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?

But your assurance is worthless. You’ve been caught bang to rights on this thread lying about or just misunderstanding the act, so why would anyone accept an assurance from you that you know better?

Are you claiming to actually be a lawyer here, or just another bloody TRA who’ll say or write anything it furthers the cause of men invading women’s single-sex spaces?

@aseriesofstillimages Aww, is a nasty Minister telling you or your mates you've got the law wrong, and loads of people agree? I can assure you there are many more gender critical people in GLD who agree with her wholeheartedly, but have not made the Civil Servise woke police aware of their views. Yet. Remember, Bailey is very new.

I’m not a criminal lawyer, but my understanding is that it’s only clearly an offence if the person intentionally and actively deceived the other person. There is some conflicting case law on cases of non-disclosure (involving undercover police).

OP has already admitted there isn't any case law defining what a lesbian is but is relying on the EA definition of sex even though It's possible to exclude even GRC holding males from some women's spaces.

'someone else claimed that lesbian was defined in law.' @aseriesofstillimages yes, it is, here (thanks FatAgain):

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).

What are you trying to argue here?

I know a lot of people in the civil service - and GLD - who are fully supportive of trans inclusion. The most passionate are gay, lesbian and bisexual people. I am aware of a much smaller number of GC people, who are always claiming there are many more, too afraid to speak out - but I’ve seen no evidence to support that. The FDA conference certainly didn’t.

Once again, those are the explanatory notes, they are not part of the legislation. The term lesbian does not appear anywhere in the legislation, so it cannot be defined there.

@aseriesofstillimages Sure, complex law that some trans rights activists are trying to get rid of complaints (Alex Sharpe).

Still the case that if you, or your friend, were intentionally deceived as to the sex of their partner, you could choose to prosecute and will likely win. There's plenty of case law where the intent is proved.

@aseriesofstillimages So you're saying the term 'lesbian' is not defined or protected under UK law, even under the common law? Are you sure? I'd hate to waste my time to prove you wrong, seeing that you're a lawyer and I'm not.

How strange that you suggest that you aren’t just another TRA lying about the law yet you know the views on trans issues of all of these civil servants.

Is there a single one of you with the intelligence to not trip yourselves up like this?

Explanatory notes are part of the legislation. Necessarily so, as without them the legislation would be unclear in its aims and scope.

Come on champ, this is painful. What is your actual job?

Honestly I feel a bit like many get too caught up in labels on both sides. Transness can throw a wrench into things a bit. Frankly for the sake of dating apps I do think there needs to be more specific categories. But if you aren’t sure or there’s no word to describe it it’s okay and it’s not up to others to try to put you into a box. I know some people who describe themselves as heteroflexible for instance. Basically they are attracted to the opposite sex and open to others so long as they present and pass as the opposite sex. I suppose there could be names such as flex lesbian or flex gay but when others start getting more specific some folks get very outraged. It’s silly. As a bi woman myself I’m an outcast in the LGBT+ community because I’m only attracted to cis people. It’s not that I don’t like trans people and I don’t think they can be sexy. Sure they can be. But they do nothing for me in bed. I don’t feel like it’s my job to justify this. I don’t owe anyone sex. I And I’m not letting anyone guilt me into sleeping with them just because they call me a bigot for something I did not choose.

No one is convinced by your equivocation that being a lesbian needs to be based on whether you are exclusively attracted to a actual women and males who have a GRC @aseriesofstillimages

@aseriesofstillimages I wouldn't touch FDA with a barge pole, full of white men of a certain age, chasing woke cookies. What a joke using their conference as an example of a prevailing mood!

You're only aware of the brace ones. I'm not out yet, but am gearing up and waiting for a right moment. I think CS HR are not actually stupid, and have been quietly and effectively dealing with this crap for years. They've now been empowered by the stated Government position.

It is not a job of disgruntled civil servants to wage a war against the Ministers they ideologically disagree. The activists in CS do not have any real support or engagement, I've been in those meetings, they're awful-everyone just nods along in fear, with some woke 25-yr old 'queer' in het relationship provides the chorus.

Can you explain where I’ve lied about the Act please? I think there must have been some misunderstanding.

Well all I can say is that my experience is very different to yours, and we will all just have to wait and see where things go.

i’d be surprised though if the FDA was significantly more male than female in composition though - I would say the FDA members I know are more female than male. And certainly the members who stood up to speak in favour of the trans inclusion motion at the conference were predominantly female.

Once again, those are the explanatory notes, they are not part of the legislation. The term lesbian does not appear anywhere in the legislation, so it cannot be defined there.

The entirety of trans male entitlement to lesbian women's spaces is based on this and similar extrapolations.

That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I’m sorry if anyone has tried to pressure you into having sex with people you don’t want to.

And I agree on people getting too caught up with labels. I was reluctant to call myself bi for quite a while (having been attracted to men and women since around 13) simply because I resented having to categorise myself on the basis of the sex/gender of the people I was attracted to - it felt very arbitrary and unnecessary.

@aseriesofstillimages Every, single, trainer from FDA has been a white 50+ bloke.

Not enough experienced women around?

Or pure, ingrained left-wing union man misogyny?

Unions have ALL swallowed this crap, so what? Handmaidens happy to allow men in women's spaces on behalf of all women for a pat on the back and crumbs off the table don't prove anything.

@aseriesofstillimages do you believe that there is no such thing as being only attracted to the same biological sex as you?

Because either people who are need to be included in that or a change in law is needed to accompany them.

*accommodated

am aware of a much smaller number of GC people, who are always claiming there are many more, too afraid to speak out - but I’ve seen no evidence to support that.

Sorry to tell you we are everywhere 😂

Yep!

I don't talk about this stuff at work because it's too big a risk.