Do we have it anywhere on record that Stonewall does/does not support people to express their sexuality as exclusively homosexual?

[JustcameoutGC]

The expectation that lesbians accept partners with penises was one of the things that really made me start questioning gender identity politics more closely.

Exclusively homosexual lesbian spaces have disappeared as viewed to be transphobic. Just look on any lesbian dating apps and many of the users are male and be-penised. Some may be fine with this, but all of my lesbian friends are not, and they feel very disenfranchised, but equally they feel unable to speak out. Just look at what happened in Manchester.

I just can't wrap my head around how the prevoiusly stalwart and highly effective champion of gay rights has now essentially outlawed exclusive homosexuality.

Have they made any statements that make this stance clear? Have they actively said they do not support exclusively homosexual spaces?

I'm sure whatever I write won't convince anyone, as you are all 100% convinced otherwise.

Whether or not it would, please show your working. I suspect you know your arguments aren't up to much, on a rational level. It's fine for you to have a faith-based belief, but you do realise we have freedom of belief in this country?

@FloralBunting

I'll underline again that homosexuality is not a 'dating preference' it is a sexual orientation, protected by law.

These cute little 'Well, you can have a racial preference, but it might attract criticism' analogies are just the bog standard TRA line of comparing women's boundaries to racism, and in this instance suggesting that the oppobrium TRAs are subjecting lesbians to is because lesbians being lesbians is akin to being cruel or racist.

Yes. Just like women wanting to exclude male people from communal changing rooms and toilets is just the same as white people wanting to exclude black people.

Also jusy the same as black women are women, so male people are women if they identify as one.

TRA logic is just racist shit.

Why have a pointless debate? In short, I've heard enough stories from people who have transitioned that I believe there is something, maybe we can't fully explain it yet, that makes them so uncomfortable as the gender they were assigned and only find relief and happiness when they transition, that it's beyond choice, it's who they are. Of course they suddenly don't develop ovaries, but it's enough for me - as a woman - to allow them into the woman-club.

@MistandMud

I would not use the phrase 'male people, including transwomen' because that is unnecessarily inflammatory, given that many transwomen do not consider themselves male people, and a large section of the public, whether you like it or not, affirms that.

I'd hazard a guess that quite a few of 'the public' get the terms mixed up and think you mean 'woman who want to transition to manhood'. That's certainly the case among quite a few people when I've mentioned it.

It's impossible to define 'transwoman' without mentioning that they are male. I don't mean impossible to explain it to those steeped in the terminology throughout school and via the internet, but try explaining it to my MIL, for instance.

CEDAW uses "transgender women" and "women who are transgender" to refer to female transgender people.

And lots of people I know think TW refers to women who identify as trans. That's one of the reasons why I don't use the term at all. People hear "[something] woman" and think "female". And if some people think TW = male and other people think TW = female that causes a lot of confusion when you're talking about who has the right to access female-only provisions.

bilinda

The reason it's pointless is because it can't be done.

Which is why women are fed up with the whole issue. It's underlined by sexism.

I suspect, bilinda, that every time you've tried it, you've come up against a blank wall of sexism.

Woman means this, that, etc. As soon as you try and find a definition for why a man can be a woman, it relies on sexism. Is it clothes, no. Is it make up, no. Is it attitude, no. Is it the way one thinks, no. Is it the way one wants to be treated, no.

As soon as you unpack how you think a woman thinks, feels, behaves and therefore a man thinking like that isn't a man, the sexism smacks you in the face.

So you're left with agreement on the basis of something else. Something which will automatically prioritise what a man wants you to do, over women's safety and dignity. Sexism again. It's inescapable.

So no apology for your homophobia Blinda?

Of course they suddenly don't develop ovaries, but it's enough for me - as a woman - to allow them into the woman-club.

Of course. It's no surprise to anyone. You prioritise what men think, feel, want over safety of women and children.

At least you know it though.

@334bu

So no apology for your homophobia Blinda?

You can whistle, I haven't said anything homophobic.

@Datun

Of course they suddenly don't develop ovaries, but it's enough for me - as a woman - to allow them into the woman-club.

Of course. It's no surprise to anyone. You prioritise what men think, feel, want over safety of women and children.

At least you know it though.

I don't think of them as men, remember. You do, I don't.

I suspect, bilinda, that every time you've tried it, you've come up against a blank wall of sexism.

