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?

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Again, this is why normal people don’t trust you; you are not willing or able to have an honest discussion.

You must know that you are always talking at a tangent, and you must know that normal people can see this, so why do you do it?

The only rational take-away from reading your posts is that trans activists are completely dishonest, and have no issues about bare-faced lies to achieve their aims. In your case the aims seem entirely to harass women until they allow men into their single-sex spaces, their prisons, and their pants.

Plenty of bisexual women lesbians out there who date trans women.

Fixed that for you

But that’s not what we’re talking about here - there are many people, including gay people, who believe that you can be gay/lesbian while finding trans people of the opposite gender attractive.

Don't you mean "opposite sex but same gender" in your upside down parlance? Why would gay men find "trans women" attractive, exactly, do you think?

Are you suggesting there is no single trans woman in existence who a woman could chat to/kiss in a bar while still believing them to be a cis woman?

I'd certainly suggest the population of those MTF trans people is quite small.

Plenty of lesbians out there who date trans women.

What, they haven't worked it their partner's sex yet?

"there are many people, including gay people, who believe that you can be gay/lesbian while finding trans people of the opposite gender attractive."

So that would be a woman attracted to a transman, then? That would be same sex attraction.

Hearach15
Plenty of lesbians out there who date trans women.

Can you not see the error in this?

Concept of ‘exclusively same sex attracted’

It's not a concept ffs, it's a fact, one that is enshrined in Law. Describing it as a 'concept' as if it is something airy fairy is blatantly homophobic.

Ha ha ha. What am I reading?
Look if I kiss someone in a bar and we end up at mine, the clothes come off and they have no penis, a gun, a rope, a dildo, a pot belly, rapist tattooed on them or any other random surprise, my desire and said person are out the door. And I do not need to provide a reason (although I know getting them out will be an uphill task)

That does not change my sexuality. wtf?

A lesbian who accepts sleeping with males is bi. This is the one thing that changes your sexual orientation if you get into it after a few trials. Sex is the one time genitals actually matter.

People need space to experiment before settling down for what they then decide they prefer. They don't have to wear any of the labels while they figure themselves out.

And a man who likes a strong female body should not have his sexuality questioned. Fuck off with that shit.

The misogyny and homophobia from some posters on this thread is shocking but not surprising.

Comparing women who lift weights to men is nothing new, as is the confusion that female sexuality can exist independently from men.

I think what these posts prove is that LGBTQ+ is no longer fit for purposes for lesbians.

Back to political choices... if it's bearable to do so

I don't know if anyone has gone back to the women who were allegedly 'political lesbians' in the past and found out how they have lived since then.

From personal experience I think it is very common for women in particular to override their actual sexual feelings for other reasons. Women are socially taught infinitely more about performing their sexuality than about living it. There are women who also make choices that are theirs to make, such as being with a man they're not attracted to in order to have children, because the desire to have children is stronger for them than their need for an enriching sex life.

I believe women can make choices which could include being with someone they love and feel safe with even if that person's sex is outside their sexuality. That to me is different from sexuality itself being a choice. I'd suggest that quite a few 'lesbians who love transwomen' are the political lesbians of the current era. They're either bisexual or they are making a choice that works for them. They are not in a lesbian relationship.

What's the point of the word lesbian or the word gay if anyone can be attracted to anyone? If you're a lesbian and you like cock, you're just the same as anyone so why have a special word? Well, you can have a special word but I don't care about your special word. When I here someone describe themselves as gay these days I add a massive caveat in my head as they might very well be opposite sex attracted.

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.

1. I have taken as much starting point for thinking about this the views and experiences of my lesbian friends who ‘presume’ to define their sexuality as same sex attracted and therefore resist the efforts to make sex less important than gender
2. Goodness, why an ‘absolutist’ approach to any meaning? Definition in language enables us to communicate complex ideas. Can’t do that once every word represents a soup of possible meanings, made up by the person who has decided for themselves what a word now ‘means’
3. And though the word may be ‘absolutist’ it’s application does not have to define someone forever. I am straight. I once had a short affair with a woman. That short affair does not define me as a lesbian.

It's true that there isn't a word that specifically means women who are just attracted to women and transwomen. But most lesbians aren't so you can't just redefine "lesbian". Though if we were only talking about words maybe you could do what people do in other situations and attach asterisks - "she's lesbian (with asterisks)"

But it's not just words. There are other people involved - there's your friend, and her transwoman partner, and your friend's lesbian community. Does a lesbian community accepting your friend mean including her partner? You can see why that would be a sticking point. And that's nothing new. It does sometimes happen that lesbians find themselves attracted to men (not transwomen). And yes that's a shock and a change for anyone who's been well embedded in a lesbian identity and lesbian community. It means questioning a lot of things you've taken for granted about yourself and the people around you, maybe re identifying and a shift of community to one where you fit in better. And you can't always ask your own community to redefine itself just to fit you in. Many lesbians don't see transwomen as part of the lesbian community and that's not likely to change just to please your friend (and her partner).

