Male-attracted lesbian better than being bi?

This reminds me of the unfortunately late Magdelen Berns. Leave lesbians alone

I hadn't realised they'd repurposed 'gold star' - I've been familiar with the term for years and when I learnt it it wasn't (to my knowledge) being used to deride lesbians for never having been personally involved with manparts. It was just a useful shorthand for distinguishing between actual female lesbians with different experiences.

The shift in usage is thoroughly depressing, though logical in hindsight.

If men are getting away with identifying as lesbians, then they can't keep using "lesbian" as a dirty word for women-who-say-no-to-dick. They've redefined it to be dick-inclusive and made "gold-star-lesbian" the focus of hatred instead.

Same old same old, I know, but depressing to see in action. It doesn't matter what word we use for "woman who says no to dick" or "woman who has never been successfully coerced to submit to dick". Whatever word we choose, they'll use it as a weapon against us.

A lesbian is any woman who has only ever felt attracted to other women - regardless of sexual experience. If she felt forced due to lesbophobia to try sex with a man, even marry a man, she is no less of a lesbian. Forcing yourself - or being forced to - have sex with a man due to lesbophobia is a lesbian experience. A woman who had a relationship with a man because she was romantically or sexually attracted to him is not a lesbian

Should those of us who call ourselves lesbians expect a visit from the lesbian Taliban and their purity meter? And presumably a branding iron with the letter B for anyone woman who doesn't pass muster.

Seriously, at a time when the concept of 'woman' is under attack the last thing we need is to sow even more discord in the lesbian community. Michelle is right.

A lesbian is a female who is exclusively attracted to other females.

Yep, so women who are sexually attracted to a transwoman are by definition not lesbians.

I'm not convinced the women the OP is asking about are actually sexually attracted to them though. Seems a pretty big assumption to me, given that we know there are a whole host of reasons women (of all sexualities) might engage in sex with people they're not sexually attracted to.

Well well well, more lesbophobia on Mumsnet. Just to be clear

A lesbian is a female who is exclusively attracted to other females.

A lesbian can choose to sleep with or not sleep with anybody she wants, as long as the women she chooses to sleep with are consenting.

Lesbians are not responsible for bisexual women not wanting to call themselves bisexual.

Bisexual women who sleep with males and who call themselves lesbians are the ones who have the problem. Lesbian is not their word, they are not lesbians and they should stop appropriating lesbianism to allieviate whatever insecurities they may have.

Anybody who has a y chromosome is not and cannot be a lesbian. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a homophobe and a misogynist.

I don't think that makes them bisexual.

Agreed.

So why, then, is a lesbian who's suffering from compulsory girldick redesignated as bisexual?

I've only ever heard 'gold star' recently and as a means to slur and deride women who have never chosen sexual experiences with men. Most often in the context of lesbian women who refuse to consider sexual relations even in theory with a self identified male, with the aim of painting this as a stupid and superior pov that nice people wouldn't hold.

One of the issues in growing up in a world that is heteronormative - and it is, due to sheer population numbers, but when I was growing up there were no images anywhere at all of what a non heterosexual woman did or looked like or that one even existed - is that some lesbian women did what society and the world expected them to do, and told them that was their only option to do, sometimes for years in marriages they were deeply unhappy in, before coming to realise their homosexuality. It happened to plenty of men too. I don't think that makes them bisexual.

All I wanted was a word that indicates "Still working through this compulsory heterosexual performance shit; not figured it out to my complete satisfaction but can safely say the 'trying to make dick work for me' experiment is over." Actually trying very hard not to step in anyone's toes here.

Upthread you say women who always knew they were lesbians have different experiences to women who took a while to figure it out - are we actually allowed labels to differentiate between these two subsets of same-sex attracted females? Because if we're not, then how the hell are we supposed to talk about the differences and commonalities?

A lesbian is any woman who has only ever felt attracted to other women - regardless of sexual experience. If she felt forced due to lesbophobia to try sex with a man, even marry a man, she is no less of a lesbian. Forcing yourself - or being forced to - have sex with a man due to lesbophobia is a lesbian experience. A woman who had a relationship with a man because she was romantically or sexually attracted to him is not a lesbian.

