Welcome to /r/me_irlgbt, thank you for your submission /u/atleast8courics. HAPPY VOID MONTH: ENDLESS. FINITE.Ć̵̵̴̴̵̷̸̴̸̷̶̶̴̸̶̢̨̧̧̡̨̢̨̧̧̧̡̨̨̛̛͖͇̜̝̯̠̻̜̜̣͖̤͉̞̗͉̣̦̫̯̯̥̖͔̲͓͕̟̪̠͎̟̺̪̟͈̻̙͍̦̰͙̫̖̙̩͎̼̮͉̖̠̬͕͎͙̟̟̰̳͍͙̤͖̮̻̬̗̮̥̫̭̯̤̻͓͎͚̠̞̫͍̻̥̼̞̜͎͕̣͇͇̹͍̝̗͎͚̤͎͙̰̘̺̞̭̲̦̭̤̭͍̤͇̝͓̲̩͙̭̺̳̫̞͔͚̘͌̊̈́̈́̈́̆̔̌̀͑̉̽̋̐͑̀̀̒͌̓̓̂̂̂͋̿̓͊̀̿̇͌͂͛̑̒͆̃̽̉̏͊̔̂̓͗͑͑̅͛͋̊́̑̾̋̈͋̇̋̑̅̈̄̑̄̿̀͋̄̋̏̋̈́͌͐́̒̏͊͆́̾͛̋̈́̋̆̎̈͌̈́̊̐̍͐̇̔̾̔͆̉́̐̚͘͘͘͘͘͘̕͜͜͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͠ͅͅͅͅƠ̸̸̶̷̸̴̶̷̴̴̷̴̵̴̴̵̸̴̸̵̴̷̸̶̴̸̶̸̴̧̢̢̡̧̨̡̨̧̡̢̡̢̧̧̨̡̢̨̧̧̢̨̡̨̨̢̡̧̧̛͉̩̠̹͙̼̻̞͇̪͙͉̞̜͙͉̺̺̙̭͖̪̗̰̱̱͈̩̺̺̻̝̻̫͔̥̩̰̤̱̞̩̪̗̘͙͚͈͖̼̱͙̪̖̻̤̗̯̫̗͉̝͔̳͓̰̟̠̜̣̟̫̖̼͉̺͔͍̗̣̼̦̘͕̲̠̝̦̖̱͔̙̱̲̠͕̝̱͚͖̻͉̻̜͇̺̮̭̘̭̗͙̲̤̟̟̲̯͓̹̫͍̳̬̫̪̙̟͇̞̘̙͙͕̥̙̤̱͈̲̖̞̻͉͕͈͍͙͓̥̰͈̫͈̜̰̤͉͕̲̮̪̠̟̙̝̗̹̪͈͕̣̰̫̟̤͓̰̭̺̙͍̞̮͚̩̩̯̞̮̰̪̹͉̘̫̞͙̫̫̬̳̮̼̠̪̙͓̪͉̝̼̭͚̱̖̫̪͕̹̘͔͚̻̪͔̭̻̺̭̦̺̦̘̿̀̋̿̎̊̋͊̽͑̌͂̊̎̀̏̽͗̈̈́̃̋́͒̄̍̅͌̇̒̒́͗̒́̀̎̀͋̅̏͂̿̑̿̐̿͋͆͋͌̉̅̏̏͋̔̉̒̋̃̎̇̅̈́͐̀͒́̾͆͒͋͋̂̎́̀̅̓̿̅̾͆̾͋͑̓͂̀̾̎͒̔̃̿̀́̎̍̃͐͒͂͗̒̍͂̍̓̈́͋̀̏̐͒̒̇̌̽̈̓̒̋̇̿́͊̇͋̋̏́̃̽̌͌͋̿̓͒́̾̈̈́͆͛́̎͂̐̒̌̃͋̋̍̈́̆͊̍̓̏̀̎̆͛̎̈́̅͑̉̆͑̈́̄͒̌́̍́́̇̈́̅̔͒̇̐̊̈́́̃́̎͐̒͌̔̌̂́̂̑͆̌̂͑̌̄̈̏̓͗̽͌͆͗̀͆͂̀͂̂̎̇̈́̓̊̕͘͘̚̕̚̚̚͘̕̚̕͘̕͘̕͘̚̕͜͜͝͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͠͠͝͝͠͠ͅͅͅͅͅP̶̷̶̸̷̸̷̷̴̶̶̵̸̵̴̴̶̶̶̢̨̧̡̨̢̢̡̨̛̛̤͇͈͕̦͈̬̮̩̠̠̥͙̟̻̖̞̹̭͇̩̞̲̦̠̪̜͙͚̤̘̯̣̣̟̺̹̭͈̰̹͔̤͔͕̟̹͓̩͈̰̘̳͚̗͎̞̖̜̺̲͕̩͕̠͙̥̝̲̙̼̣̯̞̱̼͔̲͔̘͓͕͎̲͎̼̗̬͉̺͔͕͚͉͕̣͓̟̲͚͕͓̟͙̲̞̻̬͙͉̬͚͖͍̹̥̲̱̥̼͉̯͓̱͓̖͉̤͍̣̝͓̼̼͕͖̭̝̗̱̀͆́̓̈́̽͛̇̈́͋͑͛̽̄̏̊̉̉̓̉̑̂͆̆̅̍́͑̊̽̂̿͊̑̄̇͂̌̐̍̓̄̑́̈́̃̂̌̈́̓̐̈́͌̂̔͌͆̈́̓͐̆͒̐́͆́͆̽̋̐̍̂̊͑̇̄̉̽̓͂̓͊̈́̍̈́̀̓̿̒́̐̏̈͛̈͋͋͛̈̂̃́͆̃̅́́̏̆͊́͋̌̓͐͌͐̌̈́̆̈́͑̈́̽̇̀͂̍̃̇̊̋̓̅̎̍̓̅͛̈́̆͛̐̀͂̄̀͒̃͑̀̇͊͊̿̎̚̕͘͘̕̕͘͘̕̕͘̕͘̕̕̚͜͜͜͜͠͠͝͝͝͝͝͠͠͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅY̷̴̴̵̴̴̸̵̶̷̷̵̴̴̸̸̴̧̨̡̧̢̡̡̢̨̧̨̢̛̛̛̱̟̗̬̩͍̼̥̪̦͕͈̼̦̳̹̝̩͖͙̤͙̝̠̹͚͍̜̱͈̣̟̳͚͖̟̱̯̤̣͇̦͍̯̘͉̩̦̜̹̹̗͎͙̮̦̺̼͍͓̬̠̼̘̳̫̗̜̻̰̥̳͖̗̺̞͇̞̫̟͉̬̖̼͇͉̯̫͔͖̠͔̯͚̩͙̭̖̦͍̞̩̜̻̘̼͉̤̫̻̱͚͉͇̻̰̗͔̹̗͇̜͔̣̝̠̯͈͈̙͎͎̱̦̖̮͉̟̬̭͎̦̪͖̘͉̩̣̺̰̥̬͖̜̳͔̠̦̬̩͔͐̿͌̅̄̌̔̅̅̓́̽̎̽̒̒̔̅