#knowing i define my lesbianism as a love for women that doesnt include men

[the-ace-lesbians]

Bi lesbian doesn't mean what that answer to that ask says though, that would be bad. Bi lesbian is biromantic homosexual which if homoromantic asexuals exist follows logically. Not saying you have to be comfortable with it, I'm still untangling my feelings on it, but it's important to have information when you're talking about these things. As an ace its weirdly close to the 'if you're asexual you can't be gay because your romantic attraction and sexual attraction have to be the same' argument to be entirely comfortable.

I have a lot of thoughts but tl;dr

The SAM shouldn't be used outside of aspec identities, I respect people who identify as bi lesbians but I'm not gonna be social with them, and I feel like the main difference in 'if you're ace you can't be gay' and 'lesbians can't be bisexual' is that gayness does not require sexual attraction, but lesbianism does require no attraction to men.

I maintain that the split attraction model could and should not be used outside of asexuality. It just doesn't work outside of sexuality because it was made specifically to define an identity including a lack of allosexuality or alloromanticism, where you can lack sexual attraction but have romantic attraction to, say women. The SAM works for aces and aros because asexuality and aromanticism do not contradict with queer identity, but benefits in more correctly defining yourself can be had from a modifier being used such as 'biromantic' or 'homoromantic' instead of simply 'bisexual' or 'homosexual'

Issue is, the foundation of being a lesbian is not including men and loving women. Bisexual and lesbian, while of course we share similar attractions and love and experiences, contradict each other if used together to explain a single identity, because one specifically requires the absence of attraction to men. To me, using the SAM to say you're a biromantic woman but you only like women sexually just feels like internalized comphet to an extreme degree - everything about a lot of it (of course not all and not every definition because it's a nuanced discussion) just feels like comphet to me.

Outside of that, the answer from that ask is absolutely one of the many different meanings to the term 'bi lesbian'. I've never even seen it applied to biromantic homosexuals, only bisexual sapphics who don't want to use the term bisexual sapphic.

I've seen plenty of people say other meanings, but the main one I see is people using it instead of bisexual sapphic or any other term we have specifically to avoid including men in lesbianism. It's a label that has an incredible amount of meanings, and it's definitely different to everyone who uses it or talks about it. There is no defining meaning.

I think, personally, the conversation is still different from the aphobic things people say - Primarily because gay doesn't specify sexual or romantic attraction. Like I said above, asexuality does not contradict anything about a lesbian identity. Lesbianism about loving other sapphics and only other sapphics - a loose definition because gender is so strange and confusing, but we can at least all agree that women.

It was absolutely acephobic and arophobic rhetoric that guided the OG hatred and aphobia we saw in the queer community, and it still is, but the reason that it's wrong to say we can't be gay and ace is because we literally, by definition, can be. Gayness and queer love isn't defined by sex, you know?

I do hear how it can sound too similar, and in the beginning that was a big reason I didn't have any opinion. I think the main difference is that in this, one of the labels used is quite literally defined by the lack one thing that the other has.

Even then, I'm not going to campaign against people identifying with the label bi lesbian, and I'd protect them if they needed help, they're still my queer siblings even if I don't particularly feel comfortable with the way they're labeling themselves because that's genuinely just none of my business, and my feelings don't mean anything about their identity!

And, in turn, their identity and feelings have no effect on my identity because I'm always going to consider lesbianism something devoid of men and attraction to men, that's sort of the whole point of it.

I also feel the need to say that I am actively reading more into this because I do want to know more! I have a lot of thoughts, and my main one tends to be that labels evolve and change with time and old definitions shouldn't be gospel while new definitions deserve to change, but at the same time some definitions sort of just... can't be changed.

Just as well, side note, another reason I dislike the term bi lesbian is because I have also seen it used by TERFs to describe sapphics dating trans women or sapphics who have had relationships with men, and I feel like if your label is used for transphobic and hateful purposes maybe we should all use the regular terms we had to describe this identity like 'sapphic' or 'sapphic bisexual' or literally just 'bisexual' because bisexuals aren't inherently going to date multiple genders and bisexuality is a beautiful word and identity with a beautiful history but idk I am definitely biased because I love bisexuals so much

[genderkoolaid]

i am genuinely confused by something you said in your joan of arc post & i would love if you could clarify. you said "women afab can be trans. men amab can be trans." i understand how that applies to intersex people, who may be assigned a sex they identify with but have other sex characteristics that they get dysphoria from. or theyre assigned as one sex but once puberty hit they developed far more traits of the other sex, so they had to transition back to what they used to be. i understand those scenarios. but as far as we know, joan of arc wasnt intersex & you dont bring up intersex in your post. how can a non-intersex person transition to something they already are & have been for their entire life? changing how one presents, like changing their style of clothes to better suit their gender & personality, doesnt count as "transitioning" imo, cis people do that aaall the time, multiple times throughout their lives. so what do you actually mean by this??

So my definition of trans is very much inspired by Leslie Feinberg's definition of trans(gender): An umbrella term for "everyone who challenges the boundaries of sex and gender," in which ze specifically includes cross-dressing and GNC people who are men AMAB and women AFAB. I would define trans as being inclusive of anyone who queers sex and/or gender.

