All Activity

Very handsome

Nice

I must have my settings on YouTube adjusted to prevent seeing the sort of vids you've described. I watched 10 or so vids and didn't find such icky displays. Not disputing you, just saying I didn't find them. I only looked on YouTube, though, coz I left FB/X-Twit/Insta awhile back. I could maybe tweak to find these but then I'd have YouTube throwing other ick at me, too. So I'll just say that there are limits; any children's librarian worth their degree should exercise some control over what's done in the children/YA section. Because these days librarians are fair game no matter what. Unfortunately I can see this type of thing-the inappropriate displays and sex-toy throwing, for instance-whether done to provoke tempers for or against the trans community. I used to have a tiny bit of faith in human beings to be rational kind people. I'm now starting to think that many (a disturbing many) of the people living here (or there or anywhere) have just abneged on the fragile web that used to hold outright insanity in check. Idk. Probably it never existed. We fooled ourselves that it did in places or at times. Now we just get repeated illustrations that it doesn't. Did this address the topic at all? Bad week already, so apologies for going so dark in my view.

Sigh. Can't make this much shorter. So back in 2021, we described how we finally reluctantly did a Twitter because of this . . . then everything we were messaged after that, led to this . . . then that still wasn't enough so we had to write this . . . but the sexism still continued, so then the first 8 numbered posts in this section . . . then later, the next 6 not-numbered posts in this section. So 17 posts, most several pages in length, cataloging various sexism happening (sometimes even with kids in tow) within the "queer community." (Not assuming you read all, but after even one or two others, you'd quickly absorb that it is a lot.) We took the time to write that whole mess because we were having a hard time believing ALL OF IT. Every single thing we called sexist surprised us, at least the first several times we encountered it. It took a good long while to disabuse us of our default assumption that anything we found this problematic within the queer community had to be outlier. So we really do understand why you'd find one of the videos surprising. But one video is the only thing that gave y'all pause in like, 50 pages of material? That part breaks my heart. . . . But as for the lack of linking to what we did not, that was always intentional. When we had emotional and intellectual problems with gender ourselves while unsurprisingly simultaneously hearing same from other women as well . . . we wondered how we could criticize this behavior within the "queer community," but in a way we could still feel we were beyond reproach. (Or at least as much as we could realistically manage.) Other women criticizing this same strain of sexism have been viciously and personally vilified, not just via opinions shared back, but threatening/actual physical violence, doxxing, harassing family members, etc. We obviously don't agree with this behavior, as described in the post about moderating this section, plus obviously the need for that. You already noticed the lack of links to videos but perhaps not also that . . . there's not a single solitary opinion or quote or description of behavior among those we're complaining about in any of the posts listed above that's actually attributed? Not the videos. Not the quotes. Not the behavioral descriptions. None of it. And no, not everyone wanted to be anonymized. It was a weird way to write but we had a reason: If we're complaining about someone else's lack of morality with regard to women, how do we complain in a way that still feels moral to us? Or in other words, how do we not silence ourselves yet not model ourselves after the people with whom we severely disagree? Like, if you sincerely believe witch hunts to burn feminists are wrong and you want to credibly complain about that, maybe you can't even appear to be attempting a [someone sexist here] witch hunt in reply. There's no social media "beatdown" or internet "fray" we would ever want to join in on, any way. Meanwhile, we have quoted and referenced specific stuff, but there's no outlier POV. We removed some ruder language and slurs and referenced what we did because wow, this finally got to lesbotronic too BUT: I kid you not when I say all the attitudes quoted and videos referenced have already trended on Twitter. So we'd rather not even appear to be attempting any witch hunts in reply for moral reasons, but again, since there are so many sexists, we point that out again to say that unfortunately at the same time . . . NONE of the stuff we're complaining about regarding sexism and gender is unique to any one individual. We don't want to witch hunt any one sexist OR point at any one person or video or even group like it's mostly about them specifically when unfortunately . . . NOPE! Not! Acting like one individual or instance is super important is arguably misleading and contrary to our overall point that what's super important in reality is that there is a lot, and these are only a few examples. But meanwhile! Anyone we've quoted positively with happiness in our hearts is attributed precisely so you can know exactly who and where. If you'd like to read more from that author, should be easy, and we recommend it. . . . So 2.5 reasons we're not attributing the stuff we're not while also calling it problematic: #1: (above) # 1.5: less important but still valid, we also don't want to be seen as promoting/link boosting/sending traffic to stuff we don't approve of, folks have accused us of that many times in the past but still . . . mostly #1 and #2 #2: Like we said elsewhere same section, most sharing their reactions to this section thus far said we (at lesbotronic) were tardy to the party or slow learners regarding our observations regarding sexism within the queer community, mostly due to our mostly lack of participation in mainstream social media OR they were surprised, possibly shocked. Because they didn't already know. If you're still in the latter category, we want you to go look for yourself, but at a lot more than just a few example links. If you have any level of disbelief, we want you to actually go looking for some of these sort of videos or attitudes on your own on Google. Or if you prefer Twitter, it's absolutely all inside Twitter too, but either way, whether or not you're easily able to find exactly what we're referencing isn't important because whether or not you find same you'll notice it's easy to find more and similar . . . . . . which we'd prefer over gawking at one link or one person or one group. Because when you find more and similar and all on your own, it'll get more difficult to conclude we're completely hysterical.

