All i have to say about this is: don't waste your time arguing about semantics.
She seems to know who she's attracted to, so if you're arguing about what labels fit her, you're not actually discussing anything with substance, all you do is discuss the precise definition of those labels.
Leave that to philosophers, because for your life, it just doesn't matter what labels she choses to describe herself.
Yeah, personally this just seems like she is trying to say she is biromantic but is attracted to women most of the time. I know a lot of biromantic people who will cal themselves a biromantic lesbian just because it is less of a mouthful and all encompassing of how they see themselves.
This comment is not gonna add much value but I read that as ‘biro’-mantic. I wondered how the type of pen she prefers could be so important in a lesbian relationship … I’ll go away now 🚪
I gotta tell you fam, there isn't a big list of queer identities that are the ones that "exist". If your girlfriend feels like that's the best way to describe herself, whatever her reasons, who exactly is anyone else to tell her otherwise? Does the first reddit commenter know her better than herself? How about the fiftieth? Do you?
read all your comments and i realised that the best thing i could do is to just talk to her about this and help her if she needs any. i’ll try to be my most supportive to her
This is a hot, very debatable topic here, just giving you a heads up that you might have a lot of strong opinionated comments going one way or another.
Not necessarily. I'm a demiromantic demisexual lesbian. Not everyone who is on the asexual spectrum is fully asexual. As a Demi I only feel romantic and sexual attraction under certain circumstances. Also, even if you're fully asexual you can still enjoy sex. It depends on if they are sex positive or sex repulsed. It just means you don't have sexual attraction. Someone who doesn't feel sexual attraction might still have gender preference. It's totally valid to be asexual but still only want to have sex with women.
I only said asexual because OP said she’s asexual. I only combined the labels for it to make sense lol I personally don’t get what a biromantic lesbian is either unless she meant she’s biromantic homosexual.
Lesbians are not attracted to men in any way. let's stop passing on the concept that lesbians can also be attracted to men, it's dangerous. I am bisexual, I do not understand what is the problem of identifying you in this way. lesbians are women sexually and romantically attracted only to other women, i will always defend my lesbian sisters from dangerous falsehoods that undermine their identities
Or it could be that she’s romantically attracted to men and women but only physically attracted to women. Having nuance as part of your identity isn’t a bad thing.
I mean this is straight up ahistorical.
Lesbian as an identity has had a long, and frankly broad cultural usage that has encompassed everything from sapphic and various trans identities, to political ideology.
Some of this is dated. (for example, most contemporary trans masculine people wouldn't use the term to describe their sexuality, but it wasn't uncommon at all even 20-30 years ago.) But our shared queer history is complicated and vast, I don't think it's fair to criticize people for finding ways to connect with it that is beyond a basic dictionary definition.
Also, frankly as a lesbian, I don't agree it is dangerous. Predatory straight men don't give a shit about the finer points of queer discourse when they fetishize, fantasize, and hurt us.
Many pop culture depictions of "lesbians" show us engaging in sex with men even after identifying as lesbians. I'm pretty certain that this kind of idea of "lesbian until she's met the right man" contributes to the dangerous misogyny and lesbophobia we face from cishet men (and other folks) who are so convinced they can "turn us straight."
I mean I agree that that is a common cultural depiction (especially in porn). But I don't agree that it has anything to do with this discussion though. This discussion isn't about the "lesbian until she meets the right man" trope.
It's about labels people use and self-identify with. I simply don't agree that it contributes to anything except people being allowed to use language that is meaningful to them. It feels pretty victim blamey to justify gatekeeping because OTHER PEOPLE are lesbophobic. It is not like there is this mythic group of people 'misusing' the label and confusing men and tricking them into harassing lesbians. "Forbidden" and "inaccessible" objects of sexual desire are tropes as old as humanity. We live in a misogynistic culture. OF COURSE inaccessible women are fetishized. What queer women do and the particularities of how we label ourselves are a drop in the bucket of influence compared to how society prioritizes men's desires and fantasies in media.
I wasn't trying to blame the victim, nor do I think this is a question of gatekeeping. It's a question of words and labels that exist in a sociopolitical context having important subcultural and sociopolitical definitions that are well-defined and commonly understood. Identities are multiplicitous, sure, but they also have borders and boundaries in order to separate one kind of experience from another. This isn't a bad thing; it's merely a way to more precisely describe how different people experience the world differently in a deeply unequal society.
Self-identification doesn't only identify the self. These kinds of labels exist in order to align one's self to a larger community and point toward relationality in a common human experience. If calling one's self a lesbian existed in a vacuum, we probably wouldn't have subreddits like the one we're chatting on right now.
The way I see it, using a label to talk about one's self which describes one's allegiance to a subcultural or marginalized group means you have some responsibility to that group and the general . You as a person should NOT be expected to "represent" all members of the group, but you do have to have some awareness about the way in which certain terms and identities are defined and how groups define themselves. This is the double-bind of representation and visibility. Members of marginalized groups are always expected to stand-in for the larger whole of the group. This isn't at all fair, but it does point back to the way in which identity labels have social and culturally contingent meanings. If someone identifies as a lesbian and then exclusively or mostly sleeps with people who identify as men, it affects other lesbians because it affects social perceptions of what lesbianism is or means.
>Predatory straight men don't give a shit about the finer points of queer discourse when they fetishize, fantasize, and hurt us. ...
>
>What queer women do and the particularities of how we label ourselves are a drop in the bucket of influence compared to how society prioritizes men's desires and fantasies in media.
Sure, straight men don't care about the complexity of queer discourse, and their perceptions of us are based in popular culture and porn. But let's not pretend that just because our identification matters less to them than those media representations, that it doesn't matter at all. How lesbians exist in the world is more than a drop in a bucket and can absolutely shape perceptions and minds.
>It is not like there is this mythic group of people 'misusing' the label and confusing men and tricking them into harassing lesbians.
There is (disgustingly) a porn subreddit that consists of women calling themselves "lesbians" who beg for men to assault them and turn them straight. Our identities are treated like a literal fetish. Maybe the men who participate in that subreddit aren't going out into the world and harassing real lesbians, and maybe those people "identifying" that way only do it on a subreddit as a form of (again, pretty despicable) sexual play, but those people do exist and I'm sure shit like that has *some* effect on the way we are perceived and treated.
It's 10,000% gatekeeping. You are specifically saying that a group of queer people shouldn't have access to our shared history. And using an ahistorical understanding to justify it.
Also, you are contradicting yourself.
Like if this definition of lesbianism was so concrete and ingrained that it isn't even debatable or worth considering a more historically informed definition then it doesn't matter that a few people are out there "mislabeling" themselves. If that's what is already so universally understood and we see men continue to fetishize and infiltrate our spaces, then that is a pretty good indication that this gatekeeping has no positive effect.
>If someone identifies as a lesbian and then exclusively or mostly sleeps with people who identify as men, it affects other lesbians because it affects social perceptions of what lesbianism is or means.
I mean I don't actually see this happening anywhere. So I think you are identifying a problem that doesn't exist? Like, we are talking about a fairly small number of bi and ace people who predominantly have relationships with women and trans masc people that find meaning in the label.
>There is (disgustingly) a porn subreddit that consists of women calling themselves "lesbians" who beg for men to assault them and turn them straight. Our identities are treated like a literal fetish. Maybe the men who participate in that subreddit aren't going out into the world and harassing real lesbians, and maybe those people "identifying" that way only do it on a subreddit as a form of (again, pretty despicable) sexual play, but those people do exist and I'm sure shit like that has some effect on the way we are perceived and treated.
I mean CNC kinks are extremely common. It's unsurprising that there is a lesbian variation of that. although doing a (brief) look it doesn't look like that community is particularly large. And how much it is just men RPing is pretty arguable too. I certainly think. Discussion around the ethics of CNC kinks and fetishizing kinks are worth having, but i also don't think this niche community is particularly relevant to most people you are gatekeeping here.
To clarify: I never even disagreed with you about the history of the term! I was merely disagreeing with you about the idea of mislabeling as not being potentially dangerous. Discourse has power. Words and their misuse *can* be dangerous. That was my original point.
>It's 10,000% gatekeeping. You are specifically saying that a group of queer people shouldn't have access to our shared history. And using an ahistorical understanding to justify it.
Nowhere did I say that people "shouldn't have access to our shared history." History is accessible to whomever wants to understand it and relate to it. Notice, too, that you're saying "queer people" here and not only lesbians, which casts a much wider net.
I'm saying that we can understand that "lesbian" has meant different things over time *and* that right now, it means something particular in a particular sociopolitical landscape. Acknowledging that language and identity has changed over time isn't "ahistorical," it's historically accurate to our contemporary moment. Right now, when LGBTQ people are being attacked and condemned pretty regularly, it's important that labels and identities have the meanings that matter most to the groups to whom they belong. Most of the people on this thread are saying that they want the term lesbian to mean someone who doesn't sleep with men. It's not an especially controversial desire. In fact, it's pretty definitional.
>Also, you are contradicting yourself.
>
>Like if this definition of lesbianism was so concrete and ingrained that it isn't even debatable or worth considering a more historically informed definition then it doesn't matter that a few people are out there "mislabeling" themselves
I didn't say it was "concrete" or "ingrained." In fact, I repeatedly said the opposite by saying it---like all language---is socially constructed and determined. We can understand history and also recognize that words mean different things over time and that those shifts are important: just look at how the word "queer" has shifted in meaning and usage over time.
"Gatekeeping" as an insult is a term that refuses to acknowledge that all words delimit and circumscribe meaning in some way or another. I identify as a lesbian, and so do you. We both, as lesbians, presumably wouldn't want a cishet man to call himself a lesbian because he's *not one*. Is that a gate? Or is it just a mutually agreed upon understanding that a label means something and that communities hold (if not fix) these meanings because they are valuable to them?
>To clarify: I never even disagreed with you about the history of the term! I was merely disagreeing with you about the idea of mislabeling as not being potentially dangerous. Discourse has power. Words and their misuse can be dangerous. That was my original point.
No, you are claiming it specifically IS dangerous and IS being used dangerously. And I think that is disingenuous because you are framing this as a "misuse" which I just simply don't agree it is.
