taking yards, i dream of miles

The “battleaxe bi” position isn’t directly opposed to TERFs or transphobia; it’s directly opposed to pansexuals and the pansexual identity. It’s quite possible to find people (self-identified “battleaxe bis” or not) attacking “pansexuality” from sex essentialist, transmed, anti-nonbinary, and TERF positions.

For example, I’ve seen some bisexuals reject the term pansexual as “unnecessary” with the argument that sexuality is only about the sexes (in contrast to genders) that you’re attracted to and that there are only two sexes, so bisexual covers them all. It is sex essentialist–and cissexist/transphobic by extension–to treat “sex” as an immutable, objective, and binary category that is unconnected to “gender” (as both a social system and a individual’s embodiment/subjectivity/positionality within that system) and which is more fundamentally defining than “gender.” I’ve also stumbled along some anti-pan bi blogs that had transmed-like transphobic views. There’s also room for convergence in anti-pan and anti-trans perspectives from the point of view that bisexuality is stigmatized as “transphobic” or “binary” when actually those things shouldn’t matter anyway. Admittedly, I don’t keep up with TERF discourse on this topic, but I’ve also never seen a TERF defending pansexuality, and would imagine that they’d have reason to attack the label, too.

At this point tho I think pan should probably just replace the term bi, even though it saddens me that we’ll lose touch with the historical roots of bisexuality I don’t see a way around it. Every young self-proclaimed bisexual I’ve met irl has proudly stated that they are bi and not pan because they date men and women, not trans people—and I have to break to them that this is a transphobic stance. Transphobes now flock to “bi” as an excuse not to examine their internal biases. It’s contaminated. 

It’s unlikely that pansexual would replace bisexual, especially considering that bisexual is much, much more widely known and precisely because it has that grounding in history and activism. That’s not something I’m worried about. Plus, the “LGBT” framework already has a degree of insitutionalization in some parts of the world, and bisexual will probably continue to be carried over there.

For example, a form I had to fill out at my doctor’s office asked for sexual orientation and gave the options as Straight, Gay, Bi, Other, Decline. It also included something like “bisexual partners” as a potential risk factor for STIs, which reflects more of a pathologizing discourse in which “bisexuality,” not “pansexuality” is the historical term of choice. Even with that more stigmatizing reference to bisexuality, the form is exposing a wider segment of the population to the language of bisexuality, compared to the pretty niche intra-LGBTQ discussions about pansexuality versus bisexuality. And not even all gay/bi/queer people are exposed to the term pansexual or to even more elaborate lists of LGBTQ identities, just because those terms and frameworks have such an uneven reach. Additionally, there are more books and articles about bisexuality than about pansexuality, and I suspect that young and newly-out people will continue to seek out these resources, and therefore continue to be exposed to bisexual perspectives.

People who explicitly exclude trans people from their dating pool--and use bisexuality specifically to indicate that--don’t make up the majority of bi-identified people. And obviously there are lots of young bi people on Tumblr who passionately maintain that bisexuality isn’t trans-exclusive, and they all exist out there irl somewhere. I don’t think the trans-exclusive bisexual is as widespread a phenomenon as you think, and transphobic dating preferences among cis bisexuals are probably better understood as part of a wider pattern of transphobia among cis people.

The “battleaxe bi” position isn’t directly opposed to TERFs or transphobia; it’s directly opposed to pansexuals and the pansexual identity. It’s quite possible to find people (self-identified “battleaxe bis” or not) attacking “pansexuality” from sex essentialist, transmed, anti-nonbinary, and TERF positions.

For example, I’ve seen some bisexuals reject the term pansexual as “unnecessary” with the argument that sexuality is only about the sexes (in contrast to genders) that you’re attracted to and that there are only two sexes, so bisexual covers them all. It is sex essentialist--and cissexist/transphobic by extension--to treat “sex” as an immutable, objective, and binary category that is unconnected to “gender” (as both a social system and a individual’s embodiment/subjectivity/positionality within that system) and which is more fundamentally defining than “gender.” I’ve also stumbled along some anti-pan bi blogs that had transmed-like transphobic views. There’s also room for convergence in anti-pan and anti-trans perspectives from the point of view that bisexuality is stigmatized as “transphobic” or “binary” when actually those things shouldn’t matter anyway. Admittedly, I don’t keep up with TERF discourse on this topic, but I’ve also never seen a TERF defending pansexuality, and would imagine that they’d have reason to attack the label, too.

I identify as pansexual. I do not, and have never, done so because I think bisexuality precludes trans people. That’s bullshit.

For me, I identify as pansexual because I experience no difference in my levels of romantic / sexual attraction to people of various genders, whereas my friends and partners who have identified as bisexual do.

