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 trans activist responses on this thread reminds me of a trick Tony Blair learned to use when the New Labour government started to lose its appetite for openess and honesty. When asked a question rather than answering it he'd refer the questioner to an answer he'd given in the past to a similar but different question.

In Prime Minister's Questions that is.

nauticant:

So would you agree that if a lesbian says "I will not date or have sex with any male people, including transwomen" then that's perfectly reasonable? And that anyone attacking her for holding this position is being homophobic?

Here's my take on it. It is perfectly reasonable for a lesbian to say they will not have sex with any male people and they will not have sex with transwomen. 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.

But yes, they are perfectly entitled to state clearly those things about themselves.

The final sentence "And that anyone attacking her for holding this position is being homophobic?" is problematic, as homophobia is not an inherent sentiment of someone who is unhappy that someone else might be discounting more people from dating options.

Of course we all experience attraction in different ways and have sexual preferences - most of the time we have the common sense to know that we don't actually say out loud 'O I would never date a thin/fat/ginger/brunette/short/tall person' etc because we understand that the deliberate, explicit and overt communication of those preferences or dislikes in terms of attraction can be hurtful to others.

So if we hold any of them that is information we are generally private about, but of course this still influences who we want to date and have sex with, and there should be no expectation that preferences can be overruled.

So that, I think is the difference. It seems some people want to shout out loudly 'O I would never be attracted to a trans woman.' That's not necessary - you don't have to shout it out loud but you can have it as your preference and no one should expect you to do otherwise.

I see from your explanation that lesbians really do have to walk through a minefield over this issue and in seeking to maintain their boundaries around consent. Poor lesbians.

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.

Good for you. But as I'm not a fan of bending reality I am happy to say 'male, including transwomen'. A large section of the public agrees with me, whether you like it or not.

@Helleofabore

I would also like to know why both Bilinda and suggestions believe that they are speaking for the majority of transwomen? They have both made comments to this effect.

Why do they feel that they do and can speak for the majority of transwomen?

And what evidence, apart from anecdotal evidence from their mates, do they even believe that they do in fact speak for the majority of males who identify as women?

Can you quote where I have made a comment to this effect? Thanks.

The final sentence "And that anyone attacking her for holding this position is being homophobic?" is problematic, as homophobia is not an inherent sentiment of someone who is unhappy that someone else might be discounting more people from dating options.

WOW.

You honestly have no idea how that sounds, do you?

You really are against women having the right to sexual boundaries. To exclude whomever they damn well please from their “dating options”, without being attacked or shamed for it, or coerced into dropping those boundaries.

That’s not just misogynistic, homophobic bigotry; that’s promoting rape culture.

Thank you for showing your true colours so clearly.

@nauticant

I see from your explanation that lesbians really do have to walk through a minefield over this issue and in seeking to maintain their boundaries around consent. Poor lesbians.

It's really not a minefield lol. You must have an excessively poor opinion of lesbians if you think they are generally incapable of this sort of approach.

'most of the time we have the common sense to know that we don't actually say out loud 'O I would never date a thin/fat/ginger/brunette/short/tall person' etc because we understand that the deliberate, explicit and overt communication of those preferences or dislikes in terms of attraction can be hurtful to others.

This a complete false equivalency.

I am not attracted to women.

It doesn't matter if they are short/tall, fat/thin, brunette/blonde etc etc etc. I am not attracted to them because they are women. Not because of a preference. But because they are women. I am attracted to men. I am heterosexual.

And if I do have preferences in terms of the men I am attracted to, I don't normally state those out loud, because as you say, that might be hurtful. But I can say, loud and clear, that I am only attracted to men. No amount of persuasion, or 'encouragement to examine my prejudices' will make me any more attracted to women. That is my inherent sexual orientation.

So why are lesbians seemly not allowed to say that put loud? It isn't a hurtful preference. They are exclusively attracted to women That isn't transphobic or hurtful. It is a statement of fact.

As a note, when I say men and women, I mean just that. Males and females.

And I notice suggestionsplease that you have avoided my question about whether this cohort of EXCLUSIVELY SAME SEX ATTRACTED lesbians are entitled to any form of organised support or representation, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, and indeed to access services like dating apps and social events that cater exclusively for them. A long persecuted, marginalised, vulnerable minority on the grounds of their sexual orientation, one of the protected characteristics in the EA.