In my humble nonbinary opinion, we way over-rely on the idea of trans as being about identifying as a gender that isn't your assigned sex. I, for example, was assigned female and identify as (amongst other genders) a woman, but my womanhood is very much trans. For one, I was on T for two years and intend to get bottom surgery, but I was also alienated from typical cis girlhood for my entire life and my womanhood is inherently tied to me also being a man and abinary. My womanhood is not cisnormative at all.

"Woman" and "man" (and male and female) are all constructs. Just because someone may call themself a woman, and have been assigned female at birth, does not mean they identify as the same kind of woman that society expects and demands them to. There are different ways of constructing womanhood. The "gender identity that isn't AGAB" definition was built on the idea of trans people as going from one binary point to the other, with the assumption that "woman" and "man" are still Real Things with one natural meaning. Attempts at being nb-inclusive have basically just said "well nonbinary isn't a gender assigned at birth, so its trans!" which is completely true, but it also ignores all the nonbinary and genderqueer people whose genders are more nuanced than that.

On Jeanne d'Arc specifically, I actually have some relevant quotes on this:

(from Vested Interests: Crossdressing and Cultural Anxiety and Clothing and Gender Definition: Joan of Arc respectively)

This is why I included that line: because we often assume, in our exorsexism, that a historical figure must identify as a man/woman (cis), as the opposite (trans), or maybe as neither, but those are the only options. We are still limiting ourselves and these historical figures' by limiting how we understand gender and genderqueerness. To Jeanne, being a cross-dressing female virgin soldier could be its own gender, something different than the genders of cisnormative mothers and nuns.

& as a note: I feel like, a lot of the time, non-intersex people in the community will make exceptions for intersex people (like "well, intersex people can be transfemmascs/male lesbians/etc" but no one else!!!") which. doesn't actually seem that great for intersex people? Like aside from assuming that these genderqueer experiences can only be had by intersex people, it also means that if you identify that way, you must Prove that you are Allowed to be doing that, by both outing yourself as intersex and arguing that you are intersex Enough.

[xxcalicofemmexx]

i think the thing is, is a lot of exclusionists are coming at this from the wrong direction. so much of the language used to argue against mspec lesbians is binarist to the extreme, which is extremely frustrating when what we’re talking about is a non-binary identity.

lesbianism has always included nonbinary people, and bisexuals, and gender nonconformists, and trans people, and aspecs, and men, and genderqueers, and mspec people of all kinds! we didn’t always have the language, but if you know what to look for you’ll see we were ALWAYS there.

but then the second wave of feminism hit, and with it came a lot of very loud upper-middle class white women’s opinions. political lesbianism became a thing, and lesbian separatism, and suddenly it wasn’t enough to just love women anymore. in fact, under political lesbian ideology, queer love for women didn’t factor in at all.

men were evil. men were inherently oppressors. men were sexually depraved animals that would ruin anything they touched. attraction under this ideology was an ethical choice. any woman who chose to align herself with a man was a traitor to the cause, and a victim of the patriarchy, and impure.

if that terminology sounds familiar, you’re right, it is! this was the birth of radical feminism, and with it came proto-TERFism.

now, please take a moment to consider why it became so important to center the exclusion of “men” in the definition of lesbianism. think about why a binary of “okay” and “not okay” genders would be encouraged, and who would benefit from their segregation.

all that said, i’ll address your concerns point by point

one of the bigger confusions for me with the mspec lesbian label is: what is a lesbian then?

the answer is the same as any queer identity. it’s up to personal interpretation. lesbian is a word that someone chooses to express theirself, to explain their identity, and to help find community where they belong.

in my opinion, and how i define lesbian for personal use: a lesbian is someone who experiences queer attraction to women, and prioritizes that attraction when seeking relationships.

but if a lesbian defines their personal experience with lesbianism around their lack of attraction to men, that’s cool! it’s their identity, and they’re the only one who can decide how to relate that to the real world.

the not cool part is when a singular experience is generalized, and touted as universal.

There Is No Universal Experience. the way you feel is not going to be exactly identical to everyone else.

Ive heard [lesbian] re-defined “queer attraction to women” but thats also for example what bisexual women have.

this seems to be a shocking statement to a lot of exclusionists. but. having things in common with other queer people is a good thing. yes, correct, bisexual women experience queer attraction to women. and they have personal reasons why they don’t identify with lesbianism, just like you (i assume) have personal reasons why you don’t identify with mspec labels. some people have personal reasons why they identify with multiple labels. and it’s not our business to pry into anyone’s private life!

also, as an aside bc it feels like a lot of people forget this: a bi woman’s queer attraction to women is not lesser than a lesbian woman’s. bisexuals and lesbians are equally queer. bi women and lesbian women have valuable shared experiences, including and not limited to their love for women, and the history of their communities.

Lesbianism centers women and its the only sexuality that doesnt include men.

it is not the only sexuality that doesn’t include men. ceterosexual. finsexual. enbian. neptunic. nominsexual. womasexual. hell, even bisexual doesn’t have to include men! i could go on and on and on, but my point is made.

if you don’t want to use a different label when you already identify with lesbianism so strongly, well… huh. i wonder who else feels that way 🤔

I dont see why lesbians cant just have our own label for our own sexuality?

this is a bad argument, and my absolute least favorite phrase to hear in a conversation about inclusivity. i will not give a question asked in such bad faith the dignity of a real response.