Ehmagod all the photos of all the animals babies here are so cute!!! The cat distribution system hit me four times. Here’s one of my oranges.

I only have one cat her name is Sabrina nicknamed Sabrina the teenage kitty.

Both drag queens and children like to play dress up. Just be nice and share.

Yes, drag queens should perform for children and yes, children should perform for drag queens.

This is me last winter, the black sheep. Black Becca and Red Bunny aka Lucy

Stonnnnnneyyyyy

I enjoy some drag shows, some burlesque, some cabaret. Not all, and why should I? There's different kinds, different acts, etc. etc. I know drag performers here. I appreciate their talent, dedication, and training. The last show I attended gave me a bit of hope that all is not lost for the LGBTQ+ community here in my rural sometimes scary region. Would I take children to their performances? Depends on the children (older teens, maybe) and depends on the nature of the show. But the ones described above? I wouldn't care to see any of these myself, let alone have them take place in my library. Wrong place, wrong time. They sound like someone is trying to provoke violence. No drag performer in today's mileiu would do something like in these videos unless they were actively itching for a fight. But using children in a library to pick such a fight? Where these videos dated? Is there any way of verifying that these actually took place? I'm not calling @lesbontronic's truthfulness into question here, mind you. But this sounds so exteme that I wonder. Librarians have to be careful vettors and esp. of content delivered to children. (And if anyone wants to start with me over books you think need to be banned, do so by PM. Don't hijack this thread!) violence, b/c in this day and time

Just part of the crew lol

He’s just a handsome dude, Max aka Mr Wonderful

Axl is large and in charge and loves belly rubs .

Um, yeah. I'll trynot to wander off into the weeds TOO much here. I've loved gender theory since I first discovered it back in the day. Judith Butler gave me new ways to understand my own struggles with identity that didn't seem to fit into well-defined categories. And I continue to maintain that labels can be useful in providing short informational bios but do not define who we are, nor are they set in concrete forever and ever. Reading the words "male lesbian" made me cringe. I belonged for a long while to an international site that was quite lovely and still have friends among the women I met there. From time to time, though, we'd have to chase off trolls who would post obviously (to us) fake profiles, either for profit or just plain ickiness. That's one thing that came to mind. Another was the leering face of a male college student who accosted me and my GF on campus when I was an undergrad. Drunken frat boy type. He said, "Hey,girls! You're lesbian, right?" We walked on, trying our best to ignore the idiot. He followed us, saying, "I wanna be a lesbian, too." We ended up going into the commons building to find the safety of a crowd. We never discussed that incident, either between ourselves or with anyone else. I think we felt that to do so would give him outsize power. But I felt like I needed a shower afterwards. That memory has remained and still disquietens. I've not run across any earnest self-identified "male lesbians" IRL. I know nonbinary people both male and female. They tend to be really careful with their terms. Most would find that identifier disrespectful and baffling, I suspect. But Idk. I've also known a very few mtf trans people who were lesbian. But they would not call themselves "male" lesbians. They weren't male. So again, Idk. I could very well be too old, too rural, too ignorant to know what I'm talking about here. If this is the case, I'm sure someone will let me know!

