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?

I can’t actually remember now why it seemed like a good idea. I think this thread is sending me over the edge slightly.

The Internet is like that. You asked a question, you got some answers, maybe not the ones you wanted but that's the Internet. You could just stop digging.

As for whether your friend can reasonably call herself a lesbian - 30-odd pages and the answer is still "no".

To be honest, OP, I doubt many of the lesbians who have contributed to this thread really care about whether a TW who is coupled up with a woman says that their relationship is a lesbian one. I mean, they might roll their eyes, but it isn't hurting anyone.

What does hurt lesbians is those TW seeking a "lesbian" relationship trying to pressure them into sex, or into a situation in which they have to defend their sexual orientation, or turn a TW down and be "unkind". (Or risk physical violence or emotional abuse for turning down a TW, as has happened in, yes, a small number, of cases). Why should lesbians even have to engage with why they don't want to have a penis when they have gone to the trouble of seeking out lesbian spaces and labelling themselves so that they don't have to? Why do lesbians have to explain why they don't feel the same about a TW vagina or implants as they do about a female body?

Why, OP, is it ok for others to steal a term that lesbian women were happily using to try to find a partner in order to try to pressure them? And yes, challenging them on their sexual orientation, not disclosing they have a penis or neo vagina until the last possible moment is pressuring - some women may have sex because it is just easier to "get it over with" and get out of there safely. Is that what you really want? This is why lots of us struggle to believe that you are a woman, because lots of us have had situations with males in which we have had to work out whether it is actually safe for us to say no, or where we have given into sex because it seems like the least bad option at a particular point. And you do not seem to understand that. Rather, you seem obsessed with the idea that lesbians might be persuaded around, if only they find the right person who passes well enough to convince them that actually their boundaries were wrong to start with.

Anyone who thinks people should have sex they might not want, is a man. Anyone who thinks their sexual needs outrank the person they would like to have sex with, is a man.

It’s basically, ‘how to say you’re a man, without saying you’re a man’ territory.

There are some pretty desperate women who enable all this too.

To be clear, OP, we all know its quite possible for a lesbian to fall for a transwoman, complete with penis. People have all kinds of desires and the ability to change their minds, being individuals. Whatever makes them happy, it's their business.

It doesn't mean that the those two individuals are in a lesbian relationship. It doesn't change the definition of lesbian. It doesn't mean transwomen should expect lesbians to accept them into their dating pool.

You sound like you’re pleading. And no, there isn’t.

Really? I definitely thought the OP was a woman from the start.

Haha, the irony of this...😂

This Mumsnet FWR section's raison d'etre is the unique and persistent passion for abstract discussions of edge cases that could potentially (actually) be leveraged to demonise transgender individuals.

The utter absorption with individual anecdotes that are not representative and the moral panic that is entirely and utterly misplaced. All that misspent energy that could actually be used on something worthwhile! 😂

Did anyone ever find any statistically significant evidence of detriment to women in all those countries that have had more relaxed forms of gender self ID for years now? Been asking for a while now and this board seems to pride itself on the application of scientific process/ robust research ...and yet..nothing?🤔

The OP has posted nothing unreasonable and her argument is sound. This obsession with definition at the expense of another's right to define their reality is just weird. Why do some people think they have authored the dictionary? Language lives and evolves; no one person or group has a monopoly on its terms. It largely functions as a majority agreement, varying in context and time - agreements can change.

I have 2 friends who are lesbians happily dating transwomen, they're all just getting on enjoying their lives, thankfully their lesbian social group is not hounding them about ID, I'm sure they could do without it.

As OP pointed out, the core of what is problematic is inappropriate advances..not gender, and I have to say many lesbians unfortunately have experience of inappropriate advances made by individuals sharing their own chromosomes. It's inappropriate behaviour that needs targeting.

Well, I've been following every single post from the start.

If OP is genuinely a woman, she is a deluded, ignorant, self destructive one.

But my main observation is that OP really isn't interested in listening/debate/discussion. They just want to win the argument and are using obfuscation, distraction and avoidance. If OP had any real intelligence, they would understand that these tactics do not work when dealing with logic and reason. OP is 'clever' but not intelligent.