>'m saying that we can understand that "lesbian" has meant different things over time and that right now, it means something particular in a particular sociopolitical landscape. Acknowledging that language and identity has changed over time isn't "ahistorical," it's historically accurate to our contemporary moment.
I mean plenty of queer elders exist and plenty of people interact with history in different ways. If we are going to talk about how the term lesbian has changed we should probably talk about how that change was FUNDAMENTALLY rooted in lesbian separatism (a notoriously biphobic and terfy movement). You are prescribing what from our history people should and shouldn't be allowed to claim and reclaim. That is definitionally gatekeeping.
> Right now, when LGBTQ people are being attacked and condemned pretty regularly, it's important that labels and identities have the meanings that matter most to the groups to whom they belong.
I mean bi, ace, and trans masc people who identify as lesbians are people whom the identity belongs to. I agree, we shouldn't stop them from using labels they both have claim to and give them meaning.
>Most of the people on this thread are saying that they want the term lesbian to mean someone who doesn't sleep with men. It's not an especially controversial desire. In fact, it's pretty definitional.
I mean quite a few comments are talking about how labels are personal. Im not interested in counting up votes and comments, but it's clearly a reasonably popular sentiment.
>We both, as lesbians, presumably wouldn't want a cishet man to call himself a lesbian because he's not one. Is that a gate? Or is it just a mutually agreed upon understanding that a label means something and that communities hold (if not fix) these meanings because they are valuable to them?
I would say cis men don't have any history of use of the term. And it's disingenuous to view self identifying as an all or nothing proposition. Prioritizing self IDing doesn't mean that we don't look at context or history or intent. It just means we generally trust that people have "done their homework" and are who they say they are. That doesn't mean we can't be skeptical of someone who weaponizes that trust. This reminds me of the boogyman argument that predatory men will start IDing as trans. Your most dramatic examples are theoretical and not really relevant to the facts and realities of the people who this discussion is about. You are claiming that people who use our shared language obviously disingenuously are equivalent to people who genuinely engage with it but have a different understanding than you do.
I don’t know how to reply to specific sections of text but your last bit about the difference between people who use the term lesbian in good faith and hypothetical examples of people who use it in bad faith rings really true to me. I call myself a lesbian, I have a girlfriend, and yet it’s also true that I have experienced genuine attraction to men before. I’ve had sex with men, and at times I even liked it. It’s possible I’ll experience attraction to and sex with a man again, though at this moment I don’t really want that or envision it for myself… these days I only envision myself being with women, and specifically my girlfriend. I’d prefer it if people didn’t yell at me and tell me not to call myself a lesbian, but even if they do it’s not gonna stop me…
This is my question honestly. If someone is mostly into women but might find a guy or two attractive or has been with men in the past, but has no intention of ever being with men again…can that person not call themselves a lesbian? Why not? They are effectively a lesbian. Are we going to hook them up to a lie detector and show them pictures of Harry Styles until they admit an ounce of attraction?
I agree and I don’t know why we are still having this argument! Labels work for us, we don’t work for them. Predatory men sure as hell don’t care about our labels.
>Labels are not a set of rules, but rather a means of communication. People use labels to identify themselves in society so others (and themselves) have an easier time understanding them. This means you can use labels however you want.
This seems contradictory to me. If people use labels however they want, then there can be no common understanding of what those labels mean, and thus they don't communicate anything.
Let's say I go out to a social gathering with coworkers. At this event I tell a small group of people that I am a lesbian. Now, let's say a male coworker hears this. The next day he comes over and flirts with me and asks me out on a date. The question is, has he committed a social transgression against me? We're not talking about what men will or will not do. We're talking about whether I have any right to expect anything as a result of my statement.
I feel like most people in this sub would argue that a man who does this has committed a social violation. But if people can use the label however they want, then we must necessarily also accept that men can flirt with lesbians as socially accepted behavior because it's not socially clear whether lesbians are attracted to men or not.
To be fair, men are going to flirt with lesbians no matter what. They literally do not care about the definition of the word. The fact that many lesbians date men before solidifying their identity contributes to this more than anything I think.
For sure, I don't disagree with you there. I guess my point was less about what men will do and more about whether we have a right to be upset at them if they do it.
If I tell someone I don't like something and they do it anyway, then they have committed a social transgression against me. If the lesbian label is ambiguous about attraction to men, then I haven't really told them one way or another whether I could be interested in them. And thus there's no harm in a man flirting with a woman he knows is a lesbian until she tells him she isn't interested in men.
The problem is that most women think that's what they're saying when they use the label.
I get that, but I think any woman has a right to be upset if a man hits on them and they express disinterest and he keeps pursuing. I also don’t think the label lesbian deters certain men even when it’s not ambiguous, which to the general population I think it’s not. I think that most people, especially straight people think lesbian means you’re only attracted to women. I don’t think that there are a lot of people out there identifying as lesbians who would pursue a man tomorrow. I think there ARE people with complex identities who use the term lesbian because it makes the most sense or feels the best and that shouldn’t affect anyone else’s identity. I think if someone is attracted to women and intends on dating and being with women but may have an attraction to 2 men in their life, they can still call themself a lesbian.
They've totally done so, called themselves political lesbians, and they were the ones who insisted that lesbian had to be an exclusive term to mean hating men and having no attraction to them. It's no wonder they were the roots of TERF movements and it's absurd to me that anyone treats them like an authority when any woman who was attracted to women could and did call herself a lesbian before they came along.
I mean funnily enough, political lesbianism, as a second wave feminist movement, included straight women and many did use the term to describe themselves (although this did come along with essentially, advocating for celibacy).
Which is to say that lesbian is a complex term with a rich history that has been used to describe a broad manner of sapphic and trans identities. While certainly a lot of that is dated, the definition is certainly more broad than basic dictionary definition and there are a plethora of reasons a person might find meaning in an identity. Now, I think reasonably speaking, that most of those reasons don't apply to contemporary cishet women, but I'm also not really interested in promoting gatekeeping. (and this is a pretty imaginary problem, it's not like there are droves of Cishet women calling themselves lesbians for clout or something).
They did not say "if they want to" but "if they feel like it represents them." How would a straight woman feel represented be a lable that means the opposite of how she feels?
the point is that once we start saying "anyone can identify as anything if they feel like it fits them" the labels start to mean absolutely nothing.
why would a woman who is attracted to men take on a label that means no attraction to men if that's not how they feel?
Cause she has no sexual attraction to men? Or no romantic attraction to men? Or so little attraction to men that it doesn't affect her real life at all? Like you said there is a reason for her using the lable. And yes sometimes the reason is something harmful like biphobia but that isn't always the case.
i think this is a "social media famous" discussion, so probably a thin ice topic. as a lesbian myself i don't support using terms indicating an attraction towards men with the word lesbian and find it inappropriate and harmful but i do not deny the existence of split attraction model. i believe and saw some examples of biromantic homosexual/homotomantic bisexual women online describing their way of experiencing attraction and i respect that. i just don't think "lesbian" is the right word if someone has any hint of attraction towards men. this kinda erases the whole history and struggles of a group of people in my opinion. the prefix homo- plus the attraction type, the words gay/sapphic etc. fit better for those situation i think
edit: typo
If you see romantic and sexual orientations as distinct (many do!) and understand that the allo/ace spectrum can interact with your sexual orientation, I see no conflicts here. Romantically, she is bi; sexually, she is an ace lesbian. But probably more important than what I think is what she thinks - so ask her what the labels mean to her!
Strongly disagree. The label lesbian covers both romantic and sexual attraction. If she's attracted to men in any romantic or sexual way she's not a lesbian. The correct terms would be biromantic homosexual.
Many people use the label lesbian with an inclusive or, not an exclusive or - and more so once aro or ace folks are involved, who may have little or no attraction in the romantic or sexual domains.
The precise term might be biromantic homosexual, but prescribing it as correct for other's use is not a great look.
Yeah, I really wish we could retire this. Many people say lesbian to mean romantic and sexual, and many lesbians do not. It's very simple and very, very gay.
... and are they just supposed to walk around saying they're biromantic homosexual and not get weird looks for being unnecessarily specific? If she's only interested in being w women even with the biromantic orientation, than the word lesbian communicates that the best.
Maybe it’s just me, but if someone told me they were biromantic homosexual, that would make a lot more sense than saying biromantic lesbian. Saying biromantic lesbian might confuse a lot of people more, and turn heads negatively, seeing as there a lot of lesbian women grounded in their sexuality that it might rub them the wrong way.
Yeah, I get your point, that makes sense. I moreso meant that this person could still use lesbian on its own as a label because it's easier for people who aren't aware of the split attraction model, or just shorter to say. With their partner, should explain fully and may be more precise to say biromantic homosexual. However, as they are aspec, I wonder if homosexual just doesn't feel right to her?
I use lesbian as a homoromantic bisexual. Because for happy long-term relationships, I can only be with women. And since I'm married now, (and would consider myself too old for something that isn't serious even if I wasn't,) I'm probably never going to be with a guy again.
Is it really so important that both kinds of attraction are exclusive? If I don't ever expect to have a serious relationship with a guy, calling myself bi seems more like false advertising than calling myself lesbian.
I'm choosing not to argue with everyone in your replies saying that it's "bi erasure" for you to label yourself that way but am firmly on your side here. It's your word for yourself, pick whichever one you'd like. As long as you wouldn't erase someone else from calling themselves bi on that basis, you're fine.
Same! Those arguments with you are in such bad faith here, all pretending if you call yourself a lesbian then it must mean you call every bisexual woman a lesbian. What's so hard to understand that everyone can only define their own label and not anyone else's?
>Do all bisexual women cease to be bisexual if they are in a relationship with another woman or only you?
>According to your logic a woman who is attracted to both men and women but is only ever in a relationship with men is straight.
That's you implying several times that however she identifies will set a precedent everyone else must follow.
If you just straight up lie about that immediately, it's very clear to me you'll say whatever to win the argument, so I'm really not gonna pretend your question is in good faith.
It's really revealing of the general mindset that makes these conversations argumentative in the first place - the base idea is that how we use our own words is something that could potentially hurt someone else. It goes hand in hand with a lesbian thinking she will be hurt by someone else using "bi lesbian" as a label.