Woman means this, that, etc. As soon as you try and find a definition for why a man can be a woman, it relies on sexism. Is it clothes, no. Is it make up, no. Is it attitude, no. Is it the way one thinks, no. Is it the way one wants to be treated, no.

As soon as you unpack how you think a woman thinks, feels, behaves and therefore a man thinking like that isn't a man, the sexism smacks you in the face.

Precisely.

I don't think of them as men, remember. You do, I don't.

You do know they aren't female. So you are prioritising males over females, whatever semantic somersaults you want to do, to extend the analogy from earlier.

@BilindaB

Why have a pointless debate? In short, I've heard enough stories from people who have transitioned that I believe there is something, maybe we can't fully explain it yet, that makes them so uncomfortable as the gender they were assigned and only find relief and happiness when they transition, that it's beyond choice, it's who they are. Of course they suddenly don't develop ovaries, but it's enough for me - as a woman - to allow them into the woman-club.

The problem isn’t whether for some specific individuals there might be “something” as yet undiscovered, the problem is that the possible existence of “something” which cannot be described or detected is being used as justification to wholesale redefine womanhood, and therefore

1. Open access to all pre-existing female-only rights, opportunities and protections as open to anyone who self defines, or claims to self define as woman.

1. Remove any consideration of biological sex and the sexism that comes with it from women’s rights and politics

Surely you can see there’s a massive jump between what you have observed in individual people’s stories and the TRA demand to entirely unname and legally undefine female people?

You can be fine with the first and not accept the second.

It’s a TRA myth, in fact the TRA myth, that the only possible way for society to accept and support trans people is their way.

I don't think of them as men, remember. You do, I don't.

If you didn't think of them as men, you wouldn't be here. You just said they should be accepted in the 'woman' club. You have said you can't define the word 'woman' to include them.

Every single time you talk about them, it's in the context of them not being women!

And you say we're one ones doing the gymnastics!

You can whistle, I haven't said anything homophobic.

If you think homosexuality is a choice you are a homophobe. Comparing choosing someone to date because of their hair colour etc and comparing that to choosing someone to date based on your sexuality is the very epitome of homophobia.

The problem isn’t whether for some specific individuals there might be “something” as yet undiscovered, the problem is that the possible existence of “something” which cannot be described or detected is being used as justification to wholesale redefine womanhood,

This.

You asked for my reasoning, you've got it. I don't want to debate this and go round in circles, as it will be pointless and I've done it too many times to want to do it more.

Of course they suddenly don't develop ovaries, but it's enough for me - as a woman - to allow them into the woman-club.

Womanhood isn't a club that males can join.

It's simply the state of being an adult human female.

@BilindaB

You asked for my reasoning, you've got it. I don't want to debate this and go round in circles, as it will be pointless and I've done it too many times to want to do it more.

Personally I was waiting for your definition of the word woman. You said you had given it a lot of thought and we're just trying to find the words.

I knew it wouldn't be forthcoming.

I just wondered whether or not you had internally reflected on the reason why you can't define it.

It sounds like you have, and you don't care.

Of course it goes round in circles. Because it's a belief system.

''Personally I was waiting for your definition of the word woman. You said you had given it a lot of thought and we're just trying to find the words.

I knew it wouldn't be forthcoming.''

Oh right. I've already answered that in another thread.

As I said, these quasi religious faith beliefs are fine, but when you can't begin to explain it, don't expect others to join in.

@BilindaB

Why have a pointless debate? In short, I've heard enough stories from people who have transitioned that I believe there is something, maybe we can't fully explain it yet, that makes them so uncomfortable as the gender they were assigned and only find relief and happiness when they transition, that it's beyond choice, it's who they are. Of course they suddenly don't develop ovaries, but it's enough for me - as a woman - to allow them into the woman-club.

Woman isn't a club. One can't be admitted on the say-so of anyone, I'm afraid. Nor excluded.

'something', or some feeling of discomfort that a male has doesn't make that male a woman.

@BilindaB

''Personally I was waiting for your definition of the word woman. You said you had given it a lot of thought and we're just trying to find the words.

I knew it wouldn't be forthcoming.''

Oh right. I've already answered that in another thread.

I will, I've thought a lot about it, but I will want to phrase it well, so at some point you'll get my answer. This is not a dodge.

Oh well, good to know it's not a dodge.

Oh right. I've already answered that in another thread.

Have you? A bit odd to say you would have to go away and think about it because you want to get the words right then, no?

X post with Datun

What woman-club?
It's not a club with membership rules. It's not loaded, or something to aim towards. It's just a word for female adults.