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?

You should look up "positive action" in the Equality Act. It's acceptable to have things just for women, or just for lesbians, as long as it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Do you think you can have an organisation just for BAME or disabled women, or is that illegal?

excluding men and/or trans women from an event/venue might be unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act.

Unless they have a GRC "men" and "trans women" are the same category under the EA.

The law on clubs and societies:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/what-equality-law-means-your-membership-association

Yes.

(Otoh there's no legal basis in the U.K. for anything being single 'gender' rather than single sex, unsurprising as the latter has a clear definition and the former doesn't and isn't a protected characteristic.)

Unless they have a GRC "men" and "trans women" are the same category under the EA.

The same sex category, I should say. The only difference between the two is the protected category of gender reassignment.

Even with a GRC it's perfectly legal under certain circumstances for transwomen to be excluded from women-only single-sex services, and transmen to be excluded from men-only single sex services.

Yes, exactly. Just making it clear that whatever the disputed grey area of "legal sex", there is no difference in the Equality Act between a male with and a male without the protected category of gender reassignment apart from that protected characteristic, unless (arguably) the "transsexual" bio male has a GRC.

'Just as it’s not for me to unilaterally define ‘lesbian’, it’s not for you either. If someone carried out a survey of the general public, I think it’s likely a majority would say that a man who is attracted only to men, including trans men who have had hormonal/surgical intervention, is gay, and a woman who is attracted only to women, including trans women who have had hormonal/surgical intervention, is a lesbian. And likewise straight men who are attracted to trans women and straight women who are attracted to trans men.'

OP, regarding this 'majority' claim, do you consider the inhabitants of other continents human, too?
In any case, I challenge you to find ANY society in the world, Western or not, where the majority of people hold that women with penises are a thing.

I’m not sure whether in some cases excluding men and/or trans women from an event/venue might be unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act.

As stated, yes you can exclude all men. What you can't do is include some male people who are transwomen and exclude all other men, as the other men can now claim discrimination.

Transwomen are men

Women don’t have penises

Men who don’t respect women and their boundaries are unpleasant people

it is all very simple

If you disagree with any of the above then you don’t respect women

Just as it’s not for me to unilaterally define ‘lesbian’, it’s not for you either.

Do you mean redefine lesbian?
Lesbian already has a clearly defined meaning until the trans lobby redefined or lost the definition of woman

that was to @aseriesofstillimages

If someone carried out a survey of the general public, I think it’s likely a majority would say that a man who is attracted only to men, including trans men who have had hormonal/surgical intervention, is gay, and a woman who is attracted only to women, including trans women who have had hormonal/surgical intervention, is a lesbian.

Why are we asking the general public what homosexual females are allowed to call themselves?

Instead of, you know, actual homosexual females? A number of whom are repeatedly telling you on this thread that no, this is not ok.

Do you believe in majority opinion from those with no skin in the game when deciding policy for a minority group? Is all the stuff about respecting a minority in naming and defining themselves now old hat?

No arguably about it - in certain circumstances it's perfectly legal to exclude bio males with a GRC from women's single-sex services, just as it's legal to exclude bio males who don't have GRCs. They aren't being excluded on the basis of their gender reassignment, they are being excluded on the basis of them being male.

The problem isn't just one of legality, it's also the issue of the "privacy" rights with the GRC so you would have to be able to make the case that they were definitely male, but you can't demand to see the GRC. I do see it as more of a grey area.

Although it's possible to exclude males with GRC from female spaces, the wording of the EA implies there is a higher bar to do so. So I do see that group as slightly different.

I do believe that the GRA needs to be repealed. It's a poorly thought out, largely superfluous law which is weaponised to open up spaces to all males.

I agree Eresh or if not then radically reformed, and the EqA needs to be tightened and more explicit.

If, for whatever reason, a GRC is deemed necessary it should be an additional document and the sex on the Birth Certificate is not changed, it is supposed to be recognising gender not sex after all.

The secrecy around a GRC is ridiculous it's what has opened the door to the weaponisation of opening all spaces to males, it was always going to do so and it's criminal that the Act went through knowing this would be the inevitable outcome.

Plus the use of stereotypes in the Act is insulting and offensive.

It was a badly thought out, badly made law, and Hansard demonstrates every possible thought out and discussed pitfall has come to pass plus a whole lot more because they did not foresee how far it could be exploited.

It should not be a legal entitlement for anyone to be counted as something that in material reality they are not. And thereby entitled to the spaces and resources created and set aside to meet the specific needs of those who do have that material reality and cannot identify out of it via a legal fiction. This should not be a 'right' for anyone. Law has to be based on material reality and clear shared meaning, and this experiment has been an appalling failure of responsibility for many groups, homosexuals, females and children in need of safeguarding in particular.

If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it, but ‘no thanks’ should always be accepted, whatever comes after it. If a trans man came onto a lesbian and she said ‘no thanks, I’m a lesbian’ they should also get the message, even though that response wouldn’t make sense on your definition of lesbian.

If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it

No. They should simply accept that her being a lesbian means they aren't included in her dating pool, like any other male.

We're back to "who cares that "vegan" means something, I want to be a bacon-eating vegan, I don't care whether vegans then get served bacon because people think they eat it".

Is 'no thanks I'm a lesbian' not kinder than 'I find you hideously unattractive', for example? 🧐

If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it,

If you're a transwoman, then putting a female homosexual in the position of having to say no to you is probably not too kind either. Female people do not have a higher responsibility of kindness. It's not the job of lesbians to protect male egos or to provide any other services.

If a trans man came onto a lesbian and she said ‘no thanks, I’m a lesbian’

Why would a female homosexual say 'I'm a lesbian' as a reason to say a polite no to another female? The gender identity is not relevant in homosexuality, it makes no odds at all. It's the sex class that matters. In the case of a TM propositioning it would be quite simply whether or not the attraction was reciprocated.

Op: If you know the person you’re talking to is a trans woman then there are probably kinder ways to say it,

Lesbian: You are a man in a dress: go away
we need to stop all kindness and puncture this with the sharp bite of reality.

as for the transman, as a lesbian I discussed something close to this a few pages back in my own life: chatting up a cute butch lesbian possible date, who then called herself 'he' .... I turned her down and told her frankly that I love women and men physically disgust me, so calling yourself 'he' was an utter turn off.

Ladies: truth over kindness!