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?

The full quote

''Of course. If they fancy each other. First and foremost, we need to recognise that trans women are women, and trans men are men. After that it becomes a matter of who you are attracted to. Adults are free to have relationships with other consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity.''

Do they really need to spell out 'for example if you're not attracted to transwomen, you don't have to fancy them'? It's implicit.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

If someone wanted to set up a trans-exclusionary dating app, who would stop them?

But would lesbians want a tran-exclusionary dating app, which would exclude transmen and female-born non-binary people? Surely lesbians just want a simple same-sex dating app?

Well, Kickstarter for one will deplatform a ‘male’ exclusionary dating app for lesbians it seems…

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

If someone wanted to set up a trans-exclusionary dating app, who would stop them?

But would lesbians want a tran-exclusionary dating app, which would exclude transmen and female-born non-binary people? Surely lesbians just want a simple same-sex dating app?

Well, they're not allowed one of those.

Sall Grover has also been banned from advertising the app on facebook.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4336373-Crowdfunder-for-Giggle-App-suspended-by-Kickstarter

As Sall has mentioned, there is a trans-only app, which no-one has a problem with. So why can't we raise funds for Giggle?

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

If someone wanted to set up a trans-exclusionary dating app, who would stop them?

But would lesbians want a tran-exclusionary dating app, which would exclude transmen and female-born non-binary people? Surely lesbians just want a simple same-sex dating app?

Isn't the 'giggle' app this? Set up for females only, checked with facial recognition software?

But not specifically a dating app, I suppose.

Oh sorry, crossposted with everyone.

@BilindaB

The full quote

''Of course. If they fancy each other. First and foremost, we need to recognise that trans women are women, and trans men are men. After that it becomes a matter of who you are attracted to. Adults are free to have relationships with other consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity.''

Do they really need to spell out 'for example if you're not attracted to transwomen, you don't have to fancy them'? It's implicit.

I'm sorry but the quote you're sharing doesn't say what you think it says. If trans women are women then they would be included in the sexual orientation lesbian, otherwise that's transphobic isn't it? According to the law of TWAW?

It’s being made pretty clear who’s allowed to choose their sexual partners and who isn’t …

@BilindaB

The full quote

''Of course. If they fancy each other. First and foremost, we need to recognise that trans women are women, and trans men are men. After that it becomes a matter of who you are attracted to. Adults are free to have relationships with other consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity.''

Do they really need to spell out 'for example if you're not attracted to transwomen, you don't have to fancy them'? It's implicit.

Do we really need to spell it out to you that that quote means that TW are to be included in the potential dating pool of lesbians and TM in the potential dating pool of gay men?

Lesbians are same sex attracted females, their orientation excludes males whatever said male's gender identity is.

Gay men are same sex attracted males, their orientation excludes females whatever said female's gender identity is.

That's why BilindaB I deliberately selected that part of the quote:

'First and foremost we need to recognise that [TWAW] & [TMAM]'

You see what they're doing, right?

@BilindaB

The full quote

''Of course. If they fancy each other. First and foremost, we need to recognise that trans women are women, and trans men are men. After that it becomes a matter of who you are attracted to. Adults are free to have relationships with other consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity.''

Do they really need to spell out 'for example if you're not attracted to transwomen, you don't have to fancy them'? It's implicit.

I’m not sure if you are deliberately missing the point or being disingenuous.

“Adults are free to have relationships with other consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity”

So why does Stonewall, or any other org, need to explicitly name and support LGB people in the first place? What’s different about LGB people (in Stonewall’s view) so they are not also included in “Adults are free to have relationships with other consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity”.

Why do some people get to have their sexuality respected as a firm boundary but others only get the right not to fancy someone on a case by case basis?

The answer of course is “First and foremost, we need to recognise that trans women are women, and trans men are men.” Stonewall’s commitment to prioritise gender over sex means that gay and lesbian people who know their sexuality is same sex have to be taken out of the definition of gay and lesbian. Again, the genderist appropriation of existing words to disempower existing groups and usurp their resources and support.

''Lesbians are same sex attracted females, their orientation excludes males whatever said male's gender identity is.''

All of them? No. Some lesbians are in relationships with transwomen.

@BilindaB

''Lesbians are same sex attracted females, their orientation excludes males whatever said male's gender identity is.''

All of them? No. Some lesbians are in relationships with transwomen.

If you believe TWAW. Hence the catechism always comes first.

Sure. And some vegetarians eat meat. But that doesn't mean the vegan society should start worrying about the needs of meat eaters.

Don't say things that are untrue and I won't have to correct you

[quote Blibbyblobby]**@suggestionsplease1* @BilindaB*

You are both conflating "we won't force you to sleep with someone you don't fancy" with "we acknowledge and accept your sexuality".

Stonewall is an LBTQIA+ organisation. The first three characters are sexualities. So Stonewall clearly accepts that different sexualities do exist and are valid, ie that sexualities are not just prejudice.

The question then is not whether sexuality in itself is valid for Stoewall - because it clearly is - but which sexualities Stonewall accepts as valid.

LGB were (and in popular consciousness still are) labels for different types of sex-oriented sexuality. Stonewall now defines them as gender-oriented.

