Diva editor, responds to 'lesbian rights alliance' article in the times.

[garam]

Another strongly worded restating of support for trans rights....

"A Times article, published today, announces “lesbian fury at Stonewall over ‘trans agenda’”, as if the 135 signatories of an open letter speak for every lesbian in the world.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Given DIVA’s unequivocal stance on trans issues, I’m sure it goes without saying, but for anyone not quite sure: those 135 signatories do not speak for us, or for the majority of cisgender lesbians.

The letter, from an organisation calling themselves the Lesbian Rights Alliance, accuses Stonewall of erasing lesbians and says: “Stonewall has rarely represented our interests. Now in your single-minded policy to promote the trans political and ideological agenda you not only fail to represent us but you actually promote lesbian invisibility – and lesbian erasure.”

I do agree that lesbians are underrepresented in the LGBT community. But it's worse for bisexual people, and even more so for trans people who are also lesbian or bisexual. That's why it's so important that a magazine like DIVA exists, and that an organisation like Stonewall is women-led and promotes bi and trans inclusion. It's the likes of DIVA and Stonewall who are making us more visible.

In fact, I'd go further. It is not Stonewall – or any other LGBT organisation – erasing lesbian identities, but these so-called feminists who, by peddling hateful and transphobic rhetoric, make people like me not want to use the word lesbian to describe myself because I don’t want to be associated with their views. What a sad state of affairs.

The letter continues: “We urge you to stop claiming to represent us and leave the L out.”

Take your own advice, LRA, and stop claiming to represent lesbians. You do not speak for me, for DIVA, or for the majority of our community.

As I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, trans women do not erase lesbians. I believe we are enriched by trans friends and lovers, parents, children, colleagues and siblings.

Groups like the LRA would have you believe that it’s “them versus us”. It’s not. They are us. We’re one and the same, and we can’t let divisive, hateful and misguided people drive a wedge between us.

DIVA publisher Linda Riley agrees with me. She says: “It seems ironic to me to complain about a lack of lesbian visibility while, at the same time, asking the L to be removed from LGBT.

“We are stronger as a community and 135 lesbians should not be able to decide what a whole community should believe.”"

I think the definition of the term 'pansexual' is somewhat illuminating:
' not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.'

... the corollary is, there are people whose sexual choices are limited by those different criteria. (As presumably we all know). Since when has 'lesbian' not been defined in terms of biological sex?

Having sex with both biological sexes makes you bi, regardless of whether you'd prefer to call yourself a lesbian, a gay man or heterosexual. Reminds me very much of the "men who have sex with men" who are ashamed to call themselves gay/bi, and it's actually really upsetting to read/hear as a bisexual.

Sorry, what are 'monosexuals'?

That would be people exclusively attracted to one sex. So heterosexual, lesbian, gay. Only people who aren't monosexual are bi people like me.

So lesbian means: Likes people with cunts and also with dicks.

That is a total redinition of the word lesbian, which used to mean, likes people with cunts.

Note: Lesbain never meant: attracted to femininity, attracted to internal gender ID, etc etc. It meant, same sex attracted - cunt.

The words lesbian, woman, girl, female, and biological sex have now been altered to include people with cocks.

The words we are left are, if I am tallying correctly, "reproductive role", but, I'm not sure what the cunty side of that is called TBH and suspect that will be gone soon anyway.

Meanwhile, I await with interest mainstream "lesbian" pornography changing to show two people with cocks, and all the male viewers giving it a thumbs up.

Pride and LGBT in general is suppposed to be about freedom to love whoever and express yourself however, not about legitimising and maybe even encouraging internal shame in bisexuals because they don't line up with the L or G.

Yes. All this does seem very biphobic.

I'll even go "Offended of Tunbridge Wells" and go as far as calling it disgusting.

"Rebranding" lesbians/gay men as both sex attracted and discouraging bisexuality as a "brand" for those people (poor wording, but hopefully the meaning gets through!) is blatantly biphobic (denial of bisexuality) and homophobic/lesbophobic (denial of their right to be ONLY same sex attracted). I can't see how anyone can see it as anything else, tbh.

Lesbain now carries a certain amount of cache I think

If you are a lesbian with a dick.

The old fashioned cunty sort of lesbians who are all too often unwilling to confirm to femininity in many / any ways at all, and have a distressing tendancy to be unapologetic and hardcore feminists, they are way way out. I mean who ever liked them anyway? New breed are a vast improvement.

Basically heterosexuality is OK and same sex attraction is disgusting.

At least when it comes to women.

Who'd a thunk it.

But it's worse for bisexual people, and even more so for trans people who are also lesbian or bisexual. That's why it's so important that a magazine like DIVA exists, and that an organisation like Stonewall is women-led and promotes bi and trans inclusion

I rolled my eyes so hard at this. Lesbians! Ye are not as oppressed as male lesbians. Go away and flagellate thyselves for thy privilege.

The only thing Linda Riley gives a shit about is her wallet. I doubt very much she believes a man can be a lesbian and I’d also bet you’d never find a cock in her bed.

