Butches against transpohobia

[Catsanfan]

I saw a woman wearing a T shirt saying 'Butches against transphobia' today. It astounds me that some lesbians would think that way. I wonder what she would do if presented with a penis on a date?

We know that Jane cannot answer these questions. It's an entirely faith-based ideology. Somehow she's ok, and other women are supposed to be ok with the magical thinking that a male can one day be a boorish misogynistic pest, and a few specific words later women are supposed to believe he's part of our sex class and welcome him into everything for women. No.

The definition of lesbian is SUPPOSED TO BE FUCKING NARROW!

It is supposed to exclude literally everyone who isn't within the group of people the word is supposed to describe, i.e. biological females who are exclusively attracted to other biological females.

If people who are biological males and/or are attracted to biological males start calling themselves lesbians, ACTUAL LESBIANS NO LONGER HAVE A WORD FOR THEMSELVES.

What part of this are you struggling to understand? The fact that actual lesbians have been erased from the English language? Or why that is wrong?

You don't say whether Ken is cis or trans. If Ken is cis, then female hormones unite Jill and Jane against Ken. If Ken is trans post op, breast tissue and genitalia unite Jill and Jane. It really isn't as complicated as people make it out to be. If someone isn't into any of them, fine. I have no skin in this game, but I am bemused at just how angry this issue seems to make people. If you don't want to sleep with someone, don't! You don't have to have a laundry list of reasons why not. Just don't get angry when people self define as they like and don't agree with your definition of themselves.

Sorry, not sure what went wrong there. I meant to quote @suggestionsplease1's 20:29.

I’d like to see an opening up of the language around sexuality to find new options to take into account the preferences of both sex and gender attraction - separately and together.

I disagree that we only need words that describe same sex and both sex attractions.

It would make sense to me to be able to distinguish those attracted to only same sex, and those attracted to both same sex and people identifying and presenting as the gender associated with that sex.

I’m not sure whether the language will evolve to create new words to deal with this or it will just start modifying the current ones.

I don’t think bi/pan covers the above because I’d see bi as someone who is open to (don’t shoot me) cis women and cis men. And pan as someone who is open to all men and women however they identify/present themselves.

But that doesn’t cover the person who is attracted to / wants to date only women and trans women. Or only men and trans men.

A lesbian is an adult human female attracted to adult human females. HTH.

I am bemused at just how angry this issue seems to make people

Because I don't like being forced to lie or share intimate female only spaces with any males. While many of these males are just fine with making women uncomfortable in exactly this way. Gender identity ideology is a sexist, misogynistic belief system which you don't really seem able to defend apart from with glib platitudes.

I honestly think that would make the most sense. Unlike some on this thread, I understand that language evolves, but I think new understandings of the relationship between sex and gender maybe should be reflected in language.

So what unites Jill and Jane is that Jill has taken synthetic hormones and had cosmetic surgery to attempt to mimic the hormones and body parts that developed naturally in Jane's body?

I'm not sure that is something they really have in common. I'd say that is something they don't have in common.

Nothing else?

Nothing that could be described as any kind of "identity"?

Nothing that could be characterised as "feminity", which is what you previously claimed all women have in common?

Ken is what you would call a "cis man". If Ken were a trans man he would have an awful lot in common with Jane but not a lot in common with Jill.

I don’t think bi/pan covers the above because I’d see bi as someone who is open to (don’t shoot me) cis women and cis men. And pan as someone who is open to all men and women however they identify/present themselves.

A million identity labels exist, which you are free to use. I won't legitimise the existence of "genders", or "cis" as it is a belief I do not share.

'Cis' can seriously get to fuck

Unlike some on this thread, I understand that language evolves

This isn't "evolution", it's a hostile takeover.

Oh God, the 'women do better when men freely destroy womanhood, safe spaces and resources' bullshit has been pulled out again

Can someone with more energy than me, who is less depressed about the rampant homophobia they're experiencing here, link to one of the eleventy billion threads where this has already been debunked in depth?

It won't make any difference to the relentless pulling out of the same exhausted card, I know. Nothing makes any difference. Reality, other people's feelings, other people's voices, it doesn't register.

Now this is something I think maybe we can agree upon?

I don't object to people having words for their own identities and sexualities if they don't feel they are accurately described by the words already in general use.

All I am asking is that they make up NEW words for these things rather than appropriating existing words for other groups which do not include them, leaving those groups without a word for themselves.

Why don't they do this?

It won't make any difference to the relentless pulling out of the same exhausted card, I know. Nothing makes any difference. Reality, other people's feelings, other people's voices, it doesn't register.

Quite.

There is a huge difference between language "naturally evolving" and pushing an ideology that forces to change existing definitions because otherwise it's even more clear it's a load of misogynistic nonsense.

If you want to push your nonsense I agree that you should find your own words instead of colonising terminology that affects groups of people that have been seriously oppressed in the past like women and like LGB people.

The appropriation of the words woman and lesbian for example is vile.

A woman is an adult human female.
A lesbian is a same sex attracted female.

What @OneMorePlant said.

'New understandings'.....

Hello Native Americans/Indigenous Peoples, I'm a Christian and I'm here with New Understandings about how you are going to live your life and be Better Like Me. I identify as this being a Good Thing.

You're using the exact same words. Do you think colonalism is a good thing?

Of course it is something they have in common! And it is you who talked about 'identity', so you are shifting the goal posts. You asked what they had in common, and I answered. I will be upfront and say that I am not a scientist or a doctor, but then neither are many people who are gender critical.

Oh but Frood oppressed people support each other, we are told, and privileged western people with "identities" are simply the most oppressed people ever. So of course it's fine for them to do whatever they want.

Of course it is something they have in common!

The effect of exogenous oestrogen on a male body is not the same as it is on a female one. I don't need to be a scientist or a doctor to not think a male taking some pills has anything in common with women.

That's just a way of justifying dehumanising and oppressing a population group without feeling like a bad person.

One person's new understandings is another person's factual inaccuracy and batshit.

There is a lot of relying on 'be kind' to prevent speaking plainly, but when there is no kindness, tolerance, reciprocation or equality involved, fuck that.

This.

And to answer my own rhetorical question about why they don't come up with new words for themselves, the reason why is this.

If males who identify as [whatever it is trans women believe they are identifying as] called themselves "borkles", rather than "women", they would not be able to use women's spaces, because women's spaces are for women and not for borkles.

There are no toilets, prisons or sporting categories for borkles, only for men and women, so they would have to campaign for these things to be created.

And if borkles who are exclusively sexually attracted to women called themselves "borklespians", rather than "lesbians", they would not be able to argue that lesbians should date them, because lesbians are attracted to other lesbians and bisexual women, not borklespians.

That's why they don't make up their own words.

You cannot say that 'cis' is not valid. You can dislike it (why, I'm not sure) but it is real. You don't have to describe yourself that way if you don't want,but equally you don't get to say I can't describe myself that way.