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?

It's a total mystery why gender critical feminists wouldn't make themselves known.

Well, quite

Indeed, I mean, given that the trans response is to welcome some critical and robust debate, in a spirit of academic discussion, I just can’t work out why anyone would hide their light under a bushel on this.

Bloody hell. Still banging on about how to legally get males into lesbians pants.

It doesn't matter how many words you drown it in, we can all still see it.

Us simple people who are working a regular 9-5 job and just trying to feed our kids can’t really afford to risk being canceled can we? If it happens to a celeb they probably have a savings, a plan to sell a book, record or whatever or they have an entire team of people there to clean up the mess. What safety net do we have? Homeless shelters…

How gracious you are!

I find it interesting that you haven’t addressed the long and inglorious history of creepy men trying to persuade lesbians that their particular dick is the one they want, and explained why no transwomen actively pursuing relationships with lesbians fall into this category?

any chance you could touch on this point?

As pp have said, it's ridiculous to suggest that lesbians are "biological females or males with a GRC attracted to biological females or males with a GRC", because having a GRC is simply based on a stupid, unworkable law is completely arbitrary and has no bearing on appearance, presentation, presence or lack of a penis.

No, they shouldn’t put honey in the food of the vegans who don’t eat honey.

Then hold that thought, and the rest of what you wrote, too. I'm very glad you said all that, but a surprising number of people would tell you it's transphobic. Some people would say it was transphobic even if the transwomen didn't pass because transwomen are women, and if they don't pass as women, well, they're just extending the definition of what a woman is.

Though I am not convinced that "passing" as a woman physically is a thing, not once you get close enough for sexual intimacy. With or without surgery there are physical differences that would be hard to hide.

who are always claiming there are many more, too afraid to speak out - but I’ve seen no evidence to support that.

Look at the crowdfunders for GC cases, the huge increase in FWR traffic over the last decade, the number of letters to MPs and media resulting in this becoming a big story.

This is a niche issue so these large numbers of engaged people represent the tip of the iceberg- most people do not believe men can literally become women. They don't go on about it in much the same way that most people don't bring up the fact they believe the earth is round.

God help us all.

Also, what the OP is labelling as "trans inclusion" I would label as "homophobia and rape culture". Labels matter.

In the area of what?

Denying homosexuality?
Removing lesbians rights to define themselves?
Convincing lesbians they just haven't had the right 🍆 yet?

"What if I never find out she was trans?"
Delusional much? An open frontal surgery wound not only looks and smells differently than a vagina, it is also in the wrong place. Even if you couldn't tell because of the larger hands, the Adam's apple, the coarser skin, and the deeper voice you would definitely be able to tell when the clothes came off.

For myself the immediate concern would not even be about the surgeries it would be the fact that they’ve lied about a huge part of themselves to me. I’m the type of person that when I fall in love I share every aspect of myself to that person. Childhood right up to present day. If they can’t be honest as I am honest about myself then that would be a huge betrayal of trust in my opinion. Also if it’s a ftm trans person then they would leave me to believe that they can have children and then leave me to stress trying to figure out why it’s not working and thinking it’s me that is the problem I would never ever forgive them. Even if they simply said they are infertile but did not explain why. That is the most horrible thing to do to a person. A natural born male being infertile there is a small chance of infertility and creating a child. A trans man having a child with me a a guaranteed 0% chance. So the argument that some men are infertile is stupid to me. I hate that argument. It is so self absorbed and thoughtless.

I was thinking more a chat and a kiss, not full on sex

Again, I wasn’t talking about a serious relationship - I was just interested in the idea that if someone was unknowingly attracted to a trans person that might alter their sexuality without them realising.

So. Let me see if I've got this right. As a lifelong (just turned 60, been at this for awhile now), 100% on the Kinsey scale lesbian I've got extensive experience of the many and varied methods employed by men to attempt to 'overcome the Cotton Ceiling', so let's see if this one's any more interesting.

Op isn't lesbian, but on the basis of
a) an extremely convoluted and frankly impossible thought experiment,
b) deliberate misinterpretation of a law that was unfit for purpose from its inception and desperately overdue for reform and
c)the personal preferences and hurty feels of her bisexual friend and her biologically male partner I'm supposed to accept not only the redefinition of my sexuality and identity but also the right of biological males to insert themselves (sic) into my 'dating pool'.
Well no. No logic, no evidence and definitely no skin in the game.
3/10. Must try harder.

