Continuing lesbophobia notwithstanding, Western societies generally now accept that lesbians have specific sexual boundaries, boundaries which exclude males. And we are rightly proud of our laws ensuring equal rights for them, ensuring that one's sexuality should not ever lead to being discriminated against.
Along comes some woman on morning TV telling us that this group of females is once again being attacked for their sexuality, their sexual boundaries once again disrespected by males, their voices raised in objection silenced and their protests forbidden by the LGBT community that now seeks to exclude them for asserting these boundaries publicly.
The TV show presenters are clearly uncomfortable, unaware and unprepared and try to gloss over this outburst but do not address it. Neither is the other guest, a lesbian there to pontificate about the inclusiveness of a sandwich. She also does not object or protest or disagree, instead tentatively acceding the accusation by asking plaintively "But how would you express that in a sandwich?"
Enter stage left: you, a hapless activist. A male member of the LGBT community belonging to a different subgroup who has publicly supported the male members of yet another subgroup in criticising and seeking to overcome these sexual boundaries.
So, your side is accused of propagating hate and supporting open attacks on the sexual boundaries of a marginalised group and of preventing this group from protesting against these attacks.
Your response is to complain that nuance and esotericism were ignored in making said accusation. You don't strongly deny the accusation. You don't refute it. What you're really saying is yes, but...
What the actual fuck could that yes, but even lead to? What nuance is the general public supposed to see in males once again attacking the sexual boundaries of a marginalised group of females? What spiritual aspect of this new(ish) kind of rape culture is the audience being deprived of?
That woman is a feeling in a man's head? That some men's bodies are inhabited by a female consciousness? That therefore their male body is rendered female and lesbians must now accept the penis attached to this magical being with the soul of a woman and the body of a man?
That contrary to public belief there are males who identify as trans who delight in using their penis to have sex with females?That in fact here we have men who have no issues with their male bodies? But who insist nonetheless that lesbians have to accept them as sexual partners because they also claim womanhood?
I'd say Sonia has wielded a fucking huge sledgehammer, driving a big wedge between what the general public think of as your average male who identifies as trans and the actual average male who identifies as trans. No amount of nuance is going to be enough to hide the reprehensible, women-hating nature of the cotton ceiling.
Thank you Sonia. The cotton ceiling is finally out there, thanks to you.
Try and spin that. The issue most transsexuals face when seeking relationships - that of social inclusion in queer circles, often elusive elsewhere, but sexual exclusion even there - might have been a cogent theoretical concept to discuss.
But the AGP dream of ultimate acceptance and the male entitlement turning this into a demand have resulted in a tool to attack lesbians with. And you've all embraced it.
There is no nuance here. No spiritual dimension to attacking sexual boundaries. There is just a huge pile of shit. Own it.