If we decide lesbianism includes men we wont even have a label for that shared experience anymore.

again, we’re not ~deciding~ that lesbianism includes men. multigender, genderfluid, nonbinary, butch, and otherwise genderqueer lesbians have always existed. it’s transphobic revisionism to say that they didn’t, to pretend this is a new concept.

parting statements

1) there are always reasons why a person connects with a label. when it comes to queer identity, a lot of people think long and hard about it. we’re talking hours upon hours of introspection- weeks, years even. if someone identifies in a way you don’t understand, it’s not your business to question them. they’ve thought about their experience more than you ever could.

2) because this is a big argument that gets thrown around: we are not going to force you to fuck men. we are not going to force you to fuck us. if you are not attracted to men, and/or you don’t want to be in a relationship with someone who could be, then walk away from them. that’s literally all it takes.

3) the acknowledgement and acceptance of mspec lesbians Does Not suggest or encourage the normalization of corrective rape, conversion therapy, or lesbophobic harassment. it does not contribute to lesbian erasure, as that is a problem with public representation and historical accounts, Not a matter of personal identity

repost, og posted feb 24, 2023

[ivyblooms]

Hiiii this might be weird lol but I saw your addition to the post discussing the correlation between the gay trans men phenomenon to misogyny and you brought up the topic of rising trans slash in fanfics - as someone whose been in fandoms for like 10+ years you’re sooo right!! Even though I do read all sorts of fanfic (gay, lesbian, platonic) I’d say I’ve always had a more critical approach in fandom stuff (plus getting more into radfem theory about 3 years ago) and from the get go I always saw the ~majority~ of male slash fanfic created by women as an expression of romance/smut through a non-misogynistic lens; “men get to be people while women are women yadda yadda”. A perception I’ve always had at the back of my mind, so it always confused me when in the past 5ish years suddenly women who had consumed so much gay fanficton were proclaiming they must actually be gay men

You mentioned the rise in trans slash media and honestly I thought I was going crazy lol. There has definitely been a huge shift, where suddenly the components that made the work gay could just be altered and it’s supposedly still the same. Apologies if this seems vulgar but the switch to now male characters actually being trans, feminization in sexual/non sexual manners, and sometimes just having a “boyp*ssy” at minimum has been really fucking weird, and in some fandom spaces I’m in the change seems to have skyrocketed in the past ~6 months

Honestly sorry for the random ramble and feel free to disregard but I would love to know if you have anymore to say on this topic. I think I’ve only encountered one light discussion overlapping fanfiction / feminist theory, so it’s always interesting when I see the topic brought up!

No worries sis, it's not weird.

I am there with you. I'd been noticing the trend but when I wanted to have a quick look at Captain Marvel femslash I was like 3 pages of results in and still hadn't seen one that didn't include 'girlpenis' or equivalent. I was legit annoyed, the last thing anyone wants when looking for fxf is the word penis getting involved.

I don't want to discount homophobic fetishisation of course. As a lesbian I never really believed that was real until I finally saw some hetero fandom friends genuinely being sexually attracted to males cast in live action versions of a cartoon and I was like .. wait a second u guys were serious?? So yeah thats real, but I highly doubt it's the main reason. Especially when so many lesbians are super into slash fic as well.

So to your point, while I do think the popularity of gay male slash fiction has largely been due to women wanted to escape misogyny, I don't believe it's been a conscious thought. I don't believe many of these girls and women actively thought they are lesser than men, I don't think choosing to write mxm was a decision to highlight misogyny, I think it's just an entirely internalised 'feeling' that somehow putting a woman with a man is demeaning or inequitable therefore they want their favourite blorbo to be with someone that doesnt give them that feeling. And, to straight women, men are hot.

Like notice how so many of the pov men in older mxm fics are the one that bottoms? Even the concept of strict set in stone roles for top and bottom defining your character (seme and uke) really is more reminiscent of hetero relationships that actual real life gay relationships. I truly do think there is reason to believe this is due to making one character (the bottom) more relatable as a subconscious woman stand in. They were always shorter, they were almost always weaker, they had less body hair, they were almost always prettier and more feminine, their male genitalia was small and often barely remarked on and there was no question that their main participation in sex was being penetrated. They were trans men before the idea of trans men and gender being unrelated to sex really ramped up.

It makes perfect sense to me that the next step in that train of thought, that men and women feel unequal and gender is not related to sex, is "well I relate to men as an equal therefore I must also be a man". Like if you haven't stepped back to understand your own bias, how would you ever realise the true answer is women are equal humans despite the way the world treats us? It's not correct and it comes from a place of homophobia where straights consider gayness a club they can join on a whim rather than a meaningful material experience, but it's understandable that's the leap being made.

You are right, it has gotten so much worse over the last six months. Maybe ABO has finally become truely accepted and now anyone feels they can put any genitals on any character like its a mix and match. Maybe trans ideology has finally fully taken over the majority of fandom spaces. Maybe actual gay writers and fans got sick of so much unwanted hetero we have started dropping out of popular fandom spaces.

Seriously trying to find gay fanfiction now is so much harder than ever before, but it's something people not in fandom spaces are missing because if you see nothing more than the characters in ships you'd think it was gay. Fandom spaces are becoming hostile to homosexuality in a way I wouldn't have predicted 10 years ago. I think they probably always were, tbh, it was just that misogynistic straight women didn't realise they had another option and could get by on the fetish until they found this solution.

