#this post extends to mspec lesbians and the like as well. men and lesbianism are not mutually exclusive okay thats my point

[skrunksthatwunk]

if you're reading this ask yourself whether you would accept a genderfluid or multigender person's lesbian identity. now consider whether or not you would accept a trans man's lesbian identity. now consider whether you would accept a cis man's lesbian identity.

because i think there are many people who would accept the first, but not the second two, and others who would accept the first two, but not the last one. but from where i'm standing, these are all inseparable questions.

the acceptance for multigender, genderfluid, and other similar gender-ID lesbians as valid forms of lesbians is often subtextually qualified by the fact that they are not only men. so men are allowed within lesbian spaces, but only if they are a) only men sometimes or b) not exclusively men. but i think this goes back to the idea that lesbians are "non-men who love non-men," an idea that assumes a mutual exclusivity between men and other genders, as well as men and lesbians/lesbianism. this is a concept of sapphicism that excludes many people, myself included.

i have seen people present the idea of trans men and lesbians having a historic connection and community/experiential overlap, and thus the idea of a trans man who is also a lesbian often sits within that historical (i.e. bygone) context, as well as that shared experience. i think two things happen here. first, there is a belief that this is an old phenomenon, one that no longer occurs due to the greater number of more highly proliferated labels. the thought is that this overlap would not have occured if they'd had the proper language available—that people would slot into their boxes neatly, essentially. this is not true, as evidenced by the modern existence of trans men who are/were/once ID'd as lesbians, and lesbians who are/were/once ID'd as trans men. the second is the idea that that confusion or overlap essentially gives them a pass to call themselves lesbians, due to attachment to the title; or the suggestion that a shared experience gives them the right, even as men, to identify as lesbians anyway, a right that is not extended to cis men. but i ask what that shared experience might be, and whether that should be the qualification? is it a queer afab upbringing? that could mean a lot of things. aroace women would also have such an upbringing, and many of them would not view themselves as lesbians. there are plenty of lesbians who are not afab as well, and do not have whatever externally-perceived girlhood is imagined within that. plenty of trans men (and other afab trans people) do not view themselves as having ever been little girls, and plenty of trans women (and other non-afab trans people) view themselves as having been, at some point, boys. there are many others still whose "shared experience" will not be so neatly defined. intersex people of all genders often have very different experiences with perceived and experienced sex and gender, particularly if their puberty is blatantly not typical girl-puberty or boy-puberty. even things like racial or class dynamics could skew that experience, of who is allowed to be a girl (i.e. black women in america being barred from the social roles of "woman" because the concept is associated with/necessitates whiteness), or similar questions. my point is that, while perhaps a stronger link, shared experience is an undefinable and non-comprehensive concept here, as with, frankly, most/all gender/sexuality concepts. any box will lead to exclusion; every rule has exceptions.

this leads me to the third concept. though it may be hard for some to imagine a cis man who is also (genuinely, unironically) a lesbian, i think it is safe to assume that at least one exists, and likely many more. (in discussions of gender/sexuality theory, i think it is best practice to assume that is the case.) my challenge to you, especially if you said yes to the prior two and no to this one, is to consider what makes a cis man different from these prior examples. if you believe that some men may be allowed into lesbianism, why not cis men? what makes them different? why should men need additional genders to be lesbians? why should they need to have the community-approved gender path/understanding to be lesbians? who dictates the life or experience that allows one to be a lesbian, and is it anyone's right to decide that?

i just think it's good to ask yourself these things. i am very happy to see an increase in acceptance of the first two categories of lesbians on here, but i think (and i say this with love) that a lot of these people don't really consider why they are accepted, and whether those rules apply to other groups. they begin to accept others, but don't question the broader framework. it's just a suggestion. as a genderfluid + multigender lesbian myself, i have to confront the "no boys allowed/men dni" stuff a lot, and i think the ways i'm affected by it and my experience trying to encourage the letting go of such sentiments has given me some perspective on the issue. and although im not cis anything, much less a cis man, i guess i wanted to like,, prompt some reflection in people? because i think there's a lot of well-meaning and genuinely very progressive people who may think "you're a lesbian if you say you are" but don't apply that to situations where they're confronted with a type of lesbian they don't understand/that doesn't fit their definitions. like if self-id is what matters then anyone could be a lesbian. my point is that that's true, and that's okay. you don't need to keep anyone out. lesbianism is in your heart, basically.