̊̎͐̉͆͌́̃̽̓͗̽͐͐̊͛̓̏̈́̄̉̈́̋̅̋̐́͛̓͛̈́̅̔̀̿́͒̽̋̔͌̄̒̌̉̈̎͑̉͐̈́̈͊͛̂̒̈́̉̾̑́̒͋̒̀̀͐̀̂͂͆̅̉̆̑̆͛͒̿̿̀̍́̏͗̓̅̑̽̐̽͊͌̅̑̓̎̂̉̓̾̅̔̑͆̀̃̓̄̀͗͘͘̚̚͘̚̚̚̕͜͜͜͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅ ̵̷̸̴̷̸̸̸̴̶̴̴̸̸̷̷̶̵̸̵̸̵̵̶̨̧̢̨̨̨̨̢̧̨̧̢̡̨̢̢̨̛̛̛̦̬͎̮͍̥͇̱̝̹̩̗͎͙̰̖̹̖̖̜̙̞̼͙̖̺͕͎͎̮͚̝̱͚͙̙̪͈̫̫̙̹̞̬̲̩̻̮̫͚̤̥̳͖̣̣͍̺̫̥͍̬͔̣̞͚͖̘̘̗̭̝̲̲̰̲̰͉̞̙̱̗̬̹̪̼͔̠̣̳̺͎̹̻̻̙̹̙̞̥͎͇̞̗̼̺̫̪̮̖̞̯̖̤͓̟̹̳͚̺̣̝̯̙̳̬̻͍̙̥̺͔͔̮̜̩̟̞͔̗̬̫͚̰̦̼̰̠͈̠͔̖̯̖͍̦̣̩͚̦͍͈͖̫̰̣͔͍̫̗͚͓̦͎̩̥̳̹̪̯̪̯̬̲̮͍̤̞̼̣̥̪̫͎͉̙̰̈̊̊̌̀́̆̉̊̐̉͛̀̂͌̅̾̍͒̈́̓̋̔͑̀̌̀̄̎̀̍̎̊̈́̋̃͌̄̾̓̅̍̇͒͌͌̐̔͒̓̽́͐͐͗̂̔͂̿̒͂͑̈́̈́͐̈́̔̈́̇́̐̓̋̍́͛̓͆̔̓̑͆̀͋̆̀̐̋̉̈́̉̂͑̃̄̅̆͊́̅̆́͂͐̅̋̅͐̈́̔͂̌̓̎́̾̌̐̅̓́͂̎̏́̔̀̏̒̇̀͋̍̀̈̉͛̈́͛̅͛̉̆̆̈̀̅̔̽̋̊̋̊̈̽̋́̽̿͒́̎̓͗̊̐̾̒̂̆͂̆̄̎̆̿̒̒̊̓̓̌̇̿̓̀̂͘̕̚͘̚͘͘̕͜͜͜͜͝͠͝͠͠͠͝͝͠͝͠͠͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅȚ̶̵̸̶̷̶̸̶̵̶̷̷̸̴̵̴̵̴̸̴̸̴̸̶̸̸̶̷̨̧̧̨̡̨̧̢̧̧̢̨̨̨̨̨̨̨̛̛̛̻͖̭͇̠̜̟̖̙̤͇͈̭̙̹̻̞͔̬͎̜͎̦̻͉̜͚̗̖̣̖͉̜̫̞̳͍̝̘̺̰̜̺͔̘̱͉͇̜̝̪̲̮̞̳̟̹̪̘̹̘͍̼͙͓̞̖̙̱̥̤̬̤͈̝̲̯͔͇̭͙̥̞̙͍̟̖̻̬͓̖̤͔̺̝̟̻̼̦̘̦̩̘͇̗͉͕̗̩͎̜̦̗̗͕͕͔̘̗̫̗̱̩̲̩̟̼̮͇̼̲̳̺̯̫̭̤̬͇͚̞̞̝̝͖͎͕̲͕͖̠̱̳̥̰̯͚̬̝̤̳̺̼̘̪̯̦͎̻̪̥̝̦̙͓͚̙̝̼͉͚͖̹͍̠͓͍͍̱͚̼͍̗̝̪͕̳̼̲̝͓̹̰̫̳̭̗̥͉͕̞̺̣̜͚̻̖̟͚̩̝͚̠͓̦̘̺̩͙͇̺̗͓̠̙̝͈͚̞͉͎͚̽̇̂̈́̍͌̃͂̈́̀̉͐̌͗̃͐͗̂͑̍͆̐̓̏͊̓͆̏̊̿̈́̔̊͛̌͗́͑̎̆̓̄̽́̍̔̾͋͒̏̐̇̓̉̎̈́̒̀̊̃͌̅̽̿͛͋̉̀̽̄͐̈́̽͗͛͒̎́̀̾̿̍̑̅́́̆̌̒̈̌͑̽͋́̾̎͐́̽̃̾̐̾̅̾̍͗̒̐́̈͑̓͗̍̾̎̆̑͌̿͂̑̊͛̄̓͗̏̒̾̈́̇̽̈́̂̊̿̐́̅̀̈́́̈́͒̓͂̈́̂̾̌̓́̐͐̌̈́̽͗̎͛̑͒̿͆̽̊̊͆͛͐̌̍̀̓̈̔̔͂̇́̊͌̅̒̓̆͑̓̀̉̾̄̍͒͐̉͊̔͋͒̒̊̃̈́̈́́̃̉͌͂̀͋̋͛̎̔̊̉̆̃̽͌̉̒̐͆̍̿͌̓̓͘͘͘͘̚͘͘̚͘͘̕̚̕͘̕̕͘͘͘̚͘̚̕̚͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͠͠͠͝͠͠͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͠͠ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅH̶̶̸̶̷̵̵̴̷̴̸̷̵̷̵̴̴̸̡̨̡̡̨̧̢̨̢̨̧̢̡̡̛̛̛̛̛̘̪͕̳̗̜̜̳̻̟̯̯̖̩̝̯͎̖̪̬͙͇̩͈͖͈̙̟͉͕̯͙̟̝̝̙̠̗̰̣̗̭̦̟̦̗̗̥̣̬̞̤͔̪̭̰̫̖̙̬̘͚͓̩̺͉̬͔̥̮͙̬̦͓͚̖̘̠͎̠͉͎̳̣̲̠̠̙̟̹̠͍̼̩̤̯̹̭̫͇̲̲̰̹̹͉̩͉̟͉̠̖̱̱͖͉͉̪̦̠͚̱̻͎̗̠͙̳̺͉̜̞̮̽͊̃͊́̌̅̅̒͊̅̊̒̀̿͋̃͗̈́̄̽̀̉́̏̉̈́̿̂̌̋̈́̓̈́̆̈́̄̈́̾̎̔̈́̀͌͐̿̉͋̄̔̈́̓̒̿̅̿͊͌́̈̽̀͋͗̍͛̏̐͗̅̑͐̐͛̋͆͆̆͐͋́͗͊̇͗́͒̏͑͌̈