I totally agree with Katness,and my vast experience in the dating world certainly taught me how,incredibly, important it is to look BEYOND the surface when considering a partnership,not just romantically,but also platonically. Unfortunately,I've dated gorgeous women with terrible attitudes as Katness pointed out in her post,and I, foolishly,made excuses for trying to make sense of their rudeness and terrible social skills.The good news is that I learned from those experiences. I've always known that physical beauty should never be the principal attribute used to choose a partner,and I never have,but I think my transparency in admitting that I've ,unfortunately,experienced dates and partnerships with attractive but hateful women,is in keeping with Katness's post,and I hope my honesty will help as many of my Lesbian Sisters,as possible,to remember how important it is to look beyond the surface.Do the very best you can,to fall for the complete woman,a BEAUTIFUL SOUL ,especially from within. I must also note,most importantly,that I am much,much older now,and it's very true that AGE is just a number,but I must say that with aging and maturity came an abundance of WISDOM for me,as well.I am happier now than I've ever been in my life.___CHEERS TO WITH AGE COMES WISDOM!!!

Was there supposed to be actual video links? I personally don't like drag the same as I don't like clowns-- it feels like someone is hiding behind that dress up and I don't like the hiding since I don't know WHY they're hiding (fake Santa falls into this category, too). Both kind of creep me out. And no, I don't understand the need for someone in drag reading to children at all, regardless of the intention. Why do this? Why is this even a thing? Like you, I can sort of understand drag, for those who appreciate it in an adult club setting, but why be in drag reading to children? Isn't there a better way to teach tolerance than that?

"Social media’s empowerment of the far left, the far right, domestic trolls, and foreign agents is creating a system that looks less like democracy and more like rule by the most aggressive." And here we are, back at a very old adage: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". So true. It's why I rarely post anything online anymore. If I do, it'll likely be a link to an "unbiased" article that uses statistics from reputable & credible sources (shock). Even then, it'll get shot down by the trolls. Doesn't matter, it's up for all to consider. I don't reply to *hecklers/trolls. *At least not directly. I DO enjoy the occasional barbs at them, delivered via another person's reply. It gives me satisfaction to get back without them getting the direct attention- lol.

I love most animals & riding horses & have had cats & dogs most of my life. Currently, I only live w/my black & tan rescue mutts, Hoggle & Ludo.

Mischevious pup!

Kinda basic but I guess we didn't get to this before? Not with a poll! There's already a profile question about pets, but it's more what could get awkward on a date, a huge dog versus a pet phobia, etc. The profiles never asked who lives with who else and how many? Maybe you have one cat, and cats are your favorite OR you have one or two or three cats, and cats are your favorite BUT you also really love your two dogs, three rabbits, four guinea pigs, five birds, and five snakes. And on the weekends, your pony and her two awesome goat pals. Plus that partridge in a pear tree. (Did I leave anybody out? Spiders? Is anyone keeping more spiders than absolutely necessary in their house on purpose? My cats are occasionally entertained by spiders. I am not. But if we left you out with regard to spiders or anybody else let us know.) Also, it'd be fun to post photos too. I'll start. Tummy floof!