For example: my ex girlfriend was sexually attracted to all genders, but only romantically attracted to women (including trans women, TERFs fuck off.) My best friend is sexually attracted to all genders, but mostly romantically attracted to men (including trans men, TERFs fuck off.)

A lot of my bisexual friends and partners express different levels of sexual and romantic attraction / desire to various genders. My pansexual friends, like me, have never ‘felt’ that difference. For me having sex with a person who identifies with the same gender as me does not feel different At All emotionally to doing so with someone of a different gender. So I identify as pansexual.

I use bisexual and pansexual interchangeably, because I hate that bisexual is used as a dirty word, I feel that some definitions of it Do apply to me, and it has a pretty flag. I also call myself gay and queer, because people often assume I’m straight and that makes me uncomfortable, and unfortunately due to biphobia and panphobia, sometimes you just have to hit the str8s over the head with your homosexuality. Sometimes I’m more comfortable in LGBT+ spaces saying I’m gay/queer than dealing with the toxic bullshit around bisexuality/pansexuality. Sometimes I’ve flirted with girls who’ve literally said they don’t date bi girls because “they’re more likely to cheat”, and saying I’m gay feels like the safer option.

As cleverer and more outspoken people than I have said: other queer people are not your enemy. Straight homophobes are. Homophobic policy makers are. Homophobic law enforcement is. It’s tempting to attack other marginalised people because it’s less frightening than taking on The Establishment, but bear under no illusion: you are a lobster in a pot who is party to your own oppression when you do this.

Polysexuality is the attraction to multiple genders, but not all.

Pansexuality is the attraction to all genders.

Omnisexual is the attraction to...all...genders..? What?

Let me get this straight. Many people in the LGBTQ+ community say, "Bisexuality is the attraction to more then one gender". And though that is somewhat true, it doesn't completely make sense. They are making this term flexible to where you can have the attraction to more then one gender, which means you can like 4 or more genders- whichever is your cup of tea. But if you use this term for Bisexuality, you're crushing Polysexuality.

Polysexuality is, like I said up top, the attraction to multiple genders but not all of them, so usually 3+ genders- at least more then 2, so it wouldn't be bisexuality. "Bi" means "two", so Bisexuality should be "the attraction to 2 genders". It doesn't just have to be cis men and women though. You can be bisexual and have the attraction to nonbinary people and women, or just two genders of other in general. That's how Bisexuality was before- why is everyone trying to change it?

This is why people don't understand the difference between Bisexuality and Pansexuality, because when you try to change the Bisexual definition it's literally Polysexuality, and then when someone say they love all genders they keep using Bi instead of Pan- no wonder non-LGBTQ+ people are so confused about us and our community.

And Omnisexuality and Pansexuality are literally the same thing, so why are you creating two terms for the same meaning? Don't tell me, "It's because Omni is multiple" because POLY is multiple. Look at Polygamy. "Poly" as in maybe 3 or more people in a relationship, multiple. Polysexuality is the attraction to multiple genders- therefore Omnisexual can't be in that term, or in the Pansexual term. So therefore, in my conclusion:

Omnisexuality doesn't exist. And if you identify as Omnisexuality, you're actually Pansexual. And Bisexuality is the attraction to 2 genders. If you identify as Bi but are attracted to more then 2 genders, your Polysexuality- or if you're attraction all genders- you're literally Pansexual.

I'm open to my mind being changed. We can have a civil, peaceful conversation. Just make it make sense, please.

Bisexual is the most well known, and most commonly understood as “attraction to men and women.” However, self-identified bisexual people themselves can and often do have more nuanced understandings of their desire and of gender. Many are perfectly capable of recognizing that gender can extend beyond a simple binary of man/woman, and including people who fit that experience within the scope of their attraction. A lot of bi people will therefore explain bisexuality as “attraction to more than one gender” or “attraction to same and different genders” in order to avoid the suggestion that “men and women” are the only gender possibilities.

Sexual identity is very personal, and individuals have their own ideas about what it means to be bisexual, and therefore will explain/define it differently. This is normal part of any identity; identities are much more than simple, one-line definitions of a given term. Here are a few quotes that suggest how multiple (but often related) perspectives on bisexuality have been present in the community for decades:

Those of us involved with the 1970s bisexual liberation movement spent a lot of time discussing what bisexuality was. Though never establishing a consensus definition, we tended toward a broad conception. Bisexuality was thought of as a basic capacity to respond erotically and/or emotionally/romantically to either gender, simultaneously or serially, not necessarily in equal measure, but at least enough to make one feel uncomfortable with identification as either heterosexual or homosexual. As far as I can tell, this sense of the term has remained with the movement to the present. Though there is considerable dissatisfaction with the “bisexual” label, no other term has gained wide acceptance. (Stephen Donaldson, “The Bisexual Movement’s Beginnings in the 70s,” in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, & Visions, 1995.)

