Although; I have a slightly different experience as well that makes me highly distrustful of people who tout being ‘sapphic’ as well; as I’ve seen quite a few people who identify with that label participating in the same kinds of toxic and exclusionary behavior that the self labeled ‘lesbians’ that are referenced in this article are participating in.
In general; excluding members of the rainbow who are less numerous than our identity group is; is in fact punching down on them and is not cool. If you bear any label in the whole spectrum; you should at least try to know better, and reject exclusionary behavior.
Of course people will be exclusionary to the extent they can get away with it. Don’t let them get away with it when you see it. Call it out and educate them kindly if possible; especially those who should know better.
As someone who is as deeply queer as she is transfeminine; I do experience some strange bouts of gatekeeping; especially around people who think I am inherently less feminine than they would prefer.
Yeah, I always hated the word sapphic as well. Seems like people just reinventing the word lesbian all over again for exactly the same reasons, thinking it’ll end the exclusionism to let the exclusionists take the more common word without a fight.
I think maybe the correct strategy is to go scorched earth. The exclusionists can have the word lesbian, but now lesbian means transphobe. Let them have it after poisoning it. Because I used to think we had to fight them to keep the word meaning something good, but I was just struck with the futility of such an exercise when I realised it never did much good in the first place.
I’m gay. My femininity doesn’t make that something special, doesn’t set it apart from any other form of gayness. Gay is gay. As much as 20th century misogynists would have refused to believe that and forced the lesbian label on Me because “gIrLs CaN’t ReAlLy Be GaY”
As much as I normally love and appreciate gender neutrality, I don’t think it belongs in a term like “gay” purely for clarity’s sake - words for sexualities are one of the only places gender actually matters in language imo. The word “gay” is the only popular term for men who like men that I’m aware of, and it’s already sometimes used as a bit of an umbrella term - I try to support all my siblings on the GSM, but sometimes I wanna be able to filter for things explicitly relevant to me the way nearly every other sexuality is able to. I’m aware it’s a very minor gripe and I’m not trying to gatekeep, but I’d personally prefer to see “queer” or another umbrella term used as a gender-neutral catch-all.
Every non-sexuality-related term I’m with you 100%, someone’s femininity/masculinity/both/neither has no bearing and separate words aren’t needed; if I’m in a burning house I’ll be equally glad to see someone whether you call them a fireman, firewoman, or anything else. It’s just if I search for e.g. a gay novel, wanting characters I can directly relate to, I’m pretty invested in the relevant characters being men lol.
The word lesbian isn’t going to solve the ambiguity problem either way, because there are thousands of genders that don’t have a special word for gayness. I’m biromantic, but homosexual. I’m romantically attracted to a broad range of genders similar to My own, but I’m only sexually attracted to genders that are very very similar, and that doesn’t include women. Making “gay” a term only for men would erase people like Me, and thousands of other nonbinary genders.
First off, I notice You’ve capitalized first person pronouns more than once so I’ll assume it’s deliberate and capitalize second person pronouns to match - lmk if this isn’t right and I’ll sentence case them.
Secondly, I agree sexuality terms won’t ever be able to perfectly describe everybody and IMO that’s okay - there’s too much variety to our experience and sexualities for that much specificity in labels, but the important part is having an umbrella term that encompasses all of us. I’m absolutely not trying to say that Your sexuality (or anyone else’s) should be excluded from that umbrella term - just adding my two cents about why I prefer that umbrella term to be “queer” or another alternative rather than “gay”. Lots of people seem to use gay to refer to anything relating to the GSM, and that (or You choosing gay as a label You like) is obviously valid - I just wanted to add another perspective since I got the impression from Your comment this was an ongoing decision rather than a piece of Your identity that was set in stone. If that impression is wrong, feel free to ignore this last part - You obvs don’t have to justify your choice of labels to me or anyone.
If You are open to other suggestions, it seems like nonbinary people attracted to genders similar to their own fit the definition of homo/homosexual pretty perfectly - I personally consider myself (in order of specificity) gay, then homosexual, then queer. If I ever have a realization about my gender and learn I’m not a guy (but still something adjacent), then in my mind at least I’d stop being gay but continue being homo - and anything short of being both straight and cisgender would still make me queer. Again, no pressure to use/not use these or any labels - I just really value clarity in language even though it’s nearly a lost cause for things as varied and fluid as GSM stuff lol.
@Grail@Melody I use sapphic as a way to refer to both lesbians and bisexual women at the same time. Not to be exclusionary but as a way to refer to a common ground. Wlw could also be used, but that’s hard to pronounce when talking.
Back in the 20th century, people used the word lesbian to refer to gay and/or bisexual women. Nobody said the word lesbian as if it didn’t include bisexuals, except for the many people who didn’t believe in bisexuals at all. This exclusion of bi women while acknowledging they exist is a newfangled trend, and it doesn’t make any sense.
Anyone’s use of a label does not invalidate your label or mean you need to adopt a new one. Hating a label because it broadly overlaps with your label is gatekeeping labels. It’s okay, however, to hate people who try to force a label on you, because that behavior isn’t ever acceptable.
In the bi community we are constantly having this discussion over bi vs. pan vs. poly vs. omni and the answer is and always has been “these all broadly overlap but the difference is important to some”. Use the label which you like, which you feel describes you, and if someone makes an assumption well that’s on them. If your definition of the label doesn’t align with the current societal definition, that’s okay too! These are all made up words to describe abstract definitions and they are socially defined, which means they aren’t precise- they are meant to capture broad areas of overlapping micro-identities. You can always use clarifying language to explain what the label means to you, or where you sit in the spectrum of the label when it’s important to a conversation.