[vampireqrow-moved]

um its my birthday so wait until 12:01am pst to block me if u hate this post 🥰🥰

long story short the pansexual label is redudant and actively harmful (its far from the worst problem bisexuals face but it is one issue) and i dont hate anyone who identifies as pan because A) those ppl are bi like me and B) i used to identify as pan myself.

if thats enough for you to block me and make a callout post for me then i cant stop you but pretty please either read this whole thing or just wait a few minutes for my bday to end 🥰🥰

anyways im kicking off this point with some personal experiences bc i love to talk to myself. i got introduced to the pan label at maybe 10ish years old, and started identifying with it pretty much right away. i heard about it before bisexual and it was pitched as attraction to all genders and of course trans people. i was of course a trans ally! i had trans friends! i was trans also but hadnt figured it out yet! the way i had heard of it, there was no bisexual, there was no need for bisexual, and identifying differently was excluding trans people, which I was certainly against. being bisexual was trans exclusionary and why would i exclude trans people? the 'hearts not parts' slogan was thriving around this time and i genuinely said it and meant it.

as i started to become more online, mostly through roleplaying websites and tumblr here, i started hearing of bisexuality. it was supposedly an older term, so older people still used it, but it was common knowledge that pansexual was the better, inclusive label and younger people should adopt the new inclusive language instead of the old and transphobic words like bisexual. /s

and then bi and pan solidarity was all the rage! pansexual wasnt erasing bisexuality, why did anyone ever think that? bi and pan were two separate and complete identities that were valid and had to be respected or youre a mean exclusionist. and an asexual person, hearing people labelled exclusionist always meant they were excluding people from the lgbta community who rightfully belonged, denying peoples lived experiences, and generally telling people theyre wrong about their sexuality because theyre too young. and all of those things were bad and had hurt me, so it would be ridiculous to change labels and support "pan exclusionists" because they were just as bad as ace and aro exclusionists, and they were all the same people. or so it seemed to me at that time.

then, 'hearts not parts' began getting called out for blatant transphobic by insinuating that pansexual was the only identity that loved people for their "hearts" and personalities instead of those gross gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and even straights who only saw people for their "parts". (STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE NOT OPPRESSED. I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THAT PANSEXUALITY WAS SHOWN AS ABOVE ALL OTHERS.) many pan people, including myself, began to denounce the slogan and insist pansexuality wasnt transphobic, there had just been a coincidence that a transphobic slogan was everywhere and a huge part of people's explantions of and associations with pansexuality. hint: it wasnt a coincidence.

from my perspective, this is when i began to see people discussing dropping the word pansexual. that seemed to be a huge step from getting rid off a transphobic slogan, and these people were just meanies who hated microlabels. and i like microlabels! as a genderfluid person, and someone who has friends who use specific aro and acespec labels, ive seen how people can use them to name specific experiences while still acknowleging their presence underneath umbrella terms like aromantic, asexual, nonbinary, lgbta, and for some people, queer.

pansexuals dont do that. they dont label pansexuality as a specific set of experiences under the bisexual umbrella, they see themselves as a separate identity, and even if they started to, the history of biphobia and transphobic undeniably linked to the existence of pansexuality in enough to stop being worth using. but i digress. pansexualitys shiny new definition that many people cling to is that pansexual is attraction to all genders. bisexual is two or more genders.

which. frankly? doesnt make any sense. my guess is that its supposed to be inclusive of nonbinary genders and those a part of cultures who historically have not had a binary gender system in the first place. i cannot speak for the latter group, but as a nonbinary person, its not inclusive. anyone can be attracted to nonbinary people. literally anyone. theres no way to know if everyone you meet is nonbinary or not. whether or not a nonbinary person reciprocates those feelings and is interested in pursuing a relationship is completely up to the individual, regardless of the sexualities of the people involved.

bottom line is that you cant number the amounts of genders someone can be attracted to, thus rendering those definitions pointless. people can be attracted to all kinds of people regardless of gender, even if they are gay, a lesbian, or straight. all people can date thousands of nonbinary genders if all people involved are interested and comfortable with it. numbering the genders you can be attracted to diminishes the post of nonbinary, as it is not a third gender, it simply any experience not fitting within the western concept of the gender binary (if the person so chooses to identify as such. if you cant tell already, the nonbinary experience is varied between every single nonbinary person.) important to note also that no widely accepted bisexual text defines bisexual as attracted to exclusively two genders or even the "two or more genders". i know this is used a lot but please read the bisexual manifesto. its free online i promise.

some people also claim pansexuals experience "genderblind" attraction while bisexuals feel differently attracted to different genders. this is very nitpicky for whats supposed to be two unconnected idenities, but thats only part of the problem. this definition is also not in any widely accepted bisexual texts, and bisexuality has never excluded those who experience genderblind attraction. i am in fact a bi person who experiences genderblind attraction. this does not mean i am not bisexual. it simply means i experience bisexuality differently than other bisexuals, and thats wonderful! no broad communities like bisexuality are expected to all share the same experience. we are all so different and its amazing were able to come together under the bisexual flag.

last definition, or justification i should say, is that yes these definitions are redundant and theyre the same sexuality, but people prefer different labels and thats okay. i agree in principle. people can define themselves as many things like homosexuals or gays or lesbians or queers or even other reclaimed slurs, while still not labelling themselves under the most "common" or "accurate" labels.

