Hot Take Time: The Bi Lesbian discourse is a prime example of the ways in which exclusionary sexual language born in dichotomy is becoming obsolete and will eventually become useless. Lesbian can barely reconcile static enby identities, and can't reconcile things like bigenderism

The language centering around nonbinary people in lesbianism/bi-lesbianism already boils down several complex identities into reductionist frameworks that bare real danger for erasure, and the introduction of nonstatic, or otherwise mixed, identities only amplifies this.

The reality is that if the term lesbian, or newer derivatives like bi-lesbianism, want to retain the core meaning and aesthetic of the term then it is left in a position where modern identity simply can not be included/reconciled into the framework.

So the reality of the situation is that both camps, both inclusionist, and exclusionist, can't solve this problem without fundamentally redefining lesbianism in such a way that the new framework simply can't be viewed as a derivative of the previous one.

If nonbinary people, especially non fem aligned (or more complex multifaceted identies that are either fluid, or are simultaneous sums), are to be included in a lesbian framework, this problem is unavoidable. The language simply isn't prepared.

The reality is simply too queer for any conventional use of lesbian to be able to accommodate these identities, and the fact that this discrepancy is being brushed over by both parties is indicative of the fact that neither party can properly address the issue.

Also the quickness of people to brush aside these concerns demonstrates a lack of willingness in this community to really grapple with, and reflect on, these axiomatic problems. Patching over the hole in the language, and not addressing it head on, is a little unnerving.

The quickness in which people are willing to reduce the identities of various nonbinary people to fit withing their own framework of sexuality raises serious questions about the degree to which we take these identities seriously.

There is a fundamental difference between "Agender people can be lesbians" and "Agender people are included in lesbianism" and the reality is when I have this conversation I see a lot more of the second proposition than the first.

The reality is that within either proposed frameworks lesbianism simply is not able to both validate these identities, retain the core meaning of the term, and lay claim to blanket inclusion, meaning that many groups we may want to include in lesbianism can't be.

As stated before things get even worse when branching out into different identities. The inclusion of genderfluid folks into a lesbian framework poses obvious existential questions, and to ignore them means to ignore the validity of genderfluid people.

Simply saying "Well they are close enough" is to be blind to the very defining characteristics that make them who they are, and lay the foundation of their identity. It's disingenuous, if not outright harmful, to do this, especially if it's just to fit them into lesbianism.

And once again all of this applies both to more classic frameworks of lesbianism, as well as newer bi-lesbian inclusive frameworks. Neither framework can address these issues, and it's telling that neither side has made meaningful attempt to.