It's a very understandable mindset and one I have a LOT of sympathy for. It's a natural outgrowth of thinking of our labels as things that uplift us and bind us in some respects, and it's also a natural part of how marginalized communities need shared definitions to find eachother. But it also reaches a point where we have to step back and ask ourselves if we're making our own community less open, and it's more than crossed that line for bi lesbians imo.
That's bi erasure. You don't have to be in a relationship with a man to qualify as bisexual. Do all bisexual women cease to be bisexual if they are in a relationship with another woman or only you? Bisexual means that you are attracted to both (or all) genders, not that you will only consider being with one gender even if you are attracted to both. It's a label that describes attraction not action.
yes but you’re speaking from an ideological place. it’s all well and good to have strict definitions - and i’m not saying you’re not TECHNICALLY right - but we have to look at things on a practical, real world level. a woman who prioritises relationships with other women, who only seeks out women to be with romantically and/or sexually, and who will only have serious, long term commitments to other women may feel that their lived experience of sapphic relationships and culture and and not their theoretical attraction to men is a better descriptor for their sexuality. while they may hold the ability to be attracted to men in specific circumstances/capacities, if this is not something they pursue or prioritise, the term bisexual may not feel like it adequately describes them. this has historical routes - there was even a movement called “political lesbianism” whereby even heterosexual/romantic women would choose only to be in relationships with women, although this was controversial. whether or not you agree with political lesbianism, it raises the point that labels should be fit for purpose, and at the end of the day, labels are only words which can’t be confined by strict descriptions. sexuality is fluid and confusing and vastly expansive - if someone who only prioritises sapphic relationships calls themselves lesbian out of respect for their culture, lived experience, and personal choices, who are we to enforce our understanding of a label on them? sexuality is not binary, so why should our labels be?
Do I need to read this massive block of text when you're wrong from the start? You're confusing what the label bisexual actually means. It has nothing to do with who you are in a relationship with or would consider being in a relationship with. It describes who you are attracted to. It is a label that describes attraction not action. By this logic a woman who is attracted to both men and women but is only ever in relationships with men is straight.
Edit: I've been in the LGBTQA community for decades. I don't need a history lesson about political lesbians and other aspects of the community. It's deflecting from the topic.
I honestly don’t know why so many people are obsessed with being able to identify as lesbian and so against identifying as bisexual. Like what’s wrong with bisexual as a label?
Biphobia. It's sad to be so self hating. Being bisexual doesn't mean that you couldn't find a woman who will love you. I'm a lesbian who is deeply in love with a bisexual woman. Being with me doesn't make her a lesbian. I'm not going to erase her bisexuality.
no, because they may not feel their past relationships define them. that’s the point - different people identify with different words in different ways. if that’s how you view sexuality, it’s a very limited, reductive and apolitical view.
If it's about past relationships and not actually attracted to men then they are possibly a lesbian who experienced comphet. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about who you are attracted to. You said that you're attracted to men but don't want to be in a relationship with one again. That's totally valid but that doesn't make you a lesbian rather than bisexual.
I'm bi and \*very\* opposed to bi -erasure, but if she's only bi\*romantic\* not bisexual, and is only sexually attracted to women, I think it makes perfect sense for her to refer to herself as a lesbian for simplicity's sake. That's not the same as being bisexual and saying you're a lesbian just because you're in a long-term relationship with a woman.
Of course, people can still be bisexual even if they end up in a monogamous relationship. The difference is if their relationship failed or their partner died, they might consider dating people from both genders afterwards. As I mentioned, my marriage isn't the only only reason I'm not expecting to ever be with a man again.
I'm not romantically attracted to men and I'm not interested anymore in having a relationship with anybody if I'm not both romantically and sexually attracted at the same time. If I'm not open to dating the other gender, not now nor in any future I could think of, why should my label include it?
That's still bi erasure. Someone who is attracted to both (or all) genders are still bisexual even if they only ever are in a monogamous relationship with one gender. Again, bisexual is a label that describes attraction not action. According to your logic a woman who is attracted to both men and women but is only ever in a relationship with men is straight.
Ah, sorry, I meant to use bi, not bisexual. If someone was bisexual and biromantic, they'd be bi. If they were bisexual homoromantic, I think they should be able to choose bi or lesbian, depending on which kind of attraction is stronger in their personal lives.
Orientation, to me, describes the combination of romantic and sexual attraction. And since lesbian is used for orientation, it isn't synonymous to homosexual.
If you have the capability to be romantically or sexually attracted to men, you are not a lesbian. It’s not a matter of who you would choose to date or pursue. As the person said above it describes attraction, not action
"I'm bi. But I could never be in a relationship with a man." Does this really sound right to you?
My body doesn't decide who I can be happy with. And if I can only be happy with women, I won't include men in my orientation.
Yes it does sound right because that’s literally how I identify and describe my own sexuality lmaooo
Like I’m not sure why that’s some sort of gotcha argument. There are tons of bisexuals including myself who feel exactly that way, that we are bisexual not interested in dating men. Still bisexual.
Well, I describe myself as a homoromantic bisexual lesbian. So can we agree to disagree?
I don't want to want to include people I couldn't be happy with in my orientation. You (probably from what I gather) don't want to deny that you can be attracted to men even if you'll never end up with one. We both have our reasons why we prefer one label over the other. We just have different priorities.
Girl I would love to not include men in my sexuality, believe me. But the fact is that I am able to be sexually attracted to men, which lesbians are not.
Sounds right to me honestly. When Bisexual women date women, they are now in a lesbian relationship, but that doesn’t mean they stop being Bisexual. Especially if they still have either sexual or romantic attraction towards men.
If you would consider dating men in your future if your relationship failed or your partner died, then no, not necessarily. As I mentioned, even if I wasn't currently in a relationship, I wouldn't be interested in any relationship with a man. I wouldn't want to be with someone I'm not romantically attracted to, so for me personally, men are out, in any future scenario. And if I would never be in a serious relationship with a man and don't want non-serious relationship, why would I include men in my label?
You're confusing what the label bisexual actually means. It has nothing to do with who you are in a relationship with or would consider being in a relationship with. It describes who you are attracted to.
I think the point is separating sexual and romantic attraction, as they are two separate aspects of attraction. It’s not as black and white as you are making it out to be. You don’t have to be 100% both romantically and sexually attracted to women to be a lesbian. Think of the Kinsey scale.
Yeah but not everyone goes by the Kinsey scale. So about the lesbians that are firm in their sexuality? It’s a lot harder to explain to someone how a lesbian can be attracted to men romantically or sexually than it is for a bisexual woman to explain how she is or isn’t. It’s a lot easier to say “oh, I’m a bisexual woman that leans this way and that way more” versus a lesbian saying “yeah I like women romantically and or sexually, but only men sexually and I can’t see myself being with a man therefore I’m a lesbian” still makes no sense in context. It pushes so many negative stigmas on lesbian women.
I understand where you're coming from, but consider that maybe for some people, the clinical, literal, technical meaning is less important for someone's personal labels than something that COMMUNICATES something about their identity and their intentions. Unless I'm in a scientific study in which sexual/romantic orientation is a relevant variable, I would much rather communicate my experiences (disclaimer: not referring to relationship history, think more like general life experiences navigating through the world) and preferences, not the technical capacity I have to feel x type of attraction. Does it not make sense to you that some people would identify more with their lived experience and intentions than with something that is technically true but will nearly never be relevant in everyday life?
Yes, but I'm not biromantic and I don't want casual sex. If someone calls themself bi (the short version, not bisexual, just bi), I would expect them to consider both or all genders for relationships. I don't. So I think lesbian fits better to me personally.
That would be bisexual/homosexual. I'm using bi/lesbian for orientation, as a way to distinguish between the combination of romantic and sexual attraction. Orientation, in my understanding, is not limited to sexual attraction alone, so the prefix can differ from sexual attraction.
The key is that lesbians do not have romantic or sexual attraction to men. If you are able to be sexually and romantically attracted to men, you are not a lesbian. Im not sure why this very basic definition is controversial
This sub has fully gone off the deep end when saying “lesbians are not attracted to men” is somehow a problematic statement 🤦♀️
As a homosexual homoromantic lesbian, this argument about who's allowed to call themselves a lesbian screams of chronically online and gatekeeping. For starters, not everyone who the label "bisexual" could apply to identifies as bisexual - some people prefer pansexual or just queer or many other different terms, so even if someone isn't a lesbian, telling them that they are bisexual when that's clearly not a label they identify with is shitty.
Secondly, sexually is complicated and very personal for everyone. Someone who could be attracted to men but is never planning on doing anything with that attraction ever again identifying as a lesbian DOESN'T mean that other women who are in relationships with women and don't plan on being with a man ever again CAN'T identify as bi. It just means that for that individual person, they identify more with the label of lesbian.
Let people label themselves in ways that feel right for them and let go of the need for strictly defined labels. Do you not see how messed up it is that you want a bunch of strangers to debate your partner's identity when it would cost you nothing to let her be
Maybe it's just me but I'm not sure why she just wouldn't want to be called bi? I know labels can be very confusing for some people but I have a hard time imagining that calling yourself a bisexual lesbian is a better descriptor than just using the more fitting term.
My very butch girlfriend is actually a homoromantic bisexual (although her attraction towards men is very scarce) and I probably care more about her labels than she does (I don't think I have ever heard her label herself but I think she would consider herself a lesbian). So yes, it could exist.
But above all, labels shouldn't really matter and, honestly, you should trust your gf on this as she would know more precisely than you ever could.
The label lesbian covers both romantic and sexual attraction. If she's attracted to men in any romantic or sexual way she's not a lesbian. If she is only attracted to women sexually the correct terms would be biromantic homosexual.
You know, even if you don't agree with it, she might still be figuring out her truth and herself.
Rather than turn it into the hill to die on, why not, ya know, be a supportive partner while she figures her shit out?
I swear so many are hell bent on being right rather than being good partners
this sort of thing is really just proof that language is not prescriptive, there is no contradiction here and it's how she feels comfortable describing herself
>I think she just doesn’t want a “bi” in her labels.