I will infer that your answer is in fact no, you don’t believe they are entitled to any of those things and you would in fact be one of those people seeking to actively to deny them that kind of support, in the form of opposing the LGB Alliance, for example.

Pure lesbophobia. Shameful.

Okay, so suggestions thinks lesbians aren’t allowed to “shout out loud” that they’re lesbians (ie female homosexuals.)

Setting aside the “what was the point of Pride supposed to be again?” question…

Should they be allowed to say on lesbian dating apps that they’re female homosexuals? It seems like relevant information in the context. Does suggestions approve of the current situation where lesbians are banned from “lesbian” dating apps for being openly homosexual?

Should lesbians be allowed to publicly organise meet-ups and events for lesbians (ie female homosexuals) without harassment? Or does suggestions feel good about the current situation where people who want to organise lesbian events have to go underground to do it?

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.

What do they think they are then? Do they actually think they're female? Do they think it's surgery and hormones that makes them female, or do they think that just saying 'I am a woman' makes them female?

What has made a 'large section of the public' believe in something which is so clearly false?

A few years ago there was a male transsexual posting on here who said that before having genital surgery (20 or 30 years ago, I think), the doctors had to be sure that the patient didn't believe that this surgery would actually make them change sex (since such surgery was popularly known as 'sex-change surgery').

When did this change? And why? What happened so that now not only do transsexuals think they can change sex, but so do other people?

suggestions has been quite clear for some time that their position is that lesbians are free to be lesbians so long as they do it discreetly because it makes heterosexual males with feminine gender identities sad.

Being openly lesbian is just not naice.

But that's not homophobic, no. Because reasons.

''So would you agree that if a lesbian says "I will not date or have sex with any male people, including transwomen" then that's perfectly reasonable? ''

Yes, totally.

You can also say 'I will only date people of colour, I won't date any man under 5'8, I couldn't date a fat person, I only date asian women, I only date men who make more than 50k a year, I'm only looking for a vegetarian, etc.

Some might attract criticism more than others, but people can hold whatever preferences they have. Most people have some preferences,or things they would rule out - for me 'don't read books? No thanks' or something like that. Also 'no sports fans, I hate all that'

On dating apps, I don't know never been on one, are you allowed to say 'Men under 6 foot, don't swipe right?'

because that is unnecessarily inflammatory

Definitions of "unnecessarily" may vary.

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.

The final sentence "And that anyone attacking her for holding this position is being homophobic?" is problematic, as homophobia is not an inherent sentiment of someone who is unhappy that someone else might be discounting more people from dating options.

That's a very odd sentence. What does it matter to you if someone else is 'discounting more people from dating options'?

Isn't 'dating' about being with someone to whom you are attracted? So if you 'discount' people from your 'dating options' the only person this affects is you, because you are reducing the options available to you. How does this affect other people enough to make them 'unhappy'? Other than in the sense of feeling sorry for you because you have decided to make yourself lonely by depriving yourself of possible relationships?

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

Exactly.

It does come across as lesbians being permitted to identify as such but needing to be careful in stating this out loud or publicly using that identity to maintain their own boundaries.

At the moment I'm hearing a report on the news about how women in Afghanistan are currently restricting their apparently still existing freedoms anticipating punishment and I can't help but find these very different situations to be vaguely similar.

Weird how both of Bilinda and suggestions are ignoring the fact that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic.

Yes, it’s perfectly legitimate to exclude whoever you want from your “dating pool”, for whatever reason, but we don’t protect any of those other categories in law. There isn’t a name for people who are only attracted to/not attracted to people of other ethnicities, people of different body shapes/sizes, people with different hair colours, etc. It is not a sexual orientation; it’s a sexual preference.

And everyone is of course fully entitled to their sexual preferences, but they’re not recognised as orientations in law. There is no long and shameful history of women who are only attracted to 6’+ men being marginalised, ostracised, victimised for their preference. There have been no organisations undertaking conversion therapy to try and make them be attracted to shorter men. No corrective rape on the grounds that only being attracted to taller men is “unnatural”. All the usual sexual harassment, assault and boundary violation that men inflict on women in general of course; but nothing on these grounds specifically.