---

We are angered by those who refuse to accept our existence; our issues; our contributions; our alliances; our voice. It is time for the bisexual voice to be heard. Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages. We bisexuals bend to define bisexuality in ways that are unique to our own individuality. There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Some of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all. ... (Anything That Moves, Issue 2, Spring 1991)

Because the other terms are less well-known, bisexuality is usually not defined in relation to them at all. In other words, most people don’t limit bisexuality to only one section of the space between gay and straight: it’s used to cover that entire area, whether people consider that area to consist of “men and women” or “more than one gender” more broadly.

On the other hand, people who use terms like pansexual, omnisexual, and polysexual not only have to define their identities in their own terms, but are often also asked to explain how their identities “differ” from bisexuality. People may adopt these terms because they prefer the construction, finding more resonance in a prefix meaning “all” or “multiple” rather than “two.” They may see these terms as giving greater emphasis to an aspect of their sexuality they see (and would like to display) as central. For example, a person might adopt the term pansexual because they like the suggestion of sexual or gender expansiveness in a prefix that means “all,” and would like to specifically define their sexuality in terms of all-ness.

However, two things are important to note here. First, the construction of a word is not the same as its meaning. The prefix bi means “two,” but the word “bisexual” doesn’t really mean “two sexual.” The definition of bisexuality doesn’t need to include the word “two” at all, as in its definition “attraction to men and women.” While some alternate definitions maintain a dual character, such as “attraction to same and different genders,” it’s not actually necessary to define bisexuality in relation to two-ness at all. Again, many people understand bisexuality broadly as the area between gay and straight, regardless of the particular definition they give.

The second thing to note is that a person who declines to adopt a more particular identity like pansexual isn’t necessarily indicating that “all-ness” isn’t a part of their sexuality or that the prefix bi is more fitting for their sexuality than the prefix pan. They may simply see that kind of specificity of terminology as unnecessary, or may prefer a more widely-used term, or they not even be familiar with this alternative.

Unfortunately, some people are under the impression that these terms do or should represent fundamentally different sexual orientations, each with their own distinct pattern of attraction. It’s probably more often people who identify with the lesser known alternatives who believe this, since people who identify as bisexual may not be familiar with these other options. People then carve up the area between gay and straight and assign a portion of it to each of the terms. Bisexuality is then defined more narrowly or with a different emphasis to how it’s usually used by self-identifying bisexuals: sometimes as “attraction to two genders only” or as “attraction to more than one gender where gender plays a role in attraction.”

These aren’t good general definitions of bisexuality because this isn’t what most people--whether bisexual or part of the general population--are actually using the word to communicate. They are also definitions that are usually imposed by people who don’t identify as bisexual, who instead identify with the other alternatives and who are attempting to claim a monopoly for their identity over a particular portion of that area between gay and straight, and so say that bisexuality must be something other than what they want their identity to mean. But bisexual identity shouldn’t be dictated by non-bisexuals, especially when they’re defining bisexuality as less progressive or inclusive than their own group.

Selection from An Evening at the Garden of Allah: A Gay Cabaret in Seattle by Don Paulson and Roger Simpson, 1996. This book looks at the Garden of Allah, Seattle’s first gay-owned gay bar, which was open between 1946 and 1956. Although she doesn’t use the term “bisexual,” Rita Kelsey describes herself as “not exactly gay myself and…not the other way,” and talks about two women and a man as “the three loves in [her] life.” This selection also describes another marriage between a woman and a man who met at the Garden that was motivated my more practical concerns, a reminder that heterosexual marriage can’t always be taken as an indication of sexual interest between the parties.

In the Garden, lesbians enjoyed a bar that catered to them, even though they were generally outnumbered by the gay men in the audience. A woman could dance with another woman in many bars in the city, but the Garden fostered that intimacy. In that protective setting, Seattle lesbians went about finding partners and defining a public presence for the first time.

RITA KELSEY

Rita Kelsey’s home north of Seattle still is a guesthouse for friends from the Garden of Allah. She owns the home she shares now with dogs and cats. She showed me scrapbooks crammed with pictures, including those of many of her friends from the Garden days. * I went to the Garden for the first time on April 2, 1947, with Nickey Arthur, my friend and lover. I’m not exactly gay myself and I’m not the other way. I don’t know where I am although sex has never meant that much to me. My interest is where people are coming from. But I love gay people far more than the others.

shitting on marginalised communities: every pretense for why pansexuality is a separate sexual orientation is homo-, bi- or transphobic

Which just goes to show that even some of the influential women involved in shaping quintessential “lesbian culture,” including the parts of it that professed a rejection of bisexuality, could themselves have complicated sexual practices and self-understandings which didn’t totally preclude relationships with men.