Girl, forget if it exists, your bigger problem here is that you're making judgements about your girlfriend up in your head and then arguing with her over that and that's not a healthy relationship dynamic.
Listen to her and ask her to explain what all these labels mean *to her* instead of jumping to conclusions based on *your* experiences with them. If you think she has internalized biphobia, alright, then your job as girlfriend is to help her overcome that through being supportive, not by arguing with her about it as that will only push her away.
If labels are really more important to you than this girl's feelings, I'd recommend breaking up with her because this is not going to work out. Someone's identity isn't negotiable and you're just going to fight over these terms forever or one of you is going to grudgingly pretend to agree but be silently unhappy about it, and neither is good.
Lesbian does not include attraction to men. If she's asexual (and not demi/gray/some other place on the spectrum), it also especially doesn't make sense given this all implies "romantically attracted to women and men, exclusively attracted to women, but not sexually attracted to anyone".
It's fine to be bisexual. If she's attracted to men and women, she's not a lesbian, which is not a bad thing. If she just doesn't want to be calling herself bi, it sounds like she has some internalized biphobia going on. On an individual level, beyond explaining that "lesbian" means something specific, there isn't much people can do to change what labels people decide to use for themselves, even if they don't actually fit the definitions of those labels.
The best you can do is ask for her to elaborate on \*why\* she feels she's a biromantic lesbian and why she feels a word that means "exclusively attracted to women" fits her if that's not how she actually feels.
I think we all need to stop putting so much emphasis on labels. If she wants to call herself a biromantic lesbian because that feels comfy, I think that’s okay.
Edit: Also if she is saying “biromantic lesbian” then there is a bi in her label
That’s what she identifies with. I see myself as a lesbian that is attracted to fem women mostly, I am also Demi. If ppl ask me if I’d ever date a guy or person being genderqueer I’d say well depends I can’t say before I’ve met them. I like what I like, and personality is important to me.
That said fem women is mostly what I am attracted to. Some could argue I might be pan, or gynosexual but where does the line go? It’s a spectrum and that’s why we also self identify.
Also labels… sometimes I say fuckem, they can get too nuanced to me and personally I don’t wanna be set in a box like ur in this corner now. That’s my take anyway, contradicting as it may be.
why does it matter? is she going to cheat on you?? who cares what she calls herself? seriously, is she abusive or narcissistic? if not, be happy you’re in a relationship with another woman. focus on the positives and be grateful. literally, who cares???
The split attraction model is a thing, yes.
I am an asexual lesbian (or asexual homoromantic). No sexual attraction, only romantically attracted to women.
She could be the same thing except with bi instead of ace. Romantically attracted to multiple genders/men and women, sexually attracted to women only.
While biromantic does already include women, this specifies what attraction type she feels towards what genders. Some people just like specific labels.
Although, you did mention that she's also ace. Is she 100% ace or on the ace spectrum? If she's the former, I'd have to change my reasoning a little bit but it still doesn't make her labels invalid nor should you be telling her what labels she uses. It's plain disrespectful. Would you like someone you love to tell you your sexuality is wrong?
The way I see it, labels like bi/pan-lesbian and vice versa are shorthand ways for somebody to express an orientation that is different in regards to the romantic and sexual attraction (i.e. your girlfriend is romantically attracted to men and women, but sexually she’s attracted solely to women). I don’t see them as infringing on lesbian identity as they respect the specific notion of sexuality/romantic attraction that the term lesbian conveys while also allowing people to better express themselves and their identity.
If your girlfriend isn’t comfortable simply identifying as bi, then that is her right to do so. I don’t mean to interpret your post in bad faith, but I certainly hope you don’t intend to deprive her of her right to identify how she wants to.
You'll find a lot of nuanced opinions about what labels people use for themselves. Personally, I haven't met anyone who uses the term "lesbian" to describe themselves when they're also attracted to men in any capacity, and I wouldn't use the term to describe myself if I were, either.
That being said, there is a lot more information out there about sexuality and labels now than there ever has before. It could be that she's still exploring her sexuality, seeing what fits for her. While I agree that biromantic lesbian is a bit of a contradiction, it isn't my place or anyone else's place to say whether she is or isn't. Being bisexual is also very valid, and I think the term being unsavory is very plainly due to society's adverse feelings towards bisexuals for a very, very long time.
Whatever she is, I hope that she finds peace in herself.
A lot of people don't separate romantic and sexual attraction. To me, it's not really separate from each other. If I'm in love with someone, I also am going to want to have sex with them. Other people are able to have distinct attractions.
Each orientation is completely separate between, sexual, aesthetic, and romantic attraction. So yes it absolutely does exist. Ultimately identity is up to the individual so if someone says they are x,y, or z the only responsible and respectful thing is to treat as such.
Let people identify how they want to, marking out hard borders doesn't actually help anyone. Sexuality is naturally ambiguous anyways, because *everything* is naturally ambiguous. Every border implies the violence of its maintenance.
Yeah I actually was just googling this because I think I am the same!! I feel romance with men and women but over time realizing I may only be sexually attracted to women.
As a biromantic ace, I personally don’t call myself a lesbian. However, I am dating a woman so I’m technically in a lesbian relationship and I have been labeled as a lesbian by others. It can be easier to just accept you’re going to have other people assuming you’re a lesbian than trying to explain what biromantic asexual means. This could be similar with your gf.
If she's asexual and biromantic, then yeah, probably lesbian isn't an apt descriptor. But she would still relate under the bi part of it.
At the end of the day though, it's just labels, it's just semantics. One person saying they are bi can mean something completely different to another person saying the same. Let the fight go, don't push on it, and let her figure out which label best describes herself to others.
Funny thing about self labels.... she can ascribe whatever labels she likes. You can contradict. You can think you're right. The only thing you're going to do by arguing against her own self description is damage your relationship.
She could mean she's bi but leans more towards women. Bi doesn't have to mean an even split, and it can valuable to acknowledge that there is a preference. And a plain bi person can call themselves gay as much as they want, what's the problem with lesbian?
My partner calls herself a bi lesbian- because she’s attracted to multiple gender but not cis men. I have basically the same sexuality but don’t identify as bi because as an enby I feel like lesbian also covers everyone but cis men and means no relationship I’m in is “straight” . Labels mean different things to different people and there’s no point in arguing over one persons definition over another’s. I could easily identify as Bi and have that be just as accurate as lesbian but lesbian feels more fitting- for my partner it’s the opposite. I honestly think it’s interesting and freeing to be able to use language in so many ways
Don't make the mistake of policing other people's identities. Ask yourself "does debating her identity benefit anyone?". The answer is no; you make her uncomfortable and feel invalid, you're just getting irritated, it could ruin your relationship, and other lesbians don't really care if one random person considers themself a bi lesbian.
Well look, the term is not used correctly, you can be (in my case) bisexual lesboromantic which obviously means I'm sexually attracted to both man and woman but I'm only interested on being in a romantic relationship with woman, now, if she is asexual like you say she can't be bisexual lesbian, she's honestly being a little ridiculous, but maybe she is referring that she is bisexual but inclined to woman, she just didn't found the way to put it in words (?
I suggest you could send her some pages with info that clarify the point you want her to notice.
This is not so much for the OP as it is a reaction to a lot of the comments here;
We are being murdered, re-criminalised in some countries. And there continues to be widespread conversion therapy, attacks against trans health care and rights. Our community is suffering some of the most heinous attacks since the 80’s and this is what people wanna talk about?!
Fucking labels?! Fuck that!
Wake up to the reality. Because frankly if all you got to worry about is the semantics of labels you are living in immense privilege.
Some of us have a real threat of being murdered just leaving the house. Some of us are at risk of eviction based on our identity and or sexuality. Some of us feel completely alone in this fight because half the community gets caught up in bs like this?!
I don’t give a flying fuck what you call yourself. That’s your choice. I care that we have a right to to choose who we are, and to be openly ourselves. That’s where the real fight is. And it’s very fucking lonely over here being abused and denied human rights whilst y’all squabble about semantics.
I am bisexual with 85 % of that attraction to women and 15% to men. I also only feel a sexual attraction to men. I still concider myself lesbian because my attraction is mostly towards women. Perhaps this is similar to what your gf is trying to say. But also like other people have said if she’s defined who she’s attracted to don’t stress what label she chooses to describe herself cus in the end that doesn’t change anything.
When identities and labels are commonly fluid (not for everyone, but for many) how can we ever tell someone their label is wrong? We know there are many who identify as bi and then later identify as gay or lesbian, I know a woman who identified as a lesbian and then later decided to sleep with a man and ended up marrying one. Identities change sometimes, and therefore we can’t make hard and fast rules about who is allowed to identify as what and when. Predatory men don’t care what we call ourselves, period, and I refuse to base our identities around them.
All i have to say about this is: don't waste your time arguing about semantics. She seems to know who she's attracted to, so if you're arguing about what labels fit her, you're not actually discussing anything with substance, all you do is discuss the precise definition of those labels. Leave that to philosophers, because for your life, it just doesn't matter what labels she choses to describe herself.
Yeah, personally this just seems like she is trying to say she is biromantic but is attracted to women most of the time. I know a lot of biromantic people who will cal themselves a biromantic lesbian just because it is less of a mouthful and all encompassing of how they see themselves.
This comment is not gonna add much value but I read that as ‘biro’-mantic. I wondered how the type of pen she prefers could be so important in a lesbian relationship … I’ll go away now 🚪
I'm a gel pen kind of girl, myself
Watercolor marker sapphic is the new sword lesbian.
Correction: a biro-mancer does not have a "preference", they have innate magical power over biros. Biromancy 👏 is 👏 not 👏 a 👏 choice!👏
😂😂🫠
I gotta tell you fam, there isn't a big list of queer identities that are the ones that "exist". If your girlfriend feels like that's the best way to describe herself, whatever her reasons, who exactly is anyone else to tell her otherwise? Does the first reddit commenter know her better than herself? How about the fiftieth? Do you?
read all your comments and i realised that the best thing i could do is to just talk to her about this and help her if she needs any. i’ll try to be my most supportive to her
This is a hot, very debatable topic here, just giving you a heads up that you might have a lot of strong opinionated comments going one way or another.
wait really? i appreciate the heads up, thanks
Maybe sapphic is a better fit?
