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.”"

"Lesbian sex" does not involve penises in any way. I really wish my bisexual sisters could learn to be OK with IDing as bi instead of trying to shoehorn themselves into the definition of "lesbian".

For me it was lesbians (and possibly gay men) who persuaded me that bisexuals didn't exist (this was the 1980s) and I was in fact lesbian. I was young and didn't know any bisexuals at the time. I still don't really know any bisexual women as we don't really have a community, so it's nice to hear from people on this thread!

Maybe "puritanical" is this week's "word that has historically been used to pressure women into doing things that they don't want to do".

Last week is was "prudish".

Any guesses for next week's? "Frigid", perhaps?

We see you

The stork brought mine AAK ... is there another way??

Loosen my stays, I’m about to faint....

I found mine behind the gooseberry bush.

Note the refusal to answer the question about whether two trans identifying dicks equals lesbian sex.
I think the answer Garam was looking for but didn’t want to say is no, because in order for TW to be a lesbian, they have to be fucking an actual lesbian. It’s the lesbian who is the validator in this relationship, not the identity of the TW. That’s why shagging a straight woman isn’t enough.
When dealing with a fragile ego, only the most sought after accessory will do, and a great big middle finger to straight men, because TW can get into the places that they can only dream of.
The most toxic of toxic masculinity.

And before Garam tells me no, that’s rubbish. No it isn’t, because TW could identify as a lesbian and have sex/relationship with a straight woman, just like I could have sex/relationship with a straight woman and still call myself a lesbian, because lesbian means only sleeps with women.
It’s not that these people want to be a lesbian, it’s that they want to fuck a lesbian.

A forum that's generally puritanical Pfft, I raise you Centre Parcs threads!

But if it was a puritanical website, surely it would pride itself on having sexual hang-ups!

I'm not sure you know what that word means! (Insert familiar meme here, oh younger mysterious Mumsnetters, who'd never attend WPUK!)

And, as always, Mumsnet is not a 'hive mind' - it's made up of mostly females, and some non-females, who range from hugely-puritanical to really, really not. And the great thing is, females can come here and discuss a whole range of sex stuff here and get responses from that wide spectrum of views.

What bothers me more about your post about the female wife with a transwoman husband, and how it signals what the true 'erasure' is really going on right now.

You demonstrate the true erasure that's happening - of the work that the lesbians and gay rights movement has achieved over the years.

That being attracted to biological sex isn't a lifestyle choice, it isn't, like the definition of woman according to some, 'a shifting constellation' of undefinable things. It's the purist definition of being attracted to the same biological sex.

And to your assertion that a female who has never been attracted to female bodies, whose male-bodied husband has declared themselves as 'identifying as female', can suddenly identify as 'lesbian' as a result, 'cos they can identify how they like' - it's hugely insulting. But you know this really.

It starts to chip away at the edges of both reality and other people's rights.

Which seems to be the intention in many other ways too.

It's transparent. And more and more people are calling you out on it.

I've just followed a Facebook trail of friends of friends and discovered this being discussed by a professing Christian gay man, and my word the vitriol being spewed towards the eight lesbians was a sight. Some valiant person was attempting to speak sense, but person after person was piling on with the T slur, transing everyone involved in the Stonewall riots, declaring that there was nothing at all for lesbians to complain about and finally a whole load of fingers in the ears 'lalala, I can't hear you!'

I found it very interesting because this was an ostensibly evangelical Christian crowd, so, arguably the rightful owners of the 'puritanical' label.

It starts to chip away at the edges of both reality and other people's rights.

Yup. And critical thought.
The ability to express that thought
Women’s boundaries
Children’s safeguarding
Children’s boundarie
Children’s bond with parents (confidential disclosure is pushed by several lobby groups including ones who train he police/schools/NHS.)
Women’s abilities to protect their children

None of the above is healthy.

Public discussion is healthy.

That's the other reason Garam isn't responding to my question. If there's no opportunity to scold and punish women for saying no to cock then where's the fun in that?

I'm just going to post Bowl's post in full just to reiterate this

It starts to chip away at the edges of both reality and other people's rights.