but pansexuality isnt the same as bisexuality, which may sound silly but hear me out. it has been continually used as a way to further divide bisexuals, who are already subject to large amounts of lgbta discrimination. "pansexuality was started by trans people who were upset with transphobia within the bisexual community! it cant be transphobic OR biphobic!" except of course that it can and it is. to say that trans people cant be transphobic is absurd. transmedicalism is right there, but thats not what im getting at. all minorities can have internal and sometimes external biases against people who are the same minority as them.

pansexuality was started as a way to be trans inclusive at the expense of labelling bisexuality as transphobic when its not. transphobia is everywhere, and bisexuals are not exempt. instead of working on the transphobia within the community, the creators of pansexuality decided to remove themselves from it to create a better and less tainted word and community, and the fact that pansexuality is intended to replace bisexuality or leave it for the transphobes goes to show a few things. pansexuality and bisexuality are inherently linked because the pan label is in response to the bi label. due to its origins, it is inherently competing with bisexuality and it cant be "reclaimed" from its biphobic roots. pansexuality is not a whole, separate, and valid label. its a biphobic response to issues within the bisexual community.

to top off this post, heres something a full grown adult once said to me. in person. she was my roommate. "i feel like im pan because im attracted to trans people. trans women, trans men, i could definitely date them. but not nonbinary people because thats gross and weird." she saw pan as trans inclusive and defined herself that way as opposed to bi which is shitty!

also a little extra tidbit about my experiences identifying as pan. i saw myself as better than every bi person. all of them. even my trans and bi friends. whenever they brought up being bisexual i would think to myself "why dont you identify as pansexual? its better and shows people you support trans people." because i was made to believe bisexuality didnt and was therefore inferior. thats the mindset that emerged from my time in the pansexual community. i am so sorry to all of my bisexual friends even if they never noticed. i love you all and hope you have a great day. this also goes to any bisexuals or people who identify as bi in anyway, such as biromantic or simply bi. love you all.

ummm yeah heres some extra reading i found helpful and relevant. here and here. also noooo dont disagree with me and unfollow me im so sexy 🥴🥴🥴

[bi-lesbian]

please understand that if you’re using the “original” def of lesbian to define bi lesbian, it should be understandable that the original definition of queer is not something that should be applied to the whole lgbt community

theres a difference between:

-ppl in our community taking terms from one another, blaming them for lgbt+phobic predatory mens actions (+doing other shitty things to em, like generally being extremely hostile and suicide baiting them), and others fighting against that and reclaiming the original meaning so we can just focus on the actual problem thats harming us (the predatory men) and not fighting amongst each other in our own community (-the situation for lesbian)

-and a word that has been used against all of us, and many in the community have reclaimed it for a long time and use it as general word to represent all of us (usually even those that some ppl in the lgbt community dont like, like mogai lads), and not to mean "strange." theres a ton of reasons why people reclaim things and theres just. so many times people do that? even on smaller scales? i literally used to go by "weirdo" online before i became a filthy kinny and started going by rouge.

its empowering to many people to take a word usually used insulting against them, and proudly claim it for themselves and change it into a positive thing. i know that doesnt apply to everyone though, and im not gonna directly call someone queer if they are not comfortable with it. whenever i say the "queer community," you can take that as including you or not, i dont really care, but its my preferred way of labeling the vast amount of identities we have instead of just labeling a few in an acronym and putting a plus at the end.

im not forcing my way of using labels on others, but others need to also not force the way they view labels onto me. we can define things differently and go our separate ways- if you dont use lesbian as any women or enbies (that feel fitting in the label) loving women, then okay, but me and many others have and will use it like this, much like how we use queer postively, and generally just have a lot of different views on words across times and cultures and general different life experiences.

words are never set in stone 100% meaning the exact same thing to every single person on the planet. they dont need to be. and they never will be. its just how words work with how different every single person is.

[ierogenvy]

hello!!! this isn't a hate anon-I'm genuinely lost. i saw your last reblog and... what does it mean? pansexuality isn't a thing then? i really wanna inform myself more on the matter :( when i learnt about bi/pan people I've been told that when you're bi you Have Preferences for some genders but when you're Pan gender isn't as relevant. so I'm really confused

(ps but at the beginning as a disclaimer: i am in no way transphobic or terfy. trans women are women and trans men are men and nonbinary people are neither. i shouldnt have to say this but i just want to make sure no one tries to discredit my argument or claim i said something i didnt)

so i am not bi so i am definitely not an authority on this topic but i will tell u what i do know. so basically, according to the bisexual manifesto (published 1990):

“Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have "two" sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit.” 

(im putting the rest under a read more to save ur dash sorry loves)

and from my understanding, through a lot of reading and general self-education, the term “pansexual” arose from a transphobic state of mind that identified trans and enby people outside of the “two genders” that bisexual people are attracted to, creating a third identity specifically for the inclusion of trans people. but, in case you missed the transphobia there, that’s not what bisexuality is and not what it means. bisexuality does not refer to any two literal genders nor does it exclude trans or enby people, it literally just refers to a bi persons attraction to more than one gender. i did a little bit of research before i posted this (i went to wikipedia) and it seems like the term pansexual arose and gained poularity due to the literal meanings of “bi-” and “pan-” (being two and all, respectively). people without critical thinking skills took bisexual to literally mean bi people could only be attracted to two genders, or to “the two sexes,” so pansexual came about to “explicitly include” everything outside of that. which obviously presupposes that bisexuality is inherently transphobic and noninclusive of those otherwise living outside of the gender binary/assigned gender. 

