Read on Twitter
i don't know why i clicked on a trending topic that was obviously going to lead to bi lesbian discourse
before railing against terms like bi lesbian and pan lesbian, consider the following...
before railing against terms like bi lesbian and pan lesbian, consider the following...
1. human experience is vast and messy, and trying to keep it contained in strictly-regulated vocabulary boxes is foolhardy.
1a. it is NOT your place to tell another queer person how they can or cannot identify. THEY are the expert on themself, NOT YOU.
1a. it is NOT your place to tell another queer person how they can or cannot identify. THEY are the expert on themself, NOT YOU.
2. if you can accept that nb lesbians and trans male lesbians exist, but don't accept that bi and pan lesbians exist, ask yourself why the term is flexible enough to accommodate different experiences of gender, but not of sexuality. then return to point 1.
2a. if you CAN'T accept that nb lesbians and trans male lesbians exist, return directly to point 1.
3. i identify as a bi lesbian because to the extent that i'm anything-sexual, i'm bisexual; to the extent that i'm anything-romantic, i'm homoromantic. remember that the split attraction model exists for a reason and that it may underlie why someone identifies that way...
...but even if it doesn't, they're still valid. again, it's not your place to determine if another queer person's sexuality is valid.
4. this is the big one for me: "anyone who's attracted to men can't be a lesbian" is t*rf logic. here's why...
4. this is the big one for me: "anyone who's attracted to men can't be a lesbian" is t*rf logic. here's why...
4a. it is dangerously close to the "g*ld star lesbian" terminology.
4b. defining queer identities by what they aren't rather than what they are is a t*rf move. t*rfs love to claim that trans women can't be women (we are) because we've experienced male privilege...
4b. defining queer identities by what they aren't rather than what they are is a t*rf move. t*rfs love to claim that trans women can't be women (we are) because we've experienced male privilege...
...but isn't being a woman more than not being a man? (it is.) t*rfs try to define womanhood by what it's not, which inevitably leaves logical holes as well as moral ones.
5. returning to point 2, i see people trying to widen the scope of the word "lesbian" beyond "woman who is exclusively attracted to women" to include trans/nb people of other genders (good!) while maintaining that it doesn't include lesbians who experience other attraction (bad!)
if you are going to define that word that way... it includes straight men. literally the opposite of what you're trying to do.
6. historically, the word included women we would now recognize as bi or pan. language evolves and i think it's helpful to have "lesbian" and "bi" and "pan" as distinct identities, but the casualness with which people toss out lgbt+ history is troubling to me.
a HUGE part of why we toss out that history is that we lost our connection to it because of the aids crisis, which really weakened the connection between younger and older queer people. i think we need to be mindful of learning our queer history.
7. this is super important so i'm going to say it again: it is not your place to tell other queer people how they can or cannot identify. IT. IS. NOT.
the end!
the end!
clarification: what i was getting at in point 4b was that just as being a woman is more than not being a man, being a lesbian is more than not being attracted to men.
and i think it's... instructive to consider that early t*rfs were lesbians who wanted to be insulated from men, a pattern that still continues today.
(please note that i am a card-carrying man-hating lesbian. but there's a difference between hating men and pushing away any woman who's ever had anything to do with men - and the latter is a key characteristic of t*rfs then and now...
i'm also using "t*rf" in its literal sense here, not just to mean "someone who frames their transphobia as feminism.")
finally, addendum to point 6: sappho of lesbos, the source of the word "lesbian," would today be called bi.
really the end! ... maybe
finally, addendum to point 6: sappho of lesbos, the source of the word "lesbian," would today be called bi.
really the end! ... maybe