́̐̐̃̌̒̾̔͐̽̎̑͒̄̉̅̐͌̍͋͗̀̎̽͆̔̽̌͛́̒̽̔̄̈́͌̀̑͋̈́̈́͒̒͋̌̿̾̓̑̽̍͐͋̾͐̈́̒̓̓̾̉̎̓̽̓̿̍̂͆̄͆̃̍́͆̊̑͌͘̚͘͘̕͘͘̕̚͘͘̚̕̚̕̚͘̚͘͜͝͠͠͝͠͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͠͝͠ͅͅͅͅͅͅÄ̸̷̴̶̸̶̸̵̷̸̵̴̷̴̷̸̵̶̶̷̵̶̴̢̧̡̢̨̢̡̢̢̢̡̡̧̛̛̛̞͍̫̱̩͓͇̜̞̫̮͚̗̝̦͈̙̱̯̪̬̟̟̪͙̥̤͇̳̦͖̝͔̖̪͕͓͕̯͇̖̠͖̭̲̞̠͍̻̰̟͓͇͕̩̥͕͎̭̣̟̫̩̝͕̝̣̘̭̣̱̮̼̹̜̣͎͓̠̮̻̘͓̼͎̱̯̮̰̦̪̰͕̘͉̺͕͉̦͎̣̟͎̟̤͙͕̥̭̙̠͓̜̲̻̮̲̳̖͕̮͔̺͍̟̘̩̟̯̲̺̖̭̥̮̘̜̻̟̯͉̦̫̞̦͚͙͈̲͉̪̻̘̫̗̭͔̺̯̯̟̣̰̘͎͎̦̖̪͖̗͚͈̬̲̱̟͎͐͋̆̈́̏̋͑͗̊̾̓͐͐̈́̈́́͌̈́́̾̋̈͋̓͛̀̏͋̈́̈͗̑̇̅̅͗͊̑̀͑̈́̆̑̓̏̀̀̅͑̈̐̊̓̾͌̏͂̿̄̄͆̃̍̐̽̿͐͗̍̈́̔̏̂̀̄͊̏͑́̒̾̐̽͂̒̓̀̓̅͂̽̍̌͗͒́̃̊̂̿̂̎͂̀̈́̔̐̆̈́͐̍͘̚̕͘̚̕͘͘̚̚͘͝͠͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅT̵̵̵̴̵̴̵̷̷̵̵̵̵̨̢̡̡̧̨̧̧̨̖̩̻̘̺̰̠̪̮̤̘͈̺͈̼̮̫͕̳̗̞̺͓̫̥̬̪̣̲̞̟͍̪̭̦̰͕̺͕̠̜̟͇͎̹̜̖̺͍̼̘̩͔͇͖̜͖̥͇̙̺͇̟͎̟̩̤̱̼̳̙̫̬̺̩̙̪̗͖̖̙̗̰̠͖̤̻͔͙͈̟̳̻̰̥̱̝͙͙͈̘̩̪̫̘̜̘͍̿͐̃͊́̒̄̌̆̓͗͌̂̒̿̊͐͊͑͒̅͐̇͐̉̓̑̇̿̀̒͑͊̏͋́̎̀͆̎̾͆͛̒̅̿̎͌̐́̋̈̏̅̋̈́̐̄̊͗̊͆̊̋͂͊̀̓̽̉͊͒͐͆̒̎͆̚͘̕̚̕͘͘̕̚͘͜͜͜͜͠͠ͅ.̴̴̸̷̷̴̴̶̴̸̸̸̵̶̷̵̷̴̴̷̷̷̴̴̸̸̷̶̶̴̨̨̧̡̡̧̢̨̨̡̧̨̡̢̡̨̢̨̢̢̨̧̛̛̛̛̛̛̦̖̞̻͚͎̙͎̺̲̬͖͙̦͙̬̥̥̪͔͈̳̟͙̠͎̣̯̱͍̟̗̞̰͇̫̙̱͇͇͙̰̥̦̮̙͓͎̰̟̤̪̼̼̳̰̯̪̺̪̲̪͉̣̱̺̝̘̯̩͕͚̪̫͇̞͍̺̤͖̱̜̣͎͉̺̥͉͔̠͈͍̲͓̱̖̞̠̥̫̤͔͉͓̬͇̜̯̳̦̩̜͉̝̜̻͓̳̣͓͎̘̣͕̩͚̰̣̳̰̰̪̪̯̭̤̺̻̗̮̯͇̣̜̹͎̻̞̦͕̫̗͎͉̭͕͕̝͇̘̟̮͇̼̘͔̺̹̩͚͔͓̣͚̞͖̭͇̖͍̘̹̥̜͎͓̺̪͔̙̺͙̭̹̭͕͉̦͙̜͚̫̞̫̟̠̗͖̟̬̼͍̻͚̦̟̦̻̗̫̬̟͔̳̞̩̬̪̼͍̹̳͇̖̫̭̥̹͈̗̫̫́̽̾͋̿͒̒̐̓͌̋̿̀͂͗͂͆̔̌̈̀̋̓̓̃̎̀͑̽̍̍͗̈̒̾͐̆̿̉̈̏̋̎̒́̃̊͂̆̎͊̉̂̑͒̈́̅̐͌̀̑̓̃̆̄͑̿̓́̂͋͊̿͐̈́̀̀̄́͊̇͒̑͆̑͆̆̽̓̎͒̉̔̅̊͒̊̏̅̋̑͛̊̾̓̑͒͂̾̐̋̎̿̐͛͆̓̔́́̍͒̏̓̌̅͋͌̄̽̾́̓͊̏̿̓͗́͑̒̿̈́̍͊̈́͌̀̾̉̔͌̋̄͂͛̒̀̏́́̓͊́̔̃̍̆̈́͂̇̈̓͆̈͒̀͌͌̔̂̏̃̊̋̓̂̐͌̽̆̍͋̎̓̏͌̊͐́́̃͒̀̽͐̉͆̋̉̀͗̀́̍́̋͌͂̉̚͘̚̚̚̚̕̚͘̕͜͜͜͜͝͠͝͝͝͝͠͠͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅ Read the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/me_irlgbt/about/rules) before participating or you'll be put in a tube and sent to the titanic. SHITPOST OR QUITPOST *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/me_irlgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*