(Preamble: We've received more email in response to this and this and initial posts in this section. We're offering zero guarantee of a personal reply to anyone sending questions via email, especially non-members. But if we get same or extremely similar more than a few times, we might write about it here just so we can point to this section as a broader reply. Questions in quotes were asked via email unless otherwise credited. Some are approximate with same meaning, as we standardized the language and removed some profanity and a few words many consider slurs for clarity, plus a bit more politeness.) "So are XX lesbians who exclusively date each other transphobic?" So if you didn't already know: Back in the day, "gender" (still known as butch/femme) made lots of lesbians happy . . . which led to lots of sex? It's a sorting method still popular within groups of XX already willing to funk with each other. Within lesbianism, gender doesn’t insist XX also has to funk with XY just because XY wants to funk if XX doesn't want to funk with XY too. It also didn't deny anyone's biological sex or the sexually dimorphic nature of human reality. Today's gender isn't just for lesbians anymore after morphing into a hierarchy of sexism, with XY back over XX at the top of the privilege totem. So this supposedly fresh new sexism is really just the same old we've seen throughout human history, reconstituted then deceptively relabeled all over again, this time . . . "gender ideology." Unsurprisingly, today's gender highly correlates with less sex IRL and fewer sexually-connected, emotionally gratifying offline relationships. . . . "So are XX lesbians who exclusively date each other transphobic?" "Your lesbianism is not diverse and equitable and inclusive if you don't include me just because I'm a man! That's discrimination, and it's wrong!" "If your lesbianism isn't intersectional enough to include male lesbians, it should be illegal!" "My penis isn't a penis unless I say so. I say oversized clitoris! Or she-nis! If you still say penis, the ACLU now says genocide." "Do not call the lesbians who have sex with my penis bisexual! They are still 100% lesbian because lesbians validate my identity." "If you say you do not wish to date me because of my penis, you're obliterating my entire identity and denying my right to exist. How could you be so cruel?" "If lesbians who were privileged enough to be born genetically and physically female only want to date each other, how do you think that makes men feel?" "Think of all the emotional labor that requires: planning each of your actions and weighing them against the emotional consequences they might have on every person, and bending yourself in anticipation of what others might feel — always scaling back your own desires and rejecting your own needs. It requires a constant negotiation of what you can say and do in the world, constantly diminishing yourself because of the effect it might have on other people — which you cannot actually control or predict." Meanwhile, it's rare that men are expected to be incredibly accommodating and nurturing, even with their own biological children. But women are now expected to "affirm" everyone they encounter, including random men in their periphery in whom they're apparently no longer allowed to be merely uninterested? Men are More Afraid Than Ever by Lili Loofbourow (The Best American Essays 2019 (The Best American Series ®) (p. 148). HMH Books. Kindle Edition.) "It’s not that men’s pain isn’t real; it’s that our culture vastly overestimates it. A certain kind of man not getting exactly what he wants, precisely when he wants it, will truly believe he’s suffering more than a woman in pain who has never been told that what she wants might matter. While this doesn’t make him a liar, it does limit him and blind him to those limits. It’s as if men and women have different pain scales, emotionally as well as physically. Of course men believe they suffer more, and many women—having spent their lives accustomed to men’s feelings mattering more than everyone else’s—will agree with them. Most of us have been socialized to sympathize with men, the troubled geniuses, the heroes and antiheroes. They’re the protagonists." . . . Some XYs out there need my sexuality to be equitable and inclusive enough to always include their penises, and instruct other lesbians to include their penises too! Or I'm a bigot! Gay men are fine though! (Because they're still men, obviously.) Also, when an XY wants to date a gay man he obviously already can, so no problem there. Sexism says you can't exclude an XY from anything in general, and "queer" specifically says not even from your own sex life. Gay men are still fine because men get to define their own sexuality! Plus bonus?! The only group gay men are excluding are XXs! No one cares about that! So excluding XX vaginas from your sexuality? That's just your identity, which is perfectly legit because it includes your personal private sexual preferences, which are obviously beyond reproach. But for an XX to reject penises from her own sex life exactly the same way? Then she's probably a bigot, say many sexist XY who have always rejected penises from their own sex lives exactly the same way. But because they're XY that's forever allowed. For them. . . . "According to gender ideology, any XY possessing all stereotypical XY characteristics is allowed to "identify as" a lesbian any other lesbian should want to date, and no lesbian is ever allowed to disagree? If she disagrees even a wee bit, even just for herself, according to mens' rights activism she's a bigot and a transphobe. She's too unkind to join the rest of the queer community on the right side of history!" And . . . the constant social pressure upon women to be "kind" is highly correlated with denial of both biology and common sense. Particularly in the "queer