather depends on your definition of oppression (do violent male apes "oppress" female apes? genuine musing...), and as we've seen that's rather up for debate.

RealityHasALiberalBias, a couple of counter-examples for you. Among apes, the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

And among humans, the Mosuo people of China:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

Not that either is an absolutely perfect example of feminism as a way of life(!!) but anything that's different from the norm could be a starting point for a discussion.

I don’t think the Muoso are considered a true matriarchy, though they are certainly very interesting.

Bonobos are fascinating. Again, they are not matriarchal - males are still dominant over the group - but the females form a sort of Lysistrata-style union amongst themselves and control access to sex. They’ve also been seen to diffuse the violence displayed by the males. This gives them power in a way that is not seen in other ape species.

There’s a great (if somewhat depressing) book by the primatologist Richard Wrangham that goes into this stuff in some detail. It’s called Demonic Males, if anyone wants to give it a go.

I think you're all ignoring the role of internalised hierarchies and memetic evolution.