also i’d like to note here the “hearts not parts” argument for pansexuality, which, if you cant tell, is gross. this argument basically states that pansexual people love people regardless of their biological sex/gender identity and are therefore better people, because they love hearts not parts, and that people that identify as gay, lesbian, or bi, are worse because that “are attracted only to specific genitalia.” full disclosure: when i was 15(ish) and i was first on tumblr and learning about sexuality, i identified with pan, and largely due to this argument. eventually i realized i am a lesbian, but i also realized how gross this argument is. of course, i, as a lesbian, am attracted to women, but that does not mean i am attracted to vaginas exclusively. you kno why ? bc being attracted to a body part, and specifically a certain body part but only if it looks a certain way, along with being gross and transphobic, objectifies every person on earth and reduces literally everyone to their genitalia. this is not how real people function. yes sex is real and people date and marry people and have sex, but a persons genitalia should not be the defining trait of why you like someone. 

from what ive seen, having a preference for a certain gender while still being attracted to multiple genders doesnt affect your sexuality. youre still bi if you have a preference and youre still bi if you dont. you also dont have to have a preference. some people do and some dont, it literally just depends on the person. my advice, of this didnt answer your question, would be to find a bi person to ask. or better yet: do your own research and come up with your own opinions, dont blindly trust what you read on the internet

TL;DR: yes pansexuality isnt real bc its based in transphobia and biphobia :)))

pss: just an fyi, ik a lot of people use bi and pan interchangeably and many people, even celebrities, refer to themselves as pan, and i largely believe its due to a mass misunderstanding of what bisexual really means and why pansexual became popular. also all of this said, i dont hate you personally if you are pan, but i do think you should examine why you feel pan rather than bi, especially after reading this post and doing your own research 

[rozukoneko785-blog]

My lgbt opinions (and some facts)

(TW: q slur)

Microlabels aren't inherently harmful; I think they're great for helping someone define their identity to themself.

However, I don't think microlabels need to be how you explain your gender to someone. (ie. I'm nonbinary. In my head, I define myself as an androgyne, being pretty much right between male and female. But I always tell people I'm just nonbinary)

Neopronouns aren't needed. Just use they.

Pronouns ARE gendered. Maybe, at one point, pronouns meant different things (I think boy was just used to describe any child, regardless of gender. Feel free to fact check that). But, in current day, pronouns are gendered! That's why trans men are uncomfortable being called she. Same with trans women and he. It isn't the pronoun that coincides with their gender.

You need dysphoria to be trans!! If you dont have dysphoria, what purpose do you have to transition?

However, tucutes shouldn't be harassed because of their opinions. Sure, if they're being a dick, go ahead and be a dick back. Anyone who's a dick doesnt really deserve to be treated with respect. But, in all other cases, be polite. Explain your views and why you think they're wrong calmly, not with anger.

Gender is not fluid! However, dysphoria is fluid. This is a topic no one ever seems to say outright, but we all seem to know it. And I dont mean fluid as in "one day i feel i should have a male body, and the next I'm fine as a woman." I mean "one day I can have debilitating dysphoria to the point I don't recognize myself, I can't leave the house without looking completely like my gender, I just want to tear off my skin. Another day my dysphoria lets up more, and I find myself questioning if I'm actually trans or not due to me being less uncomfortable with my body." Like, how many posts relate to this exact topic, and no one puts it into words? I think anyone who's "gender" is fluid is actually trans, they just haven't realized their dysphoria is what is fluid and not their identity. (That's certainly what happened with me)

He/him lesbians? That's called being straight.

Lesbian is ONLY used for women who love exclusively other women.

Nonbinary people cannot be lesbians. They're just nonbinary people who feel attraction to women. Not everything needs a label.

Gynesexual and androsexual are two great sexualities for nonbinary people who do want an identifier! (Though, they aren't lgbt. They're just identifiers.)

Bi and pan kinda are the same thing, if bisexual people are attracted to nonbinary folk. If they aren't the same, then pan is definitely a label under the bi umbrella. However, if someone wants to identify as pan, let them. I use pan because saying "all genders" is clearer than "more than one gender".

The acronym is just lgbt. The plus is implied. Saying "lgbtq" is a different group of people, which I define below.

There's two different levels of "not straight." (Im speaking in terms of just sexuality here.) There is being queer, which is strictly just being not "normal" when it comes to sexuality. Then there's lgbt, which is experiencing same-sex attraction. Asexual, aromantic, and polyamorous fall under queer, because they still aren't "the norm," but they don't experience same-sex attraction. Being lgbt makes you queer, but being queer does not make you lgbt. (If anyone has a different way to describe this besides a slur, feel free to pitch it)

"Demisexuality" is technically real, BUT it isn't queer or lgbt. Not being attracted to someone until you know them is something that can happen, but that doesn't mean it's a sexuality. It's just a measure of libido, tbh.

Intersex isnt lgbt!! I can't stress this one enough. Being intersex isn't a gender, it's being born with both male and female characteristics. And numerous intersex people have gone on record anything that they don't want to be included in the lgbt community. It isnt lgbt, man!!!

Polysexual, omnisexual, graysexual, and demisexual are all identities that just aren't needed/already exist as other identities.