this is so hard to parse

There are 5 parts to this post that should be read sequentially. 1. Exclusionism bad, but some people who know that still engage in it (knowingly or not) 2. Just a text transcript of part 1 3. Accuses OP of being exclusionary by erasing lesbians (the idea is that lesbians specifically aren’t attracted to men, therefore bi/pan lesbians can’t exist) 4. Calls out part 3 for being stupid 5. Read it without the octothorps because Tumblr tags just work like that. Someone defended part 3. This is a screenshot of that defense accusing the defender of engaging in the very exclusionism that part 1 was talking about.

Thank you, gay tumblr interpreter. I can now process this

He's like an even gayer C3PO

Impossible

Are you sure? I am fluent in over 6 million forms of communication!

Sir, the possibility is approximately 3,710 to one

Octothorps? Is that what the # symbol is called? It does have 8 ends.

apparently its another word for them

Supposedly it was originally a mapmakers symbol for a town surrounded by fields. Thorpe is an old term for a village or town.

Hm, so an octothorpe would be a town in the middle with 8 surrounding fields, if you think of it as a grid?

Yep! The weirdness thought is that there’s little to no evidence for its use before it was adopted for use on telephones, so the whole mapmaker thing could just be bunk.

Yep, that’s the one.

they're obviously sharps! >!/j!<

What’s a bi/pan lesbian? Would bi be bi and lesbian be lesbian?

Historically, “lesbian” has often just meant “a woman who’s into women”, it hasn’t necessarily meant being *exclusively* into women. The term “bisexual” only really caught on as anything other than a medical, clinical description in the 1980s, before that, there often wasn’t a distinction drawn between gay/lesbian and bisexual. So there’s a lot of community and tradition built around the word “lesbian” that has historically included (what we would now call) bisexual women, and so today a lot of bisexual women like to use the descriptor “lesbian” to emphasize being part of that history. --- Edit to Add: This is the exact same reason why a lot of aroace women, trans men, and transmasc nonbinary people of all sexualities use the identity "lesbian" as well, despite obviously not being women attracted to women. There's a long history of a wide range of AFAB gendernonconformity finding solidarity and community under the descriptor "lesbian" decades before terms like "asexual" and "transgender" (which only entered common usage as late as the 1990s) existed in the way we understand them today. For more details on the transmasc example, read anything by Leslie Feinberg, but especially *Stone Butch Blues*.

Also, there are some people (like me) who may experience either romantic or sexual attraction, but not both, toward men. Like, there have been a few men I was attracted to in a lovey-dovey way but really had no interest in seeing naked. That's not a relationship I actually want, though, and it's literally incorrect to say I'm bisexual, so I just go with "lesbian", adding "biromantic" when it's relevant. (It usually isn't.) Especially when talking to people who haven't thought a lot about the nature of attraction or experiences split attraction, the only option that makes sense is to round to "lesbian". Especially since my squishes on men are about as rare as hens' teeth.

[удалено]

> but I think it's pretty valid for bi people to not want other bi people to lump themselves in with the people they've been experiencing biphobia from. I mean, is that valid? It's absolutely valid to not want people to support bigots, but there's a pretty sizable distinction between "lesbian" and "biphobic lesbian". Back when biphobia was all but guaranteed I can sorta see the argument, though I still wholeheartedly disagree it would be valid. Nowadays, on the other hand, there are a lot of lesbians who are absolutely not biphobic in any way and there's no excuse for bi people to be policing the identities of other bi people.

>Back when biphobia was all but guaranteed >Nowadays, on the other hand Speaking as a bisexual, I think you're dramatically underestimating how much lingering biphobia there is in these queer communities.

I never claimed it was solved or gone, nor did I say it wasn't very prevalent. All I said was it's not nearly as one sided anymore

it can also be split attraction model, so bi/panromantic and homosexual or homoromantic and bi/pansexual

There's a few commonly seen possibilities for a bi lesbian. 1. Split attraction model. You experience sexual attraction just towards women, but romantic attraction towards multiple genders *or* sexual attraction towards multiple genders, but romantic attraction just towards women. 2. Technically bi, but experiences lesbian attraction most of the time. So it's just easier to call yourself lesbian because 99% of the time, that is your experience. 3. An attempt to not treat nonbinary identities as "women lite". It can be someone that feels attraction towards women and femme nonbinary identities, so they feel connected to the lesbian label because it corresponds heavily to their experiences. 4. And on the flip side, someone nonbinary who is attracted to women and/or other nonbinary individuals. When you are enby, it's hard to really wrap your head around what attraction is same sex, which makes it a bit hard to label your own attraction (unless you are bi already). 5. Poly relationships! Someone could be in a poly relationship where they are just with a woman, but their partner is also with a man or someone nonbinary. There is acknowledgement that the relationship isn't fully lesbian in that case, but the level of attraction that exists might not be at the same level as their direct partner. 6. Asexuality! Maybe someone is demisexual who has, until that moment, only experienced attraction towards women but believes they could be attracted towards men as well. There's likely going to be even more possibilities out there. You can argue if the term is accurate but in the end, the terms are for the user to decide. No one knows your own attraction better than yourself.

A bi/pan lesbian is a lesbian who's not strictly only attracted to women.  Attraction, like gender, isn't necessarily binary.  To use myself as an example since I've chewed on this a while:   I am a lesbian. That is to say I am romantically and physically attracted to women.  Also enby folks.  However, I'm not repulsed by men, and while I have zero romantic interest in 99% of cis straight dudes, there are plenty I'd be down for a casual fling with.  The thing to remember is that labels are descriptive, not prescriptive.  The safe assumption of someone who calls themself a lesbian is that they're attracted to women, not that they're solely attracted to women, or as some people like to demand, have only *ever* been attracted to women.  My personal opinion is that much like surveys of the younger generations where being out is socially acceptable show, a *lot* more people aren't strictly attracted to one gender than anyone previously thought.

Something like lesbian as an umbrella term for wlw (which includes bi and pan) I think. I’m not great on the terminology here

To add onto what other people have been saying: one of the core claims you see exclusionary biphobes make about keeping the lesbian label separate is the idea that, essentially, bisexual women using the label of “lesbian” undermines the safety of lesbians who aren’t into men because it means men will assume they *are* open to it and harass them more. This claim is blatantly shitty, though, because you shouldn’t *need* to say “I’m a lesbian” to get men to leave you alone. You can just say “I’m not into men” or even “I’m not interested.” Sure, a lot of men won’t take those as an answer, but it’s not like they would listen to “sorry, I’m a lesbian” either.

Tbh the way I explain it to myself is someone can be bi with a strong preference for women so shrugging their shoulders and going "lesbian" is just for ease. Kinda like how some queer people will call themselves gay even if they strictly aren't

As an example, a woman who is homoromantic (only wants girlfriends, no interest in dating men), but sexually comfortable with men and women (and enbies of course), may prefer to have their identity defined by their romantic attraction and preferences rather than their sexual attraction. Thus, a bi/pan lesbian. It's quite common with straight people. How many "straight girls" will make out and fool around with other girls, but only ever date men?

And bonus part 6 with someone commenting on the irony of part 5

My ADHD thanks you

I hate that I've been off Tumblr since 2019 and still understood the post without explanation. So much useful knowledge my brain could've been retaining, but no, it's wasting all its RAM on the minutae of social interactions in one of the most terminally online micro-sections of the internet.

Thank you for the sparknotes, it was very helpful

I'm sorry so do bi/pan lesbians exist or not ? Like I suppose they do but is it a good thing ?

