Read on Twitter
there& #39;s a means to analyse this and i think i& #39;ll put in the effort of actually doing it later. https://twitter.com/JArtist_15/status/1277644061155954689">https://twitter.com/JArtist_1...
i& #39;m walking through this myself, so if i walk in a circle, i uh apologize. i& #39;m just talking out loud. if you find this annoying, please mute this thread. i& #39;m trying to understand what the discourse here is even trying to say. the replies are messy and it takes a lot to read it.
tw lesbian discourse tw bi/pan lesbian discourse
firstly, i will allocate that while the labels bi/pan lesbian are currently not my cup of tea (prior to a broader analysis), i also do not exactly want to be up in arms about how other people wish to attempt to identify.
firstly, i will allocate that while the labels bi/pan lesbian are currently not my cup of tea (prior to a broader analysis), i also do not exactly want to be up in arms about how other people wish to attempt to identify.
secondly, i may or may not change my mind. you can follow along and follow the argument to my conclusion, but kindly wait until the end of this to interject with comments or criticism. i need a vacuum to understand.
okay, let& #39;s start from the top: the labels in question are "bisexual lesbian" and "pansexual lesbian". let& #39;s break apart those words and start defining one by one.
let& #39;s start with lesbian! because that one is the one i have and there& #39;s been a lot of discourse on what it means.
let& #39;s start with lesbian! because that one is the one i have and there& #39;s been a lot of discourse on what it means.
the simplest definition to find is "a homosexual woman." this is the "traditional" definition of lesbianism.
a more complex meaning arises as we factor in more modern conception of gender. here, "lesbian" begins to encompass a broader set of gender: nb, trans, etc.
a more complex meaning arises as we factor in more modern conception of gender. here, "lesbian" begins to encompass a broader set of gender: nb, trans, etc.
different conceptions of lesbianism arise as we step throughout history. for example, "lesbian" used to function as an umbrella term for all wlw, regardless of id.
another is "political lesbianism" which encompassed total rejection of men, even in cishet women& #39;s relationships.
another is "political lesbianism" which encompassed total rejection of men, even in cishet women& #39;s relationships.
let& #39;s further elaborate on that later.
as for the foremosts: "bisexual" and "pansexual". i have walked through these labels as well, starting with bisexual and, later, pansexual, so i have a bit of an idea about them but i don& #39;t think i have any authority on the matter here.
as for the foremosts: "bisexual" and "pansexual". i have walked through these labels as well, starting with bisexual and, later, pansexual, so i have a bit of an idea about them but i don& #39;t think i have any authority on the matter here.
bisexuality is traditionally defined as "attraction to men and women". however, similar to lesbianism, the complexity of this label has ramped up as we broaden our understanding of gender.
now, it encompasses many definitions, such as "attraction to the same and diff. genders" +
now, it encompasses many definitions, such as "attraction to the same and diff. genders" +
as well as "attraction to two genders" and also "attraction with regards to gender". however, as some people in the replies have pointed out, it is not inherently the case that bisexual people are attracted to men.
this is an interesting point.
this is an interesting point.
bi people, if you could be so kind as to answer a question: does bisexuality NECESSARILY mean attraction to men? could bisexuality encompass only attraction to women and certain other genders and/or identifications?
additionally, i think it merits that the same question be posed to pan people: does pansexuality NECESSARILY mean attraction to men? could pansexuality mean, in some form, "no attraction to men"?
pansexuality, on the other hand, is often defined as "attraction regardless of gender". this is where i hit a sticking point, because if the attraction is regardless of gender, then how would we take that into account in understanding a gender-centric concept like lesbianism?
does it stand to reason that pansexuality can selectively exclude men from its attraction under the label of "lesbian"? or is this mere incompatibility?
i don& #39;t want to invalidate anyone who identifies this way, but i also would like clarity on it.
i don& #39;t want to invalidate anyone who identifies this way, but i also would like clarity on it.
as we place these terms side-by-side, it& #39;s important to note that they all share storied histories of fuzzy definitions and complicated versions of perceiving others.
as a trans person, it confuses me that people who feel uncomfortable with these labels are labelled "terfs".
as a trans person, it confuses me that people who feel uncomfortable with these labels are labelled "terfs".
is it trans-exclusionary to maintain a label that is only for women or fem-aligned trans people loving other women of fem-aligned trans people? i do not feel this is the case.
as a trans person, i feel it is more terf-y to imply my identity exists outside the scope of lesbianism
as a trans person, i feel it is more terf-y to imply my identity exists outside the scope of lesbianism
is that kind of thinking on the same level as "trans women invalidate women"? i don& #39;t feel like this is the case. lesbians have a storied history of being erased. in fact, it& #39;s so notorious there& #39;s a Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_erasure">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesb...
see, the thing is, right, i don& #39;t /want/ to be exclusionary by simply dismissing those who identify as bi/pan lesbian. they have feelings that are complicated and i want to understand why they identify with such a complex label.
at the same time, i don& #39;t want to harm communities that have fought tooth and nail for their own words.
like i said earlier, lesbian was historically used as a /rejection/ of male attraction. it is inherently the fact that lesbianism is defined by its lack of attraction to men.
like i said earlier, lesbian was historically used as a /rejection/ of male attraction. it is inherently the fact that lesbianism is defined by its lack of attraction to men.
now, the validity of this all hinges on this fact: does bi or pan necessarily mean attraction to men?
this is a very hard question to answer and what counts is quite nebulous. this is why, at the moment, i am taking a stance of "defense, no active engagement."
this is a very hard question to answer and what counts is quite nebulous. this is why, at the moment, i am taking a stance of "defense, no active engagement."
this is me, saying "please do not immediately invalidate bi/pan lesbians."
i do not want to speak for them (they have their own voice), but it is also the case that we need a broader understanding of sexuality before making such critical, harsh judgements.
i do not want to speak for them (they have their own voice), but it is also the case that we need a broader understanding of sexuality before making such critical, harsh judgements.
