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 you said they referred to themselves as ‘he’? Although I’m not sure how someone manages to refer to themselves in the third person in conversation.

Nowhere have I suggested that ‘hassling’ anyone for sex is ok. There’s a difference between coming onto someone knowing they won’t be interested, and coming onto them when you don’t know whether or not they might be interested. Obviously the first is not ok, but the second is fine, as long as it’s done respectfully and with regard for boundaries.

I do keep saying that ‘no’ should always be sufficient - you shouldn’t have to give a reason.

How about ‘no thanks’. Or, ‘no thanks, i’m not attracted to you’. Or even ‘no thanks, i’m not attracted to trans women’.

Because men can magically become women if they put on a skirt!
Don't be so unkind.
You'll hurt their feelings.

"How about ‘no thanks’. Or, ‘no thanks, i’m not attracted to you’. Or even ‘no thanks, i’m not attracted to trans women’."

You realise the last response gets death threats on Twitter OP? You realise that lesbians are being hounded for saying that last response?

And what… get abused for it?

Get reported for hate and micro aggressions? Get removed from the venue? Get rejected by groups that lesbian depends on and has been a member for years of? Lose friendships?

Do you actually read what people post and what has been written from people experiencing adverse reactions to rejecting these males? Do you honestly believe lesbians are making this up?

And yet, here you are suggesting actions that have a much higher likelihood than they should of causing harm to them.

You really seem to not be prepared to take in what you have been told in this thread at all.

How about ‘no thanks’. Or, ‘no thanks, i’m not attracted to you’.

How about transwomen,who know very well that they are male, stop trying to coerce same sex attracted women to have relationships with them. Problem solved no rejection and no posdibility of coercive rape.

I do keep saying that ‘no’ should always be sufficient - you shouldn’t have to give a reason.

That sounds very theoretical. Almost as if you’re not a woman and have never been approached by a persistent man …

I do keep saying that ‘no’ should always be sufficient - you shouldn’t have to give a reason.

Well, you'd have hoped so, wouldn't you. But the evidence is that many males (regardless of gender) wont take no for an answer. I'd take a guess most women would go with ‘no thanks’. Or, ‘no thanks, i’m not attracted to you’ as the first level of rejection. But what would you recommend when that isn't enough? For how long do they have to be polite and kind?

That sounds very theoretical. Almost as if you’re not a woman and have never been approached by a persistent man …

It’s such an odd thing to keep repeating isn’t it? Of course “no” should be enough. We can all agree on that. But all women have experienced that it’s sometimes not enough, and sometimes saying it can be dangerous. And most of us have experienced that on the whole it’s better to try to deflect a situation where you might have to injure a fragile and potentially unstable male ego with a direct “No.”

And it’s not like the kind of man who wants to redefine lesbian sexuality to suit himself is going to take no for an answer better than the average man.

There’s a remarkable lack of understanding of women’s experiences on display here. I don’t think there’s even a desire to understand.

incidentally this thread title annoys me SO MUCH. The scare quotes!🤬

'I'm not attracted to transwomen' - are you serious?!

Have you met many trans activists?

Oh wow so that's the way to stop rapists. Job done. Just say 'No'.

You are so clever. Thank you for coming into our lives and helping us, we should just say 'No'. And the bad man goes away.

incidentally this thread title annoys me SO MUCH. The scare quotes!
The word 'concept' annoys me every time I see it. It's not a 'concept' ffs, it's the basic definition of 'homosexual'. The fact that some people may find they're bisexual, maybe 'homogenderal' (and that's absolutely fine of course!) doesn't somehow make same-sex attraction a 'concept' rather than a reality for others.

Absolutely! And even when mislabelled as a "concept", it is still simple to understand. Yet 28 pages later, here we all are. FFS!

So you think saying “I’m a lesbian so I’m not attracted to you because you’re male” would stop a rapist?

Exactly.

It's been described on the thread several times as to how that question in reality goes.

And it goes that way because people like the OP get actively involved in muddling the definitions of homosexuality and lesbian for male people who want to use female homosexuals, their words and their spaces, and encourage those males in this entitlement and misogyny.

The endless repeating of 'you can just say no' is the OP's eyes closed and washing hands of the consequences of the OP's choices and politics clearly stated in the highly offensive thread title so the OP can avoid any personal responsibility for their actions.

The endless smiley refusal to listen to the voices of female homosexuals or the issues raised or to see the unpleasant bits of their agenda is also extremely offensive. And superior. And really rather colonialist. But the OP identifies as being lovely and not into coercive sex, and is representing a political position that believes that feelings create reality, that a personal reality can be created by selectively choosing the nice bits and ignoring the unpleasant realities, and that anyone who declines to enable you in your personal reality is a nasty bigot who is subhuman. (And is definitely not equally entitled to create a reality and demand the OP recognises it, because this is the privilege only of TQ+ people.)

I was suggesting an alternative to saying ‘no thanks I’m not attracted to males’. If the person is going to react badly to what I suggested, do you think they’ll react any better to that?

In reflection, given the above, how good for LGB homosexual people is this particular aspect of TQ+ politics?

Is the LGB really better with the T when one looks at belief systems like this?

I mean, I don’t often get approached by men these days, as I’m in my 40s and go out clubbing about once a year. It used to happen a fair bit back in the day and yes, I agree it is distressing and unpleasant and shouldn’t happen. But all of this discussion about trans women feels like a distraction from the real issue, which is about the unacceptable behaviour of individuals.

‘no thanks I’m not attracted to males’

This is the fact of homosexuality

Lesbians are female homosexuals. They do not do males. How those males feel about it, or choose to name themselves, what entitlements they feel to require that a female homosexual perform some internal transubstantiation or submit themselves for retraining, female homosexuals do not do males

If male people would stop trying to re arrange female homosexuals to meet their own needs, and would be able to recognise and respect a female being homosexual without having a meltdown that this female body is not revolving around them, there would not need to be this conversation in the first place.

But this is all implying that women who aren’t lesbians have less right to say an absolute ‘no’, or that their bodies should be available to any man?

It's about social conventions and contracts, isn't it?

Males are bigger and stronger and can force their way into woman's rooms/toilets/bodies if they wish.

Not too long ago it was considered unthinkable for any decent male to be in the women's toilets. It was also a given that any decent male would simply leave a lesbian alone, understanding that a lesbian is not into males. If it wasn't apparent that a woman was a lesbian, a simple 'I'm a lesbian' followed by 'oh, sorry' would have been a perfectly normal exchange.

Now we have people attempting to redefine terms and muddying boundaries, in the name of validation and not hurting feelings. But the thing is, for women, those previously tacitly understood conventions provided actual physical safety and freedom from fear. Are you trying to tell us that our safety and freedom are less important? And then being confused that women get angry and try to reassert their boundaries?

But this is all implying that women who aren’t lesbians have less right to say an absolute ‘no’, or that their bodies should be available to any man?

Only if you are determined to read artichokes post with a bad faith interpretation.

So you think saying “I’m a lesbian so I’m not attracted to you because you’re male” would stop a rapist?

It allows you to create "lesbian only" and "women only" spaces where other women will defend you against an intruder. Rather than everyone being kind and inclusive and creating situations where you'll be having that conversation and defending yourself alone.