community," lately with more rampant sexism. Gay men are allowed to have social gatherings where they are not required to pretend they will ever consider having sex with a vagina. These are not only allowed, they're "queer" enough to be celebrated. Do you need any more convincing this is sexism? Watch who's allowed to say no to "gender ideology" without getting bullied or shamed. For many women, the sexism of gender ideology encouraged us to go along just to get along to win everyone's "queer" approval, extra especially dominant men. But then one day the lightbulbs finally started going off and we were like, "Um. WHAT?" "The idea that lesbians are transphobic because our sexual boundaries do not extend to accommodate penis is a phallocentric fallacy. And the pressure on lesbians to redefine those boundaries is frankly terrifying – it rests on an attitude of entitlement towards women’s bodies, an entitlement that is part of patriarchy and now being replicated within queer space. Lesbian women do not exist as sex objects or sources of validation, but self-actualised human beings with desires and boundaries of our own." "Talking about queer politics with gay male friends my age is something of an eye-opener. I am reminded of two things: With men, no is accepted as the closing word. With women, no is treated as the opening of a negotiation. Most gay men in my life are in turns horrified and amused by the notion that the parameters of their sexuality could or should be expected to move in accordance with the dictates of queer politics. Some (the fortunate ones – ignorance here is bliss) are unfamiliar with the rabbit hole of queer theory. Others (the newly initiated) are, unsurprisingly, resistant to the queer problematising of homosexuality. One went so far as to suggest gays, lesbians, and bisexuals break away from the alphabet soup of queer politics and self-organise specifically around the lines of sexuality – given that numerous dykes have been subject to the TERF witch-hunt for making the same case, it was at once uplifting and depressing to hear a man outside of radical feminism voice the same views without fear of censure." "Some things haven’t changed a great deal. Lesbian sexuality is still routinely degraded. Lesbian women are still the posterdykes for “don’t worry, I’m not that type of feminist.” Only now, when I check my Twitter notifications, it genuinely takes a moment to work out whether my being a lesbian has offended the alt-right or the queer left. Does it particularly matter? The lesbophobia takes the same format. The hatred of women is identical." .... Again, since we're still receiving questions and also again because we already said so over here more in depth: According to our stats, IF "transphobia" within lesbotronic is defined as: lack of desire to date a trans woman/XY lesbian, as stated on profile questionnaire . . . then which demographic is most transphobic? Trans women calling themselves lesbian are most transphobic. On lesbotronic, they've mostly avoided each other while stating a desire to friend or date XX lesbians instead. The overwhelming majority of XY lesbians who have ever signed up wish to meet XX lesbians, not each other. Most have never wished to date according to gender, only biological sex, in that they're clear they prefer XX. XX lesbians always want to friend or date other XX lesbians, extremely reliably so, almost all of the time. XX bisexual women are least transphobic, with approximately 25% willing to date a trans woman. It's the exact same percentage willing to date a trans man. If they're open to anyone trans at all, they usually pick both XX and XY at the same time. XX lesbians and trans men (still XX) are in the middle. Our older age groups of XX lesbians are a bit more willing to date a trans woman than the younger ones, not the other way around, as some have suggested. SO: According to everything we're aware of via board stats interaction on our site, the profiles ever in our database, and the relationships reported, trans women calling themselves lesbian will have much better results trying to form any relationship with an XX who calls herself some variety of bisexual rather than lesbian. Obviously this makes sense to us. But it makes a lot less for sexists who would rather deny XX lesbians who exclusively date each other the right to exist as a distinct demographic group. "... lesbians are not attracted to the sex role stereotypes (also known as gender) ascribed to those people assigned-female-at-birth. We are attracted to females. This is why a woman who loves women is likely to date women all over the spectrum of hair lengths, preferred heel heights, ability to use tools, ability to make dinner, and preferred amount of makeup throughout her lifetime. Sure, we might have a type (mine is tall women with high-and-tights who ride motorcycles and have major planets in fire signs — DM me), but most women would not say that what they are looking for in a partner is a predilection (or lack thereof) for eyeliner. This also explains why so many lesbians love females who have or will eventually transition to living as transmen." "Women are both very sexual creatures and capable of being sexually discriminating. Our sexual practices are diverse: juicy, libidinous, kinky, vanilla, stone, cuddly, intellectual, poetic, and political. They are erotic and embodied. If you think they don’t involve touching, tasting, and loving the female body, you may have fallen prey to the patriarchal belief that women’s bodies are disgusting. Queer culture makes all sorts of room for people whose sexual practice centers around wearing diapers, coercive weight gain, and Grindr, but apparently wanting to bury your face in pussy is what Dan Savage would call “a fetish too far.”" Which is staggering obviously transparently the point for many sexist XY. But everyone else could just stop.