[the-secret-life-of-bi]

I swear to fucking god, I should start tagging any post with the words 'lesbian' or 'gay' as 'l slur' and 'g slur' until people stop tagging any mention of the word 'queer' as 'q slur'.

"Well it's not the same!!!" Yes the fuck it is. I have had people include me under "gay" and "lesbian" as umbrella terms, even though they don't describe my identity fully, and I don't really personally identify with those terms. The word "queer" has been around just as long as the others and used by multitudes of people in the community, as an umbrella term and otherwise, but we're not suppose to use it as an umbrella term because that offends people apparently??? And they're offended because they've been called "queer" as a slur. But people have called me both gay and lesbian derogatorily, because surprise surprise, homophobes will use all our identifiers as slurs. It doesn't make them slurs, but it does make those people assholes. And you're an asshole too, if you think the term I use to describe my identity exists solely as a slur and yours somehow doesn't

Every single excuse I've heard people make for tagging any mention of my identity, queer, as a "slur" is the same excuse I could use to label literally any LGBTQ+ identity as a slur. It's so degrading to see people within the community filter out posts about my specific identity, like they don't even want to hear it, because of one word they have labeled somehow dirtier and worse than all the rest. My identity is somehow dirtier and worse than every other identity in the community.

And there was a point in my life not too long ago, where (as an mspec woman) I was pretty much exclusively attracted to women, so I briefly used the label of lesbian or mspec lesbian. I had been called a lesbian many times in my life for to my wlw attractions, so I figured I'd try it out. Then I was bullied by anons telling me that I wasn't allowed to use the term "lesbian" because I had before and will always have the capacity to be attracted to men. I was bullied for being "gay" as a kid, and for that reason, I don't use the word as a personal identifier very often. And for many reasons, other terms don't feel exactly right for me, so I use queer. I use it for me, and I extend it when talking about my community, wherein a lot of my friends also identify as queer.

I accept that there are posts that say "the gay community" and reference a community I belong to, even though I don't really use "gay". I accept posts that are about "lesbians" but that relate to my attractions as a wlw. I read the posts, I reblog them, I learn from them. I accept being in large groups of LGBTQ+ people and being lumped in as gay or lesbian by people who don't know my identity, or who use gay/lesbian for themselves and extend it to include me as an umbrella term. I support, uplift, and celebrate your identities as much as my own. I don't mind being considered alongside you, because as far as I'm concerned, we are in the same community.

All I ask is that you don't relegate my identity, the terms I use to express it, and every post that mentions it, into the slur corner that you don't have to see. Please just give me and other queer people the respect and support we give your identities.

[ply-space-archived]

So on my post about how ply people should get more recognition, someone said that I could just say I'm a ply lesbian, and I'd just like to know what that means. Sorry if this is a stupid question or anything.

i believe i said that actually :) don't worry there's no such thing as stupid questions on this blog.

anyway yeah! it could mean a number of things.

1. if lesbians are women/nbs attracted to women & nbs, and ply people are attracted to multiple, but not all, genders, they're not exactly mutually exclusive. you can be a ply lesbian if you love women & nbs.

2. if you use the split attraction model, you could be a polysexual homoromantic, or a polyromantic homosexual, aka ply lesbian.

3. some bi and pan women have been advocating for extending the meaning of lesbian back to what it originally meant - a woman who loves women. before lesbian separatism was a thing, it wasn't out of the ordinary to self identify as a bisexual lesbian. a lot of these multisexual women identify this way because they only date women in practice and don't want to be pursued by men. others just like reclaiming it as an umbrella term because their attraction to women is very important to them. obviously exclusionists are very mad about this move, but i personally support people in their decisions to identify as mspec lesbians, and i think anyone who believes in inclusion and freedom of self expression should too. i've gotten shit for id'ying as a bi femme because "femme is a lesbian exclusive term", even though it isn't and never was. that's not gonna stop me from describing myself this way.

ultimately, you define your identity. no one else can do that for you.

i also really feel your point about how sometimes going with a more well known label is just more convenient or safe. for this reason i often introduce myself as bi or just queer in spaces/to people who might not understand polysexuality. then i tell them i'm ply & gray ace later if i decide they're even worthy of knowing the details of my identity.

thank you for the ask! 💚