Womens liberation and lesbianism

[LesbianonFWR]

I've been reading this board for years. I'm a lesbian. It feels like until recently, there was a good appreciation here of the importance of lesbian rights to women's liberation and the womens' rights movement. If lesbians face discrimination and oppression, then it's harder to come out and lead a good life as a lesbian - more lesbians will get stuck in straight marriages that make them unhappy. More young lesbians will struggle with bullying at school. If lesbians who want to be parents are supported by the community in doing that, again, it makes it easier to imagine a good, fulfilling life as a lesbian. Easier to come out and live honestly for lesbians - that's important to women's liberation.

It suddenly feels more hostile to lesbians here. Does anyone else feel that, or is it just me? Like, there is reasonably regular criticism of lesbians who have kids by sperm donation, criticism of LGBT education/anti-bullying classes in schools as a whole. A general anti-LGBT feeling as a whole, which includes a feeling that lesbians are fine now in 2020 and just need to get over themselves and get on with it and not moan.

Maybe that's unfair, but it feels like there's quite a bit of talk about lesbians as "those people in the LGBT club over there" rather than as part of the women's liberation movement.

You're going to want examples aren't you, but I don't think I have the energy and anyway, then it would be a thread about a thread. It's more a feeling that this board is for straight women now. Does anyone else feel that?

No worries at all. Xx

I think you're not wrong about the rising currents of heteronormativity on here. There are a lot of posters who fundamentally think it's harmful to children to live outside of a hetero two parent family and express that both openly and covertly. (Broken homes, children must know their fathers, etc) It's one of the reasons I often have to nope out of this space. I do recommend frequent breaks! I just went back and looked at similar conversations on here 5 and 10 years ago and there's been (imo) a definite shift in tone.

One thing I tell myself is that this is an open, public, now very high traffic board. Compared to 10 years ago it's just got loads more people reading and talking. So it's got women with all kinds of views - many of which I do not understand as politically feminist views - but they are all here and on a journey with their feminism. They may be at the beginning, they may be a long way down the road, but at least they are showing up and thinking about these issues with others. Just putting your views on here, steadily, when you have capacity to do so, is worth it.

@jojomolo Ah you've seen just what I've seen. Glad it's not me going mad. I've been reading for at least 10 years as well and have seen the shift as well.

You're probably right about it being a consequence of this being a high-traffic public board.
Also I think the co-incidence of interests between GC feminists and conservatives in relation to trans issues has probably attracted conservative thinkers, at a guess.

Or partial/apparent co-incidence of interests is probably fairer.

OP I think you make some ibteresting points. In the surrogacy threads, I agree there has been some movement towards problematizing any reproductive technology, including male gamete donation, and even adoption by non relatives.

In general, I come down on the side of male gamete donation is fine, and adoption of any kind is fine. I don’t agree with the arguments that are sometimes made here that it’s evil or cruel for a birth mother (surrogate or adoptive) to give up her child to loving adoptive parents, or that any gamete donation is equally unethical. In my opinion it’s harm to donors that matter, and the resulting incentives. Sperm donation is much more like blood donation, surrogacy is much more like kidney donation. The altruistic surrogacy model is in my view an acceptable compromise.

I think though that it is useful still to have these debates even if uncomfortable. Much better than a bioethical approach which is basically “anything goes if you’re rich enough to afford it!” That currently dominates discourse. The fact that in NEw York the governor jammed commercial surrogacy into the NY COVID bill (over feminist objections) calling it an “LGBT rights issue” and implying not supporting would make representatives bigots was just shameful for example. Sunlight and debate are needed, not silence.

@FWRLurker
I think though that it is useful still to have these debates even if uncomfortable

You must be right.

It would be nice though, if conception issues were discussed with a nod to feminism here, not only for surrogates and egg donors (which it always is) but for the impact on women's freedom to decide how to live and shape our families in the best interests of ourselves and our kids. Discussions of sperm donation sometimes seem to miss the point that if you're going to say that children must be parented by their biological fathers, that's going to have an impact on lesbians and single women who don't want to or aren't in a position to live with, have sex with, parent with men. That's not liberating women.

