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?

You're just using us.

I must admit I've seen some feminists vociferously defending the rights of lesbians when it backs up their argument but not giving it much thought the rest of the time. While I don't defend that, I don't think it's particularly surprising. I see the same thing happen with debates about race. It's driven me mad seeing people jump on the "BAME people are dying of covid" bandwagon this year just to score political points.

In conclusion, I do think you have a point here @LesbianonFWR. I'll try to be more aware of this from now on and call it out when I see it.

Also I see these lines here, which don't form the world's most consistent argument:
a) trans boys are mostly lesbians
b) don't affect their fertility with hormone treatments! They might want babies later!
c) lesbians are morally obliged not to have babies by sperm donors.

I wouldn’t consider those arguments inconsistent because many lesbians don’t use a sperm donor for pregnancy; they acquire sperm from a friend who intends to participate in the child’s life. Lesbians have been put into a moral quandary by the government’s regulations around anonymous donations through a clinic being the only ones that match the birth certificate criterion.

Attitudes to LGBT education have changed not just because of trans and related issues but because society has become much more pluralistic due to immigration from Muslim and Christian countries. Children are entering schools from very different backgrounds and education has to be done in partnership with the family.

"Lesbians have been put into a moral quandary by the government’s regulations around anonymous donations through a clinic being the only ones that match the birth certificate criterion."

That is untrue in the UK. Lesbians in a marriage or civil partnership meet the criteria to both be named on the child's birth certificate as parents even if you do home insemination. If you use a clinic you can both be named even if you are unmarried/not civilly partnered.

Thanks for clarifying that OP.

@LesbianonFWR

Also I see these lines here, which don't form the world's most consistent argument: a) trans boys are mostly lesbians b) don't affect their fertility with hormone treatments! They might want babies later! c) lesbians are morally obliged not to have babies by sperm donors.

a) comes from some interesting research into girls with ASD, gay girls and peer pressure. Lots of it and there's a thread or two about that research on a couple of the 'Tell me about it' style threads. Most is pushing it, but many is evidently the case.

b) What's wrong with that? Giving a prepubescent child cross sex hormones is not the reversible magic pill it is commonly advertised to parents and children as - also see many threads, referencing all sorts of research and legal issues. And the many DeSister threads across social media!

c) I haven't seen that one but gave up on the last few surrogacy threads because they got a tad entrenched! All sorts of small minded nastiness was evident, reported, etc etc. But that is what forums ar for.... freedom of speech, discussion etc

And I don't see the inconsistency, just a wide ranging set of discussions, the first two in absolute support of lesbians!

You're missing the point a bit.

Straight women are using points about lesbians in the same way as trans rights people are using experiences of trans people in different countries (murder rate) to prop up their argument.

So it's hypocritical.

You don't usually see the same person arguing a,b and c.

Nevetheless I can see how someone could hold all those views.

Personally I like how FWR has opened up. A few years ago I found it very unwelcoming. It felt like there was exactly one correct set of views, one correct way to be a feminist and any suspected wrong think was jumped on.

You still see some of that with trans issues, I don't mean posts arguing the points, I mean the ones immediately "accusing" a poster of being a lib-fem, a tory, a handmaiden. They'd be the wrong type of woman for the board apparently.

Samphire, that post wasn't commenting on any of those three propositions individually.

It was saying that it's odd for a person to claim to care about preserving the fertility of lesbian teens whilst also telling lesbian women that they shouldn't be having babies (by donation at least, without the man's involvement in bringing up the child, which is overwhelmingly the commonest arrangement). What are you bothering to preserve that fertility for? Perhaps such a person hasn't thought it through, or they don't really care about lesbians and it's just an argument they know they can use in relation to trans issues.

On the donation thing. A man you know who provides sperm is still donating it. Just specifically to you.

The way these services (businesses) seem to be massaging language or taking control of it is not good imo.

You dont need to read the surrogacy threads to see c). You can see it right here on this thread...

"On the donation thing. A man you know who provides sperm is still donating it. Just specifically to you."

Yes, I think that's the normal language people use - donation - whether they are doing home insemination or at a clinic.

I am undecided on whether or not it is in the best interests of a child to have no relationship with a biological parent. This is because I have met many people who feel really scarred by it and don’t feel they can discuss it honestly with the parents who raised them.

I don’t think it is hypocritical to have concerns about that and be opposed to the sterilisation of young women who are likely to be lesbians. I also don’t think it means I don’t care about lesbians.

I don’t think I have ever really discussed those concerns previously on MN but I certainly have them.

*You don't usually see the same person arguing a,b and c.

