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?

@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.'

What else does this apply to?

Should we accept that people know their own ethnicity best and believe a pasty ginger guy who says he is black?

Should people have just been kind to Boris Johnson and accepted that those gatherings he had didn't identify as parties?

Why can we not disagree about this one thing when everything else in life relies on agreed definitions which are enforced by debating those who make false claims?

Why is this the only psychological condition that we should “accept”? Many people are uncomfortable with some fact it other about themselves, and believe that they would be happier were they different. Others go further and believe that their body isn’t what it really is. Anorexics who are thin but believe that they are obese, for example.

We don’t play along with these, so what’s different with a man who’d like to be a woman or believes themselves to be one, or a straight woman who believes that she is a lesbian?

Ladies don't buy the trope about 'being fooled' this is my real life experience:

Around 2010, I arrange for a coffee with a nice lesbian whose profile I liked in OkCupid.
I go to the coffee place and my date is clearly male, 6foot, broad, with long hair and a dress. I freeze. I want to run far far away.

BUT this person knows my real name, can easily find my listed address
And I am 5ft 2inches (157cm) , and 7stone/100lbs.
Yes, I have been sexually assaulted by males (but ran away in time...)

I have coffee, smile and talk. Even accept a lift back to the uni library. Agree to even meet up in the future.
Because I am afraid to say no.

Lesbian groups used to be an all-female paradise. Even someone's straight female friend would join us on occasion, welcomed for the sisterhood.

It's all gone.
No more lesbian clubs, no more wonderful female-only groups where we were free to be ourselves; fearless, safe, happy.

it's unusual for people who believe gender is more important than sex to provide any reasoning, so this is refreshing, thank you.

Gender critical people tend to define sex as being essentially about whether you are the type of human that produces small or large gametes

while that's not the only thing that governs attraction, it's a big part of it. I have always been very sure that I wanted children. As a heterosexual woman I had a reasonable expectation that I would bear my partner's children and share their care with him. As a heterosexual man he had the expectation that his partner would bear his children yadda yadda. While I understand that isn't the way it pans out for every heterosexual couple, I would never have selected a partner where that future was a complete impossibility due to the kind of body they had.

also without going into too much detail, I enjoy PIV sex. I would not select a partner who couldn't do that. (yes yes, sex toys, fingers blah blah. not the same)

a woman who has taken hormones and had radical cosmetic surgery, spent her life learning to talk about herself and sit on the train with her legs spread will still never be able to impregnate another woman.

your reasoning seems to be that what people look like is more important than what they are . it seems peculiarly superficial.

the fact that I think some trans people do pass does affect my views on this whole issue.

let’s say you are correct and some trans people do pass 100%. Would you concede that a woman who is dating a TW who is clearly male and doesn’t pass at all, is not a lesbian? Even if she labels herself that way?

(If not, I don’t see the relevance of “some trans people pass.”)

@QueenHippolyta I’m so so sorry.

As a straight woman, I know what it is to be graciously accepted into women-only, predominantly lesbian spaces. I am always a bit hesitant to go into gay spaces (male or female) generally, because it is not my world, and let’s face it, I have the rest of the world where I’m not “othered.”

I’m watching the case in Tasmania with interest. When I lived in Australia, Tasmania was the most redneck homophobic state of all the states. Funny how when straight men want to change that …

heavens, do you really find this persuasive? Step away from the queer theory lady, that stuff'll rot your brain.

“Prior to 1868, there were no heterosexuals,” writes Blank. Neither were there homosexuals. It hadn’t yet occurred to humans that they might be “differentiated from one another by the kinds of love or sexual desire they experienced.”

I guess this is saying that there were people who were exclusively same sex attracted, but they didn't adopt it as an identity and were therefore not homosexual, despite, yanno, shagging people of the same sex.

Does it seem likely that Sappho, Alexander the Great, Philip of Anjou, did not understand that their sexuality was different to the majority of their peers, and that this did not affect their sense of identity?

Wasn't that space wonderful? I mourn the loss with you, QueenHippolyta..

I realise the response will be - but many trans people don’t pass. And while I don’t believe that the acceptance of a person in their acquired gender should depend on their ability to pass (which is to a large extent a matter of luck), the fact that I think some trans people do pass does affect my views on this whole issue.

I think a vanishingly small number of males who identify as women "pass". I can't understand anyone seeing most of them as female, and I frankly don't believe they do, whatever they say.

guess this is saying that there were people who were exclusively same sex attracted, but they didn't adopt it as an identity and were therefore not homosexual, despite, yanno, shagging people of the same sex.

And having not to speak about it, otherwise they risked criminal punishment including execution, as well as being completely shamed for it. It's an absurd view.