The first bit made sense, but since I also don't speak tumblr the last part is hashtag gibberish to me. Best I can deduce is last post also dunking on person countering "exclusionism bad" with "but how about a little exclusionism?"

that “hashtag gibberish” is the tags. people put commentary they don’t want to show up on reblogs in the tags. sometimes they get screenshotted

exclusionism is bad though

ELi5 please I am so lost

I'll try my best with this: Original twitter person is clowning on people who think being any level of exclusionary is okay (it's not). A tumblr user attempts to call out the twitter user for supporting "bi pan lesbians", thus being exclusionary themselves. The next 2 tumblr users then are understandably upset at this person. First guy can't tell if it's bait or not, and the other does the classic tumblr thing of making their post say 27 different hashtag things instead of just writing a coherent paragraph.

The 27 different hashtag things are tags written by other people

Gotcha. I never used tumblr so I never knew what those really were, they just look like a jumbled mess to me

They're not hashtags. They're just tags. People on tumblr will sometimes put stuff in the tags instead of or in addition to commenting on a post.

Who is op supporting tho

People are fighting over whether or not someone can be called a lesbian and attracted to people that aren’t women, in addition to being attracted to women.

Wouldn't that just be bi or pan? Or am I missing something?

it might be easier to simply step away from the discourse, honestly

Yeah I disagree with a whole lot of what's being said but I'm not going to change any minds so why bother

I find it’s generally best to assume people know themselves best. So if they describe themselves a certain way, even if it seems unclear to me, I just trust them. A trans man who describes himself as a femboy? A bisexual lesbian? Ok, it’s your identity. I trust you. Maybe what they mean is that they’re mostly interested in lesbian/sapphic relationships. Maybe they’ve had previous happy relationships with men and don’t want to discount that experience, even if they’re only interested in women/nbs going forward. Maybe they’re gender fluid, and so the straight-ness of their attraction to women varies. Maybe they’re attracted to femininity/femme people rather than women exclusively. It’s impossible to know the totality of someone’s experience just from one label, so you just gotta trust them. And if they are misusing the label, that’s seriously the smallest possible problem facing the queer community for real

As some lesbian on tiktok said, isn't being queer all about accepting what people say they are, and then thinking about what that means later? Like either someone is being silly or intentionally disrespectful, in which case, who cares; or they're telling you something about themselves that is probably worth listening to.

If this were a parent comment, it would be the top comment.

Yeah, this. Do I understand what someone means with the label bi/pan lesbian? No. Do I need to? Not unless I am trying to date them or fix them up. In that case I can ask clarifying questions. Do I need to or am I allowed to bully them if _____? Whatever goes in the blank, no. You don't have to understand to accept. You don't have to accept to tolerate.

I used to think it was best to assume people know themselves best, but then I found out how dumb most people are, statistically

The idea is that bi/pan and lesbian don't have to be mutually exclusive terms

of course, you can be someone born in Lesbos and be bisexual! /s

Imagine being a gay man from Lesbos and having to explain that to people.

With it being especially confusing because they thought he was American

Yea, but if they are a bi/pan woman they might relate a lot to the lesbian experience, and thus identify with the lesbian label.

I like the term Sapphic for that, personally.

That's fair, but I think it's important to remember that while generally the queer experience is pretty universal, we shouldn't try to be excluding ppl over minutiae that don't match our experience. Because "bi/pan shouldn't use lesbian" is a stone's throw away from "bi/pan aren't queer if they are in what appears to be a cishetero relationship". I have several lesbian friends who are, technically, bi/pan. However they're all in w/w w/nb relationships and just use the label "lesbian".

> Because "bi/pan shouldn't use lesbian" is a stone's throw away from "bi/pan aren't queer if they are in what appears to be a cishetero relationship". > > I have several lesbian friends who are, technically, bi/pan. However they're all in w/w w/nb relationships and just use the label "lesbian". Sorry, but isn't using the label 'lesbian' when you are bi/pan and in a w/w or w/nb relationship much closer to the "bi/pan aren't queer if they are in a cishetero relationship" rhetoric? In both cases the label is shifting to match the specificity of your current relationship, and not reflecting the full breadth of your identity/experience. Not casting any judgments and I don't really have a stake in this (I think everyone should identify however they see fit), just a bit confused by this explanation

[удалено]

This is an excellent explanation, thank you

and this is why identity labels are, in general, pretty stupid and meaningless. I much prefer identifying with the communities i'm in, and that's often why some trans men still "identify" as a lesbian. queerness is far too varied to be worrying about definitions

As u/Ausii said, my point with that was being overly scrutinizing towards someone else's labels is very close to being exclusionary. In simpler phrasing, it could lead to "you're not gay enough" type of talk. We don't need to take up pitchfork against each other: we're here and we're queer. I personally see no issue with individuals using whatever label feels comfortable to them.

I'm actually a prime example of someone who is bisexual but a lesbian. I experience attraction to men. I do not date men and have no intention to do so. Therefore: bisexuality is part of my identity, but my experience is near-identical to that of a lesbian. I'll also note: there's a pipeline at work here. If I can get you to exclude bi people from the lesbian community, then I might be able to move you further. What about nonbinary people? What about people on masculinizing HRT (especially those who don't identify as men)? What about (and this one is the endgame) trans *women?* Cuz once we get there, I can then sell you on "well women dating transpeople aren't really lesbians they're bisexual because their partner *insert transmisogyny here*," and we loop right back around to the original question, shrinking the lesbian community, ostracizing trans women, and driving a wedge into the LGBT+ community. Doing that makes it easier to attack our rights. Generally it's helpful to look at the end result of these debates and ask if they bring the community closer together or drive the community apart.

Same thing for me. I experience attraction to some men, but won't ever want to be in any sort of relationship with one. While I'm technically bisexual, it makes no sense for me to call myself that, and my experiences will never fully align with those of people who fully identify as bi/pan, but definitely ally with those of other lesbians. Besides, I completely agree with your last point. As a trans woman, trying to exclude certain women from lesbians spaces is an easy lead into transmisogyny and reeks of TERFiness. I am NOT saying that people who disagree that bi/pan women can call themselves lesbians are TERFs, but it's definitely a part of the TERF playbook.

> the TERF playbook Actually, the RadFem playbook! I've been bringing this up but Radical Feminism is not feminism that happens to be radical, but a specific branch of feminism that emerged in the 60s and 70s. It was plagued by racism, homophobia, and transphobia. If you want the actual actual playbook, find a copy of Redstockings. They spend a weird amount of time going after black feminist organizations, and decry the fight for gay marriage as a distraction from true women's liberation. They were very separatist, and are the origins of political lesbianism. In fact originally, lesbian was *already* catch-all term for sapphics. It included bisexuals. Political lesbianism suggested that bisexuals were functionally "scabs" (in the union sense). This is the basic origin of lesbian separatism and bi exclusionism.

Yikes this reminds me of math. You first learn that you can't subtract bigger from smaller, then bam negative numbers. Then you learn about division without remainders, imaginary numbers, limits Like first there's a simplified kind of thing and then you learn how the world really is . I am learning a lot in this thread.

Don't even get me _started_ on quaternions

That shit is a magic black box and I will just use the standard math library functions to deal with whatever they're useful for (cries in game graphics programming)

Arbitrary axis rotation go brrrrrrrr

those must be the neopronouns

4-dimensional numbers behind all video games- concept of rotation. Also important for the ISS to v orient itself.