But there has been all this and more in the case of women who are only attracted to other women, and we all know that, the government knows that, and all the biologically male people ever who felt/feel aggrieved because a woman says no to them know that.

It is absurd, disingenuous, and homophobic to pretend there’s any equivalence at all, and it just shows up the fundamental dishonesty of that position, the fact that there is no sound argument on that side at all.

This is bigotry, and I think it’s disgusting.

I wasn't saying the two were comparable, I was listing preferences that are considered ok, some that maybe aren't and saying if you can have these preferences, of course you should be able to be specific if you are gay or lesbian, it's much more important and should be beyond criticism.

Did I not give you the answer you wanted when I said 'yes, totally?' Are you looking for a row, whatever I say? It's tiresome. Don't be tiresome.

@BilindaB

I wasn't saying the two were comparable, I was listing preferences that are considered ok, some that maybe aren't and saying if you can have these preferences, of course you should be able to be specific if you are gay or lesbian, it's much more important and should be beyond criticism.

Did I not give you the answer you wanted when I said 'yes, totally?' Are you looking for a row, whatever I say? It's tiresome. Don't be tiresome.

Hello, could you please explain to me how transwomen are women? Ta ever so.

So that, I think is the difference. It seems some people want to shout out loudly 'O I would never be attracted to a trans woman.' That's not necessary - you don't have to shout it out loud but you can have it as your preference and no one should expect you to do otherwise.

Lesbians can only be lesbians if they are quiet about it, because it upsets the men who want to have sex with them?

Got it.

And for the zillionth time, suggestions, excluding all men, however they identify from one's dating port is not a sexual preference.

It's a sexual orientation. Protected by law. Under the equalities act. Equality? Remember that? Among other things it was designed to eliminate the open homophobia demonstrated by your comment.

Lesbians are just as entitled as transwomen to march, celebrate, wave lesbian flags, and make it known, deafeningly, to the whole world that they don't sleep with men, however they identify.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Weird how both of Bilinda and suggestions are ignoring the fact that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic.

Yes, it’s perfectly legitimate to exclude whoever you want from your “dating pool”, for whatever reason, but we don’t protect any of those other categories in law. There isn’t a name for people who are only attracted to/not attracted to people of other ethnicities, people of different body shapes/sizes, people with different hair colours, etc. It is not a sexual orientation; it’s a sexual preference.

And everyone is of course fully entitled to their sexual preferences, but they’re not recognised as orientations in law. There is no long and shameful history of women who are only attracted to 6’+ men being marginalised, ostracised, victimised for their preference. There have been no organisations undertaking conversion therapy to try and make them be attracted to shorter men. No corrective rape on the grounds that only being attracted to taller men is “unnatural”. All the usual sexual harassment, assault and boundary violation that men inflict on women in general of course; but nothing on these grounds specifically.

But there has been all this and more in the case of women who are only attracted to other women, and we all know that, the government knows that, and all the biologically male people ever who felt/feel aggrieved because a woman says no to them know that.

It is absurd, disingenuous, and homophobic to pretend there’s any equivalence at all, and it just shows up the fundamental dishonesty of that position, the fact that there is no sound argument on that side at all.

This is bigotry, and I think it’s disgusting.

👏 👏 yup

@suggestionsplease1

Yes, agree with Blinda, this is yet another myth doing the rounds and designed to alienate and discredit trans people.

This board in particular goes out of its way to misrepresent the vast majority of trans people by maintaining an overt focus on a minority viewpoint and then attempting to extrapolate from this that is some sort of official position of a broader community. It's illogical and laughable, but there you have it. The vast majority of trans people are the same as the vast majority of all people and know that nobody should be expected to have sex with any individual they do not want to.

I'm on the dating apps for gay women and I see all sorts of people, straight men, couples, straight women who are not interested in anything at all with other women but have ticked the 'interested in women' box to see if people they know are on there, trans women, gay women etc etc. The trans profiles are fully up front about this as they don't want to waste their time on anyone that wouldn't consider themselves as a potential partner.

Guess what? I am able to swipe past anyone I'm not personally interested in. Unbelievable that others aren't apparently capable of doing likewise.

Can you quote where I have made a comment to this effect? Thanks.

HTH