wait please someone help.
I’m being dead serious here in grappling with this idea in my head and all this.
It’s about the Cotton Ceiling concept and all that so get out now if you’re gonna flip out at me and get angry.
So. Lesbian women are attracted to female bodies and female anatomy. Biologically female that is.
The term “cotton ceiling” is not one I use for number of reasons, but here… the point where I’ve cut off the post… is where you lose the plot. Not even getting into the finer points of what is or isn’t “female anatomy” or “biologically female”, this is where you’re making a massive generalization/assumption. Some people who identify as lesbians would say they’re attracted to what you would evidently consider “biologically female anatomy”, yes.
And other people who identify as lesbians would say they’re attracted to women. Female persons. Persons who are female.
Which includes trans* women.
Which can include trans* women with penises, or anatomy that wouldn’t register as “female” to you.
When someone says “I’m a lesbian so of course I don’t want to date trans* women.” or “I’m a lesbian so of course I don’t like penises.” and that statement is objected to, it’s not any individual clause that’s being attacked. Yes, the speaker is a lesbian. Yes, they don’t like penises. Nobody can change either of those things so there’s not much point in challenging it.
It’s the idea that there is a natural, obvious, completely irrevocable connection between the two that is an ironclad implication of one to the other that is the problem. The person declaring “Lesbians don’t like penises.” as both a starting point and an ending point to a conversation about trans* lesbians might be talking to a lesbian whose girlfriend has one. They might be talking to a lesbian who has one.
It’s reductive, it’s ridiculous, it’s erasing, it’s hurtful, and it’s harmful. And everytime something like it is said without being challenged, it reinforces the idea that this is what a lesbian is, this is the only thing a lesbian is, the only way to be a lesbian. That excludes trans* lesbians, it puts pressure on cis lesbians to reject any attraction to trans* women they might feel or stop identifying as lesbians if they act on it, which… again… excludes trans* lesbians.
People who want to challenge the assumption that lesbians aren’t attracted to trans* woman anatomy are doing just that: challenging the assumption. Removing it as the starting point. Making room for divergent experiences to be had and feelings to the contrary to be felt. Some of this is in challenging the notion that there’s one type of “female anatomy” or one type of “trans* woman anatomy”. Some of this is in challenging the idea that all lesbians are looking for the exact same things in the women they like (which is an idea that, in nearly any other context, would be understood to be hugely insulting to lesbians).
If the assumption is weakened, then yes, it will probably happen that some cis lesbians who would otherwise have never explored or acted on attraction to trans* women will do so. Just like when assumptions about heterosexuality are weakened, more people come out of the closet. More gay and bi and lesbian people grow up secure in their sexuality. This doesn’t mean that the gay agenda is turning people gay or recruiting them or anything, though… and likewise, trying to broaden the conversation about lesbianism isn’t trying to lure or force any cis women in particular into dating or having sex with trans* women.
It’s not about who any random individual does or does not become intimate with. It’s about how our assumptions play out on a larger stage, and how that affects us as individuals.