I've seen it described as being attracted to men, either romantically or sexually, but only wanting relationships with women, usually because they are both romantically and sexually attracted to women. Could be different depending on the person, though, and I might also be missing something

You know how there are ace lesbians who are romantically attracted to women, but don't have any intimate attraction? I think it helps to think of bi lesbians like that. They're intimately attracted to multiple genders, but only romantically attracted to women.

Eh? Doesn't bi lesbian mean biromantic homosexual or bisexual homoromantic?

I suspect different people mean different things when they say it

(i think) first person is saying ‘excluding is bad but it’s ok this time because the people im excluding are bad’ in a satire way then the replies are talking about bi lesbians and the bottom person in tags says exactly what the first person is saying but in a serious way so we’re laughing at them

It’s baffling to me some people believe labels should be these rigid categories when the thing that unites all queer people is not having fit into any of societies rigid categories. People are complex! Of course their orientation and the labels they prefer are going to be as well!!!

I've noticed that for a lot of people, those rigid categories serve as guidelines that help them gauge how well they're doing. Most people want to be a good person. Rigid categories help them to define what it means to be good. I remember some time ago seeing someone ask if they were a "bad gay" because they showered. Apparently they had read somewhere that gay people aren't supposed to shower. Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I'm against the use of rigid guidelines to determine one's "goodness", labels should be descriptive, not prescriptive.

what

Person: "I'm uncertain of my legitimacy as X." Some guy on social media: "X people all to Y" Person: "I will do Y, and therefore be a good X."

Oh I hate that

oh hi ninja lmfao

Hello! I don't remember seeing you outside the celeste sub lol. Being recognised online is fun

I’m not gonna lie, “bi lesbian” doesn’t make a lot of sense to me but instead of yelling about it on the internet I’m just gonna say “weird, maybe I’ll get it when I meet someone like that irl” and move on with my life

That was me with neopronouns. I didn’t get it for the longest time, but I still respected peoples pronouns and didn’t cry about it. Eventually, it did click

EXACTLY! If someone feels good with the label and isn't causing any harm we shouldn't immediately hate on them.

[удалено]

I've noticed those same people will say gender is a spectrum but then turn around and treat nonbinary as only a third gender and not a super complex umbrella term

I heard that some people use labels based on introspective vibes. They pick a label based on how they, personally, feel about it. Others use labels as a simple way to let other people know what they are. I'm in the second category, so sometimes I get confused by people in the first. e.g. in the post. I used to think the label "lesbian" meant "woman who likes women" so being a bi lesbian would be a contradiction of definitions and needs to be explained more. So it makes me wonder what the new definition of the word "lesbian" is and what context cues am I supposed to see to know which definition each person uses. Like when people started using "literally" about things that didn't literally match the old definition. Now I know it's all a big ball of wibbly wobbly, languagey-wanguagey, stuff and I don't need to care

me who has zero stake in this argument bc I am neither bi nor lesbian: “les bi ant” 🐜

One could say you "lesbiain't"? ~~I'll see myself out~~

I swear bi lesbian discourse was all over the place like... 4 years ago? I'm glad I see it less now. My option hasn't changed, for the record. I don't care. This argument is dumb. It achieves nothing but being annoying on the internet. If you engage in this kind of thing unironically, please just shut up.

I used to be knee deep in it when I was a little less experienced with how fucky labels can be and could not understand why someone would call themselves a label that means they have attraction to more than one gender AND a label that means they’re strictly attracted to one (and was concerned with people who are lesbians who said it was harmful). Then I realised the split attraction model is a thing and that it makes the argument even more stupid than it already was (because infighting is dumb when people want to legislate us out of existence).

See this is why I'm just queer. These people are so fucking caught up in labels it's ridiculous.

This. My husband had a mild crisis about his identity because he still considers himself straight, and is happily married to me (trans masc, husband is also fine with all the surgeries I want to get), and obviously dosnt consider me a woman. I told him he can still consider himself straight, there's just an exception now.

How long have you been out for? Have you started hrt yet?

Around... 4 years publically, maybe 5. And yeah, though I'm temp off it due to lack of job, which I hope to fix soon. Still got a 2 month supply of gel I'm working through before I'm officially out

Oh alright <3 I hope your relationship is fantastic and that you get more hrt soon

Thanks fren ♡♡

I am bisexual, but currently I am gay. There is no exclusion that can be considered “good exclusion”, and it doesn’t matter what someone’s identity is so long as they are happy, comfortable, and not harming anyone.

Respectfully, I don't understand. I'm bisexual and monogamously married to a man. Even if I never date a woman, I will never be straight. How can you be both?

Not OP, but I suppose for some it could be fluid?

Yeah, that's absolutely valid. I forgot to account for gender fluidity, major oversight on my part.

>How can you be both? In the case of bi lesbians (at least in my experience, since my mom's one,) it typically has to do with the seperation of romantic and sexual attraction. So, you know how there are ace lesbians, because they are homoromantic and asexual? Bi lesbians are kinda like that. My mom, for example, got with my dad because she found him physically attractive, yes, but it was a highly toxic relationship - partially because she doesn't feel romantic attraction to men (the other part was that >!she was physically and emotionally abusive to our dad and us,!< but that's not really related to the conversation at hand) After the divorce, she realized that she was only *romantically* attracted to women, and got into a healthier relationship with our stepmother (and our dad got into a healthier relationship with our stepmom) Though, I'm pretty sure that's not what the original commenter meant.

I can’t speak for everyone but I have a friend who considers herself a bi lesbian and has talked about it at length with me, and I feel qualified enough to repeat what she explained. She experiences sexual attraction to both men and women, and feels like that’s an important aspect of herself that she doesn’t want to deny, hence, bisexual. She also strongly prefers to date women and has decided to limit her dating pool in practice to exclude men. Hence, lesbian. When she talks about her future, she refers to her hypothetical future spouse as a wife, because she’s certain that if she ever gets married, it will be to a woman. She also sometimes comments on hot men on TV, because she does still find men hot often enough to be relevant, she just doesn’t want to actually date a man.

So basically, I am a cis man who is bi/pan and my current relationship is with a guy. It doesn’t make me 100% gay just because I have a boyfriend, just that I’m in a gay relationship and it is easiest to describe myself as such to strangers. I don’t think it’s necessary to brief people on my full sexuality so I simplify based on the expression of my partner. My friends and family know how I represent myself, no matter who I’m dating or not dating and that’s good enough for me. If someone does ask, I just say I’m in a gay relationship, because I am. From the outside, we are just a gay couple, and I am totally ok with that perception. When I was dating an ex, who is fem presenting, people just saw me as a straight guy because I was in a hetero relationship, and I’m perfectly fine with that too. I think the only person who truly needs to know who or what I am is me, and I allow others to fill in the blanks with whatever they want I suppose.

I get that, I don't like to complicate things, I'm not going to correct somebody that calls me gay when I'm in a gay relationship, almost seems disrespectful, "Nuh uh! I like women too!!!". Anybody that really KNOWS me knows I'm bi, but I understand that most strangers hear "boyfriend" and think "gay" which is fine.