I am not a lesbian but I have to say I am deeply uncomfortable with the way any questions surrounding fertility technologies is immediately cast as a form of homophobia.

I have deep and sincere concerns surrounding surrogacy, ivf and yes donation.

Having debates is a good thing and I have learnt so much from the women on this board and I have been exposed to issues and viewpoints I would not have come across otherwise.

I could be wronng op but it seems you don't think straight women should be discussing 'lesbian' issues like sperm donation. At least that's how it comes across and I could be wrong. I might not be a lesbian but I am a mother and I think, when it comes to conception, pregnancy and birth, having a wide and transparent discussion with many viewpoints from many different women is a good thing.

Infertitlity and the proposed changes to surrogacy will affect every woman, its only natural that a greater variety of women will be pulled into the discussion. From lesbian mothers to yes Conservative women. That could explain the changes you are seeing. It's not some much an increase in a certain viewpoint, rather a greater variety of viewpoints are being presented and debated.

I’ve been a casual visitor to this site over the past few years, rather than someone who reads it every day so my comments are more generally about gender critical feminism, rather than specifically about this board.

I think the criticism of what (purportedly) LGBT organisations are doing has emboldened some people’s homophobia. As well as homophobic comments, I see a dismissal of lesbian and gay issues. For example, I’ve seen gay men talking about their struggles with their sexuality and homophobia and being talked about in feminist circles as privileged and as though these are indulgent, non-problems and pitted against women’s “real problems” which are then described as things like heterosexual relationships, being a mother in a straight marriage where the primary caring responsibility and expectations are on you. I’m not dismissing those issues but I have a lot more in common with those gay men’s experiences – not because I’m “male-identified” or a slave to the patriarchy or however they want to explain but because I – and many other lesbians - have had similar experiences and I have no experience of a lot of what feminism identifies as women’s experiences and concerns. I don’t think feminism focusing on the majority experience is a bad thing – I think it’s probably inevitable – but it doesn’t have to involve being dismissive of the issues that lesbians and gay men face.

I think on one hand there’s a passion to fight for lesbian rights when it fits with the trans issue or another feminist issue that chimes with feminist priorities anyway but, if it doesn’t, especially if it involves challenging lesbophobia from other women, it is at best ignored or we are criticised for being divisive and encouraged to be nice and see things from straight women’s point of view.

For example, there was a discussion (in a feminist group) about when it was trendy for straight women to go to gay bars and be “fag hags” and we suddenly had lots of straight women who absolutely loved gay men flooding into lesbian and gay spaces. But a lot of them did not like lesbians at all and would laugh at or make derogatory comments about lesbians (sometimes encouraged by a subset of gay men), take great offence if a woman tried to chat them up or even speak to them because they would horrified to be mistaken for a lesbian, straight women took prominent positions (eg in Pride parades, at events) so it looked like everything was more female friendly but, in reality lesbians were being more marginalised. The one safe space we had (the gay scene) where we could relax was being taken over and becoming more hostile to us, even though it was difficult for other people to see because there were more women. When this was raised in feminist circles, the response was that the heterosexual women were probably seeking refuge in a space where they wouldn’t be objectified and we should see things from their point of view. No acknowledgement of the impact on lesbians, not even a caveat of “but the lesbophobic behaviour part wasn’t acceptable” or seeing it from both sides – just think about things from straight women’s perspective and be glad that they were able to access a safe space for them.

I saw the saidit thread below yesterday and it sums up in one thread so much of what I see as the problems and frustrations between lesbians and feminism (particularly radical feminism) but I don’t know whether it will make sense to people who aren’t really aware of the issues anyway and I know some of the responses will seem quite strongly worded and even offensive so I wasn’t sure whether to post it or not.