"Gold star lesbian" is a term I'd never heard of for about the first 20 years I was out and now it is everywhere - mainly used by other groups (trans and queer groups and also political lesbians). As far as I am aware it was a term invented by bisexual women to mock lesbians who hadn't slept with men and now it's main use seems to be:

1. For other groups to use as a diversionary tactic when being challenged for identifying as lesbians - trying to divert attention from it being their attraction to men (or being male) that makes them not a lesbian to experience of sex with a man (I've also seen some trying to bring rape victims into it which is beyond disgusting - and that has been from the supposedly feminist side)

2. As a tactic to try to divide lesbians

3. As a label that bestows (some) lesbians as privileged oppressors - allowing other groups (however they identify) to make lesbophobic comments and harass lesbians while coming across as "punching up" (there are some similarities with the use of the terms cis and terf)

Thanks Zara, seems we've had similar experiences, it's helpful to read something that helps me feel it's not just me, even though I'm sorry you've experienced it too.

Sorry Floral, I'm just trying to find a way of being mindful of NonMum's valid points while trying to work out what label I'm supposed to use for myself that won't piss anyone off. Which is impossible, isn't it?

I'd like to reserve 'lesbian' for actual females who are only sexually interested in other actual females. You'd still qualify and transwomen still wouldn't. If that didn't come across then I'm obviously explaining myself badly. Apologies.

@TabbyStar

Oh, I absolutely understand that now I am older and probably not that much wiser. From my perspective nobody has to date anybody they don't want to for any reason. Nobody has to justify that. And most people who do have a reason, it's born out of negative experiences. I just think that it can leave bisexual women in a kind of no mans land (sorry not meant to be a pun) where it's easier to go back in the closet than to pursue a relationship with another woman beyond sex/experimentation.

I have been dumped by a lesbian for being too straight and abused by a man for having had sex with women (and accused of sleeping with every man or woman I came into contact with!) so it can feel like not really belonging anywhere. I am more afraid of being out and bisexual now because of the climate regarding the trans community. Bisexual does not mean will sleep with anyone now matter how they present. It doesn't mean I'll sleep with all men and all women either. Consent is my biggest sexual preference these days. That means I should be able to say I don't sleep with trans-men or trans-women without being called a TERF but that is certainly not what's happening online. IRL I have very little experience of the issue, but have as being discriminated against for being bisexual by both men and women. But you're right, I get to live in a heteronormative way most of the time (especially as I'm single and a matter, so people don't even think beyond that). It has made me afraid of pursuing that half of myself again though, but I probably need to be braver. But I feel like things are going backwards for some LGB people, not forwards.

Feeling entitled to identify into someone else's reality because it suits and serves you without regard for or understanding of the group you are identifying into and how that affects them is proof in itself of a disregard for that group - seeing them as a thing to serve your interests.

Well put. This ^^

Well, it's an understandable response, but I'm not really sure how it works as solution.

You invent a word for women solely attracted to women, but not necessarily born that way. Lesbians like me, who are oriented from adolescence on might be included in that umbrella term, but actually, I've been heterosexually married for 2 decades in a misguided attempt to be cured/shun my sinful impulses etc. and have come to embrace my orientation late on, so I'm already down a peg on the gold star lesbians.
And then a number of people think that male people can also be lesbians, so what you end up with is a new word for women attracted to women, however they got there, and lesbian meaning a male or a female attracted to women.

I feel shat on with that particular solution myself too, as well meaning as it is.

I'm nodding along to every point, NonMum. You've explained pretty clearly exactly why I'm not comfortable self-describing as lesbian.

You've also very clearly demonstrated why we need a word that encompasses all same-sex attracted, opposite-sex excluding women regardless of how we got there.

And btw, I'm not a political lesbian, I'm the other kind, and I'm fully aware of the shit experience of growing up that way and all the negatives. But I'm not going to pull rank, or demand that every other lesbian has the same journey. Because your complaint of an internal hierarchy with innate lesbians at the bottom is precisely what I am saying should not happen.

Oh JEEESUS life is too short!
Just sleep with who you fancy & disregard people who say rude/hurtful things about that. They are dicks 🤷🏻‍♀️

But you'd get snotty about people who were born male, grew up and lived as boys and men identifying as women?