From the dissertation “Love and Liberation: Second-Wave Feminisms and the Problem of Romantic Love” by Robin Kay-Marie Payne, 2010:

Whether Brown was truly the “only visible lesbian” is certainly debatable; however, the bigger contradiction that becomes most apparent in her memoir, her diaries, and her personal correspondence was that Brown was actually a practicing bisexual. During her tenure in the Radicalesbians and The Furies, Brown had counted herself among the coterie of political lesbians who saw bisexuality as a cop-out and once wrote: “You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t be tied to male privilege with the right hand while clutching to your sister with the left.” She continued, “Lesbianism is the only road toward removing yourself from male ways and beginning to learn equality.”[135] Perhaps Brown’s views had softened or maybe she counted herself among the few evolved folks who could live the ideal, despite the persistence of male supremacy. Maybe she did not count her own dalliances with men as exercises in heterosexual privilege since she did not have long-term romantic relationships with them. Perhaps she decided she would also like to have her cake and eat it too. Regardless of theoretical justifications (or lack thereof), the fact remained that after the mid-1970s, Brown sometimes engaged in sexual relationships with men. She mentioned at least twice in her diary that she had the occasional affair with a “kind and bright woman or man,”[136] and on another occasion claimed to “belong to neither camp” of straight women or lesbians “nor the bisexuals.” “I find the entire process of categorization obscene,” she wrote.[137]

I think difference of opinion can and should be tolerated sometimes, and that learning how to navigate differences of opinion over some of these LGBTQ terminology questions would be better than trying to enforce a universal stance on them. But part of the issue here is also how we are to evaluate opinions and reach a decision about which we can tolerate and which we will take a more aggressive stance against. The sanctity of ‘just sharing an opinion’ isn’t something I can affirm; TERFs and anti-feminists are also ‘just sharing an opinion,’ but I don’t think those opinions need to be tolerated.. 

if we continue to perpetuate that all bi women must hate their attraction to men, we will not be able to spot internalized lesbophobia properly. if a bi woman, from the get go of adopting her identity is freely able to express her attraction to men there will be very little problems in identifying when a girl who currently identifies as bi may be struggling with internalized lesbophobia. like some have said, if someone hates being attracted to men so much, they might not be attracted to men. this seems so simple, but yet through showing examples of bi women that are so one dimensional and always are upset by their “flaw” of being interested in men, how are we able to acknowledge when these problems occur, if the “bi woman’s experience” is one that belittles the full spectrum of bisexuality?

normalizing the “being bi means i like every woman ever and maybe 2 men because i have such high standards” hurts bi women and is the result of how bi women are forced to downplay and belittle their attraction to men in order to be accepted in LGBT and WLW spaces, and it hurts lesbians.  

Feeling less shame about attraction to men would be a positive development for bi women, but I don’t know if that would necessarily make it easier to sort out who’s “really” bisexual from who’s “really” a lesbian. I’m not sure that I think strangers even ought to be commenting on that question to individuals who make posts like that. (Can’t say I’d want any post I made talking about complicated sexuality feelings to be met with “have you considered that you’re really xyz?”) 

I think difference of opinion can and should be tolerated sometimes, and that learning how to navigate differences of opinion over some of these LGBTQ terminology questions would be better than trying to enforce a universal stance on them. But part of the issue here is also how we are to evaluate opinions and reach a decision about which we can tolerate and which we will take a more aggressive stance against. The sanctity of ‘just sharing an opinion’ isn’t something I can affirm; TERFs and anti-feminists are also ‘just sharing an opinion,’ but I don’t think those opinions need to be tolerated.. 

I mean… honestly guys like this one don’t actually care, they think if they ask enough times and enough ways that eventually they’ll get a yes regardless.

1) This whole attitude of “men like this will say it regardless” ie exactly the type of thing I was addressing in my last post about left wing politics… thats just not true the reason there are so many men who will persist after a no, is because there is a cultural expectation that men will pursue a woman who doesnt want it at first and then he “wears her down”. That exact phrase is used in so many shows/films about a relationship that is supposed to be a romantic story. What we tell people about relationships and sexuality does matter, it does have an effect.

2) This isnt about bi women or even as stated above, women who could be described as bi lesbians, it’s about the label itself, and how it affects perceptions of both bisexual women and lesbians.

