If you accept that trans women are women then it follows that they can (but not necessarily) love other women and thus be homosexual.

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. I can understand how each group has reason to be offended, depending on the answer.

What’s the problem with changing <the definition of homosexual> for the benefit of inclusivity?

Because sexual orientation is by definition exclusive. It the definition of heterosexual were changed to people who are attracted to one gender identity but either sex, it wouldn’t describe me any more. I’m sure I’d cope just fine, but then there’s never been a time when I could be persecuted or imprisoned for my sexual orientation. I can see why some people might feel deeply offended by that redefinition.

It’s a good job nobody is calling for that then isn’t it?

I’m actually not entirely sure.
Do you think that if LS had used different words to describe the same boundaries (female people attracted only to female people) the protesters would’ve found that acceptable? Would you think it acceptable?

Is it just their use of “men” that earns them the description “hate group” and justifies the protest?

I’m not sure this is so much about who owns the words as whether the distinctions made by the words can be tolerated.

1) Do you think that if LS had used different words to describe the same boundaries (female people attracted only to female people) the protesters would’ve found that acceptable?

2) Would you think it acceptable?

3) Is it just their use of “men” that earns them the description “hate group” and justifies the protest?

I can’t really answer 1), 2) is a yes from me as it is a more nuanced answer. 3) is also a yes in my opinion and could be conditional for 1).

I agree that different perspectives need to be considered but the idea of a harmonious “community” seems to be anything but and is probably better occasionally described as a collective containing a not insignificant minority of self-beneficial alliances that have no concern for anyone but themselves, often to the detriment of those others.

You could use that same analogy to describe feminists, the left, the right and cyclists. It’s by no means unique so please don’t interpret it as a slur, it’s just what seems to happen within disparate groups with no clear leadership (and why anarchism would be doomed to failure from the beginning).

Neither of us, as far as I know, were anything but supportive of Rachael so again, I don’t know why you brought her up in that specific context.

I didn’t bring her up, I qualified a previous comment is all.

Do you think that if LS had used different words to describe the same boundaries (female people attracted only to female people) the protesters would’ve found that acceptable?

Probably not. Their narrative is that trans women aren’t women, using slightly less direct language doesn’t change that belief (and in less punchy on a placard). But my answers to all those questions would be guesswork at best.

For my part, not that as squirrelking says I have any skin in the game directly, it’s the not language I have issues with personally. So, if you’re insinuating that I’m concerned about the use of the word “man” because I’m a man then you couldn’t be further from the mark. Rather I’m pissed off about the systematic bullying of a tiny minority of people who have likely already gone through hell to get as far as they have.

@tjagain

I know you’re out of this discussion but I have been thinking a bit about what you said.

The first point I’d like to make is that there is a narrative on this thread and in the wider media I constantly see where you and others have come to your viewpoint by listening to women while I and others have come to ours by listening to trans people.

In my case this is incorrect.

Yes, I’ve listened to the views of trans people but mostly I’ve listened to the views of cis-women. It seems the women you’ve listened to are afraid of trans people whereas the women I’ve listened to are afraid of the gatekeeping that inevitably comes when you exclude trans people.

They are worried about being hauled out of bathrooms because they don’t appear feminine enough. They are worried about having to ‘prove’ they are not trans or intersex in order to continue playing sports. Listen to the Scottish Rugby Blog podcast I posted a few days ago for an example of the concerns I hear again and again from women that led me to my position.

However, asking for evidence that fears are an actual risk is not shutting down debate. Many countries already have self identification so if the risks are genuine shouldn’t there be some evidence by now?

We’re already seeing the risks that come from setting up barriers that have to be policed over in the US.

We have two groups of women who are concerned by different things. Personally, I would say the risk transgender people pose is tiny compared to the risk the brave defenders of women’s spaces pose.

I’ll try not to disregard the views of your friends but please don’t disregard the views of my friends.

@brucewee I know you were addressing TJ but thats helpful knowing where you’re speaking from. Can’t say I disagree either, that’s a very fair position to come from. Also thanks, I’ve been looking for a word and ‘gatekeeping’ had just fallen out my head.

@cougar RE the “man” comment that wasn’t how I interpreted that question.

Probably not. Their narrative is that trans women aren’t women, using slightly less direct language doesn’t change that belief (and in less punchy on a placard). But my answers to all those questions would be guesswork at best.

Ah, but, by changing the language you would be changing the narrative. As someone who openly admits to having a habit of dealing in absolutes I’m sure you can appreciate the present language is exactly that. Change the language so its no longer an absolute then you change the fundamental narrative. Presumably they don’t want to do that so the question will forever remain hypothetical.

But again, that’s just IMO, they’ve already set their stall so I can see how it’s difficult to see beyond that.

I’ll try not to disregard the views of your friends but please don’t disregard the views of my friends.

Wise words.

Ah, but, by changing the language you would be changing the narrative.

Would you? I genuinely don’t know.

It’s academic anyway.

I think so, but only from the hypothetical POV I described. As you say, it’s academic really.

However, asking for evidence that fears are an actual risk is not shutting down debate. Many countries already have self identification so if the risks are genuine shouldn’t there be some evidence by now?

Which is the point I was trying to get across. Evidence should support and encourage debate, not shut it down.