Part of your OP was about a chat and a kiss, not all of it. OK if I were 100% straight, chatted up a transman in a bar and had a bit of a snog, no i don't think it would mean I was bisexual. Transmen do pass better than transwomen* so I guess it's possible. If I got as far as sex, and was still aroused, then I think that would mean I was bisexual.

*Not the ones I know tbf but I do see that I don't know that many.

The only nonbinary person I know is my friend's husband and father of their two children. She's only ever been attracted to men. Did she become pansexual when her husband came out as NB? I don't think so myself.

Right on my Sapphic Sister!

what about "Nothing about us without us"
Suddenly it doesn't apply to Lesbians?

Bisexual Op; stay in your lane
and stop with propagandizing lesbians to like c*ck

And for every woman here, take a deep breath and repeat after me
NO!
"I have strong social and sexual boundaries and stop this minute your attempts to erode them."

Watching my words very carefully here.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this scenario went to court.

There have already been several cases where transmen have been found guilty of sexual assault because they have used a fake penis to have sex with a heterosexual woman.

Would a transwoman be found guilty of sexual assault for kissing and groping a lesbian without her consent, which she cannot fully give unless she knows that the person is a biological man.

We already know that the TRAs would consider this OK as a TWAW.

I find it a strange assumption that some make - and I think OP is making here - that the meaning of words as applied to yourself should be somehow more under your control than that of objective observers.

Yes people might hesitate to tell you you were describing yourself inaccurately, out of politeness. Up until you start demanding access to resources or spaces on the basis of your false identification.

I can identify as a brilliant driver all I like but if I actually failed my driving test I'll get in trouble if I head out onto the road without L plates. And if lots of people do it then actual qualified drivers will start talking about the problems of unlicensed drivers and what they're doing to insurance costs.

thank you for engaging with the question. Building on that, my point is that it is clearly somewhat arbitrary where you draw that line - you could in theory have sex with a trans man (assuming it didn’t involve their genitals) without having any reason to know they were trans (and acknowledging the potential legal issues - although the case law suggests it’s probably only an offence if they intentionally deceived you - and not that I’m saying it’s therefore ok, as no one should take risks about another person’s consent).

Clearly many people, like you, will stop finding a person attractive if they don’t have the genitals they expect - either because the genitals themselves are unappealing to them, or because it means they can’t have the kind of sex they would want to have, or because it reveals to them that the person’s biological sex is not what they believed it to be, and that changes how they see the person more broadly.

but there are other people for whom other aspects of a person’s physiology are just as - or more - important. I was chatting to a colleague who’s a gay man in the pub the other day, and we were discussing the nature of sexuality. I was saying how, as a bisexual, I find it hard to imagine how straight or gay people can know they will never, in the whole course of their life, fall for someone of the same/opposite sex. He was saying that his identity as a gay man is important to him, and part of that is the ability to say he will never find a woman sexually attractive, and for that to be believed. But he also said that he could find trans men attractive, because what is attractive to him about men does not hinge on genitals - it’s things like the hairy body and face, the six pack, deep voice.

Wouldn’t it make more sense, rather than trying to pin down and set in stone the boundaries of different categories of sexuality, to focus on what’s important - that no one should ever be pressured to have sex with anyone they don’t want to, and they don’t have to justify why they don’t want to. I hope everyone here would agree that a straight woman or bisexual should never be made to feel bad because she doesn’t want to have sex with (or kiss, or go on a date with) any particular man, regardless of the fact that she chooses to do those things with some men?

Wouldn’t it make more sense, rather than trying to pin down and set in stone the boundaries of different categories of sexuality,

In law the definition of a thing (in this case the sex of a person) is very important. By changing the meaning of the word you can in some/most cases be changing the meaning of the law.

And as has been proved on here the meaning of a word also has an impact on people at a direct and personal level.

I am also going to point out that in order to be something you have to be able to define it.

Can you give a comprehensive definition of what it means to be Black?

Can you give a comprehensive definition of what it means to be Black?

Can you be more specific as "means to be black" is a term that varies from black person to black person (using your terminology). As would what it means to be a woman varies from woman to woman.

I can however define what a black person is in the same way that I can define what a woman is, a lesbian is, a gay man is, a heterosexual person is and a Bi person is.