[positive-lesbian-vibes]

Like I think one of the reasons so many lesbians identify as lesbians but feel soooooo disconnected from womanhood is bc much of womanhood under a patriarchy is defined in terms of men and attraction to them. I'm not saying straight women build their identities and lives around men, not at all, but must of heterosexual womanhood is in relationship to and defined in terms of men. And that's not really the fault of straight women, I'm not going to fault them for being oppressed by straight men and coping with that how they see fit lol, but it means that a lot of "reclaiming" of womanhood and "defining" of womanhood that goes on in heterosexual womens spaces leaves little room for lesbians. And lesbians arent the only group left out, of course, many womens spaces have alienated all kinds of other groups of women like trans women, women of color, disabled women, working class women, etc, for many other reasons. But I can really only speak to the lesbian perspective of that.

And I think that's what I think about when I see the phrase "gals and gays," and why it makes me feel weird, because I'm very used to being excluded from Womanhood Things due to my lesbianism, so why would any sort of alliance between women and gay men include me? Especially considering how many straight women perceive lesbianism to be some sort of get-out-of-dealing-with-men-free card. No, me being a lesbian has not stopped men from harassing me, ignoring my declines to their advances, etc. In many cases it has actually made me a target! Just because I'm a lesbian doesnt mean straight men leave me alone, it just means I dont have to date them. And some lesbians dont even get that luxury because they might have a beard for their own safety! Similar to how bisexual women may be "free" to choose not to date men, they still face the highest rates of domestic violence! All that because of the "freedom" of not having to date men!

And to me being a lesbian gives straight women either 2 views of me with respect to my position in society compared to theirs. There is the stereotypical straight woman who sees me as less of a woman because I dont want to be with men and dont have "classic woman experiences" because of that. Or there are liberal straight women who will see me as lucky or having some sort of privilege for not having to date men! Both are demeaning and lesbophobic of course, because although I'm much happier I'm a lesbian instead of straight (ew lol) being a lesbian gives me no privileges over straight women. If you as a straight woman are so pressed about dating men and feel that lesbians have it so much easier, there are many solutions for you: date better men, stop dating men all together and live happier by not dealing with them, or consider the fact that you might not be as heterosexual as you previously thought.

And while both of these women seem to have contradictory views on lesbians, they stem from the same core belief that lesbians are not as "woman" or straight women because of our lesbianism. Either we are subwoman for "not understanding" the heterosexual woman's struggle and cannot be related to, or we are privileged and distanced from heterosexual women because of our "freedom" from abuses of men, that our womanhood is lesser because it does not come with the same tragedies that heterosexual womanhood does. Both rely on viewing lesbian women as closer in proximity to straight men than to straight women

Which is, in my opinion, incredibly incorrect lol. Most lesbians relate to straight women more than to straight men, and to gay men more than to straight men, as far as I can tell. Because even though we are perceived to be more like straight men, we are simultaneously not treated like them. We do not have the privilege of straight men, but we do not have the solidarity from our straight sisters. What a betrayal!

I dont know. This post is such a ramble. I'm just tired of people seeing me as less of a woman because of my lesbianism. I'm tired of being excluded from womanhood because of it. I'm tired of being expected to listen to heterosexual women's qualms with the shitty men they choose to surround themselves with, and then be told I will never understand because obviously I never deal with shitty men (because doing my best to purge men from my life obviously means that no shitty men ever make that difficult for me). I'm tired of my love of women being used against me in womens spaces, I'm tired of people associating lesbians with straight men, and I'm tired of people pretending my womanhood is lesser because I am a lesbian.

Straight women LOVE to divorce lesbians from womanhood, but then turn around and find the energy to complain about nonbinary lesbians, he/him lesbians, and gnc/butch lesbians, as if they havent spent their whole lives making us uncomfortable with womanhood and straight women. For how much they hate our noncomformance to their standards of womanhood, they do their best to exclude us from it anyway! That's rich of them

[gayerluke]

thing re: my own gender stuff that got annoyingly long & is of no actual significance to anyone including myself really lol

this is in no way important but i finally found a resolution re: the “am i butch?” issue, which is that im not. it just doesnt fit how i want/need to express myself & my gender. it’s not a culture i’m part of & not one i have claim to, & that’s totally fine. i believe strongly (for myself at least) that it’s not about feelings or just claiming the label bc you want to, it’s a specific & unique culture that not everyone is entitled to be a part of, & there ARE certain elements of style/behavior/etc that are intrinsic & necessary. (that’s just my onion though & you’re free to disagree if you want [but it’s not really something i’ll be swayed on so let’s not actually hash it out lol].) it’s more than wanting to be butch & deciding you are, it’s a role that you need to actively participate in. & you can totally become a part of that culture if you want to/do fulfill that role! but i dont & im not, & im cool with that. it’s also very much a working class culture historically, & im not working class, so it’s never going to be an experience i 100% relate to or even CAN experience.

agender is more where i fit & where i’ve always fit (i just dont mention it a lot bc ultimately it’s super immaterial when it comes to how im actually perceived/classed, & i also do align with women & not at all with men). i have no specific cultural style that i fit into, & tbh that’s important to me. my self expression is very much based on my own personal & individual history with gender, sexuality, femininity, masculinity, etc. & that’s how i like it & want & NEED it to be. it isn’t related to other ppl within butch culture & therefore that’s not my culture. it’s definitely not femme either, & that’s actually been another role i’ve tried to fit myself into in the past. i dont believe in the false & ahistorical dichotomy of having to be one or the other, but it had to do with being read as a lesbian by fellow lesbians etc. also um i have bpd so both of these things have been extremely influenced by the friends & ppl i hang/have hung around with (& also direct peer pressure from femme friends & culture telling me i had to be femme to be acceptable as a fat woman, but that’s another kettle of fish/source of trauma). my bff is butch & i love them so much & they’re so fuckin cool & i want to climb inside their skin & absorb them & also be cool!! but i can admire ppl & styles & cultures without claiming myself as a part of them lol.

so basically i am Kin with butches, but not actually there. also im not changing this url bc i want it to conjure the idea of a butch wookiee for you every time you see it & bring you as much joy & comfort as it does to me to imagine such a beautiful & wondrous thing.