I think we need to be able to say when someone doesn’t appear to be acting in good faith. So often men (and any would-be predator) will deliberately misunderstand a woman’s words or boundaries or discomfort. I think it’s important sometimes to identify the problem not as a lack of understanding (an innocent ignorance that can be solved externally through greater education) but a refusal of understanding (an internal choice that the actor is responsible for). When we accept every apparent “misunderstanding” as genuine, we let people off the hook for these choices.

And yes, when you point the finger at women who use these terms for creating this “confusion,” you’re allowing the real source of the “confusion”–the speaker’s deliberate mystification of women’s boundaries–to continue unchallenged.

There is a cultural expectation that men can get away with pressuring women into sex or relationships, and an acceptance that these actions can be rationalized through the hypothetical possibility that she will eventually enjoy it. Sometimes men will point to other women’s actions to rationalize that his target will eventually enjoy it, or point to the woman’s own past actions. This whole rationalization ought to be short-circuited. The theoretical possibility that a person might like something isn’t more important than a person’s current, actual boundaries. This pretext does not justify rejecting people’s boundaries. That’s what we need to affirm to push back against these expectations.

Blaming women who identify as “bi lesbians” for men’s decision to pressure lesbians into “giving them a chance” accepts the premise that, if you can’t prove that you could never potentially enjoy a relationship with someone, it’s not unjustified to pressure you into a relationship. (This is what’s implicit in your logic if you think it’s absolutely crucial that men understand that a lesbian would never be interested in a man.) This does not get to the root of the problem. It leaves bi women and straight women exposed (since their sexuality is “open” to men, they could potentially enjoy it if pressured long enough), and it also protects lesbians only so far as they can “prove” their sexuality to the man’s satisfaction. And of course, a man can willfully fail to be convinced whenever it’s convenient to him.

What perception do you think the term “bi lesbian” lends to people? That it’s ok to pressure lesbians into sex because they might also/really be bi? The underlying logic there is that it’s ok to pressure bi women into sex. Is there something about the bisexual label that inevitably convinces people that we’re fair game? Of course, we’re still just dealing with pretexts, because I’m sure the same people would see no problem pressuring lesbians in sex without routing their logic through the idea that they’re (also) bisexual; the real issue is that they’re ok with pressuring people into sex.

No one is saying it’s okay to pressure bi women, or even women who identify as bi lesbians into sex. Stating that an idea lends itself to sexual harassment of certain women, doesnt mean sexually harassing other women isnt as objectionable.

I think we need to be wary about claiming that actual women and their sexualities and identities promote sexual harassment against certain women (almost always including themselves, I’d imagine). What’s usually happening is that men will use some women’s behavior–even imagined behavior–as part of a pretext for harassing someone, by claiming it’s plausible that their target might eventually enjoy something, and therefore they don’t have to accept “no” for an answer. Again, a key point in that logic is that it’s sometimes ok to pressure people into sex or relationships, if they could plausibly end up enjoying it.

If we fail to identify this value as the real issue, we have a problem. Just the simple fact that there are some women who enjoy sex with men could be used as part of this pretext if nothing else is available. Are we prepared to say that any woman who agrees to have sex with a man is providing men with justification to harass other women into agreeing?

Or let’s look at something more relevant: there are some women who initially come out as lesbians, and who may identify as lesbians for years, but then get close to a man and decide they want to have a relationship with him. At that point they may reassess their identity and maybe change it. From an outsider’s perspective, this fits the narrative of a lesbian who eventually finds the right man, which people love to use as a pretext for badgering lesbians about their identity. How do you think we should assess situations like this? Are such women insurmountable obstacles to lesbians gaining respect, since they’re always out there lending justification for harassment?

I don’t think we should look at it like that, or that we even ought to see these cases as regrettable. The idea that lesbians generally will eventually end up with men is homophobic, but the possibility that some self-identified lesbian will eventually get with a man isn’t an issue. The problem is that people consider it acceptable to harass lesbians about being open to men. We shouldn’t confuse the specific pretext people are using in their rationalization with the actual root of the problem.

Returning to the speaker in the screenshot: the “lie” would be that the girl in question has failed to communicate a disinterest in men, that the term “lesbian” never has anything to do with a disinterest in men, that it’s perfectly reasonable for a guy to ask out a lesbian, and that his interest in “educating” people about the bi lesbian identity isn’t self-interested. I don’t think the falsity of any of these points in unclear to the speaker, and that he’s only pretending it is.

