Okay, I understand!

Being a Lesbian is sexual in nature for you.
For many, it is not sexual in nature.

But, I respect your personal sexual identity.

By lesbian, I mean a woman who is (now) biologically a female, who is attracted to other women who are (now) biologically female.

I reject the assertion that this is a right-wing definition.

There are other words to describe the other specific sexual orientations you describe. If I fit that first one, I'm a lesbian, like it or not.

Someone above stated, "Words have meanings." And that's good or we would be rattling around the fabled Tower of Babel.

I'm confused. How can you be concerned with our history, and yet claim that lesbian is not sexual in nature? What do you think it ever meant? From what descriptive need did it arise?


Sorry--meant to quote julie's last post on this.

In 1925 lesbian was used by medical literature to indicate sodomite. Sometimes language evolves, your a linguist yes? I would think you would see this in your line of work, I'm not highly educated and know that words have meaning to us differently. The root of it belongs to woman, I'm not denying that yet with time and more freedom to be out it's evolved and meanings are different to each individual with the root of it being WOMAN. In this online venue we have many lesbians who have partnered with men or are with men that does not make them less than as lesbians it's who they are.

I am not concerned about our history.
I am concerned with people (such as yourself) deciding who it is appropriate to use the term and identify as a Lesbian and who it is not appropriate for.

That concerns me.

For me... For me...
Lesbian is who I am inside.
It is part of my soul.
It is not about who I am having sex with.
It never was.

My memories of loving girls goes back to when I was a child. I remember this heavy feeling in my soul, when she would look at me. How I would lose my breath. How all I could do was think of her. Watch her on the swings and know... Just know, I would LOVE her forever. Before, I even knew what sex was.

It's simple really.

You're right and I meant in more current use. Like, when we walk away from this thread, the word will mean, to the very, very vast majority of native speakers what I defined it as above. We can go on about wanting to change the meaning, but that's not how language changes, as Martina laid out. Besides, why do that?? I may be on a level far less philosophical than everyone else, but for me there has to be some logical, real-world application.

I sense a general anger directed at me. Please know that I am reading and respecting your objective points.

*I* for one am not angry at *you* Tapu. I really wanted to know where other lesbians who don't fit into this particular meaning fit? I mean sometimes in reality one can't be a lesbian from the start and one marries, or dates men only because they were afraid? Or maybe one wants to claim lesbian but they are told no you can't you are dating Femme's. I was curious. :)

Kobi can you expand what this means? What is threatening? I'm confused. Thanks in advance :) (f)

Nothing you're describing above is contradictory to being a lesbian, but as for the minimal semantic value of the word, it comes down to:

You have a pussy? You like pussy exclusively? You are a lesbian.

There have always been lesbians who fucked men. Always.

How many people are on the extremes of the Kinsey scale? And of those, i am sure a lower percent are women. In any case, one thing you can say about humans is that they will always do shit they are not "supposed" to do where lust and love are concerned.

The ID does not lose its meaning because there are members of the identity group who are not typical. Typical is rare, in fact.

We are not talking about language. We are talking about human behavior. If you want to get into a philosophical argument about it, almost any identity label is impossible to define (and shouldn't be defined narrowly or at all for political reasons.) There are great discussions about what African-American or Black means. There are absolutely no cultural commonalities that all members of that group share except being victimized by racism in the particular form it takes in the U.S. And it has long been acknowledged that race is not a genetically meaningful category.

You can't say lesbians are this because they do that. THey don't. They never have and they never will. Because we're human.

Hooray for being human. Hooray for defying expectations. Hooray for fucking and loving who we want.

And again, trying to define an identity is always questionable. In my opinion, there is always an agenda. To do the work we do politically, to be who we are, to find each other, to love and live, we don't NEED to define ourselves. We need to BE WHO WE ARE. We can describe ourselves in all our variety. But to narrowly define who we are is meaningless. It inevitably excludes. And that's usually where the agenda comes in. Someone WANTS to exclude someone else.

i hate to be condescending, but there are shelves of books written about how complex these issues are. Some of them by linguists.

What if I do not eat pussy?
What about the Stone Femme's who never touch their partner?
Are they not lesbians?

Sometimes Tapu there are lesbians and dykes who really really like any kind of vulva. Sometimes some lesbians like them some boy/boi cunt. :sunglass:

Folks -

There have been some ugly posts in this thread that are entirely too personal and shitty. If you cannot have this discussion in a calm, civil manner without trying to jab one another, then kindly bow out and let the discussion continue.

Thanks,
Angie

Kobi I really don't know why you are so disappointed and I guess I am not clear on what your intent of the thread is.

I personally am a lesbian that takes pride in how multi-faceted the identity lesbian is and welcome the discussion of it in all its many aspects.

Martina - I love your posts here.

Lesbian is as much a culturally/politically/socially bound term and identity as it is a sexual orientation.

You know.... I knew that this thread ran the risk of turning into policing of the term lesbian...

If the thread is also a reaction to recent BV conflicts, I notice that the butch women who split from BV stated that their primary concerns were transparency, and the fact that BV no longer had a strongly articulated feminist, anti-misogynist, anti-agist message. I think that's important, because they are focusing on issues, not identities. That's what solidarity is really about.

But back to lesbian pride: If you express pride in being a lesbian and/or honor that history/experience, I don't need to take an inventory of who you've slept with or even what your genitals look like to stand with you under the banner of lesbian pride.

Heart

The above feels really icky to me Kobi, it feels like you are saying people are gonna come in like its a feeding frenzy of some kind. I honestly don't think that will happen since lesbian terminology is different for a lot of people here in this venue.. :)

Yes, this....thank you Heart.

I know I've said this here and there in various threads....but I truly, deeply wish that we could all just define ourselves and let everyone else do the same.

I don't need to understand how Julie or Snow or Kobi or Bulldog or Dapper or anyone else here defines themselves in order to respect them and their own definition.

If I choose to call myself lesbian or queer or dyke or femme or bisexual...then I am. I happen to know someone who defined herself as a lesbian for years, even though she was a virgin who had had no intimate relationships with anyone. Is she a lesbian to me? Yes, because she claims it.

I agree that language carries weight and has meaning...but I think we use it too often to fracture and splinter and poke and prod.

:olive:

Yes, language is important -- which is why I chose the words I did: I will stand with anyone under the banner of lesbian pride -- because pride is about community, as well as individuals, and for me pride doesn't have to be about sameness.

But... I am not ready to agree that anyone is whatever they wish to call themselves. I've thought about this over time... I don't control what others say they are, and I don't police it, but that doesn't mean I see whatever they tell me to see. Someone who has no claim to any Native American Tribe, but decides that they want to call themselves Native American is not identifying, they are appropriating.

Heart