LesbianLesbians Aren’t Attracted to a Female ‘Gender Identity.’ We’re Attracted to Women - Quillette article by Kathleen Stock

submitted by reluctant_commenter from quillette.com

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 28 insightful - 2 fun28 insightful - 1 fun29 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I don't understand how gender based orientations could even work. If the only thing that all women have in common is that they use the word woman to identify themselves then that would mean people are attracted to the word woman. Which makes no sense at all.

Without a set definition of what a woman is there's no possible way for sexual orientation to be based on it.

[–]usehername 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The logic: everything is a social construct with no material basis except postmodernism which is absolute truth, and if you disagree, even silently in your head, you're a white supremacist colonizer. The dictionary is a terf.

[–]JulienMayfair 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A male friend of mine is in some kind of long-distance relationship with a trans woman, and I've met her a couple of times. She passes pretty well, but it's in conversation that the illusion drops. It's hard to nail down exactly what it is, but the things she focuses on and the patterns of her responses are still unmistakably that of a man.

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 13 insightful - 15 fun13 insightful - 14 fun14 insightful - 15 fun -  (0 children)

Oh come off it. As if lesbians know more about themselves than these Sapphic seductresses.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

archive link: https://archive.is/OmOFW

This article is written in defense of the concept of same-sex attraction, as opposed to attraction to a "gender identity," and describes how Stonewall no longer defends same-sex attraction.

I thought this comment, in particular, was interesting and was curious what people thought of it:

Saying a sexual orientation must be “stable” for an individual doesn’t mean you can’t have voluntary and even pleasurable sexual experiences at variance with it. It’s fairly typical for young people to take a while to figure out what their orientation is, and sometimes it takes older people a while, too. This is more likely for gay people in a culture in which heterosexuality predominates. A gay person might be less willing or even able to notice relevant clues as to where the real patterns of attraction lie. Or a person can just get drunk and have opportunistic sex with whoever happens to be there, against their normal grain. They can have sex with one kind of person, fantasising wildly about another. Or they can be romantically attached to someone in a way that temporarily causes them to seem attractive but wouldn’t otherwise. Strictly speaking, a sexual orientation should be understood in terms of the sex(es) you would be sexually attracted to under relatively self-aware, uncoerced, uninhibited circumstances, and not necessarily who you actually are attracted to right now. A sexual orientation is for life, not just for Christmas parties.

That part I bolded makes it sound like she is suggesting that one can be "attracted" to someone under situations of coercion or inhibition-- I guess she is just talking about sexual arousal? E.g. how someone could be sexually aroused even while they were being sexual assaulted.

edit:

Also, just wow.

In a Buzzfeed interview Drummond says, “I identify as lesbian as I’m female and attracted to women … I’ve been in a long-term committed relationship for a long time now so I’m spoken for, but certainly I draw out the inner lesbian in women!” Yet this is surely to stretch the concept of lesbian to the breaking point. In old money, Drummond is heterosexual, and so, presumably, are the females attracted to her.

My eyes are gonna roll right out of their sockets.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

It starts with Stock's appraisal of the concept:

"Opinions differ on what makes an orientation an orientation, but my preferred explanation says that for a preference to count as an orientation, it has to be stable in individuals, widespread among the human population, and have a range of relatively important social consequences."

My intuition tells me I could drive a bus through this. Preferred explanation? I thought we were refuting gender ideology here, so it's the sort of thing that should be really, really buttoned up, not something I suspect I can poke holes in.

Thought experiment: The vanishing. A minute from now, all but heterosexual men and women will vanish from the face of the planet, save for Kathleen Stock, lesbian. Nobody but her will notice the difference. She is unchanged. Her sexuality, that she called a sexual orientation just a few minutes prior? It's no longer widespread and having social consequences. Kathleen Stock no longer has a sexual orientation, yet nothing about her as an individual changes.

Thought experiment: The halcyon future. Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual ceases to have social consequences.

Counterexample: Autogynephilia. Stable in individuals, widespread among the human population, and presently having immense social consequences.

Counterexample: Pedophilia. Stable in individuals, widespread among the human population, and having social consequences.

Nothing salient in her definition explicitly relies on biological reality, which she does touch in the article, but that's meant to be the tone and point of the article? It's all about sociopolitics for her, and really I do think this is how most people approach the concept of sexual orientation. It smacks of "Well I don't like the transgendered, so I'm just going to try and sloppily define them out of the club." Just as they're trying to define themselves into it.