In short, it is a gender critical, actual lesbian group and this thread was started by a straight woman in response to the following:

• A link to a radical feminist podcast about lesbians which interviewed an opposite sex attracted “lesbian” in a relationship with a man to talk as a representative of the views and experiences of lesbian women
• Other criticism about heterosexual and bisexual women identifying as lesbians (the group doesn’t support men identifying as lesbians either and does say so but there are many other gc forums to openly vent on that)
• A thread that a lot of women thought was a troll (ie not a genuine post) and responded to accordingly

www.saidit.net/s/Lesbians/comments/6ufi/wow_so_much_womanhating_on_a_lesbian_forum/

A few messages from the OP in that thread that are very common in radfem/gc circles:

1. Lesbians shouldn’t criticise other women including challenging lesbophobia and venting about the appropriation of our language (even though men doing that is terrible)
2. It is lesbians’ duty to love, support and work for other women (ie straight and bi women), not just our own group – don’t call out bad behaviour that is harmful to lesbians, just be nice and get on with your job of supporting them
3. If you don’t do this, are you even a lesbian? Notice the “so-called lesbians” comment in the first sentence. You will see this a lot in feminist circles. Don’t be exclusionary of the straight woman in the podcast who calls herself a lesbian, but if you point this out or don’t adhere to the feminist cause to our satisfaction we will call you a “so-called lesbian” because we’ve redefined lesbian to our own political ends and, while we’ll pressure you to be nice and inclusive, we’ll throw you out if you don’t conform to what we’ve decided a lesbian is (and no, that isn’t female homosexual)
4. References to lesbians having “toxic masculinity” and being like “incels” (I can’t even see what she is trying to refer to here??). It is fine to criticise lesbians but don’t criticise straight women because that would be divisive, unfeminist and, of course, unlesbian. Oh and, if you are going to criticise lesbians, always use expressions that compare them to men.

This represents so many of the common things that keep coming up in gender critical/radical feminism (although generally the straight women who still identify as straight women aren’t the main protagonists). Yes, I think some of the responses are quite strong but many lesbians are so frustrated by this. Try thinking about the kind of response a man gets if he posts on here along the lines of:

• Hey, man here
• You are making really unkind comments about transwomen, just because they say they are women
• This is a women’s board and I would expect better from it – Women are supposed to nice and kind and understanding
• I should say “so-called women’s board” - are you even real women, if you aren’t being nice?
• You women are so bitchy (or whatever stereotype you want to enter here)
• etc

I think he would be given fairly short shrift and this isn’t even an exclusive board (ie mumsnet are fine with men posting, whereas the linked forum is supposed to be only for lesbians)

@startrek90

Straight mothers are entitled to debate sperm donation, of course. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not just a lesbian issue, of course it's a fertility treatment for straight women too. People can debate whatever they like.

My point is that on a forum to discuss women's rights, it would be nice if the relevance of these issues to women's liberation were acknowledged, including the impact on lesbians. That lesbians were discussed as though we are the women we are, and the part of the feminist movement that we've always been, as though we're listening. Not just those people over there using "technologies" (e.g. a cup and a syringe) to violate our children's rights.

Because people don't decide what children's rights are in a vacuum. Some children's rights are uncontroversial. But if you decide that children have a right to be parented by both biological parents, that's a political position that deserves scrutiny from a feminist perspective. Just like it's a political decision to determine that embryos have a right to life.

Really well expressed, LesbianonFWR! Could not have said it better.

What issues surrounding lesbians are we not discussing? In what way is the debate surrounding fertility ethics and technology eliminating lesbians? (not being goady here I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from)

I will be honest and say I personally have not read a post here that accuses lesbians of damaging their children or advocates a male female only family. What I have seen is a lot of discussion on the rights of a child to know their own genetic history, especially when it comes to medical issues. I understand that to lesbian mothers that can be a difficult issue, but I would argue its also an issue for straight single mothers too.

My issue with sperm donation is the buying and selling part. Not the lesbian having kids part, I simply don't believe the commodification of either sperm or egg is a good thing and only leads to further commodification of the whole reproductive process.

I understand that sperm donation directly affects lesbian mothers but I don't think that should mean we avoid the discussion surrounding the ethics of donation. I realise as a non lesbian woman my perspective is different but I feel that any commodification of the reproductive process affects every woman and society at larges perception of women.

Psst, startrek. She's not said to avoid it. You don't need to keep saying she wants everyone to avoid the discussion, because she's explicitly said she doesn't want that.