Women having sex with men is not the issue. You’re conflating someone saying they are a lesbian with someone directly saying no. Of course anyone who says no, regardless of their own gender or sexuality, should be met with acceptance of this no and the other party backing off. The issue here is not that this man is not taking no for an answer, it’s that hes not taking being a lesbian as a no.

But what I think you’re conflating is a woman telling men to hit on lesbians or teaching men that lesbians can be converted (and that it’s therefore ok to try to convert lesbians, this is a key point) with a woman simply describing herself as “bi lesbian.” I would join you objecting to the first two actions. But I won’t accept that a woman who’s simply describing her own sexuality is giving men the tools to harass other women or herself, or that her identity “lends itself” to men harassing women.

I also think there’s a huge difference between saying that “lesbians are into men” and saying that some lesbians (by which I mean, women currently identifying as lesbians) are open to doing (some) things with (some) men, or will be in the future. Because, really, that’s just a fact. Even if nobody identified as “bi lesbian”–which in itself doesn’t necessarily mean a woman is open to men–some lesbians would still have sex with men. That might be because they recently discovered they actually are interested in men, or because they’re experimenting, or self-harming, or engaging in sex work, or because they’ve been pressured into it, etc.

I don’t think the fact that some lesbians will have sex with men has any particular value attached to it; it doesn’t mean anything. Even taking all these together, it doesn’t follow that lesbians are generally into men, or that we shouldn’t take a woman describing herself as a lesbian as communicating a disinterest in men. This is a matter of understanding how words are commonly used, and recognizing when a specific use or action is peripheral to its central cultural meaning, or even to what an individual herself means by it. (Also, I feel like it needs to be pointed out, but a woman describing herself as a “bi lesbian” also isn’t exactly the same as a woman describing herself as a “lesbian” without qualification.)

Men are capable of being attentive to how “lesbian” is commonly used, and whether a particular woman’s use of it is atypical or casual (e.g. a bi woman describing herself as a lesbian in an off-hand way), and of not generalizing about other lesbians based on these usages. It really comes down to whether a man is prepared to respect women’s sexualities and boundaries, or whether he’s prepared to jump on any pretext to question them.

So if a woman, in a conversation with people who know her or whatever, flippantly describes herself as a bisexual lesbian, that is different to people insisting that some lesbians are actually bisexual. Thats the real issue with the label- it’s not that someone may at some point say those words together, it’s that diluting the definition of the words lesbian and bisexual can have negative effects on lesbians and bisexual women. Do you see what I mean ? I’m not sure that was very clear.

Certainly, some lesbians have had relationships with men- I am one of them. Obviously in that regard it can be quite complicated. I am of the belief that some of the hard lines drawn on sexuality can make it harder to question yourself. But that is what that is, it is questioning or experimenting with your sexuality. If a lesbian is regularly sleeping with or dating men she should probably question whether she is a lesbian.

I think it’s already true in a real way that some lesbians are bisexual (some bi women initially identify as lesbians and really see that as being a truth about themselves) or would agree to have sex with men for some reason. That’s already the reality we live in and I don’t see that ever going away. So I would never suggest that if this possibility were true (it is, even if unlikely for any given lesbian), then homophobia was in some ways more understandable or justifiable.

I think you’re presuming that a a society that believes that some lesbians might be bisexual is automatically one that will dismiss lesbian sexuality (or have other negative effects), but I don’t think that’s true. There are actually other unspoken values and presumptions involved in the willingness to dismiss lesbian sexuality. I think it would be better to identify those values and presumptions and confront them directly, rather than concede that it’s necessary for people to know that a lesbian could absolutely never be bisexual before we can expect them to respect lesbians’ sexualities. This is an unacceptable condition on the acceptance and respect we should be demanding, as far as I’m concerned.

As for vocabulary, I don’t see that “lesbian” has ever been used 100% of the time to mean “a woman who is exclusively attracted to women.” “Lesbian” has a fairly narrow range of related connotations, which center around women’s (usually sexual) interest in women. There’s often some sense that this interest in women occurs in opposition to interest in men, which I don’t think is unrelated to the cultural idea that genuine, lasting interest in women could not coexist with genuine, lasting interest in men. There’s also been a tension been “lesbian” as descriptive of a type of relation (between women) or a type of woman, and cultural ambiguity over the relationship between these two variables. (E.g. if we see a woman in a relationship with another woman, do we know she’s a particular “type,” because presumably only that “type” would be motivated to pursue this kind of relationship? While some people, when pressed, will say, “no, of course we don’t know whether she’s lesbian or bisexual,” it’s wildly common for people to casually identify any women expressing interest in women as lesbians, whether because they do think behavior indicates type and/or because they also use “lesbian” to indicate behavior and any actors who perform it.)

