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 posted the link that refutes your claim just before your comment.

A GRC does not mean a person changes sex, and it does not mean they change their legal gender for all purposes. There are exemptions that are not counted as discrimination.

Other members of the opposite sex, not other men.

If I'm right on the name changes, Op works in law but isn't a lawyer.

For example, if a trans man wasn’t out as trans in his workplace, but they find out he has a male partner and discriminate against him because he is gay, that would be discrimination on the basis of him being same sex orientated. Admittedly, even if that wasn’t the case, the workplace would be discriminating on the basis of a perception that he is gay. But I’m pretty sure the correct basis would be the former - he is a man for the purposes of the EA, and if he is attracted only to men, his sexual orientation is towards people of the same sex.

I've archived the previous page because obviously, this never happens.

@aseriesofstillimages Whenever the legislation is unclear it's purpose is interpreted through the explanatory notes.

Suella Braverman used EA explanation notes in her latest speech to prove her argument.

You don't seem to understand how the law works.

For example, if a trans man wasn’t out as trans in his workplace, but they find out he has a male partner and discriminate against him because he is gay,

Can you parse this into plain English? If a workplace finds out a woman (a person without a GRC so a woman for legal purposes) has a male partner, how will she be discriminated against from being gay?

Discriminating against someone because you think they are gay is unlawful. Sexual orientation or a GRC are red herrings in this example.

On the second point, I would be very surprised if an employer would be found to have discriminated against someone on the basis of their GC beliefs if the employer sanctioned the person for telling a lesbian colleague who was in a relationship with a trans woman that they were really in a heterosexual relationship because her partner is really a man. The EAT Forstater decision made pretty clear that this sort of expression of belief is unlikely to be protected.

but in this case the law isn’t unclear, so there is no need to rely on the ex notes.

Honestly, on the basis of that speech I’d say I understand better how the law works than the AG does. Which is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

I hope you did some warm up stretches before making that reach. You've gone from complaining about women discussing the law on Mumsnet, to creating a fictional woman harassing someone else at work.

No, your claim was that it applies if you go through gender reassignment. The act refers to the legal,treatment if you receive a GRC. Are you going to pretend that you do not understand the difference?

I am most certainly a lawyer, and in this area.

Yes @aseriesofstillimages , 'the workplace would be discriminating on the basis of a perception that he is gay' - that could be a case, how would it apply in your friend's scenario?

Would she be discriminated against because everyone thought her partner was a lesbian and discriminated because of that?

Or would she be discriminated against if people at work didn't agree with her expressed insistence that she's a lesbian if she's in a relationship with a transwoman?

I suggest yes in the former and not a latter scenario, what do you think?

I was specifically talking about a person with a GRC?

Yes, you believing that is indeed a sorry state of affairs, especially given your “accidental” Mia characterisation of the act above.

How are males with GRC able to be excluded from some women's spaces, @aseriesofstillimages?

As is specifically laid out in the single sex exemptions?

@aseriesofstillimages If the law was crystal clear you would not be able to state 'Honestly, on the basis of that speech I’d say I understand better how the law works than the AG does'

You don't seem to accept that GLD, the whole effing department, agrees with her, and the Government will defend this position in court. This is what this speech means.

You're not unique in seemingly thinking that you understand the law better that the whole governmental department, but your confidence is frankly surprising.

Interesting.
A lawyer trying to redefine lesbians.
Why?

Its an unfathomable mystery. You'd think there would be more money in going after the problematic GRA legislation around succession, or peerages.
If saying 'lesbians are legally defined as women who are same sex attracted' was illegal it would be deleted every time. Yet here OP is is, having to complain about it.

The GRA explicitly provides an exception that a male with a GRC does not acquire the parenthood title of mother and a female with a GRC is not a father. Those are sex based terms.

Why they would you think that a male can be a Lesbian which is also a sex based term as defined under the Equality act.

From the GRC
"12
Parenthood
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child."

From the Equality Act
"Section 122*: Sexual orientation
Effect
55.
This section defines the protected characteristic of sexual orientation as being a person’s sexual orientation towards:
• people of the same sex as him or her (in other words the person is a gay man or a lesbian)
• people of the opposite sex from him or her (the person is heterosexual)
• people of both sexes (the person is bisexual).
56.
It also explains that references to people sharing a sexual orientation mean that they are of the same sexual orientation.
Background
57.
The definition is designed to replicate the effect of similar provisions in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Equality Act 2006.
Examples
• A man who experiences sexual attraction towards both men and women is “bisexual” in terms of sexual orientation even if he has only had relationships with women.
• A man and a woman who are both attracted only to people of the opposite sex from them share a sexual orientation.
• A man who is attracted only to other men is a gay man. A woman who is attracted only to other women is a lesbian. So a gay man and a lesbian share a sexual orientation."

@aseriesofstillimages In your OP you asked '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?'

Where do you think EA applies here, specifically? In the bar, in bed, or in a scenario your friend never finds out her partner is a biological male?

I can assure you the GLD does not agree with her.

Actually, that last case you asked about would be a prosecutable offense if sex by deception - you must, as a lawyer, know that @aseriesofstillimages.

If a lesbian finds out she's been deceived into sex with a male she would be entitled to prosecute, isn't that correct? Again, IANAL.

It doesn’t. As I’ve already explained, the EA and GRC came up because someone else claimed that lesbian was defined in law.