(also for me being agender is more like being an atheist rather than a capital-a evangelical Atheist, in that it more represents ambivalence. i dont consider being called a woman or even being called a cis woman to be misgendering me. i dont want to ever be called a man, & would likely only call myself a non-woman in very very specific circumstances & conversations. the way gender plays into my life materially from a social/class standpoint is intrinsically tied into how i perceive myself, & it’s really important to me to acknowledge the privileges im afforded by that, as well as the oppressions. the only difference is that i feel alienated from ppl who, on a super personal internal level, know that they ARE women. calling myself a woman when i dont feel that tied to it is...... idk not “appropriative” but tbh transmisogynistic honestly? there are women who ARE women 100%, & i dont want to disrespect that identity or experience by claiming that i 100% relate to it, bc i dont. but also it just plain doesnt fit how i experience myself or my gender. im just like....... here, & i was placed here & im like. fine with that? but if i had been placed elsewhere i’d likely be fine with that too. what can i say, im lazygender. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ anyway this is very irrelevant to my actual lived material existence, & for me gender is like 90% a social thing that other people put on me & it determines everything about how im classed & perceived & privileged & what i experience etc. to me that takes precedence over whatever internal gender feelings i have. they’re like..... inseparable for me basically? again i have bpd so conceptualizing & defining myself with 100% certainly is basically impossible.)

WOW i sure wrote a lot about something of zero consequence!!

[positive-lesbian-vibes]

I really love your blog but that post is kind of bi/panphobic you said yourself that you don't know the girl's orientation so you shouldn't just label her as straight because you saw her holding hands with a guy. sure it might be disappointing when you see cute girl that you think is wlw with a guy, but that's just how one-sided attraction works, disappointment happens. whine about it only if you KNOW she's straight and appropriating

i mean 1. im not mad that she’s “taken” or that it’s “one sided attraction” or whatever. this isnt about me feeling entitled to the affections of women im into. im also not “whining” i dunno if you think im some sort of incelesbian throwing a hissy baby fit about every straight girl who talks to me and doesnt wanna hop in bed with me that was so not what my post was about at all

ya i shouldnt assume shes straight just because shes with a man, i get yalls points, i hear ya, and you’re right, because there are gnc bi women who date men and it doesnt make them any less bi or gnc or mean that they are “appropriating” anyone elses culture

but i think its a little optimistic to assume that just because she is gnc that means she isnt straight, even if she dating a man and bi or pan or whatever else, because yall know damn well straight girls are out here dressing gay as hell and still being, well, straight. just because a woman looks gay, doesnt mean that she is gay (as so many people love to remind everyone else), and just because she pinged my gaydar doesnt mean she is gay, either (even though my gaydar tends to be pretty good)

i made the post in frustration because despite the fact that i go to a university with almost 30,000 students, i have literally never met a single person who identifies as a lesbian, and have only heard about one (1) other lesbian out of all of my friend’s acquaintances, of whom my lesbophobic sister made sure to demonize the hell out of. I have met one pan girl, who defines pan as “being attracted to men, women, nonbinary, and trans people” who assumed that because i was a lesbian, i must be a transphobe or reduce gender down to the binary or whatever else, and needless to say it didnt work out. i made the post because at my school in the pacific northwest it is BEYOND trendy for straight girls to buzz their hair, wear mens clothes, and vehemently defend their heterosexuality by throwing lesbians under the bus when any ounce of their heterosexuality is threatened. I made that post because there have been many many MANY times women pinged my gaydar and then became aggressively heterosexual when i so much as hinted at my own lesbianism.

i understand that it’s wrong of me to assume that she either has to be straight or gay, and its not fair for me to erase gnc bi women, including gnc bi women in relationships with men, but the idea that because she isnt a lesbian she could “still be bi” (despite the fact that being bi isnt some halfway point between lesbian and straight or a mixture of the two and definitely not something you can “still” be as if its some sort of consolation prize) isnt necessarily what i was going at, and i apologize for failing to make myself clear about that

my point was not that gnc bi women dating men are suddenly “appropriating” gay culture, since you cannot appropriate a culture to which you belong. my point was that there are many straight girls (whether or not this particular girl whose sexuality is unknown is one of these straight girls or not) who give off gay vibes and turn out to be very heterosexual but claim to be “queering heterosexuality” because they have short hair and their boyfriend wears pink sometimes

and it is beyond frustrating to continually see people flag as gay, get your hopes up that you can maybe have one (1) whole single gay friend at your shitty fucking college in the middle of buttfuck nowhere who turns out to again be doing it “for the aesthetic,” especially since the vast majority of straight women who wear gay fashion take intense offense at being perceived as gay and will always throw gay women under the bus to defend their hetersexuality