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 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

I really don't have any idea (sorry).

"unliked, hairy, man-hating lesbian "
(puts hand up! Cooeeee, c'est moi! ).

'Hairy' -- yep, long-lived this one, and that idiot who claimed women with unshaved legs were 'dirty'. Pretty much still mainstream.
Man-hating -- with the added unspoken man-hating (feminist) so doubleplusungood.
Unliked -- the ultimate shaming slur, with Stonewall/Diva idiots claiming we are the wrong type of feminists and the wrong type of lesbians, and they are ashamed to be associated with us (or sit next to us on the bus cos we smell and have nits probably.....).

So, unliked, hairy, cunty dykes over here please! My kind of people!

@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?

Well there is a word that is in fairly common use in the real world, it's even in the oxford dictionary, a lot of people who are not trans are just fine with using it to identify their birthsex........ but people threw tantrums and demanded mumsnet banned it, so I don't know what to tell you....

garam that word excludes all cunty people who do not have a gender ID of "woman" or "girl" or do not have a gender ID at all.

What is the word for everyone in the world who has a cunt, please.

It is homophobic to suggest lesbians should include penis within their sexual boundaries.

It is also homophobic to tell us that correctly stating someone is bisexual for having sex (and attraction) with both SEXES, is homophobia.

I can PayPal you the 12p to print that out down the local library and stick to your bathroom mirror.

Stop trying to change the definition of words to suit the feelings of people who don’t give a shit about women.

On the previous point,

The word lesbian is similar to the word feminist in many ways

Unfashionable, too "strong", conjuring up images that some may not feel comfortable associating with. Other words - words that water down the meaning, have not been smeared by the patrirachy so much, are more popular.

That's why these words are so important. It takes strength to declare publically, as the hatred especially from men is so in your face.

but people threw tantrums and demanded mumsnet banned it, so I don't know what to tell you

Infantilising women defending their rights to be necessarily grouped together by biology and sex.

So, unliked, hairy, cunty dykes over here please! My kind of people!

Everything in that fits me except for dyke :(.

@YetAnotherSpartacus Reading back I feel I didn't quite finish that post

My point was that I hope that's not the reason why you know a lot of bi-women who haven't had any relationships with women and that things have changed since I was a teenager.

Well there is a word that is in fairly common use in the real world, it's even in the oxford dictionary, a lot of people who are not trans are just fine with using it to identify their birthsex........ but people threw tantrums and demanded mumsnet banned it, so I don't know what to tell you....

Nope. You're not very good at this are you? The word needs to cover all people who have female biology. Including those who don't "identify" as women.

And "common use" don't make me laugh.

My point was that I hope that's not the reason why you know a lot of bi-women who haven't had any relationships with women and that things have changed since I was a teenager

I'm not a part of the community. I think I lived through a time when lesbian was a 'dirty word' and then a time when it was 'cool' (and a lot of lesbian women got exploited by het women during this period). Now I'm old, I only hear about youth culture as it passes my doorstep and what I do see is a lot of young people (women, not men) identifying as 'bi' or 'queer' when in fact they haven't had relationships with women and are in quite solid relationships with men (think engaged or married). Make of this what you will I suppose ...

Everything in that fits me except for dyke

Well - political lesbians see all (cunty) women as potential lesbians... yer never know - seems a lot of women find their inner lez around the time of the menopause...

"So, unliked, hairy, cunty dykes over here please! My kind of people!"

Amen to that.

Well - political lesbians see all (cunty) women as potential lesbians... yer never know - seems a lot of women find their inner lez around the time of the menopause...

I think I found my inner crazy-cat-lady fuck off I'm a misanthrope.

Garam, The word you’re referring to, the one that’s band on here, isn’t banned because we all threw a tantrum. If you read the MN guidelines threads you’ll see most women saying that it should stand. In fact if we were the tantrum throwing types, we would certainly have had your comments deleted from this thread. We prefer to let them stand so lurkers can see exactly what you think, and what kind of people you are.
Unliked, hairy, man hating dyke over here.

Everything in that fits me except for dyke

Also me. And I'd certainly rather be called dyke than cis.

HotRocker, you're using actual fact, reason and nuance there. I doubt garam is here for that. I think goading and screenshots are probably the length and breadth of it.

Yeah the MN guidelines definitely changed because we threw tantrums about it. Totally. That was us yeah.

@Garam - where does it stop? Seriously, at what point will you actually say "That's enough, we'll stop appropriating those words / spaces." I want to know what you deem 'enough'.

Mumsnet, ban me if you must but a woman is an adult female human. Lesbians are women who are sexually attracted to other women (see my first definition) and there is not a dick in common. FFS.

"So, unliked, hairy, cunty dykes over here please! My kind of people!"

* waves * Hello fellow unliked, hairy, cunty dykes!

Can I join the honorary dyke club too?

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

Me too. I ended up being a lesbian for quite a while even though it didn't feel right as an identity just to fit in, I can understand the pressure that young people are under to stick with an identity that fits with the community you're in even if it's not quite who you are.

"The word needs to cover all people who have female biology"

female biology can and does include the biology of all types of human

Now we've got to say members of a certain "reproductive class" although on the thread that this was raised I don't remember what the words were that differentiate between the reproductive classes.

what I do see is a lot of young people (women, not men) identifying as 'bi' or 'queer' when in fact they haven't had relationships with women and are in quite solid relationships with men

This has always been a thing. It's been cool forever (and a turn on for the boyfriends/ husbands) to be bisexual. I've seen young lesbians really hurt by being callously used as part of an experiment.