Yes. 100%. Because they're not any kind of lesbian, innate or chosen. I love how I talk about women not having a hierarchy, and about celebrating being a woman sexually oriented solely to other women, and I'm getting shit for not including men in my perspective.

Please, continue to underline that the TWAW narrative is detrimental to lesbians. I knew it already, but the demonstrations are always helpful.

TyroSaysMeow thank you
I don't think I'm a dullard or such but I couldn't get my head around that!

Okay. I really don't know. Im a lesbian. I don't know of anyone who's in a relationship with a man but presenting as a lesbian.

If someone is bisexual they're bisexual (although I appreciate there is some erasure around bisexuality). I will read the rest of the thread now I know what we're all talking about :)

Well, this is my point about not getting snotty about so called political lesbians and being naturally same sex oriented

But you'd get snotty about people who were born male, grew up and lived as boys and men identifying as women?

A woman who has grown up attracted to men has a completely different experience of life to those of us growing up and living as lesbians - The ones being bullied, ostracised and treated as lesser and not real women by her group. She will not share or understand what that is like (nor us her experiences) and she will have spent her life thinking she is better than us. That does not go away just because you "identify as a lesbian" - Feeling entitled to identify into someone else's reality because it suits and serves you without regard for or understanding of the group you are identifying into and how that affects them is proof in itself of a disregard for that group - seeing them as a thing to serve your interests.

I know many political lesbians have had difficult experiences with men and understand why, if they are bisexual, they would want to date women but that does not justify co-opting someone else's language. There are so many parallels with the trans stuff and it's even more frustrating that they feel passionately about one while being so blind about the other.

In both cases, the lower status category is the one with the blurry lines, the receptacle for anything. Men and women/'non-men'. Straight, bisexual and lesbian/whatever. I know feminists who have been in monogamous relationships with men for years and never ceased to go on about being bisexual (which is fine - they are still bisexual - regardless of their relationship) but the minute they date a woman they "become a lesbian" - and loads more who are still with their "Nige" but say when he dies they are going to "become a lesbian". Why do the words heterosexual and bisexual have meaning but lesbian is just the open-to-whoever-no-real-meaning category (on both the queer side and rad fem sides)?

I honestly wouldn't have realised how much this mattered until I (for a while) got involved in radical feminism and, despite how supposedly pro-lesbian and full of lesbians they were, found them completely ignorant about a lot of issues lesbians face and only really interested if it suited their agenda. I also encountered lesbophobia against homosexual/actual lesbians - but because they identify as lesbians as well you can't challenge it.

I have also read accounts from lesbian separatist communities from the 70s or 80s where everyone identified as a lesbian but some lesbians were more equal than others (ie there was a hierarchy with actual lesbians at the bottom) - but, again, how do you address that if you don't have the words and addressing what it is going on invalidates someone's identity?

Thatbliddywoman OP is wondering about wtf is going on with women who define themselves as lesbian (ie female exclusively attracted to females) who have relationships with male people. Because it's a bit contradictory.

Some would say it's because they were always actually bisexual but just didn't realise it (born this way narrative). Others would invoke the fluid sexuality narrative. I think the fact we ignore the issue of repulsion in our orientation labels is largely to blame for the widespread confusion in the face of this contradiction.

No, I don't mean a word for bisexual women who choose not to date men. I mean a word that applies to women who don't want to have sex with men regardless of how each of us got there. A word that means "Not interested in sex with men" that doesn't carry the connotation of "never had any interest, sexual or otherwise, in relationships with men."

I think what I'm getting at here is a label that doesn't rely on the 'born this way' narrative but rather describes where an individual woman is now.

Could someone please explain what the OP is asking in a different way? I simply don't understand the question at all.

Hi OP. I'm a lesbian. I personally am attracted to the female sex, aka homosexual, and that means I wouldn't date someone who was born male, no matter how they identify.

No one in my lesbian friend group would either, only the bisexuals aren't bothered now that I think about it. So I don't know who you are speaking to, but this is certainly not my experience.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand the born this way narrative and the reasons for it. I am just minded to push back a bit now. I don't need to justify or explain my lesbianism. I want to celebrate it.

(Yes, I'm aware of my vaguely sickening aged convert energy)