Transman wants to join lesbian group...

[pattihews]

A couple of months ago in my local supermarket I encountered a petite person with a neat little beard around their jawline. I saw them out of the corner of my eye, didn't stop to look properly, but knew immediately from the stature and hips and gait and the proportions of the face that I was looking at a woman.

Now this individual has turned up at a lesbian-only, female-only event and wants to attend regularly. Some members of the group are welcoming, others feel indignant that this woman has rejected womanhood and wants to be called by a male name, yet also wants the privilege (as we view it) of being part of an exclusive group of same-sex attracted females.

How have other lesbian groups dealt with this situation?

I would be more inclined to think that they had been through some bad experiences as a woman, or had struggled with puberty.

Same.

@ByTheGrace - I don’t think the group would have to admit a trans woman, because the group is for biologically female lesbians - his belief he is female would not make him female, nor would it make him a lesbian.

I don’t think you can identify into a group like this, but I do think you can identify out of it, and that is what the trans man is doing. They are biologically female, but as they identify as male, they can’t identify as a lesbian at the same time, and that should exclude them from the group.

Well, we've agreed to take the actions I mentioned upthread — change our routine and, if the transman manages to track us down, forward her to an inclusive group. I was scared of a split but we're all agreed that we're through with all the gender crap. One of the others said at the end how liberating it felt just to say no, and it does.

Bravo OP.

Females are not under contract to get under every bus for every potentially sad or vulnerable person who has needs. There are plenty of other sources of support for this person, and your group and its members and existing for its core brief matters just as much as that person does.

Yes. Women need to get better at saying 'no'. We are not the Universal Mothers of Everyone.

I'd be wary of the weasel word 'inclusive' though, as it's been drummed into us but is actually a false concept. We've been trained in it, because it sounds like TQ+ focused things are better and more correct than things that are equally welcoming to all. It is not a more inclusive group than yours, it is just a TQ+ focused group for LGBT+, compliant to the belief system.

A group that welcomes only believers in one political ideology is not inclusive at all, not to all homosexual females, and it is certainly not more inclusive than an L only group with only believers in biological sex.

One of the others said at the end how liberating it felt just to say no, and it does.

So glad for you and the group that you were able to reach a mutal agreement, and felt entitled to take as stand for yourself and lesbians rights!

LFest didn’t exclude males however, even straight men were welcome if allies

patti

Thank you for taking us through your decision making process on this.

I am not a lesbian, but I Can certainly see the issues that you have regarding who it include and who would make the group dynamic change to be not recognisable for the groups needs.

It must be a relief in the end to know that the group are fully working in the same direction.

And that people got to discuss it.

Somewhat off the topic, but when I first (more than a decade ago) saw various inclusive arguments I was struck by how they seemed to imply (to me, given how I define being a woman for myself) that some people expect, in the name of inclusiveness, to opt into womanhood and then to opt out of womanhood as they wish, based on what benefits them the most, and that this includes them demanding that the definition of womanhood to be changed to their new feelings definition and not the one most of us have been told we are all our lives.

This is how we got to 'pregnant people,' but also to the implicit belief that nonbinary female people and trans men can identify out of sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and violence and misogyny. I felt that they wanted all the goodies (reproductive rights made gender-neutral etc) and left me with only the crappy bits of being a woman.

I was so naive that I didn't initially spot that the erasure of the female sex and all embodied gender definitions IS one of the actual goals here, because I couldn't believe that at this time in history we'd return to 1950s sex roles and norms for most female people who are now just assumed to be comfortable with those.

The example discussed in this thread sounds like a case of wanting it both ways to me, though I understand how others might wish to be more generous and use the sex-based definitions in making their decision here.

May i suggest that you have a word at the bar you usually go to, and at any others you visit to say that this is a private group that is invitation only. If they know someone who is interested then they can pass details on you (NOT the other way around!) but that people can't just turn up or they will get refused entry to the group. Remind your group too - if you have a solid policy it is easier to say no if someone comes as the transman did.

Personally I think the man identifying as a woman would have more of a claim to join a lesbian group

No. He can get to fuck, the creep.
This is destroying the lesbian community.

That's the thing I really don't understand tbh - they are identifying as a lesbian. Surely if they want to ID as a man, then being female attracted would mean they are heterosexual.
It just makes me wonder if they are questioning transitioning. I also just feel uncomfortable about pushing a woman away who may need support.
I absolutely don't believe any female group, lesbian or otherwise, should have to accept a transwomen, I just don't feel the logic of biology is all important works if you exclude a transman. Although I can understand wanting to avoid the drama, disharmony and politics that a transman might bring, having had experience of that.

I think it did in the early days, but it had to bend to pressure. I went to the first four from 2010/11 (can't remember) and it was at the fourth that I noticed a change and drew a line.

