are we obscene?

Quite frankly, we didn't expect to write any more statements on trans issues after this: sexism sucks.

Thought we were done!   But nope.

Lately we've been getting more and more email from folks who feel our site should be shut down due to obscenity, specifically what they believe to be an obscene amount of transphobia.

. . .

The next several paragraphs might read like a rational reality recap, but possibly helpful for some and necessary to explain the controversy that follows.

Both "sex change" (no longer trendy) and "transition" (trendy) are euphemisms used to describe various cosmetic procedures, but are literally misnomers, as no mammal can change their sex. As long as you're here, your sex chromosomes (XX or XY) are coming along too, as your DNA is in every cell of your body. It's also responsible for thousands of mostly unalterable physical differences between XX and XY. These differences start in the womb, then widen, onward.

However far someone imagines exogenous estrogen or testosterone can bridge the thousands of differences in XX versus XY anatomy otherwise, successful phalloplasty is even rarer than bottom surgery on a trans woman.

To put it another way, almost everyone retains their "original plumbing." For those relatively few who don't, it won't be the same as "factory installed." Please note we're not saying anybody's is better or worse. We're not telling anyone what to prefer; we're saying different.

Sex organs matter to most people. These organs are involved in sex, so they're involved in sexual orientation.

Bisexuality exists, absolutely. But so does homosexuality, not only in XY, but in XX too. It's actually atrocious to attempt to force any XX into bisexuality just to suit any group of XYs . . . or the policies they'd prefer.

So whether you are XX or XY will remain obvious to anyone having sex with you, at least anyone experienced. It's not rational to expect it shouldn't. It's also not reasonable to expect your sexual partners or even your platonic friends wouldn't know or shouldn't care whether you're XX or XY.

You also have a chronological age which also affects you biologically in ways others can detect as well.

Cosmetic procedures to alter visual youthfulness also exist, but even their enthusiastic proponents know none are capable of making a 49-year-old exactly like a 19-year-old again. Many would like it if subtracting 30 years was possible but remain in touch with nope. But well-informed consenting adults who are fans of cosmetic procedures desire them for their realistic possibilities, then they enjoy those small changes.

No matter how much plastic surgery they have, the emotionally healthy and intellectually rational person still doesn't imagine everyone now perceives them exactly the same as 30 years ago.

. . .

If you're wondering how we "failed trans people" or why any trans person would accuse us of obscenity: First we need to note that trans people are an extremely divergent group with meaningfully different characteristics.

Just like the term LGBTQIA+, lumping the really different all together makes no logical sense; and you have to get specific about exactly WHO before it actually would. So we have some categories explained below to answer the "who" and "why" question above.

Yes, they're rather broad, but even broader wouldn't tell the story while more and/or more micro isn't necessary, especially for brevity (we're trying but sheesh).

Are we speaking of all the humans that ever could have signed up, some kind of hypothetical way, or ever will in the future? Nope. Not speaking for other websites either.

We're talking about most of what happened before and the way things seem to be moving now from our vantage point: The vast majority of the humans that ever wanted to sign up.

All 4 categories are interested in dating XX. They say explicitly that.

Most would prefer the XXs they'd like to meet call themselves lesbian as well.


XX lesbians looking like lesbians, the timeless classic: Unsurprisingly, almost never a problem.


XX lesbians looking like trans men . . .

. . . or very butch lesbians or non-binary or genderqueer or any other labels, basically any XX that would like to be in this category instead of the one above . . .

. . . but they're indistinguishable from the first category in terms of their likely behavior on this site or how other lesbians react to them: Meaning it's unlikely they're aggressively complaining or complained about in any situation we've experienced on this website or elsewhere.

We've yet to experience anyone in this category demanding anything they weren't already getting from us in terms of search criteria or from XX lesbians overall.


XYs looking like trans women: Our model for this website has always been the lesbian bar. Since we've been old enough to go to bars, we've visited any lesbian bar we could, at least once. We've visited dozens all over the country. Excluding all trans women never seemed like a specific goal.

Many lesbian bars featured bouncers, but again, they were enforcing an overall attitude of respect for lesbians, lesbian space, lesbianism in general. We never noticed any attempting to exclude all trans women. We've met many trans women in lesbian bars.

So trans women are also a timeless classic, in lesbian bars from way back when, same on this site. We didn't experience this as controversial until several years ago . . . either that we were still asking them to identify themselves OR that we would still admit them at all.

Again, taking flak from both fronts.

We've also explained previously that admitting trans women (and trans men, but no one worries about them) this whole time didn't cause any significant problems.

We've specifically pushed back against concerns many had that admitting trans women would inevitably lead to the sexual harassment of XX lesbians. Again, to the best of our knowledge thus far . . . nope, not so far.

And we're still not aware of any bullying or harassment going on . . . but the difference since we wrote this sexism sucks post is that we're now screening out category FOUR.