As a sexual orientation or identity, “lesbian” is most commonly explained as including disinterest in men, although not always in terms of “attraction.” Defining “lesbian” in terms of practice or desire, such as “a woman who (only) has sex/forms relationships with women” or who only wants to do those things, hasn’t been uncommon. Even somewhat looser definitions like “a woman whose significant relationships are primarily with women” can be found in lesbian literature. I think a woman who identifies as “lesbian” based on these definitions, regardless of whether she also identifies as “bi,” is using the word in line with how it’s been used, and would still fit under the common understanding of “lesbian.”

So I wouldn’t see cases like that as a “dilution” of the term at all. I think they can actually be quite in line with the central meaning of the word, within this range of related connotations that it has–and has always had. I think people are mistaken when they suppose that “lesbian” has reached a single, settled-upon meaning and that it’s “a woman exclusively attracted to women.” This is really more of a normative ideal, what people think “lesbian” should exclusively mean, that they’re working toward achieving by rejecting other explanations. That’s not a project I’m gonna help with; I think this range of related meanings provides “lesbian” with a richness that is actually desirable, and that recognizing this richness helps us understand how the term commonly has been and continues to be used.

Yeah, there are women who will identify with “lesbian” for atypical reasons, and I personally might not care for how a woman is describing what “lesbian” means to her and why she uses it. I’m personally not too concerned about this, because these cases seem to be uncommon, and I don’t think they’re on the verge of being so popularized that they would eclipse the predominant understanding of “lesbian.” (The backlash against “bi lesbian” has generated waaaaaay more discussion and “awareness” of this identity than I had ever seen in my decade plus of being out.) I can still object to people pushing a radically different definition of “lesbian,” such as one were disinterest in men never has any place. And honestly no one can stop you from objecting to people using “lesbian” in whatever way you don’t like, I just wish you would find other grounds than the idea that “bi lesbian” lends justification to men’s harassment of lesbians.

(I won’t touch on how “bi lesbian” relates to the meaning of bisexuality. People will pay lip service to how this identity also has an equivalent negative impact on bi women, but I think the driving concern is really to protect lesbian identity from the taint/threat of bisexuality.)

I think the question of “official” identities is interesting though, because even if a woman considers “bi lesbian” to be the best term for herself, she still might not lead with that in her offline interactions with others, especially if she doesn’t know them well or if they’re straight, or she might just speak from one position or the other depending on the context. I also wonder if, when we’re thinking about “official” identities, we’re really just thinking about what we’re going to include on the glossaries we make as part of our LGBTQ educational resources, for newly out or questioning people and for outsiders. I sure have some complaints about these kinds of resources and what people would like to feature in them. But I also think that things like glossaries and “official” resources represent a pretty superficial engagement with sexual identity, and I think we should move away from seeing these as any kind of end-all, be-all for what it means to be, e.g. a lesbian or bi woman.

I was going to reblog some early reply about how this blames sexual harassment on bi women, but lgbtpolitics’s comments showed me of the fact–if bi lesbians are a thing, then what’s happening the screenshot is something we have to get used to. And then I noticed, the guy in the screenshot isn’t actually doing anything wrong (except perhaps coercively using the SAM)–he’s not being harassy or forceful. His “crime” is being aware of the fact that bi lesbians exist.

I think a man who is particularly cognizant about lesbian issues would not be thinking it’s okay to ask out lesbians, but we can’t expect even well-intentioned men to know this, especially when we’re communicating that yes, lesbians can date men.

We could ask bi lesbians to be aware of what they’re communicating–to specify bi lesbian of they’re open to dating men–but that’s not something we can enforce, especially if we’re just spreading positivity about bi lesbians.

Like, I’m bringing up the point that ‘some lesbians might be bisexual’ here to dispute the ideas that “lesbian” can have this purity of meaning (someone who will absolutely never do anything with men), and that if only we can safeguard that meaning from bi (lesbian) appropriators, it will keep lesbians safe and respected. But in general, I don’t really see it as crucial information that needs to broadly communicated; if a straight person is ever in a situation where a gay person is interested in doing something with them, that’s something that I think can be worked out between the two parties.

I’m still curious as to why people assume that a “bi lesbian” would be open to dating men, or that this is what they intend to communicate through the term. I imagine that this would be true of some people who use it, but it’s definitely not what I’d assuming when hearing a woman describe herself that way. I also imagine that… if a woman was interested in a particular man, she might choose to explain her identity and sexuality more in depth, to make it clear that she was open to men. So again, I feel like a lot of this conversation can happen at the point where it’s actually relevant, in a more individualized way.