It also reads like an apology of "well, you know, I have this prized sexual identity, but that one time at the Christmas party, I did lust after..." or "...well and then I found out that the person was actually XY."

Are we to be unawares of our orientation until our deathbeds? At what point can a person consider it to be stable? It's a logistical problem. 18 years old, 30? Stock writes: "It’s fairly typical for young people to take a while to figure out what their orientation is, and sometimes it takes older people a while, too." It's just like with some trans, where a person "discovers" that they're trans. There's some sort of big reveal...

Onto her alternate definition: "Strictly speaking, a sexual orientation should be understood in terms of the sex(es) you would be sexually attracted to under relatively self-aware, uncoerced, uninhibited circumstances, and not necessarily who you actually are attracted to right now."

Eeeek. Again, it makes me think that it's an apology for maybe a little bit of "bad lust" on behalf of the author. Concrete attraction in this very minute is empirical evidence.

Look, trans people are trying to change the presentation of their sex, with varying levels of success. That may fool the reptile brain for a while, until the higher-order functions have their way with the subject. Stock touches on that: "...I’ll say that these sorts of relatively unusual cases stretch existing concepts to their limits. Our concepts weren’t designed for them, and we just don’t know what to say (and that’s okay)." No, professor. Your brain wasn't designed for modern medical technology fooling around with people's sex characteristics. (And that's okay.)

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm really getting tired of people saying something, then saying it's okay, because it's usually code for: "I'm only giving you a slight validation but I'll add the word 'but' after it and a complete 180 on what I just said was 'okay.'"

For example: You don't have to date transpeople (and that's okay), but you need to check your cissexist privileges and examine whether you're actually hesitant because of your internal and unjustified bigotry.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it. All good points. I was hesitant to post this article originally because it struck me as odd that her definition seemed so relatively loose. This is a good reminder for me to finish reading articles before deciding to post them, lol, rather than posting them halfway through reading.

Stock writes: "It’s fairly typical for young people to take a while to figure out what their orientation is, and sometimes it takes older people a while, too." It's just like with some trans, where a person "discovers" that they're trans. There's some sort of big reveal...

I think she's trying to cover all her bases with this statement without getting into the nuance. Like yes, there are examples of older adults coming out later in life, but I think usually there are some type of extenuating circumstances going on; for example, extracting onesself from a toxic religion.

Onto her alternate definition: "Strictly speaking, a sexual orientation should be understood in terms of the sex(es) you would be sexually attracted to under relatively self-aware, uncoerced, uninhibited circumstances, and not necessarily who you actually are attracted to right now."

Eeeek. Again, it makes me think that it's an apology for maybe a little bit of "bad lust" on behalf of the author. Concrete attraction in this very minute is empirical evidence.

Yeah, that really surprised me, too. Attraction is attraction. And if you are sometimes attracted to both sexes, well, that's not monosexual.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I read that article several days prior to you posting it and I just rolled my eyes... been fuming about it ever since, frankly.

There is a corpus of sex research where especially minority sexual identity folks have an identity that just does not match reality. shrug. Maybe another reason why people dislike bisexuality. But, ya know, there's like bisexuality and then there's biiiiisexuality.

"[W]hen I am attracted to men, I would not consider those feelings ‘hetero-sexual.’ I feel very lesbian about my feelings towards men. For example, even when I find men attractive, I’m still not into their genitalia and if I have sex with men I usually have lesbian-style sex with them. I keep my identity as lesbian consistent even when I am into men. (lesbian, woman -cisgender)"

Not even the most egregious example.

"At the outset many of our participants articulated a conceptual disconnect between their sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity. This was similarly expressed regardless of participants’ sexual and gender identity and is consistent with current sexuality research"

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15299716.2014.933466

Queer Theorists love this disconcordant stuff though. It's like moths to a flame.

...

Also a good read:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2013.760324

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Hmm. I'm debating deleting this post, honestly. I kind of wonder whether a lot of people might've upvoted just because of the article's title, which sends a positive message, but didn't notice some of the harmful content.

Related:

  • Kathleen Stock just got added as a trustee to LGB Alliance, so her influence will extend beyond just this article.

  • LGB Alliance also platforms Sheila Jeffreys, a founder of the feminist group that first promoted "political lesbianism," the idea that women can decide to be lesbians:

Not Jeffreys. She became a lesbian in 1973 because she felt it contradictory to give "her most precious energies to a man" when she was thoroughly committed to a women's revolution. Six years later, she went further and wrote, with others, a pamphlet entitled Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism And Political Lesbianism. In it, feminists who sleep with men are described as collaborating with the enemy. It caused a huge ruction in the women's movement, and is still cited as an example of early separatists "going way too far".

