OJ and the cis lesbians
Consistency from one hour to the next; does OJ have it?
OJ tries to conceal his inconsistency (or should we call it pathological lying? if he can accuse us of pathological lying we can return the favor, yeah?) by not saying “the lesbians who were kicked out of Pride for stating that lesbians don’t like penises” but rather “anti-trans activists invaded a Pride march.” That’s not a very honest or forthright move, especially for a journalist, especially for a journalist who has just called a bunch of people “pathological liars.”
How can lesbians be said to be “invading” a Pride march? Why does OJ think he gets to tell lesbians they’re “invading” Pride? What is a “cis lesbian”? Why does OJ think it’s ok for straight men who call themselves women to be at Pride but not ok for lesbians to be there? For that matter why does he think it’s ok for him to bully and shout at and try to silence lesbians?
Seems like there’s a bit of a motte and bailey thing going on here.
“It’s ok to not date trans people, but it’s not ok to announce that you don’t” seems like a defensible position to me. That kind of distinction is commonly used in regard to other characteristics or demographic groups. I don’t know of any dating apps that will kick users off for not swiping right on “enough” people of a particular race, etc., but I believe that there are apps that have rules against SAYING “no blacks/Asians/etc.” in your profile, and certainly a lot of people frown upon it. Similarly, there seems to be a consensus that nobody is required to date any body type that they don’t find attractive, but that saying “no fatties” or the equivalent in your profile is rude and unnecessary. Of course, people just end up using euphemisms, like “looking for a fit and healthy partner,” so I’m not sure these principles really accomplish much. I also think there has to be some context in which people can discuss their requirements for a partner and their dissatisfaction with the dating pool: if lesbian dating apps are inundated with trans women, I think that’s something that cis lesbians who aren’t interested in dating them can legitimately gripe about.
But it sure seems like Jones only retreats to the “you can have preferences, just don’t talk about them” position when he’s challenged.
Yes, I agree about the defensible position. The trans thing doesn’t quite fit, though, in my view. Or it partly fits but partly doesn’t. Or to put it yet another way, it just isn’t workable to try to make trans status unmentionable when it comes to sex & romance aka “dating.”
By the way, I think I saw “OJ and the Cis Lesbians” play at Lillith Fair back in the 90s.
>if lesbian dating apps are inundated with trans women, I think that’s something that cis lesbians who aren’t interested in dating them can legitimately gripe about.
Lesbian dating apps are inundated with the following:
(a) Transwomen (many of whom are visually indistinguishable from garden-variety men, and many of whom openly advertise their various alarming fetishes);
(b) Heterosexual couples seeking “unicorns” (i.e., women to have a threesome with them);
(c) Female he/hims and they/thems, who will go into nuclear meltdown if you dare to call them women but who are still sane enough to realize that straight women don’t want them.
In short, online lesbian dating is, as the kids say, a dumpster fire. In-person “queer” spaces are not any better—they’re mostly free of (b) but crawling with (a) and (c), and turning down unwanted advances requires much more diplomacy.
Personally, I find it sinister that lesbians and gay men are effectively barred from stating that they only want same-sex partners. To me, the implicit message is that LGB people are allowed to have our own communities . . . right up until straight sexual tourists want in, at which point we better drop everything and roll out the red carpet if we know what’s good for us.
Addendum: I have so much contempt for quislings like OJ. For anyone who hasn’t been following his antics, about a year ago he put out a call seeking a “broody lesbian” to bear a child for him and his partner. He would no doubt laugh himself sick if a trans “lesbian” volunteered to perform this service . . . but he expects actual lesbians to welcome their trans “sisters” with open legs. I hope his partner leaves him for a better man and his dating app feed is forever full of nothing but he/they pre-everything soft transmasc bois.
I’m pretty sure I posted about OJ and the broody lesbian at the time. I wonder if I can find it…
Yep.
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/seeking-wombs-for-rent/
Screechy:
I dunno. Isn’t the public announcement of one’s romantic proclivities kinda the point of Pride? Defending the proposition without modification seems to require biting the bullet and saying Pride is also not okay.
I have to disagree, both specifically and more generally.
Specifically – dating is ultimately about sex¹. Your sexual orientation and the sex of your potential dates are the most core characteristics in this context. Other preferences are just not as central to the topic. Norms for being euphemistic about preferences for those other potentially sensitive characteristics seem more reasonable.²
More generally – I think there’s a very broad category of things you should most definitely be permitted to do or say in general that may still be wrong in some context. eg. much bullying consists of making true statements in an obnoxious fashion. Things that annoy me #94: efforts to declare something broadly “not ok” even when the plausible justification is highly situational.
¹ – for most people anyway.
² – with the caveat that I am not now nor have I ever been a dating app user.
I’ve failed to tie this into the rest of the comment but I’ll include it anyway: I’m reminded of courtship amongst Pratchettian dwarves, which consists primarily of determining, over an extended period, subtly and with great tact precisely which sex the other dwarf is.