I have no idead why my comment was deleted.

I didn't reference any individual.

I spoke positively about FWR and lesbianism.

I also spend quite a long time writing it in what I hoped was a supportive way for OP.

So unless @MNHQ can explain I can only think that someone who is clearly out of control is deleting messages.

And if you aren't prepared to explain yourself it just looks like petty tyranny. And rude.

@LesbianonFWR

Goosefoot, what do you mean by this: "With the school/education example, part of it is that other interests have very delibratly hijacked those issues in order to promote their own agenda. Perhaps some of those people were involved all along, sometimes it seems that way". Which interests have hijacked, say, anti-homophobic bullying education, and may have always been involved? Your reference to "love is love" makes me wonder if you are saying that people with an interest in paedophilia have always been involved in LGB education. That sounds quite doubtful and also damaging to lesbian and gay people.

I don't think you can really frame it as a debate about reproductive technologies in the case of lesbians. There's usually no technology involved in artificial insemination and it's not new. It's not "disingenuous" of me to point out that if you argue that children have a right to live with and be raised by both their biologicial parents, your argument is that lesbian couples shouldn't be having children. I have acknowledged that it's not usually motivated by homophobia. But if that is your argument, it's not founded in a concern for women's liberation, and it's fair to lay it out like that.

With regard to education I am saying that for some time, there have been quite a few ways of talking about various elements of gay rights that haven't been very strongly intellectually founded. That includes slogans like "love is love" which as you point out now seems to be used to push various sorts of paedophilia. Another is the idea that Douglas Murray describes as the "hardwiring" argument - if something is hardwired, we are born that way, we must accept it as morally neutral, part of who people are. This was widely used as reasoning that should create public acceptance of same sex relationships, but it fails pretty spectacularly when we consider that all kinds of negative or immoral behaviours can be "hardware".
Ideas like these were used by any people because they were seen to lend weight to something they felt was a good cause. But what we can see now is that when many people accept and believe these idea, it shapes their thinking in other areas which may have really awful implications. Bad ideas breed bad ideas. If something is right and good, there will be good arguments for it, there should be no need for easy slogans that are based on falsities. As for whether or not there have long been some people embeded within gay rights organisations who were aware of this and inclined to push these ideas for their own benefit - I have seen some people suggest here that that is true, and with some evidence. Peter Tatchell is a good example of someone who is associated with both and is by no means an isolated example. Is that damaging to gays and lesbians? Maybe, but if so that is hardly the fault of people who point it out.

As far as reproductive technology, I think you will find you cannot really have an effective discussion around it while considering only one issue. It's too attached to many different human and social issues. To try and talk about it without talking about children's rights is like trying to talk about it without talking about women's rights.

It's true that concern over children's rights isn't distinctly feminist, (though I would say that when the two diverge it tends not to benefit feminism as many women won't accept it, and that has often been a conundrum for feminist thought.) And it's true that concerns around all gamete donation, or children knowing fathers, would lead to lesbians not having much recourse with regard to having children.

I don't think the argument there is best characterised as "lesbians shouldn't have children" though as actually, it applies to anyone who would use gamete donation, a group hardly confined to lesbians. Men, women, straight, not straight, white, black, asian... all of them would be affected and have to deal with the consequences. It would seem odd to say "this means you think black infertile couples shouldn't have children." You've suggested that this kind of idea is anti-lesbian, and I don't really see how it could be.

Not sure i can be bothered to comment as MNHQ seems to be deciding who has a right to comment and who hasn't, but in repsonse to OP, if as you say you were part of women's liberation you must recognise that this isn't a "Women's Liberation" board. It is a feminist one. I say this as a lesbian who was invovled in 70s Women's Liberation.

Secondly, it is NOT appropriate for someone who isn't lesbian, to presume to say how or in what way something impacts on a lesbian. Anymore than some white person presuming to describe how an issue acknowledges Black people. You can acknowledge that in writing about your experience you cant be aware of how issues impact on others.