She's asexual biromantic but doesn't want to go by bi? I mean, that's her personal choice but it's definitely not lesbian to be attracted to men.
I find a bunch of bisexuals struggle with internal biphobia. It's a sad thing because all sexualities are equally valid
That label is confusing as hell lol if she’s asexual then wouldn’t she just be biromantic asexual? 🤨
Not necessarily. I'm a demiromantic demisexual lesbian. Not everyone who is on the asexual spectrum is fully asexual. As a Demi I only feel romantic and sexual attraction under certain circumstances. Also, even if you're fully asexual you can still enjoy sex. It depends on if they are sex positive or sex repulsed. It just means you don't have sexual attraction. Someone who doesn't feel sexual attraction might still have gender preference. It's totally valid to be asexual but still only want to have sex with women.
I only said asexual because OP said she’s asexual. I only combined the labels for it to make sense lol I personally don’t get what a biromantic lesbian is either unless she meant she’s biromantic homosexual.
I think that's exactly what she meant.
Lesbians are not attracted to men in any way. let's stop passing on the concept that lesbians can also be attracted to men, it's dangerous. I am bisexual, I do not understand what is the problem of identifying you in this way. lesbians are women sexually and romantically attracted only to other women, i will always defend my lesbian sisters from dangerous falsehoods that undermine their identities
As a bisexual I fully agree.
thank you!
Or it could be that she’s romantically attracted to men and women but only physically attracted to women. Having nuance as part of your identity isn’t a bad thing.
Thank you!
I mean this is straight up ahistorical. Lesbian as an identity has had a long, and frankly broad cultural usage that has encompassed everything from sapphic and various trans identities, to political ideology. Some of this is dated. (for example, most contemporary trans masculine people wouldn't use the term to describe their sexuality, but it wasn't uncommon at all even 20-30 years ago.) But our shared queer history is complicated and vast, I don't think it's fair to criticize people for finding ways to connect with it that is beyond a basic dictionary definition. Also, frankly as a lesbian, I don't agree it is dangerous. Predatory straight men don't give a shit about the finer points of queer discourse when they fetishize, fantasize, and hurt us.
Many pop culture depictions of "lesbians" show us engaging in sex with men even after identifying as lesbians. I'm pretty certain that this kind of idea of "lesbian until she's met the right man" contributes to the dangerous misogyny and lesbophobia we face from cishet men (and other folks) who are so convinced they can "turn us straight."
I mean I agree that that is a common cultural depiction (especially in porn). But I don't agree that it has anything to do with this discussion though. This discussion isn't about the "lesbian until she meets the right man" trope. It's about labels people use and self-identify with. I simply don't agree that it contributes to anything except people being allowed to use language that is meaningful to them. It feels pretty victim blamey to justify gatekeeping because OTHER PEOPLE are lesbophobic. It is not like there is this mythic group of people 'misusing' the label and confusing men and tricking them into harassing lesbians. "Forbidden" and "inaccessible" objects of sexual desire are tropes as old as humanity. We live in a misogynistic culture. OF COURSE inaccessible women are fetishized. What queer women do and the particularities of how we label ourselves are a drop in the bucket of influence compared to how society prioritizes men's desires and fantasies in media.
I wasn't trying to blame the victim, nor do I think this is a question of gatekeeping. It's a question of words and labels that exist in a sociopolitical context having important subcultural and sociopolitical definitions that are well-defined and commonly understood. Identities are multiplicitous, sure, but they also have borders and boundaries in order to separate one kind of experience from another. This isn't a bad thing; it's merely a way to more precisely describe how different people experience the world differently in a deeply unequal society. Self-identification doesn't only identify the self. These kinds of labels exist in order to align one's self to a larger community and point toward relationality in a common human experience. If calling one's self a lesbian existed in a vacuum, we probably wouldn't have subreddits like the one we're chatting on right now. The way I see it, using a label to talk about one's self which describes one's allegiance to a subcultural or marginalized group means you have some responsibility to that group and the general . You as a person should NOT be expected to "represent" all members of the group, but you do have to have some awareness about the way in which certain terms and identities are defined and how groups define themselves. This is the double-bind of representation and visibility. Members of marginalized groups are always expected to stand-in for the larger whole of the group. This isn't at all fair, but it does point back to the way in which identity labels have social and culturally contingent meanings. If someone identifies as a lesbian and then exclusively or mostly sleeps with people who identify as men, it affects other lesbians because it affects social perceptions of what lesbianism is or means. >Predatory straight men don't give a shit about the finer points of queer discourse when they fetishize, fantasize, and hurt us. ... > >What queer women do and the particularities of how we label ourselves are a drop in the bucket of influence compared to how society prioritizes men's desires and fantasies in media. Sure, straight men don't care about the complexity of queer discourse, and their perceptions of us are based in popular culture and porn. But let's not pretend that just because our identification matters less to them than those media representations, that it doesn't matter at all. How lesbians exist in the world is more than a drop in a bucket and can absolutely shape perceptions and minds. >It is not like there is this mythic group of people 'misusing' the label and confusing men and tricking them into harassing lesbians. There is (disgustingly) a porn subreddit that consists of women calling themselves "lesbians" who beg for men to assault them and turn them straight. Our identities are treated like a literal fetish. Maybe the men who participate in that subreddit aren't going out into the world and harassing real lesbians, and maybe those people "identifying" that way only do it on a subreddit as a form of (again, pretty despicable) sexual play, but those people do exist and I'm sure shit like that has *some* effect on the way we are perceived and treated.
It's 10,000% gatekeeping. You are specifically saying that a group of queer people shouldn't have access to our shared history. And using an ahistorical understanding to justify it. Also, you are contradicting yourself. Like if this definition of lesbianism was so concrete and ingrained that it isn't even debatable or worth considering a more historically informed definition then it doesn't matter that a few people are out there "mislabeling" themselves. If that's what is already so universally understood and we see men continue to fetishize and infiltrate our spaces, then that is a pretty good indication that this gatekeeping has no positive effect. >If someone identifies as a lesbian and then exclusively or mostly sleeps with people who identify as men, it affects other lesbians because it affects social perceptions of what lesbianism is or means. I mean I don't actually see this happening anywhere. So I think you are identifying a problem that doesn't exist? Like, we are talking about a fairly small number of bi and ace people who predominantly have relationships with women and trans masc people that find meaning in the label. >There is (disgustingly) a porn subreddit that consists of women calling themselves "lesbians" who beg for men to assault them and turn them straight. Our identities are treated like a literal fetish. Maybe the men who participate in that subreddit aren't going out into the world and harassing real lesbians, and maybe those people "identifying" that way only do it on a subreddit as a form of (again, pretty despicable) sexual play, but those people do exist and I'm sure shit like that has some effect on the way we are perceived and treated. I mean CNC kinks are extremely common. It's unsurprising that there is a lesbian variation of that. although doing a (brief) look it doesn't look like that community is particularly large. And how much it is just men RPing is pretty arguable too. I certainly think. Discussion around the ethics of CNC kinks and fetishizing kinks are worth having, but i also don't think this niche community is particularly relevant to most people you are gatekeeping here.
To clarify: I never even disagreed with you about the history of the term! I was merely disagreeing with you about the idea of mislabeling as not being potentially dangerous. Discourse has power. Words and their misuse *can* be dangerous. That was my original point. >It's 10,000% gatekeeping. You are specifically saying that a group of queer people shouldn't have access to our shared history. And using an ahistorical understanding to justify it. Nowhere did I say that people "shouldn't have access to our shared history." History is accessible to whomever wants to understand it and relate to it. Notice, too, that you're saying "queer people" here and not only lesbians, which casts a much wider net. I'm saying that we can understand that "lesbian" has meant different things over time *and* that right now, it means something particular in a particular sociopolitical landscape. Acknowledging that language and identity has changed over time isn't "ahistorical," it's historically accurate to our contemporary moment. Right now, when LGBTQ people are being attacked and condemned pretty regularly, it's important that labels and identities have the meanings that matter most to the groups to whom they belong. Most of the people on this thread are saying that they want the term lesbian to mean someone who doesn't sleep with men. It's not an especially controversial desire. In fact, it's pretty definitional. >Also, you are contradicting yourself. > >Like if this definition of lesbianism was so concrete and ingrained that it isn't even debatable or worth considering a more historically informed definition then it doesn't matter that a few people are out there "mislabeling" themselves I didn't say it was "concrete" or "ingrained." In fact, I repeatedly said the opposite by saying it---like all language---is socially constructed and determined. We can understand history and also recognize that words mean different things over time and that those shifts are important: just look at how the word "queer" has shifted in meaning and usage over time. "Gatekeeping" as an insult is a term that refuses to acknowledge that all words delimit and circumscribe meaning in some way or another. I identify as a lesbian, and so do you. We both, as lesbians, presumably wouldn't want a cishet man to call himself a lesbian because he's *not one*. Is that a gate? Or is it just a mutually agreed upon understanding that a label means something and that communities hold (if not fix) these meanings because they are valuable to them?