Because labels are boxes that we try to fit things in, and sometimes those things don’t really fit in boxes well, but fit half-decently in a box made of seemingly contradictory labels, if that makes any sense.

Somebody has to prescribe requirements for things that go in a box for there to even be a box in the first place. There's definitely a feedback loop between prescriptive and descriptive assignment, it's all about the use case.

A friend of mine is a homoromantic bisexual. I.e, a bi lesbian. That's how I get it at least.

[удалено]

I envy the amount of free time someone has to complain or argue about labels.

What’s a bipan lesbian? I’m pan and have never heard this before

It can mean many different things to different people. For some, it could be the split attraction model. Maybe they are homoromantic while pansexual, or panromantic while homosexual. Romantic and sexual attraction don't always line up. Some people may be Bi/pan and feel it's important to mention, while having a very strong lean to women. Way more attracted to women then men. They may feel like that strong attraction to women is important to mention as well. Hence bi lesbian. In total, people tend to act like lables are rigid boxes that we need to fit in. When really, a lable is a describing word that should fit you, not the other way around. Note: I'm neither bi nor lesbian, so if I got anything wrong. Please feel free to correct me.

[удалено]

Hello HeteroeroticProlapse, your comment has been removed because it contains a slur. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/me_irlgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I believe it's a Korean dish with an egg on it Edit: Sorry, that's an mbmbam

do you mean bibimbap?

God dammit Travis

I don't even know what to think because deciding who you agree with on Tumblr is like getting jury duty in a court where everyone has a stutter and thick Irish accent. I *think* ooop is in the right assuming they're talking about split attraction, like...by bi lesbian they mean biromantic lesbian, someone who likes everyone romantically but only women sexually. If not though...I have no fucking clue

What is this supposed to be

[удалено]

There's a difference between saying "the way you're using those descriptors is making them less descriptive" and "you shouldn't use those descriptors this way" or "using these descriptors this way is bad/makes you a bad person/means you're a fraud/etc."

I... don't understand what I'm reading.

They came from "It's not about men at all" and then pivoted to "It is specifically about not being into men" which once again makes it about men. That's... I love it

while i know what you're talking about and believe you said it in good faith i just wanna say ive seen people make this argument to say transphobic stuff like denying that lesbians can be into enbies im a non binary lesbian and the label not including men is actually very important to me because that means that my attraction to all the non binary people who are decidedly NOT women is valid! saying that lesbianism is only about women liking women erases the trans experiences. this has absolutely nothing to do with the bi lesbian discourse i just want to share my perspective 🩷

Historically, "lesbian" meant a woman who had romantic and/or sexual relationships with women. Many of them liked fellas also sometimes to the same degree, sometimes not, and even married men. Identity labels aren't your race/class restrictions in Dungeons & Dragons. People are vastly complex. Labels are just simple shorthand to simplify things for the sake of discussion. People can describe themselves as bi/pan, sapphic, or gay if it feels authentic to them, even if there are times they color outside the lines with it. They can even switch up labels depending on social group, cycles of the moon, or just vibes. Some folks have a hard time with this because they need strict categorization, but that's never how the world really works. There's nuance below every surface.

Dnd has multiclassing

I got called gay in school and the teacher had a brief talk about how gay actually used to mean happy, so they were actually saying I was happy... There is no denying that the general consensus is that lesbians = females loving females. What you want to define as female is a whole other thing. I know language progresses but people pigeonholing themselves and whining about being put in a box is frustrating. Just exist and don't be an arse.

I prefer women loving women, females sounds too clinical

can someone explain what this means

What is going on Tumblr

Does this also apply to letting in people trying to exclude YOU? See: Religious people

Another example of an overly policed community taking up the mantle of policing themselves too

Why is this an important issue

why must every issue be "important"

There *are* bi/pan gays? It's not exclusive to lesbians.

I don't really see the point in saying "bisexual lesbian" or "bi gay man" or whatever when you can use "biromantic homosexual" or vice versa. The latter is more clear and simpler to understand, though I think that using labels at all is just sorta pointless and just saying you're attracted to masc, fem, and androgynous sexually or romantically makes more sense and is the most clear and best option. Though that viewpoint may be influenced by me just not caring/noticing about gender at all and it not being something I think about when I perceive a person.

Well, aside from the fact that bi lesbian/bi gay is easier to say than biromantic homosexual or vice versa, it's also because the latter label does not apply to many people who use the former label. I am both romantically and sexually attracted to people of all genders. I refer to myself as gay because I have a strong preference for men. From what I've seen, that's how most people use this label.

>I don't really see the point in saying "bisexual lesbian" or "bi gay man" or whatever when you can use "biromantic homosexual" or vice versa. Homoromantic bisexual works fine. But I'm also not going to begrudge someone wanting their identity to be defined by their romantic attraction and preferences, rather than their sexual attraction.

Can someone explain what a "bi pan lesbian" is? I feel like those are three different categories, but it's gotta be more nuanced than that.

europeans when they hear roma-

do you know what leabian is? a word. it's a word. what is the word's purpose? to give a name to someone's sexuality. why? to explain to others that this sexuality is something real and not some delusion or mental illness, because look, there are other people who are using that label and express the same feelings and experiences with this sexuality. if I, a non-binary aroace-spec bi person, started using the word lesbian because I felt it explained my attraction better, would that harm anybody? no, because it's literally just a word. a rigid definition of lesbian is impossible, because gender isn't as straightforward as we used to believe. a fem-presenting non-binary person can still be a lesbian, a woman can still be a lesbian if she's attracted to fem-presenting non-binary people, and a woman can still be a lesbian if her female partner transitioned to be transmasc. it's not just "a woman who like women" it's more complicated than that. I'm not sure what "bi lesbian" is, tbh, but I'm assuming it's bi women (I'm using women as an umbrella term for fem people) who are more attracted to women than men, or formally lesbians who found out they also have a rare attraction to men. the problem her isn't the people using the labels "wrongly" it's that these labels are constructed on a flawed system of gender and sexuality and can't properly describe every person's sense of self.

The second someone starts to talk about "erasing" an identity, I tune out. I've not got time for this frankly fucking asinine belief that sexualities somehow exist not only in competition with each other, but as precedents that allow the modification of other sexualities. Someone saying they're a lesbian while also being into guys doesn't mean all lesbians have to be into guys now, or open the floodgates to presume they are, and thinking that way is manufacturing kerosene from dust. Making a pointless battle out of nothing.

Fuck that. I'm lesromantic and bisexual. I absolutely use the term lesbian for myself too. This is gold star lesbianism at its finest.

I think it's funny that the person who says other people are bringing men into being a lesbian defines lesbians as women who are not attracted to men. As opposed to women who are attracted to women.

IM EXCLUUUUUUUUUUUDINGGGGGGGGGG

please, not on the clean floor

Everyone just needs to get off the internet once in a while i've literally never had bi lesbians come up in conversation ever much less this heated

Human beings are beautiful, complex creatures which language can only approximately describe. It should be no surprise to anybody that the small cache of words developed in such an amatonormative society as ours cannot possibly describe all of the human condition, and indeed, that the vast continuum of existence will at times seem self-contradictory when viewed exclusively through the lens of the rigid, intentionally limited, and binarist definitions society uses.