This use of 'excluding' implies a belief that it is wrong and unacceptable for female people to wish to have a female centred space focused on a specific aspect of being female that they have in common for the purposes of mutual support.

Is that wrong?

Should females not be permitted to have this? Are they not worth enough in themselves without having to add males to prove their value to society?

It is definitely a complex situation, @ByTheGrace. I agree that this person may need support but I don't think that their needs come above the needs and wants of the current group members. It seems to me that, in every situation, women are expected to subjugate their own needs and feelings in order to provide support to any member of the trans community that demands it.

You've already made decisions, but never the less, I'm going to stick my oar in. I think there is some (accidental!) verbal sleight-of-hand on this thread, and I also think the new applicant's trans identity is a red herring.

We talk about the right to female-only spaces a lot on this board. Those are places like hospital wards, changing areas, toilets, swimming sessions where the purpose is access to space and the equipment in it while males aren't in it. The personal beliefs of any other women present are irrelevant. Maybe the woman in the next cubicle believes the earth is flat. Maybe she's a trans activist who shouts at babies. Nancy "you're a sexual racist" Kelley of Stonewall UK could be in the next swimming lane and she'd have a right to be there! I think trans-identifying women have a right to use public provision for the use of female people, because they are female.

However, your group isn't a space; you're a private group of like-minded same-sex attracted women who meet up; the trans-identifying woman here isn't asking to access the table or that bit of the bar. She wants to be with your group, and you are people with freedom of association, not semi-sentient service automatons. You're not being funded by the taxpayer to provide support to any and all same-sex attracted females in your local area. For toilets, female-only means "all females welcome" because toilets are objects that don't care who sits on them. You are not inanimate objects and you meet up with same-sex-attracted women of like mind.

Returning to my mention of a red herring, this is where that herring is hiding. Nancy Kelley of "sexual racist" fame is absolutely female and absolutely a lesbian. But it would be perfectly reasonable for you to exclude Nancy Kelley from joining the group, because her values are so different from yours. How can you have a social evening with someone who freely calls you racists for your sexual orientation? That situation wouldn't be improved if Nancy came out as a trans man and started taking cross-sex hormones. It would mean she'd taken her belief in gender identity philosophy further, if anything.

So you're not excluding this applicant for being trans, as such. You just recognise, as with Nancy, that the philosophical differences between her outlook and your own are irreconcilable. Her trans identity is an expression of her beliefs, and those beliefs bar the way.

Some people would still call that discrimination, but they presumably also think it's religious discrimination that churches only employ Christians as vicars, and never employ practising Muslims.

P.S. Cancel the cheque!

And, back in the real world, the vast majority of lesbian social groups (I belong to many) have members and organisers that are too busy enjoying themselves to fixate on and obsess over ID or sex of prospective members. They operate in a rough fashion of 'If the group feels right for you / lesbian ID is roughly a good fit for you, and you are here in good faith, then you are welcome', and this has always worked well.

Blurriness around the edges makes no odds to us, and people make valuable, supportive friendships with others in the groups when they feel alienated and alone in many other areas of their lives.

the vast majority of lesbian social groups (I belong to many) have members and organisers that are too busy enjoying themselves to fixate on and obsess over ID or sex of prospective members

But being a lesbian is about sex. It's people of one particular sex, who are same-sex attracted. OK, if you don't think that's the definition of a lesbian, because sex and ID are both silly old things to worry about, fine - if both these things are really of no import then your lesbian group is open to literally everyone. But if you reserve the right to give it a new meaning, presumably it's OK for a lesbian group to think it means what they want it to mean too.

That’s nice dear. Meanwhile, back in the real world, a lesbian is a female homosexual. So yeah, sex kind of matters in this situation.

Back in the real world?

You appear to be implying that the OP's situation is not genuine, which constitutes troll-hunting on thread.

But as you mention, the trans-identifying woman here will have plenty of "blurry-around-the-edges" groups like your own to join, and is really spoilt for choice. Thank you for confirming that.

this has always worked well

Maybe it hasn't worked well for lesbians who would prefer actual lesbian-only spaces and that is why they now organise in secret.

It's a club - clubs don't have to accept people, they decide. It's how people always manage their personal lives. Don't stress about it. And ignore any exclusionary gnashing of teeth - you neither have like someone or accept them.

Always interesting, the tone of superiority that groups that are not just for females are much, much better and that something being female only is grubby and stupid.

Sexist as fuck.

If it was my decision she would be allowed to join, however it would be clear we don't tolerate misogyny, sexism, homophobia or compelled speech.

So no drama over 'misgendering' will be tolerated - it is a lesbian group, she fits the criteria, but she will not be allowed to change the way the group works. We won't be listening to her holding court over why she is not a woman or lesbian unless she finds a way that doesn't rely on sexism (and literally nobody has been able to yet).

If she's able to go along with that then there's no harm her joining, but there need to be boundaries.