I also don’t think lesbians need to just accept that men will ask them out even after they say that they’re lesbians. I guess, if everyone really did take “no” as answer, then the issue would be less urgent, since a lesbian would presumably only need to clarify once and then the matter would be dropped.

But I’d totally disagree that it’s too much to ask for men to take a woman describing herself as “lesbian” as a indication of disinterest, and to respect that. Yes, perhaps sometimes a lesbian-identified woman befriends a man, and they get close, and she decides that she actually does like him. I’m not going to hold it against a man who’s in a situation where the dynamics of a friendship start to feel different if he wants to clarify the nature of that relationship. But even that couldn’t be generalized into Acceptable Times to Ask Out Your Lesbian Friend, because some guys will read anything at all a woman does as a sign that she’s ~really~ into him.

I think what’s really just needed is for men to approach lesbians with respect, and from there to be sensitive to the nuances of that lesbian’s identity and boundaries, and to the particular dynamics and boundaries within his friendship with her. If any of those things change, he can roll with those changes with the same respect and sensitivity. But part of respecting lesbians is, I would insist, assuming that they’re disinterested in men.

I also continue to think the person in the screencap is a troll, lol. I’m a lot more cynical than y’all I suppose. Yeah, I could say they’re doing something wrong: they’ve set themselves up to argue against the idea that a 23yo man is doing anything objectionable by hitting on a teenage lesbian. I mean, what even is the point of that thread, if not performance? No one can actually stop him from hitting on her, and there’s no special trick needed if you’re genuinely just wanting to clarify someone’s interest. I mean, a man presuming that he’s going to explain to everybody what “lesbian” ~really~ means and educate young lesbians that some lesbians might be into guys (self-serving and highly suspect) is already WAAAAY out of bounds and needs to back off.

i really liked this idea of slippages between the particular and the universal, where anyone can be under suspicion of sexual (or racial) abnormality. i don’t think this aspect of stigma is fully appreciated by people who want to rigidly link things like misogyny, lesbophobia, or biphobia to particular subjects (women, lesbians, bisexuals), and say that those forces are only about particular groups and so only impact those particular groups. 

i usually see people make this claim when the question posed is who “experiences” these social forces, which is also equated with who is oppressed by them. you end up with this tight correlation between certain real subjects (e.g. “women who are only attracted to women”) and an oppressive force that identifies and attacks those subjects, while bypassing all others which it considers irrelevant–except in accidental cases of “misdirection.” the overriding concern in these cases seems to be to clarify who is allowed to claim certain identities, experiences, and oppressions (and the political and moral statuses that go with them). but i don’t think this is a good approach.

i’ve talked around this before, but i think it can be helpful to look at the figure of the lesbian/dyke as something whose regulating force is optimized by the slippage between the universal and the particular. in other words, the lesbian/dyke is imagined as a particular, bad type of woman, but is defined in such a way that any woman runs the risk of being identified as one. this is possible because, in this lesbophobic discourse, the lesbian/dyke is defined by a willful defiance and (attempted) usurpation of men. she is not a subject identified by a specific, quantifiable trait (“a woman who is only attracted to women”), which can therefore be easily distinguished from “normal” women. even though the lesbian/dyke is imagined to look extremely different from other women (ugly, mannish), traces of her can be seen in any defiance or rejection of men. 

this isn’t, of course, the full extent of everything there is to say about lesbophobia. nor is this the only discourse of lesbianism. but i think you can get a more accurate picture of this stigma when misrecognition–both in the sense of ‘failing’ to understand what a ‘real’ lesbian is, and ‘incorrectly’ seeing her in others–is seen as a crucial part of the process. but it would mean giving up the idea that lesbophobia starts with the correct identification of a ‘true’ lesbian subject who is alone targeted for punishment and regulation.

we can look at there being slippages between man/woman as well, which allows for greater regulation of all gendered subjects. for example, while common sense–as produced by ideology–may tell us that the prototypical (white) man and woman are completely, naturally distinct, there are other levels where this distinction is deliberately blurred. this is clear in the racial construction of gender, where a sharp distinction between men and women is denied to racialized subjects. it can be seen more generally in the way men especially must continuously prove that they are not (like?) women.

we can identify here a discrepancy between the naturalizing claims made about gender, and how gender actually operates. in the second example, there seem to be various gradations–which may be present simultaneously–in what the slippage occurs between: the man who fails to be a man may be (discursively) a woman, a sissy, a f*gg*t, and in any case subject to gendered regulation and violence. when even subjects that are ostensibly “clearly” defined as men continue to be haunted (as storr would say) by the possibility of womanhood or other gender-sexual failures, perhaps this opens up social space for a variety of subject positions to be be imagined.

no conclusion. 🤷