So whether the issue is surrogacy or anything else, unless the OP is saying someone on FWR has said lesbians shouldn't comment, in what way is it anti lesbian if someone has a genuinely held belief on surragcy, because it impact lesbians differently. Lesbians who feel it is an issue can speak up about it, in the same way as others.

And in fact not all lesbians would share your opinions on surragacy or anything else.

I just dont understand what point you are trying to make.

I explained it better in my comment that got deleted, but dont have time to recap.

So I am asking straight out, do you think that because you are a lesbian some posters on FWR are saying you cant comment or have an opinion.

If not then all it is, is that there are a range on opinions on here.

But absolutely everyone is questioning the concept of LGBT because of the damage particularly to lesbians.

You must be aware of this from reading the threads. Whether in employment schools or whatever the Stonewall Pink News rainbow coalition is seen as anti womand and there fore anti Lesbian.

Discussions are taking place within that concept.

[quote LesbianonFWR]@FWRLurker
I think though that it is useful still to have these debates even if uncomfortable

You must be right.

It would be nice though, if conception issues were discussed with a nod to feminism here, not only for surrogates and egg donors (which it always is) but for the impact on women's freedom to decide how to live and shape our families in the best interests of ourselves and our kids. Discussions of sperm donation sometimes seem to miss the point that if you're going to say that children must be parented by their biological fathers, that's going to have an impact on lesbians and single women who don't want to or aren't in a position to live with, have sex with, parent with men. That's not liberating women.[/quote]
But what you seem to be saying here is that if women don't have all the choices we might want in life, it's somehow anti-feminist. No matter how that would affect others.

It means that women without men could not have children, yes. In the same way that it means that men without women couldn't.

How is it that one is characterised as being anti freedom of women, and anti-lesbian, and the other isn't characterised as anti-freedom of gay men? Or some attempt to impose heteronormativity on them? We see often enough children's rights arguments around surrogacy forwarded - would you also point out those aren't feminist and so should be rejected? Or are they ok as long as they seem to strengthen an argument about something you disagree with for other reasons.

People here often disagree with the "rights are not a pie" claim. Rightly so. But it's a bit rich to then accuse people of being homophobic when they actually approach issues that way, which is openly going on in this thread.

These are complex social issues. There are lots of relevant factors. I'm saying that:
a) determining children's rights in this area is a political decision. You're not in my view asserting some innate natural right not to be born by gamete donation, for example. You're forming a political view about how children should be conceived (/raised) and expressing that in terms of rights. That view might or might not be correct and based on evidence. It needs to be unpacked.
b) if you are looking at these issues from a feminist perspective, there is more than one angle to consider. There is arguably a negative impact on women's health, welfare, role and status, of surrogacy and egg donation. That might be so important and severe that it outweighs the other factors in favour of egg donation and surrogacy.
From a feminist perspective there is a positive impact of sperm donation on women's ability to lead good, fulfilled, self-determined lives and have children without marrying/having sex with a man. That's relevant to the likelihood of lesbians coming out and leading honest lives. I say that's a relevant factor - your feminism might give it little weight. (It's not the only factor, there are positive impacts on straight married couples with reduced fertility for example as well). You might give this factor weight but then decide it is completely outweighed by other harms to children or moral problems caused by sperm donation - fine, though it would be good to evidence those.
If that impact on lesbians, as women, is of no importance to you and your feminism - well that might be why these arguments can play out here in a way that doesn't feel like lesbians matter here.

As to commoditisation of sperm - that's fine to discuss, like everything. In the UK the maximum amount a man can lawfully be compensated for attending a clinic to donate sperm is £35. I reckon most lesbians get pregnant in informal arrangements still, where only expenses change hands if anything. The advantage of clinics is regulation, health screening, the facilitation of the child's contact with the donor later, freezing of the sperm to check for HIV etc. There is a cost to that which people receiving treatment with sperm mostly pay here - you could eliminate that by having the NHS pay, but that's difficult given funding constraints.

@stumbledin

I have no idead why my comment was deleted.

I didn't reference any individual.

I spoke positively about FWR and lesbianism.

I also spend quite a long time writing it in what I hoped was a supportive way for OP.

So unless @MNHQ can explain I can only think that someone who is clearly out of control is deleting messages.