As I said before, there’s a few posters on here who usually argue cogently using evidence but seem unable or unwilling to do so on this topic. On both sides.

I appreciate its a relatively new and emotive topic, data may not be widely available, but just seemed odd to me

If the number of posters complaining about being variously ‘shut down’ or ‘cancelled’ or ‘not allowed to speak’ had expended as much effort into having a discussion instead of whining then we’d probably have come up with a solution by now. 😁

If the number of posters complaining about being variously ‘shut down’ or ‘cancelled’ or ‘not allowed to speak’ had expended as much effort into having a discussion instead of whining then we’d probably have come up with a solution by now

The only person I’ve seen do that, is you. It may have been a ‘joke’, but you literally said ‘help I’m being cancelled’. Just to establish an actual fact. I don’t believe you are at all interested in having a genuine discussion, you seem far more concerned with putting your stuff an opinion forward as the definitive argument. You still seem to want to portray certain Feminist groups as ‘transphobic’ despite no evidence of such, and are still ignoring male violence towards women. Yours is typical of the kind of ignorant and misguided stance taken by some people regarding these issues, a stance which is toxifying the debate to the point where others with more nuanced and thoughtful viewpoints just can’t be bothered wasting their time. I get that you want your voice heard, by God you make a hell of a lot of effort in that regard, on this forum, but for the sake of others, why not just take a step back for a while and let others voices be heard for a change. Just a polite suggestion. It’s not all about you.

Regarding the issue of sexual consent; Lesbian organisations such as Lesbian Strength and Get The L out are objecting to being ‘erased’ by a tiny minority of so called trans activists who accuse Lesbians of transphobia if they say they don’t want to have sex with biological males, regardless of gender status. Because they will only consent to having sex with women, biological women. Because Lesbianism is all about female sexual attraction to other females. As a heterosexual man, I only consent to having sex with women, biological females. I do not subscribe to the view that ‘trans women are women’. That does not make me a ‘transphobe’ as some people might cry, as I am not actually erasing or denying anyone else’s humanity. I am fully supportive of Lesbians who want to protect their sexuality, and of women who want to protect their own status of womanhood and sex based rights. As are many trans people.

I think a lot of people need to actually learn the distinction between sex and gender. One is biological fact, the other is a human social construct. I have no problem with accepting someone within whatever gender they choose, be it masculine, feminine, or a more ‘fluid’ form.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/08/29/many-lgbt-organizations-caving-trans-activists-losing-lesbians/

I think a lot of people need to actually learn the distinction between sex and gender.

And we’re back to page 2.

And this particular circle of Hell continues.

If I were you I would go back and read the thread from the start. You might actually learn something.

Personally, I’m not going to type out the same thing over and over again only for people to completely ignore it and just repeat the same half truths and outright falsehoods over and over and over again.

If you can’t be bothered to even read the thread I really don’t see why anyone has to respond to you.

If you can’t be bothered to even read the thread I really don’t see why anyone has to respond to you.

I’ve read through the thread. I have the same opinions and views, and knowledge of the distinction between sex and gender that I started with. Sorry if you find that unsatisfactory. If you’d like to convince me your argument is the right one, you’re kind of going about it the wrong way…

As a heterosexual man, I only consent to having sex with women, biological females. I do not subscribe to the view that ‘trans women are women’.

Women don’t need you to consent to have sex with them in order to be women.

I think you’ve missed the point, Kelvin.

The point is that you want to define people in a way that aligns with your own sexual choices. Sleep with who you want, as long as they want to sleep with you. That has nothing to do with whether someone should be misgendered.

I have the same opinions and views, and knowledge of the distinction between sex and gender that I started with.

And yet you still find the need to state your opinions as if they are fact and tell the rest of us we simply don’t know these facts.

I’m never going to convince you of anything. You refuse to engage in any kind of dialogue and just continue to spout the same opinions as if they are facts with no effort to actual prove that your opinions have any basis in reality.

I’m never going to convince you because all you’re here to do is troll and I don’t really feel like playing this game with you anymore.

But yes, you’re going to come up with another blatant falsehood soon that others are going to repeat as facts and then I’m going to get drawn in again so I guess ultimately you win.

This place **** sucks, sometimes.

As a heterosexual man, I only consent to having sex with women, biological females

Having been happily married for 20 years, it’s not an issue I’ve had to face, but if I was single and dating a woman who turned out to be trans, I’m not sure I could make such an emphatic statement. You love who you love.

and are still ignoring male violence towards women.

And by the way, you are also ignoring violence by men against women.

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11690234/women-bathrooms-harassment

https://www.advocate.com/business/2015/06/17/detroit-woman-kicked-out-restaurant-bathroom-looking-man-sues

The only person I’ve seen do that, is you. It may have been a ‘joke’, but you literally said ‘help I’m being cancelled’.

Of course it was a joke, good grief. There was even a smiley at the end.

Multiple people have complained about being shut down.

Having been happily married for 20 years, it’s not an issue I’ve had to face, but if I was single and dating a woman who turned out to be trans, I’m not sure I could make such an emphatic statement. You love who you love

I rather think that if I met someone who was trans I would expect them to tell me at an early stage of the relationship. It’s something the other person has a right to know.