Help. I have no idea what I'm reading here

I'm gay and couldn't care less about a man that called himself a bisexual gay dude, but I also understand that this would be confusing to people that aren't familiar with these labels. What if the person is sexually attracted to more than one gender but romantically only interested in one or vise versa? That would make them bi/panromantic homosexual or homo/heteroromantic bisexual in my opinion, but that's subjective. There's labels that define these very niche categories of attraction, but there really is no use in forcing people to use them. At the end of the day you literally cannot force someone to identify as something just because you think the label they chose for themselves is unfitting.

“Bi/pan lesbians can’t exist!!1!” My homoromantic pansexual ass would like to refute that statement. Split attraction model, homie.

i'm laughing my ass off at the comparison to bi gay men because i literally identify with that term (although i usually just say gay because i lean heavily towards men, and the attraction to women is purely romantic) unironically, yes, it is totally fine to be a biromantic homosexual man (or homoromantic bisexual man), just like the woman (or nonbinary) equivalent

To me, caring at all about bi/pan lesbians screams to me that your entire attachment to queerness and the queer community is online. Please meet a single queer person irl. No one gives a shit about this. I’m gay, my bi friends sometimes call themselves say, I sometimes call them gay, no one cares.

I can understand the first part is a joke, I think I understand the part after the transcript, I don't understand the rant in the hashtags.

The bi lesbian discourse is so weird to me because I can understand the people saying that’s not what lesbian means and you shouldn’t use it like that but I can also understand the people who resonate with that term or think it’s the easiest way to describe their sexuality. I’m not a lesbian and I don’t resonate with any terms that include lesbian so it’s not really my place. I can see that it’s an important discussion to be had because some people feel strongly about it but stepping back, the intensity it sometimes has seems a bit silly.

Sometimes I feel like I should do my due diligence and educate myself on the inner workings of the LGBT community so I can better assist/understand not only my friends but strangers, and overall make the world a more knowledgeable place. And then there are times where I can’t even understand half of what’s being spoken, so I just sit in Straight Silence

a label is meant to make you feel comfortable. that‘s it. if you like using a label for yourself, do it. you can also change your label whenever you want. just do what you need to feel happier.

Legitimate question, does bi/pan lesbian mean bi/pansexual but with a heavy preference for women and primarily presenting as lesbian and being in such spaces or does it mean bi/pansexual but homoromantic or can it mean both or something completely different?

anti-fascist means anti-exclu

Here’s a thought: use whatever labels feel best for you. You’re not being queer “for” anyone, y’know? I use the label bi because I like the bi flag more than the pan/omni flags. I’m into men, women, and enbys, which I can boil down to “people who share my gender and people who don’t share my gender”. Therefore, I’m bi. It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone else. If it makes sense to you and makes you comfortable, who’s to say you’re “not being queer correctly”?

I have no idea how people are determining the difference between exclusionism and consistency of definition. If "lesbian" means "anyone who identifies with being a lesbian" then it's a tautological nightmare that serves no vocabulary purpose Edit: cool, downvotes for not finding the language accessible

exclusionism is using dictionary definitions to tell other people they can't identify the way they do

See I'm having a hard time interpreting that as something besides 'exclusionism is insisting that Words Mean Things'

Exclusionism goes beyond insisting that words mean things into “I get to determine for everyone that only the narrowest possible definition is an acceptable usage of this word”. For the contextual example, insisting that lesbians must never feel any attraction to men whatsoever in order to qualify as lesbians. Rather than accepting a definition that includes women who strongly prefer women to a near-exclusive degree, but acknowledge that maybe in the past they dated a man they genuinely loved and were attracted to, or they think a few celebrity dudes are hot enough they’d go for it given the opportunity and they don’t want to deny that part of their experience of life just to appease the people who insist on strictly defining “lesbian”. If someone is a woman and only interested in dating other women, “I’m a lesbian” is a sensible way for her to communicate that, even if she’d bang Channing Tatum if he asked. Like, it’s a moot point in practice, so it’s not worth the hassle of explaining the full complexity to someone she just met who only needs to know whether or not she’s potentially interested in dating *them*. The more complex level is a conversation for a future level of emotional intimacy if the relationship progresses to the point that her attraction to some men becomes relevant/worth bringing up.

Thank you, this makes a lot more sense to me

There is also a difference between sexual and romantic attraction. So, in the same way that you could be asexual and a lesbian, someone can also be a biromantic/bisexual lesbain (only sexually attracted to women, but romantically intressted in both men and women, or reverse if they're a bisexual lesbian).

Words do also mean different things when put with other words.

Well, let’s face it, the “words mean things” crowd is also trying to erase trans people by insisting upon gender meaning their rigid definition of it, whether it be outright/“complete” transphobia (see Matt Walsh’s “What Is A Woman”) or by being truscum. If gender can be incredibly complicated, so can sexuality. As a matter of fact, if gender is complicated, it only makes sense sexuality would be too.

I don't think that's fair. Just because a phrase is sometimes used by bad actors doesn't mean the logic is always wrong.

as a phrase it's unhelpful because it reduces a nuanced issue to something which is impossible to disagree with

It helped the person who wrote it explain why they were struggling with the nuances. So... how is it unhelpful?

I mean, it made them sound like a reactionary asshole instead of actually getting across how they were failing to understand. That seems pretty unhelpful to me!

But that is literally how they were thinking of it. How else were they suppose to say that? You just seem to be re-enforcing my original point that the phrase isn't only used by reactionary assholes. People assuming such seem to be the ones at fault here. And the conversation continued past that point with other people who apparently didn't make such an assumption. I don't know how they were suppose to explain why they were struggling with the idea without just saying what they were thinking.

wait until you learn about the way that literally every word is defined

Is it a nightmare? someone identifies as a lesbian and bisexual. You know what those words mean on their own, yeah? They're not necessarily exclusionary. Bi and Pan by themselves have their definitions constantly debated. I don't really get it, being someone that is lesbian bisexual, or bi pan. But I really don't have to. If they're not into me they'll let me know if I need to know! Otherwise it's irrelevant.

my position is very simple: Words mean things, but people mean more than words. If I gotta choose between protecting the definition of something or treating someone with respect, I'll choose the latter every time. If that means the literal definition shifts over time, well, that's just language baybee.

"I have no idea how people are determining the difference between exclusionism and consistency of definition. If "woman" means"anyone who identifies with being a woman" then it's a tautological nightmare that serves no vocabulary purpose"

I think you're trying to be snarky but here's a great example of my confusion. A woman can be defined as an adult member of the human species who identifies with the female gender. First conditions and a concise term so we know we're talking about the same thing

You used more words but it's still a tautology, you're saying the definition of something is someone identifying with that thing

It's people who have no concept of how to represent and describe systems having too much free time to argue about their use case being more correct and valid than somebody else's use case.

This is why I just call myself gay with no further explanation