Yup. And critical thought. you must not think some things, end of
The ability to express that thought you must not say some things, end of
Women’s boundaries you must accept people in your spaces who are the other biological sex and that you feel uncomfortable around, otherwise 'transphobic' #nodebate
Children’s safeguarding too much here for a sentence - medication, disclosure, given confusing and false truths about changing sex, the reality of gender, disclosing to others
Children’s boundaries as above, and you must accept other biological bodies into your spaces, otherwise 'transphobic
Children’s bond with parents (confidential disclosure is pushed by several lobby groups including ones who train he police/schools/NHS.)
Women’s abilities to protect their children you are on the wrong side of history unless you buy into this new and damaging to so many lives ideology

None of the above is healthy.

Public discussion is healthy.

Oh, was there not an answer yet on

2 dick 69 = lesbian sex

Yes or no?

And no, we're not all obsessed with genitals - we're interested in the erosion of the definition of 'lesbian' by two biological male genitalia involved in a sexual act potentially being described as 'lesbian sex' because said-owners of those penises 'identify' as lesbian.

I mean, I could comment on my keen interest in DHs genitals but that might give Garam the vapors.

There is no transgender right to obedience.
Nor will there ever be.

Are garam daim & snappity regrouping and recharging their lesbophobic misogynist anti-reality bullshit batteries somewhere?

I wonder what charming gaslighting delights we are in for.

Some suggestions if you're stuck

• Motherhood is transphobic
• Teabagging is where lesbians find their true identity.
• Words existed before people and people only discovered them.
• Mathematics is subjective.
• ultrasound can pick up if a baby will want to wear high-heels when they grow up and millions of pregnancies are terminated on this basis.
• If someone refuses to do what you tell them when you threaten suicide, then they are guilty of murder.
• Random psychos on the Internet know what is best for your child, not you.

Any of these look good?

In order for TW to be a lesbian, they have to be fucking an actual lesbian. It’s the lesbian who is the validator in this relationship, not the identity of the TW. That’s why shagging a straight woman isn’t enough.

Thank you, hotrocker, that gets straight (arf!) to the heart of it.

In order for TW to be a lesbian, they have to be fucking an actual lesbian

Or a bisexual woman - I can think of various examples of TW "lesbians" who are in a relationship with a bisexual woman, who clearly rationalise this as their partner being attracted to them because they are a woman, rather than the more obvious fact that a bisexual woman is happy to involve a male penis in her sexual activities

I guess all the mothers here got pregnant via immaculate conception too?

I’ve got six little Jesuses(?) running around.
So puritanical.
Or actually maybe if we’d done more anal I wouldn’t be be-Jesused again.

Remind me to buy some KY.

I do agree that lesbians are underrepresented in the LGBT community. But it's worse for bisexual people

What utter horseshit.

I would say the majority of those who identify as queer are bisexuals who are in opposite-sex relationships. They whine about "biphobia" when what they mean is "I won't accept that my straight privilege means I shouldn't be centred in all lesbian and gay events". It's absolutely no surprise to me that this goes hand in hand with the centring of straight men - trans "lesbians" - in the queer community.

I'm ArcheryAnnie, I'm bisexual, and I am here to tell you that biphobia is not a real thing.

Spot on with those 2 posts, Hotrocker.

Someone said the other day that every time a married man transitions, he then insists that the wife is a lesbian, not bisexual.

Everytime a transwoman claims to have slept with a woman, or claims they are in a relationship with a woman, they always say she is lesbian, never bisexual.

Obviously I'm not saying that's true 100% of the time, but in the case of people I have personally seen it is.

In the US 80% of people who identify as bisexual say they are in a heterosexual relationship.
I am guessing it is safer.

thebewilderness it's also a question of numbers. There's more functionally straight people than gay or bi people, so your odds of finding an opposite sex partner are higher.

@thebewilderness I've given my (UK) experience of one reason why this might be the case for some people.

I met DH online, I was chatting to women as well, met up with one but it was DH I really hit it off with.

I expect you are both quite right, but I cannot disregard self preservation entirely.