Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Julie]

Originally Posted by tapu

No, sorry, I meant that I "truly do not understand the definition of a lesbian if one is in a love, sexual relationship with a man." (from the part of Anya's post that I quoted)

If a woman is in a loving and sexual relationship with a man, then in what sense is she a lesbian?

It is the core of her being. Her soul, Tapu.
One cannot argue with the soul of another human being.

Being a Lesbian is not sexual. That's what the right wing says. I hope people in our community are not saying or implying the same thing.

If you were never able to be touched or touch another female bodied person again, in an intimate manner - Would you stop being a lesbian?

If you were never to love another woman again - Would you stop being a lesbian?

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Julie

It is the core of her being. Her soul, Tapu.
One cannot argue with the soul of another human being.

Being a Lesbian is not sexual. That's what the right wing says. I hope people in our community are not saying or implying the same thing.

If you were never able to be touched or touch another female bodied person again, in an intimate manner - Would you stop being a lesbian?

If you were never to love another woman again - Would you stop being a lesbian?

No, I would have to fall in love with a man as a partner and enjoy the sex with him. Then, I would not be a lesbian. I would be, historically at least, bisexual.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by tapu

No, I would have to fall in love with a man as a partner and enjoy the sex with him. Then, I would not be a lesbian. I would be, historically at least, bisexual.

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.

[tapu]

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.

[tapu]

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.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by tapu

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?

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.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Julie

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.

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.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by tapu

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.

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

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by tapu

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.

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

[Martina]

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.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by tapu

No, I would have to fall in love with a man as a partner and enjoy the sex with him. Then, I would not be a lesbian. I would be, historically at least, bisexual.

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.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

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.

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.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by tapu

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.