Concept of ‘exclusively same sex attracted’

[aseriesofstillimages]

I have seen various people on this forum say that to be gay or a lesbian is to be ‘exclusively same sex attracted’, and that therefore, for example, a woman who is attracted to or in a relationship with a trans woman cannot correctly describe herself as a lesbian.

Setting aside the problems with presuming to correct another person’s understanding of their own identity, I can’t see how this absolutist approach is logically sustainable. If I am a non-trans woman who has only ever - to my knowledge - been attracted to other non-trans women, but then am attracted to and get off with a woman in a bar who I subsequently find out is trans, do I immediately stop being a lesbian? What if I don’t stop finding the trans woman attractive after learning that she’s trans? What if I never find out she was trans - is it the case that I have ceased being a lesbian, but will never know this?

‘Swanky’?? What on earth do you mean?

This is an interesting position to take, because to me the most obvious correlation is not weight or age, but rather race. Do you believe one can be transracial? Rachel Dolezal passed for years…

swanky
[ˈswaŋki]
ADJECTIVE
informal
stylishly luxurious and expensive:
"directors with swanky company cars"
synonyms:
luxurious · luxury · deluxe · plush · sumptuous · [More]
using one's wealth, knowledge, or achievements to try to impress others.
synonyms:
bragging · crowing · swaggering · [More]

That is a very interesting example, and having watched the documentary about her, I had a lot more sympathy for her position - she seemed to be mostly motivated by a desire to distance herself from her abusive family, and to feel closer to her black children (although ultimately she did seem a bit unhinged). I’m not aware of any other real world examples like hers.

Well yes, but why do you think I have a ‘swanky’ mental image of myself, or that it depends in any way on my beliefs about how people define what a lesbian is?

This was your opening question correct?

"If I am a non-trans woman who has only ever - to my knowledge - been attracted to other non-trans women, but then am attracted to and get off with a woman in a bar who I subsequently find out is trans, do I immediately stop being a lesbian? What if I don’t stop finding the trans woman attractive after learning that she’s trans? What if I never find out she was trans - is it the case that I have ceased being a lesbian, but will never know this?"

In other words, why should my friend need to change her mental image of herself even if her situation has changed, with or without her knowledge? (just glossing over how creepy the never knowing bit is...)
Or as you seem to want to interpret it: your definition does not fit my friend's image of herself, please change it.

Lesbianism hasn't changed. You and especially your friend have.

Your friend is in a relationship with a feminine-looking male. Her partner isn't any less male because they present a female appearance to the world. Just like how "butch" lesbians aren't any less female or lesbian just because they're not stereotypically female-looking. Your friend can call herself a lesbian if she wants, but she's still in a heterosexual relationship.

OP, you don't get to redefine a word just because it doesn't suit you to use the accurate & long established meaning that you yourself used to also acknowledge.

The overwhelming majority of the world understands the word lesbian to refer to a biological woman who is only attracted to other biological women.

Just like in Mean Girls, when they try to make 'fetch' a thing, trying to make the word lesbian include anyone who is biologically male is not ever going to happen & makes anyone attempting to use it that way sound as lame as those girls did.

Get your own words to define men who dress as women & fancy women, or women who fancy men who dress as women if you need to make it sound more special than it is.

He is a heterosexual male, she is a bisexual female.
If they want to 'live as their authentic selves', then that is what they are.

Leave lesbians out of it, as they can't be either of the people in that relationship.

Tbh 'queer' seems to be playing that role now. I don't have skin in the game except being around when it was initially being reclaimed, but I know that a lot of people find it offensive. However, it does suggest to me that a lot of people are genuinely not wanting to try and change the meaning of lesbian and are trying to find new vocabulary.

Wowsers. There would be an field-shattering paper for any sexologist who managed to finding someone who fits the description above:

a woman whose ‘sexual orientation’ was ‘towards’ both non-trans women, and trans women with GRCs

An orientation based on a piece of paper from the government?

A whole new use for the GRC we hadn't considered - making yourself more attractive to women!

And what's the mechanism? Does the GRC holder have to reveal the GRC to get this response? Do they have to be holding it at the time?

So many questions...

The gamete definition is the definition of sex. This is not a GC view, that's what sex is.

The gamete definition leaves out that there are consequences to sex. In this case I don't mean social consequences, but physiological. Sex is a Iifelong developmental pathway, with predictable parameters you can describe with over 99% confidence based on a single glance at a newborn baby's genitals. It is that strong, that absolute. So much so that there are people who are only sexually attracted to people on one of those pathways and not to anyone on the other pathway.