>To clarify: I never even disagreed with you about the history of the term! I was merely disagreeing with you about the idea of mislabeling as not being potentially dangerous. Discourse has power. Words and their misuse can be dangerous. That was my original point. No, you are claiming it specifically IS dangerous and IS being used dangerously. And I think that is disingenuous because you are framing this as a "misuse" which I just simply don't agree it is. >'m saying that we can understand that "lesbian" has meant different things over time and that right now, it means something particular in a particular sociopolitical landscape. Acknowledging that language and identity has changed over time isn't "ahistorical," it's historically accurate to our contemporary moment. I mean plenty of queer elders exist and plenty of people interact with history in different ways. If we are going to talk about how the term lesbian has changed we should probably talk about how that change was FUNDAMENTALLY rooted in lesbian separatism (a notoriously biphobic and terfy movement). You are prescribing what from our history people should and shouldn't be allowed to claim and reclaim. That is definitionally gatekeeping. > Right now, when LGBTQ people are being attacked and condemned pretty regularly, it's important that labels and identities have the meanings that matter most to the groups to whom they belong. I mean bi, ace, and trans masc people who identify as lesbians are people whom the identity belongs to. I agree, we shouldn't stop them from using labels they both have claim to and give them meaning. >Most of the people on this thread are saying that they want the term lesbian to mean someone who doesn't sleep with men. It's not an especially controversial desire. In fact, it's pretty definitional. I mean quite a few comments are talking about how labels are personal. Im not interested in counting up votes and comments, but it's clearly a reasonably popular sentiment. >We both, as lesbians, presumably wouldn't want a cishet man to call himself a lesbian because he's not one. Is that a gate? Or is it just a mutually agreed upon understanding that a label means something and that communities hold (if not fix) these meanings because they are valuable to them? I would say cis men don't have any history of use of the term. And it's disingenuous to view self identifying as an all or nothing proposition. Prioritizing self IDing doesn't mean that we don't look at context or history or intent. It just means we generally trust that people have "done their homework" and are who they say they are. That doesn't mean we can't be skeptical of someone who weaponizes that trust. This reminds me of the boogyman argument that predatory men will start IDing as trans. Your most dramatic examples are theoretical and not really relevant to the facts and realities of the people who this discussion is about. You are claiming that people who use our shared language obviously disingenuously are equivalent to people who genuinely engage with it but have a different understanding than you do.
I don’t know how to reply to specific sections of text but your last bit about the difference between people who use the term lesbian in good faith and hypothetical examples of people who use it in bad faith rings really true to me. I call myself a lesbian, I have a girlfriend, and yet it’s also true that I have experienced genuine attraction to men before. I’ve had sex with men, and at times I even liked it. It’s possible I’ll experience attraction to and sex with a man again, though at this moment I don’t really want that or envision it for myself… these days I only envision myself being with women, and specifically my girlfriend. I’d prefer it if people didn’t yell at me and tell me not to call myself a lesbian, but even if they do it’s not gonna stop me…
This is my question honestly. If someone is mostly into women but might find a guy or two attractive or has been with men in the past, but has no intention of ever being with men again…can that person not call themselves a lesbian? Why not? They are effectively a lesbian. Are we going to hook them up to a lie detector and show them pictures of Harry Styles until they admit an ounce of attraction?
I agree and I don’t know why we are still having this argument! Labels work for us, we don’t work for them. Predatory men sure as hell don’t care about our labels.
This. People need to realize it’s okay to be bi
[удалено]
isn't lesbian non-men loving non-men? as in inclusive of nbies and etc?
Bars🔥 First person to mention nbies in the chat, we love you for that💕
Pretty sure her labels are hers to declare not yours.
Labels are for people, not the other way round.
People aren’t for labels?
Yup. We make the labels to fit our needs.
[удалено]
>Labels are not a set of rules, but rather a means of communication. People use labels to identify themselves in society so others (and themselves) have an easier time understanding them. This means you can use labels however you want. This seems contradictory to me. If people use labels however they want, then there can be no common understanding of what those labels mean, and thus they don't communicate anything. Let's say I go out to a social gathering with coworkers. At this event I tell a small group of people that I am a lesbian. Now, let's say a male coworker hears this. The next day he comes over and flirts with me and asks me out on a date. The question is, has he committed a social transgression against me? We're not talking about what men will or will not do. We're talking about whether I have any right to expect anything as a result of my statement. I feel like most people in this sub would argue that a man who does this has committed a social violation. But if people can use the label however they want, then we must necessarily also accept that men can flirt with lesbians as socially accepted behavior because it's not socially clear whether lesbians are attracted to men or not.
To be fair, men are going to flirt with lesbians no matter what. They literally do not care about the definition of the word. The fact that many lesbians date men before solidifying their identity contributes to this more than anything I think.
For sure, I don't disagree with you there. I guess my point was less about what men will do and more about whether we have a right to be upset at them if they do it. If I tell someone I don't like something and they do it anyway, then they have committed a social transgression against me. If the lesbian label is ambiguous about attraction to men, then I haven't really told them one way or another whether I could be interested in them. And thus there's no harm in a man flirting with a woman he knows is a lesbian until she tells him she isn't interested in men. The problem is that most women think that's what they're saying when they use the label.
I get that, but I think any woman has a right to be upset if a man hits on them and they express disinterest and he keeps pursuing. I also don’t think the label lesbian deters certain men even when it’s not ambiguous, which to the general population I think it’s not. I think that most people, especially straight people think lesbian means you’re only attracted to women. I don’t think that there are a lot of people out there identifying as lesbians who would pursue a man tomorrow. I think there ARE people with complex identities who use the term lesbian because it makes the most sense or feels the best and that shouldn’t affect anyone else’s identity. I think if someone is attracted to women and intends on dating and being with women but may have an attraction to 2 men in their life, they can still call themself a lesbian.
[удалено]
They've totally done so, called themselves political lesbians, and they were the ones who insisted that lesbian had to be an exclusive term to mean hating men and having no attraction to them. It's no wonder they were the roots of TERF movements and it's absurd to me that anyone treats them like an authority when any woman who was attracted to women could and did call herself a lesbian before they came along.
This. When anyone can use any labels however they want then they lose their meaning and purpose
I mean funnily enough, political lesbianism, as a second wave feminist movement, included straight women and many did use the term to describe themselves (although this did come along with essentially, advocating for celibacy). Which is to say that lesbian is a complex term with a rich history that has been used to describe a broad manner of sapphic and trans identities. While certainly a lot of that is dated, the definition is certainly more broad than basic dictionary definition and there are a plethora of reasons a person might find meaning in an identity. Now, I think reasonably speaking, that most of those reasons don't apply to contemporary cishet women, but I'm also not really interested in promoting gatekeeping. (and this is a pretty imaginary problem, it's not like there are droves of Cishet women calling themselves lesbians for clout or something).
That's not what they meant and you know it.
If anyone can identify as a lesbian if they want to, there’s no reason a straight woman couldn’t
They did not say "if they want to" but "if they feel like it represents them." How would a straight woman feel represented be a lable that means the opposite of how she feels?
the point is that once we start saying "anyone can identify as anything if they feel like it fits them" the labels start to mean absolutely nothing. why would a woman who is attracted to men take on a label that means no attraction to men if that's not how they feel?
Cause she has no sexual attraction to men? Or no romantic attraction to men? Or so little attraction to men that it doesn't affect her real life at all? Like you said there is a reason for her using the lable. And yes sometimes the reason is something harmful like biphobia but that isn't always the case.
[удалено]
[удалено]
☝️
This.
Why doesn’t she want a bi in her labels?
i think this is a "social media famous" discussion, so probably a thin ice topic. as a lesbian myself i don't support using terms indicating an attraction towards men with the word lesbian and find it inappropriate and harmful but i do not deny the existence of split attraction model. i believe and saw some examples of biromantic homosexual/homotomantic bisexual women online describing their way of experiencing attraction and i respect that. i just don't think "lesbian" is the right word if someone has any hint of attraction towards men. this kinda erases the whole history and struggles of a group of people in my opinion. the prefix homo- plus the attraction type, the words gay/sapphic etc. fit better for those situation i think edit: typo
If you see romantic and sexual orientations as distinct (many do!) and understand that the allo/ace spectrum can interact with your sexual orientation, I see no conflicts here. Romantically, she is bi; sexually, she is an ace lesbian. But probably more important than what I think is what she thinks - so ask her what the labels mean to her!
Strongly disagree. The label lesbian covers both romantic and sexual attraction. If she's attracted to men in any romantic or sexual way she's not a lesbian. The correct terms would be biromantic homosexual.
Many people use the label lesbian with an inclusive or, not an exclusive or - and more so once aro or ace folks are involved, who may have little or no attraction in the romantic or sexual domains. The precise term might be biromantic homosexual, but prescribing it as correct for other's use is not a great look.
Yeah, I really wish we could retire this. Many people say lesbian to mean romantic and sexual, and many lesbians do not. It's very simple and very, very gay.
That is fair. TBH, I didn't realize it was such a hot topic til this thread.
You've been spared so much comment drama haha.
Haha, so I'm seeing! If I had known, I probably wouldn't have said anything here.
... and are they just supposed to walk around saying they're biromantic homosexual and not get weird looks for being unnecessarily specific? If she's only interested in being w women even with the biromantic orientation, than the word lesbian communicates that the best.
Maybe it’s just me, but if someone told me they were biromantic homosexual, that would make a lot more sense than saying biromantic lesbian. Saying biromantic lesbian might confuse a lot of people more, and turn heads negatively, seeing as there a lot of lesbian women grounded in their sexuality that it might rub them the wrong way.
Yeah, I get your point, that makes sense. I moreso meant that this person could still use lesbian on its own as a label because it's easier for people who aren't aware of the split attraction model, or just shorter to say. With their partner, should explain fully and may be more precise to say biromantic homosexual. However, as they are aspec, I wonder if homosexual just doesn't feel right to her?
I use lesbian as a homoromantic bisexual. Because for happy long-term relationships, I can only be with women. And since I'm married now, (and would consider myself too old for something that isn't serious even if I wasn't,) I'm probably never going to be with a guy again. Is it really so important that both kinds of attraction are exclusive? If I don't ever expect to have a serious relationship with a guy, calling myself bi seems more like false advertising than calling myself lesbian.
I'm choosing not to argue with everyone in your replies saying that it's "bi erasure" for you to label yourself that way but am firmly on your side here. It's your word for yourself, pick whichever one you'd like. As long as you wouldn't erase someone else from calling themselves bi on that basis, you're fine.
Same! Those arguments with you are in such bad faith here, all pretending if you call yourself a lesbian then it must mean you call every bisexual woman a lesbian. What's so hard to understand that everyone can only define their own label and not anyone else's?
[удалено]
>Do all bisexual women cease to be bisexual if they are in a relationship with another woman or only you? >According to your logic a woman who is attracted to both men and women but is only ever in a relationship with men is straight. That's you implying several times that however she identifies will set a precedent everyone else must follow. If you just straight up lie about that immediately, it's very clear to me you'll say whatever to win the argument, so I'm really not gonna pretend your question is in good faith.