(Preamble: We've received more email in response to this and this and initial posts in this section. We're offering zero guarantee of a personal reply to anyone sending questions via email, especially non-members. But if we get same or extremely similar more than a few times, we might write about them here just so we can point to this section as a broader reply. Questions in quotes were asked via email unless otherwise credited. Some are approximate with same meaning, as we standardized the language and removed some profanity and a few words many consider slurs for clarity, plus a bit more politeness.) "Be more trendy! Get with the queer program! Be better than bisexual, be metasexual! Omnisexual! Be pansexual! Polysexual! Be polymorphously perverse! It's progressive!" Today, the majority of women who "identify as" bisexual are kind of not, if you define that as having engaged in sexual contact with both men and women. So "identifying as" bisexual is now extremely popular with women, but the much more popular version is the one that will never be backed up with IRL behavior. Estimates vary, but identifying as bisexual then backing up with IRL behavior is a lot less common than identification followed by . . . NOPE! And that's just "bisexual." Surveys also say if you're "identifying as" ALL of the above, we can probably also add "Pretend" to the list? It's alliterative. But some might find it insulting. So we won't say these orientations are "fake" exactly, because if everyone is allowed to identify however they like, that's rude? But if they're not "pretend" or "fake" they're "imaginative" orientations or identities that never engage with anyone else in the same room with you. We'll go with "imaginative" versus IRL. So meanwhile, since the extreme left pressured all the pick-me-try-hard-cool-girl XXs into pretending they were pansexuals on the prowl, many XYs can no longer easily locate the XXs that might actually have been interested in banging their brains out the less conventional way they wanted. The IRL bisexuals they seek are now like a few tiny minnows in a swarming sea of superhot but strictly imaginative XX sexual identities that IRL couldn't be less interested. IRL bisexual XXs that want to sleep with each other and/or the XYs that would like a piece of that as well are now like . . . "Where's Wally?" And the IRL bisexual XXs won't even know to wear red-and-white-striped shirts to assist in their own detection. When almost all XXs are imaginatively bisexual, the IRL bisexuals go MIA! !! Meanwhile, it's increasingly obvious this obfuscation regarding biological reality . . . "It should not be a surprise that a generation raised to think of physical reality as secondary to the personalized experience of digital reality would latch onto gender. According to one poll, 21% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+. This is an astonishingly high figure, but it makes sense when you consider that in its current use identity is conceived as an inner essence that has very little to do with sex or the body. The figure is consistent with other research showing teenagers today have much less sex than previous generations. In place of embodied experience, young people increasingly have incorporeal “identities.”" . . . actually leads to less sex, less intimacy, less pleasure . . . just LESS for everyone. Except pretense? "All of this is happening against the backdrop of a radical shift in how we conceive of sex, sexuality, self. In the age of social media, sexual orientation is something you identify into, a public performance that requires no partner and no physical follow-through. (Consider also the odd proliferation of straight-married women who identify as “queer,” based on what seems mainly like a conviction that they’re just too interesting to be plain ol’ heterosexual.) It’s all identification, no action, a complete decoupling of sexual identity from the act itself. If this is a sexual revolution, it’s the chastest one