It is possible to be very close in appearance to the other pathway, especially with cosmetic surgery and hormones, and the gender assumptions attached to those pathways mean you can live a gendered life that matches the other pathway and look even more like one of them. There are grey areas here given the history of violence and sexual exploitation of people on the male pathway to the female purely because they are female, or to male people who are feminine, but in general restrictions on gender expression are sexist.

Why try and persuade anyone that you are actually on the other pathway though? Why bother? True trans liberation would surely be to stop GRCs and passing and all that 50s nonsense and just be who you are. To look at a listing for a lesbian bar and say, oh well, that's not me.

so it is clear that where the Equality Act refers to ‘sex’, if a trans woman has a GRC, their sex is female, and if a trans man has a GRC, their sex is male.

No, because exemptions can be applied to them on the grounds of their sex, based on either the Gender Recognition Act or the Equality Act. So their legal position is subtly different from that of a biological female.

Or as you seem to want to interpret it: your definition does not fit my friend's image of herself, please change it.

This is it. Lesbian means a woman who is exclusively same sex attracted. Bisexual means a person of either sex attracted to both sexes. I don't consider bisexual women to be lesbians. Whatever they call themselves is up to them, but where it matters, they should have some respect for lesbians (and other women in general) and not do things like try to insert their male partners into female only spaces.

But if Lesbian doesn't mean female homosexual, what is the point of the word?

Isn't it useful to have a word for lesbians? Why do we need to get rid of it?

This is the key for me. Find another word, rather than appropriate one which already has a coherent meaning to push your ideological agenda.

It must be the forbidden, taboo nature of it. You aren’t allowed to ask to see the GRC, despite the uncontrollable lust it apparently excites in you. You can’t even ask if it exists. A permanent state of teasing and temptation.

However, it does suggest to me that a lot of people are genuinely not wanting to try and change the meaning of lesbian and are trying to find new vocabulary.

IME most of these women are comfortable calling themselves "queer women", it's males who identify as women and their bisexual female partners who want to change the meaning of the word "lesbian" to include them.

Did you even read the analogy about vegans? Would you think it was sensible to eat meat, regularly, and then tell people that, to you, that’s what a vegan is, and that no-one shoujd disagree with you?

And that there can't be a word for actual vegans, because that's invalidating to people who think of themselves as vegans but eat meat.

They aren’t lesbians. They are straight women or bisexual.

How can you still be confused by this?

Did you even read the analogy about vegans? Would you think it was sensible to eat meat, regularly, and then tell people that, to you, that’s what a vegan is, and that no-one shoujd disagree with you?

Being vegan is much more of a choice than being gay. It's entirely a social construct. I don't see why vegans can't be kind and accept transvegans as vegans.

I can imagine a whole world where everyone is vegan, including those who eat meat.

That would be great: all the problems of animal cruelty and global warming will be solved; your local steakhouse will have loads of vegan options.

This shows the problem and why it is so difficult to back track on this issue for the gov. Like Emily Thornbury and Penny Mordant, the OP is blinded by one friend and is now willing to throw all other women / lesbians rights away to make her friends feel right in her identity as a lesbian even though she is dating a male.

No doubt op believes 'it never happens'.
Is Eddie Izzard a lesbian when in girl mode op?

I still can't get over the blatant homophobia of trying to downgrade the factual reality of exclusive same-sex attraction to a 'concept' that is open to debate.

@aseriesofstillimages '
'I think everyone, regardless of their own sex, gender or sexuality, should accept that when a lesbian continues to consider herself a lesbian after having been attracted to or had a relationship with a trans woman, they should accept that that is her validly held belief about her own sexuality, and she knows better than them.'

Why? I can happily disagree with her, to her face - there is no law prohibiting my free speech in personal capacity and I think she's deluded.

Under the Equality Act you are protected from discrimination:
• when you are in the workplace
• when you use public services like healthcare (for example, visiting your doctor or local hospital) or education (for example, at your school or college)
• when you use businesses and other organisations that provide services and goods (like shops, restaurants, and cinemas)
• when you use transport
• when you join a club or association (for example, your local tennis club)
• when you have contact with public bodies like your local council or government departments

There is no obligation on me as a private individual to agree with your friend's opinion that a relationship that can result in a natural pregnancy can ever be described as a lesbian relationship. That is insane, and I am not obligated to agree with it.