You might ask yourself why it's so hard to think of your friend as bisexual? The bisexual community are one of the most open and accepting and least prone to restrictive self-definitions of any sexual identity community I've ever met. Unless things have very much changed recently your friend and her partner would both be welcomed. Perhaps you have some stereotypes or prejudices about bisexuality and bisexual people that you need to overcome?

@aseriesofstillimages Isn’t everyone here trying to define the theoretical edge cases and then force their understanding onto everyone else?

No. You have fundamentally misunderstood what feminists want to achieve. You are confusing discussion about societal norms and public poilicy with specifically prescribing people's lives.

There are lots of lesbians who have had relationships with men or might get drunk and shag a bloke. Some lesbians might disagree and draw the line differently but their personal self-definition doesn't threaten women's rights.

The problem is that if you redfine the word lesbian altogether (you didn't answer about what you want the new definition to be) then that has huge ramifications for the ability of the group that used to be called Lesbians to argue for their rights.

The further general problem is that people are using the idea that men can be lesbians to argue that actual lesbians are transphobic for not wishing to sleep with men.

So the individual cases that get discussed are generally where a man is describing himself as a lesbian or someone is trying to argue that men have always been included in that definition.

-----------------------------

If you want more concrete example, look at this story on a 'transwoman' footballer in a junior women's league.

reduxx.info/irish-lgbtq-inclusive-football-team-with-transgender-player-wins-womens-junior-final/

This man is very upset that he can't shower with the girls and that some people don't even think he should play football on a women's team. In this case, yes, I am saying that he isn't a lesbian and isn't a woman but can you not see why the rights he wants as part of his self definition make it a public policy issue? If he just wanted to self define as a woman no-one would give a shit.

Just quickly on what I think the definition of lesbian is, or should be (though it’s not like any of us are in a position to unilaterally define the term) - I think it means a woman who is primarily or exclusively attracted to other women. It is up to individuals to decide, when applying the term to themselves, how exactly they interpret that - both when it comes to having had in the past some degree of attraction to and/or sexual experience with men, and when it comes to any attraction they might have to trans or non-binary people.

So your vegan eats meat basically, and veganism now means pretty much nothing, but actual vegans shouldn't argue because be kind and the meat eating vegan really likes using the words they like and couldn't give a stuff about the impact on others.

No. No thank you.

Just quickly on what I think the definition of lesbian is, or should be (though it’s not like any of us are in a position to unilaterally define the term)

The term is already defined and is enshrined in Statute. Neither you nor anyone else gets to redefine it or use it to mean what you want it to mean or think it should mean.

Leave lesbians alone, leave their definition alone, put your homophobia away.

I think it means a woman who is primarily or exclusively attracted to other women.

Nope - just exclusively attracted.

What would "primarily" mean? 95%? 60%?

So your vegan eats meat basically, and veganism now means pretty much nothing, but actual vegans shouldn't argue because be kind and the meat eating vegan really likes using the words they like and couldn't give a stuff about the impact on others.

Yes and to continue the analogy, you are asked to dinner and they say they know you are vegan, but when you get there they give you a bacon sandwich and say that they assumed you would eat it as some vegans do.

though it’s not like any of us are in a position to unilaterally define the term

Does this ambiguity apply to other words op?

How does society function without clarity over shared definitions?

I have a bit of an issue with the original post in that "Setting aside the problems with presuming to correct another person’s understanding of their own identity" the poster then seems to go on to question lesbian's sexual identity. It feels deeply hypocritical to me.
Past that there is more to attraction than initial physical attraction. It is possible to find someone attractive, but for that physical attraction not to be enough to overcome an ingrained deeply rooted preference.
If two consenting adults are happy with each other, great enjoy yourselves! No adult should feel pressured or be criticized for what they look for in another adult partner. It's no one else's business. To each their own.

This is a bit of a side issue in a way, but it comes up a lot. And too often it goes unchallenged. About 'identity' .

aseriesofstillimages:
"Setting aside the problems with presuming to correct another person’s understanding of their own identity,"

Such problems are mostly illusory. In many cases it is clear we ought to correct people's "understanding of their own identity" - of their understanding of themselves and their own characteristics and personality.

Suppose a student think she is very clever and doesn't need to try very hard. She "understands her own identity" to be that of someone who gets 10/10 on any test. Do I, as her teacher, "presume" to give her the grade she gets on the test, 1/10, or should I accept her own understanding of herself as super intelligent and allocate her 10/10 in any case?

Or suppose I meet a young man at a party who thinks he's god's gift to all and sundry, and thereby identifies as a suitable partner for whomsoever he chooses. Should I "presume" to correct his understanding of his own identity (as an irresistible lothario) and tell him to piss off when he comes on to me, or should I just sleep with him so he can maintain his own understanding of his own identity?

Or imagine someone who thinks himself born to rule over others. His understanding of his own identity is as a kind of "world king": he thinks everyone should always do exactly as he says. Should we perhaps "presume" to correct his understanding of his own identity and restrain him for his own and our benefit, or should we go along with his own understanding of his own identity and kowtow?

Is a man's (mistaken) "understanding of his own identity" as a woman relevantly different from such cases? How, if so?

Well, I wouldn't walk up to her and say 'You're not a lesbian': not my place to do. But ...... I don't think that she's a lesbian.