here on this bridge, between starshine and clay

"compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence" (1980) by adrienne rich is not a manual or a guide, nor is compulsory heterosexuality a set of boxes to check off to find your (sexual) self, or a set of definitions or features of a definition. compulsory heterosexuality is an analytic concept.

and the idea of updating rich's work is laughable given that rich herself wrote a new preface in 2003 and that this text has been part of feminist theorizing for decades now.

this text has a political, intellectual, and social history, a set of intellectual lineages and genealogies which rich was in conversation with, a set of other feminist thinkers rich was in conversation with, and an actual analytic drive and intervention.

also, full offense, you actually do need to understand the intellectual history of rich's intervention to understand the actual intervention she makes in that article, in order to then understand the concept of heteronormativity, which is coined by michael warner in 1991, in direct conversation with adrienne rich among others -- not half because both rich and warner are coining these concepts to name particular social, epistemic, political, economic, and historical formations.

these are not manuals for measuring and compiling and assembling identity! identity is in fact a form and formation rich and warner (and others) are critiquing!