So the simple question is, does Stonewall, or any TRA movement, respect sex-oriented sexualities, or does it deny these exist and label those whose sexualities are sex-oriented rather than gender-oriented as simply prejudiced?

(Sexualities of course include heterosexuality, but as that was never Stonewall's remit I'm not bringing it in to this specific conversation.)[/quote]
I don't see that Stonewall have denied the right of any individual to choose their sexual partners on the basis of any reason whatsoever.

There seems to be this weird idea that a trans lesbian can expect someone to have sex with them, and as I have already said, the vast, vast majority of trans lesbians, like the vast, vast majority of people in general, understand that sex with any other person is not an entitlement.

But of course there are lesbians happily dating trans lesbians - I am in friendship groups with them, so it does happen.

As I have said before, we aren't robots filing down a line of other robots with a binary code for acceptance or rejection; we make rich, elaborate choices about the people we want in our lives and the people we want to date.

And just like the woman who has been straight all her life feeling a strange new attraction to another woman, whose genitals she would never have considered before, these situations can happily and mutually develop. Not everybody is in a neat little box all of the time.

That's a personal thing, and it doesn't mean that any other person should consider genitals they are not interested in!

Some lesbians are in relationships with transwomen.

A woman in a relationship with a transwoman is not a lesbian.

Why do some people get to have their sexuality respected as a firm boundary but others only get the right not to fancy someone on a case by case basis?

Yes, this is exactly it, and no amount of disingenuous squirming changes what's happening here.

Lesbians are same sex attracted women, not bisexual ones.

So @suggestionsplease1, would you support groups of these individual women who are exclusively same sex attracted having their own spaces, on line and physical, to support their community, without fear of being labelled transphobes

Don't say things that are untrue and I won't have to correct you

No one cares about your "corrections" because you're just spouting a steady flow of dull TRA talking points we've all heard before, and offering little to no evidence to back any of it up. Across multiple threads. Not sure who you think finds it convincing.

Some lesbians are in relationships with transwomen.
Then they are bisexual not lesbian. Lesbians are only attracted to female people and transwomen are male.

I don't see that Stonewall have denied the right of any individual to choose their sexual partners on the basis of any reason whatsoever.

That's lovely, but repeating my analogy, I would not expect a vegetarian society to be concentrating on the right of anyone to eat any food they like.

They should be specifically concentrating on vegetarian issues, and not worrying about meat-eaters, including meat-eaters who call themselves vegetarians.

Now, if an existing vegetarian society wants to realign themselves as a "anyone eat whatever they want and don't keep talking about not eating meat" society, then that's fine, I guess.

But then they shouldn't be surprised if new vegetarian societies pop up to cater for non-meat-eaters specifically.

And no, vegetarian societies are not anti-meat-eater hate groups.

I don't want to tell trans-exclusionary lesbians what they should want.

This definitely suggests that lesbians have an obligation to consider MtFs as sexual partners if they don't want to be classed as trans exclusionary.

@BilindaB

Don't say things that are untrue and I won't have to correct you

@BilindaB You've been given lots of changes to show us evidence that that same-sex attracted lesbians are generally supported by the trans community, and that those lesbians' sexuality is totally and positively accepted.

You have not provided any good evidence (as far as I'm aware), which really doesn't help your claim. This leads me to the conclusion that you either don't care what the truth is (and will continue to make assertions that are the most convenient to you no matter what the evidence is).....or, you've simply come on here to troll women and lesbians in particular who really care about their rights.

You've been given lots of chances*

@NecessaryScene

I don't see that Stonewall have denied the right of any individual to choose their sexual partners on the basis of any reason whatsoever.

That's lovely, but repeating my analogy, I would not expect a vegetarian society to be concentrating on the right of anyone to eat any food they like.

They should be specifically concentrating on vegetarian issues, and not worrying about meat-eaters, including meat-eaters who call themselves vegetarians.

Now, if an existing vegetarian society wants to realign themselves as a "anyone eat whatever they want and don't keep talking about not eating meat" society, then that's fine, I guess.

But then they shouldn't be surprised if new vegetarian societies pop up to cater for non-meat-eaters specifically.

And no, vegetarian societies are not anti-meat-eater hate groups.

I don't think the analogy is a particularly good one. Meat eaters don't generally, as far as I know, experience harassment, exclusion, misunderstanding, poor health, social and educational outcomes. They're not at greater risk of taking their lives by suicide or rejection by their families. They don't walk fearfully down the streets.

I can't imagine that meat eaters could care less if new vegetarian societies pop up that exclude them. Although the new vegetarian societies may be missing a trick by making themselves inaccessible to meat eaters and losing the opportunity to encourage others to think carefully about what they eat, the ethics of how animals are raised for food, deforestation, CO2 emissions etc.

Although gender identity and sexuality should not be conflated, to be absolutist about this is not realistic for young people growing up in these times and experiencing the general confusion and stress of adolescence.

And I can tell you right now - they're not attracted to absolutist, exclusionary groups. They're attracted to broader, welcoming, friendly groups where they can more safely navigate the difficulties of gender and sexuality confusion. They're turning off from the label 'lesbian' because they don't like the connotations it now seems to have to them. That's lesbian erasure happening right there and it's a shooting yourself in the foot moment for some groups.