"We do think," it said, "that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women." Although many of the more radical feminists agreed, most went wild at being told they were "counter-revolutionary".

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/02/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety

I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, but I'm concerned about the possibility that in trying to challenge the way that transgender people are stifling our voices, we may run the risk of having radical feminists stifle our voices. The more I read, the more it seems to me that there is a strong undercurrent of bigoted, or at least, downright misleading, beliefs about same-sex attraction in radical feminism.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hmm. I'm debating deleting this post, honestly.

Nah, leave it up. Supposing there's an issue, it'll only come to light if we can discuss. Maybe make another post if you dive into this issue? I think you've found something really important here.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds good, thanks for the feedback.

it'll only come to light if we can discuss.

Very true. I am reminded of that video posted on s/itsafetish by Schrodinger's Transcat. Maybe if there weren't so much censorship going on we'd have figured out more of this by now... But, that's a strategy that TQ-dominated organizations choose to employ, unfortunately.

Maybe make another post if you dive into this issue? I think you've found something really important here.

I'm thinking about it, glad you're interested. It would probably stir the hornet's nest; whenever someone has posted a thread about radfems in the past, we seem to get swarmed with pro-radfem comments. I'll have to do it when I have a good amount of time to respond.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

we seem to get swarmed with pro-radfem comments

Well there it is, huh?

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Keep up the post and the comments. There is value in the breakdown of this article in these comments. There is both good and bad in there. I do have the same concern about radicals feminism. In general, lesbians are almost never represented by actual lesbians.

But potentially giving Stock the benefit of the doubt where she says that it’s not about who you are attracted to right now, which in general I disagree with, it’s depending on what she is calling “attraction” and to what that person is “attracted” to.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the suggestion. That's true, deleting it would hide all these thoughtful comments!

But potentially giving Stock the benefit of the doubt where she says that it’s not about who you are attracted to right now, which in general I disagree with, it’s depending on what she is calling “attraction” and to what that person is “attracted” to.

That's true, I was hopeful that there might have been some ambiguity there because she is allowing for cases where, say, someone might be persuaded to have sex with someone while drunk and become sexually aroused just because of physical manipulation-- I suppose you could call that "attraction" too. Guess we'll see in the long run!

[–][deleted] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don’t really agree with this definition of sexual orientation at all. People are tying themselves in knots over how to integrate people with heavy body modification trying to imitate the opposite sex but it really just comes down to something much simpler. Sexual orientation is the sex of the bodies you are attracted to. If you’re attracted to a passing trans person who you don’t realize is trans that doesn’t necessarily mean anything because your brain is assuming they are the sex they’re imitating, due to pattern recognition. If you’re actually still into the person after finding out, that’s undeniably some bisexuality involved there. Like, if you call yourself a lesbian but a natural vulva isn’t a requirement for sex, or if you call yourself a gay man but a natural penis/testicles aren’t a requirement, I’m sorry but I just don’t believe you’re homosexual. In either case though, it still supports that sexual orientation is based on sex, because otherwise it wouldn’t matter what the trans person in question is trying to imitate.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you’re attracted to a passing trans person who you don’t realize is trans that doesn’t necessarily mean anything because your brain is assuming they are the sex they’re imitating, due to pattern recognition.

Yup, exactly!! TreeOfThoughts made a similar point in his comment.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I made the mistake of posting this article before I had finished reading it, unfortunately, and then saw that part about her definition of sexual orientation, and wanted to call it out. I am now wondering whether I should've posted the article or not; even with its better parts, it's still concerning that the article is using such a vague definition of sexual orientation.

Worth observing: Kathleen Stock was just added as a trustee to LGB Alliance. So, if her way of defining sexual orientation is prevalent there, then maybe we should be a little concerned about LGB Alliance...

[–]SuperGayIsOkay 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

https://twitter.com/sarahschauer/status/1292019076068290562

"also if you want to drop $40 on a paper about femmephobia, check out this article. if not, you can read the abstract"

No, I don't want to pay a researcher just to read their shitty gaslighting justifications as to why they think lesbian women have a "phobia" just because they don't want to fuck men.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I just scanned the article. It's in Archives, which is a good journal, and the quality is certainly there, buuuut it's a bunch of Queer Theory nonsense.

E.g. MTF trans were discussed in the context of being perceived as sexual predators or pedophiles, and this was of course due to femmephobia.