Lesbians with penises
Now there’s a headline.
Bid to exclude ‘people with penises’ from lesbian events ‘unlawful’
But lesbian events are for lesbians, and “people with penises” are men and men can’t be lesbians because lesbians are same-sex attracted women.
Lesbians will be breaking the law if they exclude biological males who are transgender from social events, after a controversial discrimination ruling set to become a national test case. Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination commissioner Sarah Bolt has ruled lesbian events that exclude trans-women carry a “significant risk” of breaching legislation.
And lesbian events that are forced to include men are guaranteed to be no longer lesbian events.
Men can be trans all they like, knock yourselves out guys, but they’re still men and they’re still not lesbians.
In a decision earlier this month not yet publicised, Ms Bolt refused to grant an exemption to allow the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Alliance to exclude “biological men” from lesbian events.
What a wicked thing to do.
Launceston lesbian Jessica Hoyle, who made the application on the alliance’s behalf, said it aimed to exempt organisers from discrimination complaints if they excluded trans-women.
On account of how they wanted it to be a lesbian event.
“I want to exclude people with penises, because being a lesbian is about same-sex attraction. It’s not about same-gendered attraction … There are many events that cater for the trans community in Tasmania that are all-inclusive.
“This event was going to be just for lesbians who are same-sex attracted.”
That is, just for lesbians.
Transforming Tasmania said the exclusion of trans-women from lesbian events was discriminatory. “Ultimately, it’s denying the reality of the existence of trans-women, in fact all trans-people,” said Transforming Tasmania spokesperson Charlie Burton. “Trans-women are women. Full stop. It’s baffling that (LGB Alliance) don’t accept that … Trans and gender-diverse people … have long been an integral part of the broader community.”
No, trans women are not women full stop. Trans women are men who “feel” they are women, or who “identify as” women, or who call themselves women. They’re not actually literally women. The full stop does not belong in that sentence.
Hopefully this goes national, we need to have this goddamn conversation. Plus, the sheer number of people that will be peaked by this absurdity will be impressive.
I don’t know whether this kind of legal decision is likely to have wide promulgation on the general population, or indeed how much of the general population would empathise with the plight of lesbians; but this kind of in your face batshitness is, I fear, what it will take for all those masses of people who think ‘trans rights’ is about being nice to people, to realise that Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
bascule
Wait, what? Recognizing that women don’t have penises, and that woman/woman sexual orientation is penis-exclusive is “denying reality” now? WHAT f”ing “reality of the existence of trans women” makes them at all relevant to a group that is exclusively women/women related, and has no connection to, interest in, or reason to consider penis-people at all?
That’s just flatly not true. By definition, only men can be “trans women.” Trans women are men. The penis is sort of a giveaway about that.
It’s not a bit “baffling.” What’s truly baffling is how these buffoons can say with a straight face — and not be immediately laughed out of the room — that men, mostly fully intact bepenised men, can be any kind of woman at all. It’s a charade, an unbelievable one at that, to pretend that a man is a woman if he says so.
I don’t believe that’s true, but even if it is, so what? See that little phrase at the end? “…part of the broader community”? That part right there? The “lesbian” group is a smaller portion of the whole. It is a *narrower* part of the community. You may be part of the “broader community,” but that doesn’t mean that you are in every narrower subgroup. If there were an event intended for gay men, lesbians would necessarily be excluded, for example. Ever heard of BFOQs, in the labor context? That stands for “bona fide occupational qualifications,” and is a recognized exception to the general rule of equal opportunity in employment without regard to color, creed, sex, race, national origin, religion, and so on. There are some jobs in which, for instance, only a person of the same religion can perform the proper duties of the job. Some jobs may be sex-specific, if there is a genuine reason for that exclusion. The social and political events at issue here are not jobs, but the situation is analogous. There is a bona fide reason the event is sex-specific to women. Being part of a “broader community” is not an entry ticket to every subgroup that makes up the broader community.
[…] a comment by maddog on Lesbians with […]
“Trans-women are women. Full stop.”
This or some variation on this is always supposed to be the conversation ender. Just say ‘Trans women are women.’ Repeat it. Type it in all caps. End of discussion.
Because it’s a dogma with no rational justification. I realize everybody here already gets that. It’s just such blatantly religious reasoning.
So Jan Morris and Jessica Yaniv are in precisely the same category? Not ALL trans women are bizarre crackpots and creeps. But if it is forbidden to report that SOME self-declarers are crackpots and creeps you’re going to be forced into alliance with rabid republicans. You can only get your book published by the crackpots and creeps at Regnery.