And we're doing so specifically to avoid bullying and harassment.


XY-trans-"various" looking just like heterosexual men: Obviously XY, and if they identify as trans + (anything feminine) at all, it usually doesn't involve much that wouldn't shower off. They might also identify as non-binary, genderqueer, or multiply gendered.

Almost always chronologically (not ideologically) middle-aged.

And category FOUR is currently identifying into girlhood. Specifically, almost always a "late teen" who wants help becoming an adult lesbian.

Porn plus postmodernism taught them to identify as "barely legal."

No, this is not based on our own imaginations based off our own preconceived notions. We're quoting. Many XY-trans-"various" from all over have submitted profiles on our site typing into the webform in all apparent seriousness based on their subsequent demographic demands, "Porn taught me that . . . "

They feel gender ideology + postmodern porn + queer theory means if they identify as trans, no matter if they're now chronologically middle-aged, they're experiencing "girlhood" or "female adolescence."

As girls in girlhood, they feel their appropriate peer group must now be our chronologically youngest XX lesbians. Also, they feel the fact our age ranges still start at 18 demonstrates our "sex negative prudery." That's because contemporary online communities now start at 13, that's the current standard according to them (seriously, no thanks).

So when middle-aged XY lesbians in ideological adolescence would like to meet chronological 18-21 XX lesbians, they're "expressing their girlhood."

However, when chronologically younger XX lesbians choose according to chronological (rather than gender ideological) age instead, category FOUR feels anyone involved in allowing that to happen must be a "bigot who needs to unlearn their transphobia."

. . .

The accusations of obscene transphobia involve the longstanding age ranges in our search criteria. Would-be members are asked their chronological age, and which they'd prefer in other members they might meet. If there's no mutual interest, they're not in each other's search results.

Our insistence on requesting chronological age is "misgendering" category FOUR, according to them.

And if we question category FOUR's insistence on forcing everyone else to consider their ideological rather than chronological age via our search results?

We're all "transphobic bigots."

Because we've disagreed that ideological always trumps chronological age, and have continued to disagree for many profiles now, that's not just some transphobia but an obscene amount, so we "need to be reported."

. . .

Some have asked why we don't just do what we're told with regard to gender ideology in order to "avoid cancellation!"

Some also noted we're online only anyway, so who cares? It's true, any safety risks could be mitigated, which is meaningfully different than anything where folks meet for the first time IRL with no chance to vet anyone in advance.

Since lesbotronic can't meet all new members IRL, there's certainly no guarantee other members won't encounter anyone misrepresenting themselves . . . at least online.

So aren't we some kinda hysterical to be concerned any kinda way?

Even though our members know they don't have to meet anyone they wouldn't want IRL, our members also know we review profiles before acceptance, rejecting many.

So we would know if we were admitting many category FOURs, after reading their stated intentions to manipulate our youngest XX lesbians into accepting their transage identification.

If we don't reject as many aggressive category FOURs as possible while continuing to offer our youngest XX lesbians chronological rather than ideological age options, it's pressure upon them to say yes.

. . .

According to wikipedia, United States obscenity law is based on "contemporary community standards."

None of the more specific examples seem to apply here, so here's our thought: Isn't it usually better for "barely legals" to avoid dating anyone decades older?

Independent of gender ideology, aren't most chronologically youthful folks better off with each other anyway?

Especially those who already said they'd prefer each other too?

. . .

Here's an exercise in working out contemporary community standards:

Let's imagine a 19-year-old heterosexual XY. You know and admire him. He's tall, he's handsome, he's healthfully strapping and strong. He's entirely law abiding and gracious as the day is long.

He's not necessarily religious or looking to settle down and have babies this year, nope!

Just single and ready to mingle!

So he'd like to meet one or two or a few XX, and when asked about age, he requested 18-21.

Should he date a 49-year-old XY who identifies as 19?

No matter their politics otherwise, what about his real deal family and friends?

How many imagine him happy with any 49-year-old instead?

. . .

If you're a total gender ideologue, I guess you're in favor of insisting it would be kind, inclusive, diverse, equitable, less bigoted, non-transphobic plus on the right side of history if ALL 19-year-olds, both XX and XY, unlearned ALL objections to dating ALL 49-year-old XYs?

As long as ALL involved "identify as late teen."

It should go without saying that young XY deserve childhoods and young adulthoods just the same as young XX.

But if you've somehow concluded something's fine for 19-year-old XX lesbians but not your blessed and highly favored 19-year-old heterosexual XY, you're half gender ideologue, half sexist hypocrite.

. . .

If we could somehow magically convince category FOUR they'd be forced to view only lesbians closer to their own chronological age instead of barely legal XX, they'd never sign up.

But since there isn't, there are more and more and more and more we've been rejecting, which will probably lead to more reporting.

So if this site disappears, we're sending this out in advance to the wayback machine or whatever as our reply to why.