we’ve ever had." It's almost like denying biology overall and/or the sexed reality of your partners' actual parts . . . does NOT usually lead to great sex? (not for most XX, anyway) "If you're "queer" these days you're currently not allowed to say you're not interested in sex with a penis." "You can reject vaginas all day every day, but tell a dick no and you're a "sexual racist."" Agreed! So I guess I'm no longer "progressive" or "queer!" I'm experiencing waaaaaay more JOMO than FOMO with regard to "queer" in the last few years, so I'm going with lesbian, not queer. ""Queer" means no XX is allowed to definitively state that she's entirely uninterested in having sex with men." ""Queer" means pretending you are at least considering having sex with all heterosexual and bisexual XYs, especially anyone calling himself non-binary or genderqueer or agender or gender-free or even just sympathetically non-traditional no matter how obviously untrue absolutely all of this actually is." "Are large numbers of straight XY getting bullied for their refusal to "even consider" sex with another penis? NOPE!" "Meanwhile, gay men can and will remain as uninterested in vagina as they ever were, and no one says boo. They remain as fabulously 'queer" as ever!" Right. That's because this isn't "transphobia" or "sex negativity" or "a failure to be properly progressively postmodern." It is Still. Just. Sexism. "Lots of lesbians throwing each other under the bus lately, huh?" Um . . . yeah. Sadly, gonna kinda sorta have to agree with you on that one. Throwing other lesbians under the bus in favor of becoming a handmaiden or repeating station for sexism . . . . . . in deference to your mythological folkloristic "everybody on my bus" strictly imaginative sexual journey you will absolutely never embark upon IRL due to your total and complete lack of IRL sexual interest . . . . . . is more popular lately, unfortunately. Even the idea that lesbians might want to support each other above and beyond supporting men instead is a bit of a shocker for the "queer community" these days. Many XXs still feel they need XY validation even without any sexual motivation . . . and/or many sexist XYs are so threatening it's hard to stand your ground. Some have repeated the sexism, gaslit and brainwashed into imagining it would be progressive, brave, and "on the right side of history" to tell easily frightened women that "lesbian" is no longer something they're allowed. The general trend of the lie is just relabel any XX some variety of bisexual and pressure her into cooperating. You'll be "on the right side of history" for sexist men. So yeah, publicly calling yourself lesbian would be supporting other women who are still willing to be clear they prefer XX. Just like gay men are forever allowed to prefer XYs without bullying even inside the "queer community" . . . because they're still obviously XY, aren't they? Supporting lesbians instead of sexism would be your own strike against it too. "Leave lesbianism now! Join our Proud Progressive Pansexual Pantheon!" "IRL bisexuals are now like "Where's Wally?" "Are any of y'all experiencing reverse sexist schadenfreude right about now?" Well . . . we won't PRETEND (intentional word choice) that finding an IRL bisexual XX amongst all the "progressive" pretense has now become more like a game of "Where's Wally?" isn't cracking us up. Because that would be more disingenuous than pretending not to notice all this sexism, huh? LOL? To be clear, strictly referring to anyone sexist enough to crybully lesbians for being nothing other than lesbians. If you're an XY harassing lesbians for still not wanting to date you, that is sexist. Also you're a narcissist. And they're still not dating you. So yeah, anyone crybullying lesbians gets reverse sexist schadenfreude. Because for myself, as a lesbian, "I want to have sex with penis" is a LIE. It's a lie that non-sexist individuals of both biological sexes shouldn't want me to feel I should have to tell.