I might just be feeling a bit disheartened because I fell down a rabbit hole after a following a link on another thread here and ended up on lesbian feminist blogs, but is there any point in continuing to group LGBT etc together?

‘and that an organisation like Stonewall is women-led’

It’s not women-led and it never has been. Like pretty much everything else in this world it’s ‘man-led’ and male focussed.

"...erasing lesbian identities, but these so-called feminists who, by peddling hateful and transphobic rhetoric, make people like me not want to use the word lesbian to describe myself because I don’t want to be associated with their views."
So don't then! And leave lesbian to the wrong type of feminist, and the wrong type of homosexual. Although I note that many female homosexuals already don't use lesbian gay women, gay cis women, queer etc all seem more popular.

Sappho didn't do cock, despite men trying to claim she did. So, I defer to ancient greece and our glorious foremothers.........

Meanwhile, I await with interest mainstream "lesbian" pornography changing to show two people with cocks, and all the male viewers giving it a thumbs up

Nicely said!

"I rolled my eyes so hard at this. Lesbians! Ye are not as oppressed as male lesbians. Go away and flagellate thyselves for thy privilege".

That made me laugh.

So you get cis-lesbians and trans-lesbians now? And trans-lesbians used to be straight men?

And gay men are cis-gay and those women who identify as men and want a male partner are trans-gay presumably? And those cis-gay men who are not into vaginas are transphobic?

I think I've got it.

Amongst the lesbians I’ve spoken to, there is a faction who believe twaw and so they should be accepted as lesbians. These tend to be the younger queer identifying type. Then there is a few older dykes who just flat out refuse to believe that anything like this is happening. Another thing I’ve noticed is that the majority of young lesbians prefer not to identify as lesbian. Some, mainly younger women I’ve spoken to, say they are bisexual but only have relationships with women. Then there are the women who identify as gay, which does wind me up because whenever I see gay it’s normally about men. Lesbian is not a popular word in the LGBT community. Young women seem to run away from it as fast as they can. Hell, it took me a long time to say the words I am a lesbian without cringing. It’s sad, because the very same people who say they have no problem with female homosexuals can’t bear to utter the word lesbian. I find it upsetting, because even my own family who say they accept me as I am want to relabel me for their own comfort.
Anyway sorry, rambling again.

Haven't RTFT because I stopped reading the OP when I saw the word 'cisgender'. 🙄

I see a fair few younger people who are 'bisexual' and therefore identify with lesbians, but who have only ever really had sexual and emotional relationships with men.

The Equality Act defines Sexual Orientation as being based on sex, not a legal fiction.

As we know, there are exemptions to transwomen with a GRC being treated as a female, as such they are not legally female anyway.

The purpose of a GRC is not to allow men access to women that don't want them, strangely enough.

It’s not the fact that they identify as bisexual, they might be for all I know. It’s the complete rejection of the word lesbian by someone who states that they only want relationships with women that I find saddening. There’s so much fear and discussed about the word lesbian, I even felt it myself for awhile, but I’d hoped, with the seemingly increasing levels of acceptance in society, that the stigma would go away. I used to think that the stigma was to do with being a female homosexual, but now I’m convinced it’s just because men want to vilify us because we won’t fuck them. All those young dykes who should be loud and proud are being bullied out of their community and identity, and the support networks that should be there to nurture them are being infiltrated and driven apart, and by who? Again, men who just won’t except the word NO!

Hotrocker, id take a guess it's cause everyone, regardless of sex or sexuality, grows up internalising the stereotype of the unliked, hairy, man-hating lesbian :(

So they'd rather call themselves "queer" or "pan-romantic" or whatever, pretty much anything that makes them "other" to the unliked, hairy, man-hating lesbians.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I see a fair few younger people who are 'bisexual' and therefore identify with lesbians, but who have only ever really had sexual and emotional relationships with men.

I would hope things have changed in the last 20-something years, but as a teenager trying to make first steps into meeting lesbians/other bi-women I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not be accepted by the lesbian community locally unless I changed how I dressed and hid being bi.

@Garam - just to clarify: 'woman' can mean someone with penis, 'lesbian' can be someone with a penis. I think I also read this week that trans women have periods and will soon be churning out babies. So, are there any words that human beings who were 'assigned' a female sex at birth can retain to identify themselves?

@garam

Women's bodies are not public services nor public resources, so the EqA doesn't give access to anyone's bed nor anyone's knickers. Therefore what the EqA says about the treatment of transwomen is irrelevant to any discussion on sexuality and sexual orientation. It is 2018 and I am still having to spell this out. As PPs have said, any belief that the EqA has anything to do with who a woman should have sex with is rape apologia.

I wrote on another thread about exonyms and autonyms, I'm going to write a bit more:

By appropriating, without prefix nor modifier, same-sex-attracted females' autonym of "lesbian" that they have had for 2600 years, TRAs steal lesbians' ability to name themselves. TRAs prevent lesbians from naming themselves as members of the female sex class who are exclusively attracted to other members of the female sex class and they colonise lesbian language, just as they plan to colonise lesbian spaces, beds, and sexuality. Lesbians had the word lesbian first: it is theirs, stop stealing it.