I don’t think anyone of white / western appearance would come close to passing for me. If someone was from a group with which I was far less familiar, and had had extensive surgery, training in how to walk, stand etc, then it’s perhaps possible, but I think unlikely.

Once they undressed though, zero possibility.

Yes. The buggery act, outlawing anal sex was passed in 1533

implies that people were quite well aware of homosexuality prior to 1868, no?

I might keep a folder of some of the preposterous blog posts and articles that @aseriesofstillimages has posted in various threads which she feels back up her genderist views.

I did, sorry, and I meant to come back to it.

the analogy with vegans is an interesting one, but I don’t think the correct comparison is a person who eats meat and claims to be a vegan, because there can be no doubt (and as far as I’m aware, no one is attempting to argue) that eating meat contradicts the very essence of veganism.

I think the better analogy is a vegan who eats honey. As I understand it, many but not all vegans consider eating honey to be incompatible with a vegan diet. So the fact that some vegans consider they can eat honey and still correctly call themselves vegan may be offensive to some other vegans, and make life a bit more complicated for vegans who don’t eat honey (because non-vegans may not automatically realise that they can’t eat honey).

there is an important difference though, in that adopting a vegan diet is generally at least in part an ethical choice, so if two vegans were arguing about whether they should eat meat, the substance would probably focus on the practical consequences and ethics involved in honey production. Being a lesbian is different, because most people don’t experience their sexuality as chosen, and the argument wouldn’t be about whether it was ethically ok or not to sleep with a trans woman - it would be purely about the concept of what it is to be a lesbian.

No, that’s quite disingenuous. A “lesbian” who has sex with males is analogous to a vegan who enjoys going to an all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse every Friday.

A lesbian who can sort of understand why some women like George Clooney, as he does have a very good look is a better match to a vegan who has honey.

You are trying to imply that there are gradations in “maleness”, which there are not; sex is a strict binary. Pretending that a man who identifies or dresses as a woman is somehow less male is not tenable. Every male is 100% male.

But what if a vegan eats a cow who identifies as a pot of honey? Is the vegan still a vegan because they think a vegan who eats honey is still a vegan?

I thought that is Pansexual?

According to your “definition” of what a lesbian is, my husband could sensibly define himself as one. He’s purely attracted to females, and always has been.

This means that the word is so diluted as to have become useless. Let’s admit it, that’s the entire point here isn’t it; to take away the very language that lesbians use to describe themselves so that it’s easier for a predatory male to coerce them into having sex with them.

This would be reason enough to give a flat “no” to people trying to redefine the word, but as per the many posts above, it’s far from the only reason.

No, that’s quite disingenuous. A “lesbian” who has sex with males is analogous to a vegan who enjoys going to an all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse every Friday.

A lesbian who can sort of understand why some women like George Clooney, as he does have a very good look is a better match to a vegan who has honey.

You are trying to imply that there are gradations in “maleness”, which there are not; sex is a strict binary. Pretending that a man who identifies or dresses as a woman is somehow less male is not tenable. Every male is 100% male.

Yes, this. Perfectly put.

@QueenHippolyta Oh jeez poor you. I know exactly what you mean. I once got tricked into such a 'date' he was fucking weird right up until I said something that collapsed his fantasy bubble and then he immediately turned aggressive. Fortunately I was so sure that it wasn't a date that I'd brought my boyfriend and best friend, who were playing pool about 30ft away. "Be kind" is a totally one way street.

Why were you going on a date at all if you had a boyfriend?

there is an important difference though,

There is another difference too. When this hypothetical vegan hosts a vegan meal, do they insist on putting honey in it? Or do they think, well, a lot of vegans don't agree that honey is vegan and I'd better respect that?

Guess what, I am not only a lesbian but I eat vegan food too! But I am not a vegan because I also eat fish and monthly meat ( for my health)
So I cook Vegan food and eat Vegan food. But I am not a Vegan!

If you are female and sleep with men you are straight or bi. That's it!!

There is another difference too. When this hypothetical vegan hosts a vegan meal, do they insist on putting honey in it? Or do they think, well, a lot of vegans don't agree that honey is vegan and I'd better respect that?

YY.

No, they shouldn’t put honey in the food of the vegans who don’t eat honey. I suppose the analogy would be a trans woman who passed (if we assume such a person exists) having some sort of romantic or sexual interaction with a lesbian, while knowing that the lesbian wouldn’t want to have sex with them if she knew the woman was trans. Which would be wrong. And to take the analogy further, the vegan who eats honey should probably check whether the other vegans eat honey or not before offering them the food, and similarly, if a trans woman knows the woman she’s chatting up is a lesbian rather than bisexual, she should probably make them aware she’s trans before anything happens.