(Preamble: We've received more email in response to this and this and initial posts in this section. We're offering zero guarantee of a personal reply to anyone sending questions via email, especially non-members. But if we get same or extremely similar more than a few times, we might write about them here just so we can point to this section as a broader reply. Questions in quotes were asked via email unless otherwise credited. Some are approximate with same meaning, as we standardized the language and removed some profanity and a few words many consider slurs for clarity, plus a bit more politeness.) "Your duty as lesbians within the queer community . . . . . . . is to accept trans women and male lesbians and genderqueer males unconditionally, support them emotionally, and validate them sexually. Lean in or be left out!" We've been told, yes. And that's why it's the opposite of the pick-me-try-hard-cool-girl thing to say . . . because while it's not "kind" in the postmodern sense that "kind" means total agreement that XX lesbians exist for no reason other than to unconditionally support XYs . . . . . . we think it might be kind in a more practically helpful sense to let you know that from our perspective, according to our experience as lesbians, plus reading all the profiles submitted here, plus which demographics tend to interact with who according to the board stats package, plus what we've been told colloquially and individually regarding who started relationships with who else here as well . . . . . . that's not happening. At least, not very often. Not for most. Are we saying most trans women calling themselves lesbian aren't attractive to many XXs, including many who consider themselves "queer?" Nope! It's our experience many are considered attractive by XXs! Are we saying trans women calling themselves lesbian haven't found XXs to date right here on this website? Nope! They certainly have! We're saying if affirming you includes dating you, trans women and male lesbians and genderqueer males are aiming at the wrong target. Lesbians aren't likely to affirm you if affirming you requires dating you. The trans women we're aware have generated interest here, it always with women identifying some variety of bisexual. No, that hasn't changed recently or with younger women, nope. "You're not allowed to gatekeep lesbianism away from any lesbian just because she has a penis!" "Lesbians already know how to be lesbians from a very young age because they were allowed to be little girls without interference! You're basically required now to help trans women catch up by affirming and feminizing them. If you really wanted to serve the queer community, you'd tell other lesbians too!" "You should help those most in need, put your energies where they'll do the most good! Lesbians should go where they're most needed (supporting their queer sisters with an outie down below) or it's like they're not even serving their community at all." We're not gatekeeping anybody. We do allow members to gatekeep themselves just exactly like we do for ourselves via our search criteria? Also "gatekeeping yourself" is the same as "consenting adult who can say yes but also no whenever she would like" more or less? If you're running around demanding XX serve you in various ways for no reason other than you're XY and they're XX somehow within your "community," that's sexist. And yes, everyone still knows who is XX and who is XY, obviously. If you ever doubted that, look more carefully at who is mansplaining and to whom it's directed. Watch who's allowed to say no to "gender ideology" without getting bullied or shamed. It'll be obvious, and you'll now see all you need to see to clearly identify the sexism. . . . Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny by Kate Manne "Some men, especially those with a high degree of privilege, seem to have a sense of being OWED by women in the coin of the associated personal goods and services . . . " "Misogyny also subjects women to what I have come to think of as a kind of tyranny of vulnerability - by pointing to any and every (supposedly) more vulnerable (supposed) person or creature in her vicinity to whom she might (again, supposedly) do better, and requiring her to care for them, or else risk being judged callous, even monstrous. Meanwhile, her male counterpart may proceed to pursue his own "personal projects," as the English moral philosopher Bernard Williams called them (1981), with relative impunity. She is, in view of this, subject to undue moral burdens."