Read on Twitter
I've got things to do today, but I'm going to try to share some thoughts I've been having about queer identity labels, definitions, and specifically the word "lesbian."
Essentially, I believe we use labels to describe ourselves, not define ourselves.
Essentially, I believe we use labels to describe ourselves, not define ourselves.
The main thing that stands out from the one linguistics course I ever took is the idea of "prescriptivist" vs "descriptivist." And these apply SO WELL to our understanding of labels.
This is summarizing but in linguistics, "prescriptivists" believe that language needs hard and fast rules, fixed definitions and usage, and that there is such a thing as "correct" and "incorrect" language.
(which also gets into class/race and treatment of dialects and accents)
(which also gets into class/race and treatment of dialects and accents)
Meanwhile "descriptivists" believe that language is constantly and naturally evolving, there's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" language/usage, and that we shouldn't try to impose rules upon it.
Essentially, a prescriptivist would say "that meaning's incorrect because it's not in the dictionary" while a descriptivist would say "then we should add that meaning to the dictionary, since it's one people are using."
The language of the queer community is constantly evolving as both the community and the wider world evolves. Yet I see this attitude that all change to language is either in the past or a dangerous threat.
I often see people arguing that there is a singular definition of lesbian with strict borders that might have changed in the past when "lesbian" and "bisexual" split into separate communities but that previous common meanings are now irrelevant and that it can't change again.
Where they draw these strict borders varies ("who's acceptably lesbian?" and "who do we exclude?") and ties a lot to toxic internal conflicts of lesbian community and history, such as lesbian separatism.
And yes, this usually involves transphobia, either through excluding trans women, nonbinary people, or nonbinary people of certain genders. Sometimes it also gets into behavior or who you date or whether or not you have queer identities other than "lesbian."
For example, I was once in a lesbian Facebook group that had various issues with self appointed lesbian police, probably the most ridiculous of which was "lesbians can't use dildos that look like penises."
(Yes, this is also transphobic.)
(Yes, this is also transphobic.)
But I don't think it's a matter of "where do we draw the line" but instead about not drawing the lines in the first place.
I refuse to define "woman," other than perhaps "those who identify as women." I likewise refuse to define "lesbian."
I refuse to define "woman," other than perhaps "those who identify as women." I likewise refuse to define "lesbian."
Everyone who's a lesbian will have a personal understanding of the label and what it means for them. My own lesbianism is very much tied to my asexuality, to the point where it feels more accurate to say that I'm "asexual lesbian" than just "lesbian."
But others having different understandings of their own lesbianism does not hurt or invalidate me.
Yes, that includes people who identify as "bi lesbian."
Yes, that includes people who identify as "bi lesbian."
And when those fretting about the existence of bi lesbians point to the past split between lesbian and bi labels... they don't seem to realize how recent it was? Like, there are very much still people alive from when bi women typically called themselves "lesbian" too.
That's not to say that I think "lesbian" should always be used synonymously with "women attracted to women" since I think it's important to explicitly recognize bi/pan women and not coerceively apply labels. None of which impacts individual identification.
Attempts to create strict definitions will always erase the diversity of the community. Often this particularly impacts multiply marginalized lesbians, trans and nonbinary lesbians, gender nonconforming lesbians, ace and aro lesbians, lesbian sex works, and so on.
And I notice... so often these attempts at strict definitions look to heteronormative society for how "lesbian" should be defined.
I think words gain meaning and associations through collective understanding, and heteronormative society tends to drive "mainstream" understanding.
And think of everything heteronormative society attaches to the word "lesbian."
And think of everything heteronormative society attaches to the word "lesbian."
It's a lot to grapple with and is probably part of why I was sort of uncomfortable using the label for so long.
Why are we letting that define our personal or in-community understanding of the word?
Why are we letting that define our personal or in-community understanding of the word?
We shouldn't be focused on making ourselves or our community easier to understand to a "mainstream," heterosexual audience by bending ourselves to the image they have of us.
Who we are isn't a choice but the labels/language we use to describe ourselves is. And it is perfectly fine for the usage of labels to vary or to change over time or between individuals or for people to make different choices about the labels they use.
And the fearmongering about the "death" of the label lesbian or a total shift in meaning to something unrecognizable (e.g. "women who like men") is just that, fearmongering.
Supporting community diversity can only make us stronger.
Supporting community diversity can only make us stronger.
All right, that's most of what's been rattling around in my brain, hopefully putting it on Twitter will get it out of there and let me do things like sleep instead of keeping myself up thinking about labels and queerness.