And if you aren't prepared to explain yourself it just looks like petty tyranny. And rude.

Woah! @MNHQ what about my post too?

I didn't name anyone, name or shame anyone. I was supportive of the OP and didn't express anything nasty!

As this is FWR and dletons can men strikes I think it is only right that we get some explanation of why we were deleted.

I could be nice and supportive again today and get myself banned for it!

WHAT DID I SAY????

Oh, now on PC I can see my deletion message. I quoted someone!

Was that the short pithy nonesensical post? OK!

Do you know, I think I might leave this thread here. I think I've explained myself as well as I can & carrying on is going to generate more heat than light.

@LesbianonFWR

Do you know, I think I might leave this thread here. I think I've explained myself as well as I can & carrying on is going to generate more heat than light.

Maybe come back at it with a slightly different angle.

It has been interesting, illuminating in parts!

The kind of thread that adds to the general feel of FWR!

Why does she have to take a different angle?

Really crappy to see the turn this thread took but not surprised...

But it's taken a turn due to poster/s who have been here long before the trans thing kicked off. As an alternative voice I suppose they would see themselves.

Not everyone who posts on FWR regularly is, or sees themselves as a feminist. Over the years there have been plenty of regs who saw themselves as balance/ voice of reason.

What I have noticed is that some of those regs who used to disagree with everything and get in a lot of Argy bargy now have a thing that they agree with. (The trans issue).

So I see threads where someone I know is actively anti feminist is getting stacks of kudos. Which is weird to say the least.

I'm a bit taken aback at some of the recent posts even from people who usually seem ok.

So on that basis op. If you're still reading. YANBU. I'm straight and so got no skin in the game as it were. But catching up tonight I'm wtf.

Please don't ditch the board because of this. Maybe avoid threads that you know will piss you off. But we need plenty of voices in here or the whole thing is fucked.

I've been here through two mass exoduses and so much is lost each time.

Up to you obviously.

I don't usually tag people but @LesbianonFWR this thread has been eye opening for me and I think you've proved your point.

Just catching up, but haven't read every post, so apologies, but wanted to go a bit back to the OP's original concern. I'm a poster who cares a lot about egg donors. (I also see that surrogacy is a big problem). Coming from the US, gamete donation is not very regulated. The problems with this is young women are inundated with advertising to 'give the gift of life' by selling their eggs. Artificial stimulation of their ovaries, injections, surgery to retrieve eggs...all of this done before most of them have any idea what it is to be a mother and nobody is tracking their long-term health, which I find appalling.

Egg donation is very rarely a lesbian issue, unless it's young lesbians who donate their eggs - or infertile lesbian couples. I don't think anyone, straight or gay, is owed a child and when I hear the message of 'fertility rights' I worry for all the women who will be exploited as a result of meeting these 'rights'. Sperm donation is low risk for exploitation, but because it is not regulated as it should be in most parts of the world, it, like egg donation, does have implications for children. This is equally an issue for straight, lesbian and gay couples. Children not knowing their birth origins or not knowing their biological parents is as old as time, but it doesn't mean all sexual orientations can't be sensitive to this aspect of conception, but it's not as central to feminism as egg donation and surrogacy, both which can exploit women.
FWIW, my family members who are lesbians have been treated like shit from their 'LGBT' allies. From being excluded at Pride, to being overlooked when discussing women's health, to being lumped in with men...my MIL has never wanted to be allied with ANY man and she laments the loss of lesbian spaces that were a godsend to her in the 1970s and 80s. She's particularly offended that she'd ever want to be intimate with someone who is male bodied. So yes, lesbians get the brunt of this erasure.

@NiceGerbil Cheers. I appreciate the solidarity.

How about this for another angle as requested? If straight women are keen to deploy arguments about lesbians in disputes about trans issues, but you have no interest otherwise in the impact of your views/positions/comments on lesbian lives, then you don't really care about lesbians at all & your feminism needs a refresh. You're just using us.

Why does she have to take a different angle? To see if she can get more of a balanced discussion, without all the heat she sees! I was being supportive!

But never mind! I'll move along!