I mostly agree here.
Although; I have a slightly different experience as well that makes me highly distrustful of people who tout being ‘sapphic’ as well; as I’ve seen quite a few people who identify with that label participating in the same kinds of toxic and exclusionary behavior that the self labeled ‘lesbians’ that are referenced in this article are participating in.
In general; excluding members of the rainbow who are less numerous than our identity group is; is in fact punching down on them and is not cool. If you bear any label in the whole spectrum; you should at least try to know better, and reject exclusionary behavior.
Of course people will be exclusionary to the extent they can get away with it. Don’t let them get away with it when you see it. Call it out and educate them kindly if possible; especially those who should know better.
As someone who is as deeply queer as she is transfeminine; I do experience some strange bouts of gatekeeping; especially around people who think I am inherently less feminine than they would prefer.
Yeah, I always hated the word sapphic as well. Seems like people just reinventing the word lesbian all over again for exactly the same reasons, thinking it’ll end the exclusionism to let the exclusionists take the more common word without a fight.
I think maybe the correct strategy is to go scorched earth. The exclusionists can have the word lesbian, but now lesbian means transphobe. Let them have it after poisoning it. Because I used to think we had to fight them to keep the word meaning something good, but I was just struck with the futility of such an exercise when I realised it never did much good in the first place.
I’m gay. My femininity doesn’t make that something special, doesn’t set it apart from any other form of gayness. Gay is gay. As much as 20th century misogynists would have refused to believe that and forced the lesbian label on Me because “gIrLs CaN’t ReAlLy Be GaY”
As much as I normally love and appreciate gender neutrality, I don’t think it belongs in a term like “gay” purely for clarity’s sake - words for sexualities are one of the only places gender actually matters in language imo. The word “gay” is the only popular term for men who like men that I’m aware of, and it’s already sometimes used as a bit of an umbrella term - I try to support all my siblings on the GSM, but sometimes I wanna be able to filter for things explicitly relevant to me the way nearly every other sexuality is able to. I’m aware it’s a very minor gripe and I’m not trying to gatekeep, but I’d personally prefer to see “queer” or another umbrella term used as a gender-neutral catch-all.
Every non-sexuality-related term I’m with you 100%, someone’s femininity/masculinity/both/neither has no bearing and separate words aren’t needed; if I’m in a burning house I’ll be equally glad to see someone whether you call them a fireman, firewoman, or anything else. It’s just if I search for e.g. a gay novel, wanting characters I can directly relate to, I’m pretty invested in the relevant characters being men lol.
The word lesbian isn’t going to solve the ambiguity problem either way, because there are thousands of genders that don’t have a special word for gayness. I’m biromantic, but homosexual. I’m romantically attracted to a broad range of genders similar to My own, but I’m only sexually attracted to genders that are very very similar, and that doesn’t include women. Making “gay” a term only for men would erase people like Me, and thousands of other nonbinary genders.
First off, I notice You’ve capitalized first person pronouns more than once so I’ll assume it’s deliberate and capitalize second person pronouns to match - lmk if this isn’t right and I’ll sentence case them. Secondly, I agree sexuality terms won’t ever be able to perfectly describe everybody and IMO that’s okay - there’s too much variety to our experience and sexualities for that much specificity in labels, but the important part is having an umbrella term that encompasses all of us. I’m absolutely not trying to say that Your sexuality (or anyone else’s) should be excluded from that umbrella term - just adding my two cents about why I prefer that umbrella term to be “queer” or another alternative rather than “gay”. Lots of people seem to use gay to refer to anything relating to the GSM, and that (or You choosing gay as a label You like) is obviously valid - I just wanted to add another perspective since I got the impression from Your comment this was an ongoing decision rather than a piece of Your identity that was set in stone. If that impression is wrong, feel free to ignore this last part - You obvs don’t have to justify your choice of labels to me or anyone.
If You are open to other suggestions, it seems like nonbinary people attracted to genders similar to their own fit the definition of homo/homosexual pretty perfectly - I personally consider myself (in order of specificity) gay, then homosexual, then queer. If I ever have a realization about my gender and learn I’m not a guy (but still something adjacent), then in my mind at least I’d stop being gay but continue being homo - and anything short of being both straight and cisgender would still make me queer. Again, no pressure to use/not use these or any labels - I just really value clarity in language even though it’s nearly a lost cause for things as varied and fluid as GSM stuff lol.
@Grail @Melody I use sapphic as a way to refer to both lesbians and bisexual women at the same time. Not to be exclusionary but as a way to refer to a common ground. Wlw could also be used, but that’s hard to pronounce when talking.
Back in the 20th century, people used the word lesbian to refer to gay and/or bisexual women. Nobody said the word lesbian as if it didn’t include bisexuals, except for the many people who didn’t believe in bisexuals at all. This exclusion of bi women while acknowledging they exist is a newfangled trend, and it doesn’t make any sense.
Anyone’s use of a label does not invalidate your label or mean you need to adopt a new one. Hating a label because it broadly overlaps with your label is gatekeeping labels. It’s okay, however, to hate people who try to force a label on you, because that behavior isn’t ever acceptable.
In the bi community we are constantly having this discussion over bi vs. pan vs. poly vs. omni and the answer is and always has been “these all broadly overlap but the difference is important to some”. Use the label which you like, which you feel describes you, and if someone makes an assumption well that’s on them. If your definition of the label doesn’t align with the current societal definition, that’s okay too! These are all made up words to describe abstract definitions and they are socially defined, which means they aren’t precise- they are meant to capture broad areas of overlapping micro-identities. You can always use clarifying language to explain what the label means to you, or where you sit in the spectrum of the label when it’s important to a conversation.