I asked twice because the app crashed after asking the first time, I didn't know if it sent or not. That didn't really answer my question at all, why is lesbian it's own identity when how you describe it, non exclusive queer attraction to women, also exactly matches how bisexual and queer can be described. And why would anyone need to use bi lesbian if the lesbian identity is already non exclusive? But thanks for being polite anyway.

I don’t really know what to tell you? Because it is? That’s just kind of how language works? Labels and definitions come about the describe personal experience, not the other way around.

It’s like asking why there has to be any other sexuality label at all when we could all just use “gay” or “queer?” The reasons people don’t is because it doesn’t fit them best, they don’t like the term, or they want their own term. That’s just how it is.

“Bi” in many cases is an adjective modifying “lesbian” meaning “attracted to two or more genders” and is used to differentiate between multispectrum lesbians and monosexual lesbians. A lot of lesbian history is monosexual-centric, and you can see this especially within radfem circles but it has bled into a lot of younger queer spaces. As I said in my original thread, there are people who will include (mostly white, AFAB) non-binary people under a nebulous “non-binary” term within lesbianism, while denying that lesbianism can be an mspec identity. They believe you can be attracted to multiple genders as a lesbian, but you can’t acknowledge that you’re attracted to those genders as separate from binary women. And that? That’s biphobia. And exorsexism. And it’s rife within the lesbian community because of political lesbianism.

Tl;dr: So, I don’t really know how to answer your question the way you want. The labels exist, people use them because they want to. The labels exist because people wanted a label to describe their experiences and felt existing labels did not encompass that. Why do you call yourself lesbian at all when you could just use queer or gay? I don’t know, you tell me. I use lesbian because I am queerly attracted to women and because that’s the label I find most comfort with. Everyone uses labels they are most comfortable with, it’s how language works.

@moscitto replied to your post “The funniest thing about the "lesbian necromancers...”:

Harrow is at least as confirmed lesbian as Judith is

​Yes. Harrow is who I'm referring to when I say there's only one confirmed lesbian necromancer in Gideon the Ninth, as of that book.

What I've understood from what you said is, words are meaningless, unless they are meaningful to you (the general you, not you specifically). I don't think I agree with that. Bi lesbian is redundant, I think lesbian is itself a gender umbrella in addition to being a sexuality. If your gender fits in that umbrella and you're only attracted to other people in the umbrella, then you're a lesbian. Otherwise use bisexual. I don't think bi needs to be an adjective to lesbian unless you're attracted to binary men. In which case that's not a good-faith identity, that's biphobia. Lesbian doesn't need specifications and adjectives just because some exclusionists are being transphobic. Gender has evolved too much and has become so nebulous a concept that I don't think people can be truly monosexual anyway. People are attracted to traits, not labels.

You’re welcome to believe what you want, but ignoring that monosexuals do exist and that the “redundant” label doesn’t affect you is something I will never understand, and I see this conversation is becoming useless and a waste of my time since you just wish to argue with me instead of just asking what I meant. I’m not willing to engage with anything like that at this moment, I am incredibly busy and, honestly, tired of discourse entirely.

Maybe it’s because of my linguistics studies, maybe it’s because english is my second language, but I just don’t think language needs to work the way you want it to work. Everything could be redundant and therefore “not needed,” just like I said before. And I highly disagree that gender is a “nebulous concept” mostly because gender is innate.

It’s needed because people believe they need it, simple as that. Have a nice day.

This a genuine good-faith question. Why is lesbian a separate identity from bisexual if it just means queer attraction to women. Wouldn't that make all bisexuals, or really all women-attracted queers lesbian by default?

