Gynesexual

[WomenShouldStillWinWomensSports]

So apparently this is now a thing.

But I got clickbaited and read a massive long article about this on Cosmopolitan earlier that has since seemingly been taken down as even Google can't find it now. The article was godawful and basically reduced lesbians out of existence and explained that being gynesexual means you are attracted to actual women and also anyone in a dress. 🧐 Not really the correct usage of the root word gynae and they (the idiots behind this nonsense) are also incapable of dipthongs.

It's also a shitty nice way for them to get a special letter G for all their male straight allies. Which also means they can claim the G away from a legitimate sexuality and overwrite it as "now co-opted by TRAs". They've already wrecked L and B for everyone.

As the original article is now gone (hopefully forever) I can only rant about the fact it ever got past an editor in the first place. However, this article sums up gynesexual nicely from a GC perspective: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/gynosexual-newest-lgbt-word-describe-someone-attracted-women

Wtf

It’s another grab at woman/female, isn’t it? Trying to smash any notion that biology dictates whether one is male/female man/woman. Gynaecology appointments for the feminine, not the female! (There’s already the absurdity of “gynaecologists can’t tell my hole used to be a pole!” - gynaecologists can not only tell; unless they’re urologist-gynaecologists they have no business looking. Even then I don’t know how many, if any, people, are actually qualified to manage that kind of care. But I digress.)

It’s all so bloody offensive. I’m assuming there wasn’t a matching article about androsexuality & how people are attracted to masculinity? No? <shocked Pikachu face> I am astonished, really I am.

They had this in March?

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sexopedia/a43413696/gynesexual/

OMG, what an absolutely awful article, I have no words!

Not going to read it. Too busy facepalming 🤦‍♀️

That article is awful. Cosmopolitan is awful.

I used to read cosmopolitan growing up as a young lesbian and it has always been deeply homophobic. There was never any reassurance that exclusive same sex attraction was normal or an option.

I remember reading tips like 'tell your man about the time you kissed a girl in a nightclub to drive him wild but always reassure him he's your favourite'.

Any reference to two women having sex was always titillating male porn never genuine lesbian relationships.

There is a different kind of homophobia now and it's just as awful.

My goodness that Cosmo article is incredibly homophobic!

But in its repeated assertion that “gynesexuality” is not the same things as being attracted to women, is it not also being transphobic too? It seems that “feminine” male people are not women according to Cosmo? I mean, obviously they aren’t, but I’m not sure that ties in with the central tenet in gender ideology that TWAW.

It’s almost like none of it makes sense.

I can kind of see a use for it. There are many men who are attracted to women and female-looking transwomen. Now, you could say they are bisexual, but many would not be attracted to other male-presenting males, so I think there's a grey area where their brain is 'tricked' (for want of a better word) into attraction to males presenting as female.

I say this as a bisexual woman who is attracted to males and females, but not female-presenting males or male-presenting females.

I'm surprised they don't swap the words "sexy" and "sexual" for some more nonsensical words eg "geny" and "genual"

It's a term for female non binary lesbians and heterosexual, male non binaries. I guess you can't be same sex/gender attracted if you claim not to be a sex/gender.

It's interesting though that they include female people who don't identify or present as female in the "attracted to" group. It's like "respect my lack of gender but I can see through yours and know you're really female."

For everyone else it's totally redundant and we'll never have to use it.

I can't speak for "most men" but I think it's likely that most men, given that most men are heterosexual, might experience attraction to a transwoman at first glance, or as long as an illusion lasted that this was a woman, but on realisation that this was actually a man the attraction would evaporate. Certainly Freda Wallace displaying himself excessively during a debate showed a sexualised image of himself, but not one sexually attractive to the average man, in my opinion.

Of course, sexual attraction is very personal and not always predictable. I think people's moral values affect how much they dwell on an erotic feeling, so for example, I can deliberately turn my attention elsewhere if I catch myself being inappropriately interested.

Fuck my life I've had enough of this shit.

Sexual attraction is based off of the secondary sexual characteristics, so these are all the traits brought about by puberty, and is why people are not sexually attracted to children. Trans people can gain those secondary sexual characteristics via cross-sex hormones.

But really what these new sexualities do is to try to cynically rebrand heterosexuality as part of the LGBT+ spectrum, it is to make everything trans-inclusive. It is another attempt to remove biological sex as having any real meaning, and to make people into bigots for not wanting relationships with trans people.

Yes that's the one I was trying to find. It popped up on the slosh pile when I opened my browser at work and I snapped a photo then Googled/DuckDuckWent the exact article title plus Cosmopolitan and nothing came up so it seemed like it had disappeared.
If I didn't have a photo I would have wondered if I'd got the details wrong. But no, it is that bad. Thanks for finding it.

Unfortunately, it's not just a sexuality for enbees at all though. The actual genderfeels of the person having the attraction is irrelevant in this sexuality, only the object of their attraction is relevant as in, the object must have specific female characteristics. So one could claim this sexuality if one was attracted to a lamp post in a dress or a post box with a long-haired wig on it as the dress or the long-haired wig have been conflated with signifiers of femaleness and therefore this sexuality would apply.

What matters is that they have fetishised "femininity" to the extent that it applies to a bunch of arbitrary characteristics based on stereotypes created by a cultural construct that is oppressive to women and does not serve us or move us forward (and in fact does the opposite). Since I first saw this term yesterday, I have seen Reddit conversations where people are authoritatively pontificating that all lesbians are gynesexuals and that bisexual women are now gynesexual and androsexual. Obviously if we think about it in terms of a venn diagram we can see that this would absolutely not be the case.

This is not a benign concept aimed at inclusivity. The first three letters of LGB.... are being comprehensively erased in a new attack aimed at redefining what a lesbian is, what a woman is, and why all us L's and B's should open our legs to men in dresses.

Like a PP said, this is simply to reassure heterosexual men that they're not gay, if they get caught out fancying a transwoman.

Then why are people on other sites already using this term to erase lesbians and reassign them a sexuality they didn't identify with, to ensure non-women are in women's sphere of attraction (instead of outside it for having a penis or being a previous owner of a penis)?

This is an attack on women's boundaries.

Additionally it's an attack from a different direction by ensuring heterosexual men (currently calling themselves "allies") can attack "TERFs" and claim any response is a hate crime against their newfound sexuality.

Hopefully it just doesn't take off.

Oh look its the next shiny thing.

Which as usual involves mugging others and snatching then colonizing what they had.

Previous articles that I've seen on this were clearly aimed at getting heterosexual men to date trans women.

This isn't specifically an attack on lesbians, it is an attempt to get straight men and gay women to accept trans women and straight women and gay men to accept trans men.

There is forced grouping of straight men with gay women, and it again is a desire to expand LGBT+ so that nearly everyone is in the group and gives more power to lobbying groups.

They think being attracted to the femininity implied by dresses, heels, nails and lashes is a radical movement away from the 'cishet' norm?

Ah bless.