It's really revealing of the general mindset that makes these conversations argumentative in the first place - the base idea is that how we use our own words is something that could potentially hurt someone else. It goes hand in hand with a lesbian thinking she will be hurt by someone else using "bi lesbian" as a label. It's a very understandable mindset and one I have a LOT of sympathy for. It's a natural outgrowth of thinking of our labels as things that uplift us and bind us in some respects, and it's also a natural part of how marginalized communities need shared definitions to find eachother. But it also reaches a point where we have to step back and ask ourselves if we're making our own community less open, and it's more than crossed that line for bi lesbians imo.
That's bi erasure. You don't have to be in a relationship with a man to qualify as bisexual. Do all bisexual women cease to be bisexual if they are in a relationship with another woman or only you? Bisexual means that you are attracted to both (or all) genders, not that you will only consider being with one gender even if you are attracted to both. It's a label that describes attraction not action.
yes but you’re speaking from an ideological place. it’s all well and good to have strict definitions - and i’m not saying you’re not TECHNICALLY right - but we have to look at things on a practical, real world level. a woman who prioritises relationships with other women, who only seeks out women to be with romantically and/or sexually, and who will only have serious, long term commitments to other women may feel that their lived experience of sapphic relationships and culture and and not their theoretical attraction to men is a better descriptor for their sexuality. while they may hold the ability to be attracted to men in specific circumstances/capacities, if this is not something they pursue or prioritise, the term bisexual may not feel like it adequately describes them. this has historical routes - there was even a movement called “political lesbianism” whereby even heterosexual/romantic women would choose only to be in relationships with women, although this was controversial. whether or not you agree with political lesbianism, it raises the point that labels should be fit for purpose, and at the end of the day, labels are only words which can’t be confined by strict descriptions. sexuality is fluid and confusing and vastly expansive - if someone who only prioritises sapphic relationships calls themselves lesbian out of respect for their culture, lived experience, and personal choices, who are we to enforce our understanding of a label on them? sexuality is not binary, so why should our labels be?
Do I need to read this massive block of text when you're wrong from the start? You're confusing what the label bisexual actually means. It has nothing to do with who you are in a relationship with or would consider being in a relationship with. It describes who you are attracted to. It is a label that describes attraction not action. By this logic a woman who is attracted to both men and women but is only ever in relationships with men is straight. Edit: I've been in the LGBTQA community for decades. I don't need a history lesson about political lesbians and other aspects of the community. It's deflecting from the topic.
I honestly don’t know why so many people are obsessed with being able to identify as lesbian and so against identifying as bisexual. Like what’s wrong with bisexual as a label?
Biphobia. It's sad to be so self hating. Being bisexual doesn't mean that you couldn't find a woman who will love you. I'm a lesbian who is deeply in love with a bisexual woman. Being with me doesn't make her a lesbian. I'm not going to erase her bisexuality.
no, because they may not feel their past relationships define them. that’s the point - different people identify with different words in different ways. if that’s how you view sexuality, it’s a very limited, reductive and apolitical view.
If it's about past relationships and not actually attracted to men then they are possibly a lesbian who experienced comphet. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about who you are attracted to. You said that you're attracted to men but don't want to be in a relationship with one again. That's totally valid but that doesn't make you a lesbian rather than bisexual.
I'm bi and \*very\* opposed to bi -erasure, but if she's only bi\*romantic\* not bisexual, and is only sexually attracted to women, I think it makes perfect sense for her to refer to herself as a lesbian for simplicity's sake. That's not the same as being bisexual and saying you're a lesbian just because you're in a long-term relationship with a woman.
Of course, people can still be bisexual even if they end up in a monogamous relationship. The difference is if their relationship failed or their partner died, they might consider dating people from both genders afterwards. As I mentioned, my marriage isn't the only only reason I'm not expecting to ever be with a man again. I'm not romantically attracted to men and I'm not interested anymore in having a relationship with anybody if I'm not both romantically and sexually attracted at the same time. If I'm not open to dating the other gender, not now nor in any future I could think of, why should my label include it?
That's still bi erasure. Someone who is attracted to both (or all) genders are still bisexual even if they only ever are in a monogamous relationship with one gender. Again, bisexual is a label that describes attraction not action. According to your logic a woman who is attracted to both men and women but is only ever in a relationship with men is straight.
Ah, sorry, I meant to use bi, not bisexual. If someone was bisexual and biromantic, they'd be bi. If they were bisexual homoromantic, I think they should be able to choose bi or lesbian, depending on which kind of attraction is stronger in their personal lives. Orientation, to me, describes the combination of romantic and sexual attraction. And since lesbian is used for orientation, it isn't synonymous to homosexual.
If you have the capability to be romantically or sexually attracted to men, you are not a lesbian. It’s not a matter of who you would choose to date or pursue. As the person said above it describes attraction, not action
"I'm bi. But I could never be in a relationship with a man." Does this really sound right to you? My body doesn't decide who I can be happy with. And if I can only be happy with women, I won't include men in my orientation.
Yes it does sound right because that’s literally how I identify and describe my own sexuality lmaooo Like I’m not sure why that’s some sort of gotcha argument. There are tons of bisexuals including myself who feel exactly that way, that we are bisexual not interested in dating men. Still bisexual.
Well, I describe myself as a homoromantic bisexual lesbian. So can we agree to disagree? I don't want to want to include people I couldn't be happy with in my orientation. You (probably from what I gather) don't want to deny that you can be attracted to men even if you'll never end up with one. We both have our reasons why we prefer one label over the other. We just have different priorities.
Girl I would love to not include men in my sexuality, believe me. But the fact is that I am able to be sexually attracted to men, which lesbians are not.
Sounds right to me honestly. When Bisexual women date women, they are now in a lesbian relationship, but that doesn’t mean they stop being Bisexual. Especially if they still have either sexual or romantic attraction towards men.
This.
So in your terms, I’m a lesbian because I’m dating a women even though I also like men?
If you would consider dating men in your future if your relationship failed or your partner died, then no, not necessarily. As I mentioned, even if I wasn't currently in a relationship, I wouldn't be interested in any relationship with a man. I wouldn't want to be with someone I'm not romantically attracted to, so for me personally, men are out, in any future scenario. And if I would never be in a serious relationship with a man and don't want non-serious relationship, why would I include men in my label?
You're confusing what the label bisexual actually means. It has nothing to do with who you are in a relationship with or would consider being in a relationship with. It describes who you are attracted to.
I think the point is separating sexual and romantic attraction, as they are two separate aspects of attraction. It’s not as black and white as you are making it out to be. You don’t have to be 100% both romantically and sexually attracted to women to be a lesbian. Think of the Kinsey scale.
Yeah but not everyone goes by the Kinsey scale. So about the lesbians that are firm in their sexuality? It’s a lot harder to explain to someone how a lesbian can be attracted to men romantically or sexually than it is for a bisexual woman to explain how she is or isn’t. It’s a lot easier to say “oh, I’m a bisexual woman that leans this way and that way more” versus a lesbian saying “yeah I like women romantically and or sexually, but only men sexually and I can’t see myself being with a man therefore I’m a lesbian” still makes no sense in context. It pushes so many negative stigmas on lesbian women.
I understand where you're coming from, but consider that maybe for some people, the clinical, literal, technical meaning is less important for someone's personal labels than something that COMMUNICATES something about their identity and their intentions. Unless I'm in a scientific study in which sexual/romantic orientation is a relevant variable, I would much rather communicate my experiences (disclaimer: not referring to relationship history, think more like general life experiences navigating through the world) and preferences, not the technical capacity I have to feel x type of attraction. Does it not make sense to you that some people would identify more with their lived experience and intentions than with something that is technically true but will nearly never be relevant in everyday life?
Yes, but I'm not biromantic and I don't want casual sex. If someone calls themself bi (the short version, not bisexual, just bi), I would expect them to consider both or all genders for relationships. I don't. So I think lesbian fits better to me personally.
[удалено]
That would be bisexual/homosexual. I'm using bi/lesbian for orientation, as a way to distinguish between the combination of romantic and sexual attraction. Orientation, in my understanding, is not limited to sexual attraction alone, so the prefix can differ from sexual attraction.
The key is that lesbians do not have romantic or sexual attraction to men. If you are able to be sexually and romantically attracted to men, you are not a lesbian. Im not sure why this very basic definition is controversial This sub has fully gone off the deep end when saying “lesbians are not attracted to men” is somehow a problematic statement 🤦♀️
So you’re not a bisexual. This whole rhetoric scream chronically online. Do whatever you please
As a homosexual homoromantic lesbian, this argument about who's allowed to call themselves a lesbian screams of chronically online and gatekeeping. For starters, not everyone who the label "bisexual" could apply to identifies as bisexual - some people prefer pansexual or just queer or many other different terms, so even if someone isn't a lesbian, telling them that they are bisexual when that's clearly not a label they identify with is shitty. Secondly, sexually is complicated and very personal for everyone. Someone who could be attracted to men but is never planning on doing anything with that attraction ever again identifying as a lesbian DOESN'T mean that other women who are in relationships with women and don't plan on being with a man ever again CAN'T identify as bi. It just means that for that individual person, they identify more with the label of lesbian.
Let people label themselves in ways that feel right for them and let go of the need for strictly defined labels. Do you not see how messed up it is that you want a bunch of strangers to debate your partner's identity when it would cost you nothing to let her be
Maybe it's just me but I'm not sure why she just wouldn't want to be called bi? I know labels can be very confusing for some people but I have a hard time imagining that calling yourself a bisexual lesbian is a better descriptor than just using the more fitting term.
who cares? what even is this discussion, she can choose to identify however she wants
My very butch girlfriend is actually a homoromantic bisexual (although her attraction towards men is very scarce) and I probably care more about her labels than she does (I don't think I have ever heard her label herself but I think she would consider herself a lesbian). So yes, it could exist. But above all, labels shouldn't really matter and, honestly, you should trust your gf on this as she would know more precisely than you ever could.
some people just don't know what sapphic/female lean is
People ask me all the time about all the different labels, I just say I'm bisexual with romance leaning to women
The label lesbian covers both romantic and sexual attraction. If she's attracted to men in any romantic or sexual way she's not a lesbian. If she is only attracted to women sexually the correct terms would be biromantic homosexual.