Okay, I’m gonna answer your most recent ask since I’m assuming you didn’t mean to send them twice or just worded it differently but I’ll also put the screenshot here and image id below my response. I’m also assuming this is from the screenshots posted of my 2S thread? I’ve already explained quite a bit there, but the reason I define “lesbian” as “(non-exclusive) queer attraction to women” is because it is, currently, the best language I have that does not inherently abandon or alienate a wide variety of people from the definition. It centers the important, historical definition and does not leave out those in history who were labeled or found comfort under the label “lesbian” who may, in this age, choose another label instead.

“Nmlnm” and “non-men” as I’ve explained in that thread are reductive, colonial terms attempting to force a neobinary onto all people, and it is particularly cruel when those terms come from a dehumanizing, anti-Black origin that has also been applied to Indigenous people. I balk so much at being called “non-man” not just because it doesn’t describe me or my gender at all, but because I’ve been called “non-human.”

Other lesbians can define their own definition of lesbianism however they want, I frankly don’t care. It’s when definitions are forced on others to conform, cut off, or harm them that I have a problem with it.

In short, no, it wouldn’t mean bisexuals are lesbians by default, because no label or definition of said label means that everyone is that label by default. I also find prescriptivism ridiculous in it’s entirety, and I use labels and definitions in terms of descriptive identity, so that should make more sense.

[image ID: Screenshot of an ask by moscitto time stamp sent two hours ago text reads “This is a genuine good-faith question. Why is lesbian it's own identity if it just means queer attraction to women? Wouldn't that make all bisexuals, and all women attracted queers really, lesbian by default?” End text end image description.]

I wasn't trying to argue with you, but I see now that you weren't going to be anything but hostile if you didn't think I agreed with you. I fundamentally disagree with you on the concept of gender and sexuality in general. Gender is a really bad way to define attraction because it can mean so many different things to different people, often in contradictory ways. Lesbian doesn't needed to be divided between multispectrum and monosexual because because gender isn't that simple anymore. The only reason to put qualifiers in front of the word lesbian is to give cover to people attracted to binary men who don't get enough warm and fuzzy feelings from identifying as bisexual. Monosexual means attraction to only one gender. How is that not impossible? You can't really know someone's gender without talking to them, and you're not going to stop being attracted to them if their gender is something you never heard of or it doesn't fit your past experience with that gender. People are not attracted to labels. Basing how you define your attraction on labels is restrictive and crisis-inducing. People don't need to modify their identity every time they find someone attractive. What I think makes a lot more sense than what you tried to tell me, and it's inherently non-exclusionist without causing misunderstanding or requiring further explanation.

Look, I’ll reply to you once more asking you to leave me alone. After that, if you send an ask about this again, I will be blocking you. I don’t know where you got in your mind that I was going to be “hostile” (interesting choice of words there) after I simply told you “I’m not willing to engage with anything like that at this moment, I am incredibly busy and, honestly, tired of discourse entirely” and told you to have a nice day. Ending the conversation. But nice job projecting I guess!

As someone from a culture where my gender is incredibly important to my people and our future, I do not and will not agree with you that it is some nebulous concept for everyone. Perhaps with a eurocentric background, but spoiler alert not everyone who talks about gender and sexuality is talking about the colonially imposed concepts peddled by cisheteropatriarchy. Which I was pretty clear with in my original thread on twitter, which I assume is where you came from. Unless you saw me tag something as 2S or mspec lesbian positivity and decided to fuck around in my inbox, which would be incredibly weird, but I’m choosing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you believe monosexuality is impossible, fine, good luck telling conservative cishet white people that. I’m sure they’d love to hear that they’re actually attracted to multiple genders./s

I never said people have to modify their identity every time they find someone attractive, that’s purely you and your prescriptivism talking. Which I talked about.

And, yes, before you call me “hostile” again, I AM being snippy, because you’ve wasted my time when I thought you might be open to having a genuine conversation, called me hostile, and your bimisia and views on gender are fundamentally incompatible to us having that conversation. Clearly neither of us are going to change that, so I’m asking you to leave me alone. Again. I will not engage again, I will just delete your ask and block you. Have a nice day.