Nevetheless I can see how someone could hold all those views*

How do they hold them all? If they think that some of the trans boys will turn out to be straight, so it's worth preserving their fertility at least? And never mind about the lesbians?

Or perhaps you could issue a little briefing pack to trans boys on "morally acceptable models of lesbian reproduction" so they can get a head start on finding a man to donate sperm have some sort of non-parental role in their child's life?

I think it's true that some lesbians do involve the child's biological father in their upbringing. It's not that common though - and it's one of those things that has pros and cons. Sometimes people fall out horrifically about how these arrangements should work and end up in court, which is hardly good for the kids. Clinics have advantages and disadvantages as well, and all children born now by sperm donation in the UK can obtain information about the donor's identity when they are 18.

So I say - it's best to leave women to make these decisions in the context of their own families and lives. It's like - is it a good idea to plan to have just 1 child or 8 children, or to plan to bring them up in a religious community, or home educate them or send them to boarding school, or to plan to have no contact with their grandparents.... We can all have views about these things. It's better if they are informed views (e.g.not based on a misunderstanding of the law as it affects legal parenthood, as above, and arrived at after knowing some lesbian families). But let women make their own choices on this - it's within the scope of the normal decison making we leave to parents and there's no evidence of harm to children with lesbian parents and donors who aren't known to the children.

‘How do they hold them all? If they think that some of the trans boys will turn out to be straight, so it's worth preserving their fertility at least? And never mind about the lesbians?

Or perhaps you could issue a little briefing pack to trans boys on "morally acceptable models of lesbian reproduction" so they can get a head start on finding a man to donate sperm have some sort of non-parental role in their child's life?’

It is this kind of hyperbole I don’t understand. People can hold all kinds of consistent opinions on morality without saying they intend to impose that morality on other people, either through stating it to very young women or through legal changes.

'I am undecided on whether or not it is in the best interests of a child to have no relationship with a biological parent'

Male female dynamics and all sorts of stuff that goes on mean that in practice globally and surely going back through time. It's totally common for children to have no relationship with their bio father.

Women just get on with it. From rape to affairs to men who bugger off to one night stands to etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. It's a consequence of the different role in reproduction that women take.

I'm really uncomfortable with that statement.

OP your point is being illustrated marvellously.

It is this kind of hyperbole I don’t understand. People can hold all kinds of consistent opinions on morality without saying they intend to impose that morality on other people, either through stating it to very young women or through legal changes

Well maybe I was a bit over the top. But people do advocate changes to the law on sperm donation, and the current legal framework (which allows 2 female legal parents and lets clinics treat lesbians as they do now) has only been in place in the UK since 2008. So it doesn't feel like a very secure position.

I know it is totally common, hence me having close relationships with many people who are in that position.

‘So it doesn't feel like a very secure position.’

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Rights that have only been gained very recently must be strongly protected because they are precarious.

OP your point is being illustrated marvellously

Isn't it.

But you propose that they are letting their children down, and invoke morality.

Women don't need much from men when it comes to making babies.
They can also have babies that aren't the baby of the man they are with.

These two facts are the basis of the paranoia that has led to vast amounts of the most horrendous oppression of women all over the world for as long as we can remember. FGM, child marriage. Rules around chaperoning. And on and on.

I mean let's not forget that eh.

The idea that it's immoral to bring a child into the world outside of a heterosexual stable long term partnership and with paternity assured is a male imposition on women, enforced in the past by religion. And leading to a vilification of women who are 'immoral'. With of course much less to say about men who have sex outside those terms.

To try and bring equivalence between men and women in this new era of reproductive technology is to overlook ALL of that up to and including the very fact of the huge difference in our reproductive roles and what that means in practice in real life.

I'm giving it a nope.

'Rights that have only been gained very recently must be strongly protected because they are precarious.'

Getting knocked up by getting hold of a man or getting hold of some semen (hardly in short supply from a physical point of view). Has nothing to do with rights. Women, both straight and lesbian, have been doing it forever.

Men have felt very uncomfortable with this because they are insecure. Because their part in the reproductive process is so trivial.

The idea that it's immoral to bring a child into the world outside of a heterosexual stable long term partnership and with paternity assured is a male imposition on women, enforced in the past by religion. And leading to a vilification of women who are 'immoral'.

Well said!

Thank you for this thread OP it's really opened my eyes.

I didn’t say any of that NiceGerbil!

I certainly don’t they are letting their children down or that there is something wrong with raising children outside of a heterosexual conversation.

The whole of this thread is about morality. The ways that feminists should support lesbians and recognise their contribution to feminism is a moral question.