The reason this will go to 1k posts is because OP is determined to have the last word and isn't really interested in engaging properly with the discussion and core issues.

But so much admiration and thanks to the women (not cis women, not non-trans women) who have taken the time to point out, over and over and over, with intelligence, grace and reason, why the OP is talking compete shite.

But my main observation is that OP really isn't interested in listening/debate/discussion. They just want to win the argument and are using obfuscation, distraction and avoidance. If OP had any real intelligence, they would understand that these tactics do not work when dealing with logic and reason. OP is 'clever' but not intelligent.

The reason this will go to 1k posts is because OP is determined to have the last word and isn't really interested in engaging properly with the discussion and core issues.

I think OP has some empathy issues and some huge blind spots and is also quite a privileged person.

And the OP might get the last word.

But won’t have changed (m)any hearts and/or minds.

Precisely.

If you really don't know why you bring up the question of incest (either here or on a second date as some sort of philosophical intelligence test,) that would be worth exploring with a counsellor. Show them this entire thread.

suggestionsplease1

The OP has posted nothing unreasonable and her argument is sound. This obsession with definition at the expense of another's right to define their reality is just weird. Why do some people think they have authored the dictionary? Language lives and evolves; no one person or group has a monopoly on its terms. It largely functions as a majority agreement, varying in context and time - agreements can change.

It is interesting that you post about the expense of rights of one group, whilst ignoring that changing the meaning affects the rights of another.

Whether lesbian or woman if you can't define it you can't be it. If you have to change it to suit your own agenda then that word loses meaning especially when there is already a word for it.

As for your lesbian friends, its been discussed upthread.

Thank you, I think this might be the first post on this whole thread agreeing with me.

I have better things to talk about with my therapist thanks.

What makes you think I’m self-destructive? Other than my foolishness in repeatedly coming back here to be insulted and preached at

I’m more just baffled. You seem to have such ingrained, inflexible beliefs about what women are like and what men are like you can’t conceive of anyone not fitting your preconceptions.

I thought GC feminists believed sex is just biology, and everything else (other than offending rates) is just stereotypes?

OP, it's late. Go to bed. I'm going to take my own advice. Sweet dreams

Christ it's the never-ending cotton ceiling thread!

Pansexual - do anything to anything
Bisexual - his and hers matching towels
Lesbian - women. Human females. Not penis people.

I’m more just baffled. You seem to have such ingrained, inflexible beliefs about what women are like and what men are like you can’t conceive of anyone not fitting your preconceptions.

That would be an hilarious misinterpretation, particularly of those who are gender critical Everyone is entitled to their own quirks and personalities, dress sense, whatever.

But I know what a woman is - and what a lesbian woman is. You don’t get to redefine those, no matter how baffled you claim to be and how complicated you pretend it is.

*What makes you think I'm self-destructive?
*
Any woman that fails to comprehend the erosion of, and danger to, women's rights with all the claptrap you are spouting is self-destructive.

Christ it's the never-ending cotton ceiling thread!

It’s a futile endeavour for them granted, but only another 150-odd posts to go & we can (hopefully) draw the curtains!

It is interesting that you post about the expense of rights of one group, whilst ignoring that changing the meaning affects the rights of another.

I also find that argument of ‘ Language lives and evolves; no one person or group has a monopoly on its terms. It largely functions as a majority agreement, varying in context and time - agreements can change. ‘ rather interesting in the current climate of the push back about colonisation and such.

It is strange and hypocritical that those declaring that language lives and evolves don’t seem to be learning from the history playing out in front of their eyes regarding when an oppressed groups language is taken from them and changes forced on them.

It is almost like they cannot recognise the history of female oppression.

And OP wonders why in a thread about lesbians and forcing them to change language as well as to accept dick, there is only one poster who shares their view.

Oh no. That’s right, because a forum open to anyone and moderated to make sure it does, is the ‘echo chamber’ and ‘bubble’ and their group of lesbians they know well enough to have these discussions with is the majority view. And I wonder if those lesbians that OP has told us are fully in support of forcing these changes also have that same flexibility of morality with regards to incest. Have you asked them OP?