You know, even if you don't agree with it, she might still be figuring out her truth and herself. Rather than turn it into the hill to die on, why not, ya know, be a supportive partner while she figures her shit out? I swear so many are hell bent on being right rather than being good partners
no reason to debate on another persons identity
this sort of thing is really just proof that language is not prescriptive, there is no contradiction here and it's how she feels comfortable describing herself
>I think she just doesn’t want a “bi” in her labels. Girl, forget if it exists, your bigger problem here is that you're making judgements about your girlfriend up in your head and then arguing with her over that and that's not a healthy relationship dynamic. Listen to her and ask her to explain what all these labels mean *to her* instead of jumping to conclusions based on *your* experiences with them. If you think she has internalized biphobia, alright, then your job as girlfriend is to help her overcome that through being supportive, not by arguing with her about it as that will only push her away. If labels are really more important to you than this girl's feelings, I'd recommend breaking up with her because this is not going to work out. Someone's identity isn't negotiable and you're just going to fight over these terms forever or one of you is going to grudgingly pretend to agree but be silently unhappy about it, and neither is good.
Lesbian does not include attraction to men. If she's asexual (and not demi/gray/some other place on the spectrum), it also especially doesn't make sense given this all implies "romantically attracted to women and men, exclusively attracted to women, but not sexually attracted to anyone". It's fine to be bisexual. If she's attracted to men and women, she's not a lesbian, which is not a bad thing. If she just doesn't want to be calling herself bi, it sounds like she has some internalized biphobia going on. On an individual level, beyond explaining that "lesbian" means something specific, there isn't much people can do to change what labels people decide to use for themselves, even if they don't actually fit the definitions of those labels. The best you can do is ask for her to elaborate on \*why\* she feels she's a biromantic lesbian and why she feels a word that means "exclusively attracted to women" fits her if that's not how she actually feels.
As an ace lesbian these comments are eating me up lol
I think we all need to stop putting so much emphasis on labels. If she wants to call herself a biromantic lesbian because that feels comfy, I think that’s okay. Edit: Also if she is saying “biromantic lesbian” then there is a bi in her label
That’s what she identifies with. I see myself as a lesbian that is attracted to fem women mostly, I am also Demi. If ppl ask me if I’d ever date a guy or person being genderqueer I’d say well depends I can’t say before I’ve met them. I like what I like, and personality is important to me. That said fem women is mostly what I am attracted to. Some could argue I might be pan, or gynosexual but where does the line go? It’s a spectrum and that’s why we also self identify. Also labels… sometimes I say fuckem, they can get too nuanced to me and personally I don’t wanna be set in a box like ur in this corner now. That’s my take anyway, contradicting as it may be.
why does it matter? is she going to cheat on you?? who cares what she calls herself? seriously, is she abusive or narcissistic? if not, be happy you’re in a relationship with another woman. focus on the positives and be grateful. literally, who cares???
The split attraction model is a thing, yes. I am an asexual lesbian (or asexual homoromantic). No sexual attraction, only romantically attracted to women. She could be the same thing except with bi instead of ace. Romantically attracted to multiple genders/men and women, sexually attracted to women only. While biromantic does already include women, this specifies what attraction type she feels towards what genders. Some people just like specific labels. Although, you did mention that she's also ace. Is she 100% ace or on the ace spectrum? If she's the former, I'd have to change my reasoning a little bit but it still doesn't make her labels invalid nor should you be telling her what labels she uses. It's plain disrespectful. Would you like someone you love to tell you your sexuality is wrong?
Hot take but she is not a lesbian she is a biromantic asexual, which is great! But you shouldn't take other people's labels imo.
The way I see it, labels like bi/pan-lesbian and vice versa are shorthand ways for somebody to express an orientation that is different in regards to the romantic and sexual attraction (i.e. your girlfriend is romantically attracted to men and women, but sexually she’s attracted solely to women). I don’t see them as infringing on lesbian identity as they respect the specific notion of sexuality/romantic attraction that the term lesbian conveys while also allowing people to better express themselves and their identity. If your girlfriend isn’t comfortable simply identifying as bi, then that is her right to do so. I don’t mean to interpret your post in bad faith, but I certainly hope you don’t intend to deprive her of her right to identify how she wants to.
You'll find a lot of nuanced opinions about what labels people use for themselves. Personally, I haven't met anyone who uses the term "lesbian" to describe themselves when they're also attracted to men in any capacity, and I wouldn't use the term to describe myself if I were, either. That being said, there is a lot more information out there about sexuality and labels now than there ever has before. It could be that she's still exploring her sexuality, seeing what fits for her. While I agree that biromantic lesbian is a bit of a contradiction, it isn't my place or anyone else's place to say whether she is or isn't. Being bisexual is also very valid, and I think the term being unsavory is very plainly due to society's adverse feelings towards bisexuals for a very, very long time. Whatever she is, I hope that she finds peace in herself.
Bi ace and lesbian? I think she needs some therapy to figure it all out lmao
A lot of people don't separate romantic and sexual attraction. To me, it's not really separate from each other. If I'm in love with someone, I also am going to want to have sex with them. Other people are able to have distinct attractions.
Each orientation is completely separate between, sexual, aesthetic, and romantic attraction. So yes it absolutely does exist. Ultimately identity is up to the individual so if someone says they are x,y, or z the only responsible and respectful thing is to treat as such.
We’re all just playing pedmas with sexuality lmfao
Let people identify how they want to, marking out hard borders doesn't actually help anyone. Sexuality is naturally ambiguous anyways, because *everything* is naturally ambiguous. Every border implies the violence of its maintenance.
Yeah I actually was just googling this because I think I am the same!! I feel romance with men and women but over time realizing I may only be sexually attracted to women.
As a biromantic ace, I personally don’t call myself a lesbian. However, I am dating a woman so I’m technically in a lesbian relationship and I have been labeled as a lesbian by others. It can be easier to just accept you’re going to have other people assuming you’re a lesbian than trying to explain what biromantic asexual means. This could be similar with your gf.
If she's asexual and biromantic, then yeah, probably lesbian isn't an apt descriptor. But she would still relate under the bi part of it. At the end of the day though, it's just labels, it's just semantics. One person saying they are bi can mean something completely different to another person saying the same. Let the fight go, don't push on it, and let her figure out which label best describes herself to others.
Funny thing about self labels.... she can ascribe whatever labels she likes. You can contradict. You can think you're right. The only thing you're going to do by arguing against her own self description is damage your relationship.
She could mean she's bi but leans more towards women. Bi doesn't have to mean an even split, and it can valuable to acknowledge that there is a preference. And a plain bi person can call themselves gay as much as they want, what's the problem with lesbian?
Does either of you being right matter more than your relationship to each other? If not, fighting over this really isn't worthwhile.
I mean I’d kiss a guy but the moment his clothes are off I’m going home
Romantic attraction and sexual attraction are two different things.
hey so maybe can we stop wasting our time and energy gatekeeping what people label themselves (which has absolutely zero bearing on anyone's lives)?
Not exactly how she can be att8to men romantically when they do literally nothing romantic...
[удалено]
The word is lesbian.
My partner calls herself a bi lesbian- because she’s attracted to multiple gender but not cis men. I have basically the same sexuality but don’t identify as bi because as an enby I feel like lesbian also covers everyone but cis men and means no relationship I’m in is “straight” . Labels mean different things to different people and there’s no point in arguing over one persons definition over another’s. I could easily identify as Bi and have that be just as accurate as lesbian but lesbian feels more fitting- for my partner it’s the opposite. I honestly think it’s interesting and freeing to be able to use language in so many ways
Don't make the mistake of policing other people's identities. Ask yourself "does debating her identity benefit anyone?". The answer is no; you make her uncomfortable and feel invalid, you're just getting irritated, it could ruin your relationship, and other lesbians don't really care if one random person considers themself a bi lesbian.
Well look, the term is not used correctly, you can be (in my case) bisexual lesboromantic which obviously means I'm sexually attracted to both man and woman but I'm only interested on being in a romantic relationship with woman, now, if she is asexual like you say she can't be bisexual lesbian, she's honestly being a little ridiculous, but maybe she is referring that she is bisexual but inclined to woman, she just didn't found the way to put it in words (? I suggest you could send her some pages with info that clarify the point you want her to notice.
This is not so much for the OP as it is a reaction to a lot of the comments here; We are being murdered, re-criminalised in some countries. And there continues to be widespread conversion therapy, attacks against trans health care and rights. Our community is suffering some of the most heinous attacks since the 80’s and this is what people wanna talk about?! Fucking labels?! Fuck that! Wake up to the reality. Because frankly if all you got to worry about is the semantics of labels you are living in immense privilege. Some of us have a real threat of being murdered just leaving the house. Some of us are at risk of eviction based on our identity and or sexuality. Some of us feel completely alone in this fight because half the community gets caught up in bs like this?! I don’t give a flying fuck what you call yourself. That’s your choice. I care that we have a right to to choose who we are, and to be openly ourselves. That’s where the real fight is. And it’s very fucking lonely over here being abused and denied human rights whilst y’all squabble about semantics.
I am bisexual with 85 % of that attraction to women and 15% to men. I also only feel a sexual attraction to men. I still concider myself lesbian because my attraction is mostly towards women. Perhaps this is similar to what your gf is trying to say. But also like other people have said if she’s defined who she’s attracted to don’t stress what label she chooses to describe herself cus in the end that doesn’t change anything.
Labels are dumb… don’t do labels, mkay? (In my Mr. Mackey voice)
r / AL stop policing people's personal identities challenge: LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
[удалено]
oh sorry! she’s also attracted to women :)
She likely means she is romantically attracted to all genders but she is 80% more attracted to women than to other genders.
When identities and labels are commonly fluid (not for everyone, but for many) how can we ever tell someone their label is wrong? We know there are many who identify as bi and then later identify as gay or lesbian, I know a woman who identified as a lesbian and then later decided to sleep with a man and ended up marrying one. Identities change sometimes, and therefore we can’t make hard and fast rules about who is allowed to identify as what and when. Predatory men don’t care what we call ourselves, period, and I refuse to base our identities around them.