L-E-S-B-I-A-N isn’t a bad word (or is it?)
Photo By Barone Photography
When I think about the L-word, I’m not thinking about a certain TV show (usually). I’m thinking about the word Lesbian.
I don’t identify as a Lesbian (why it has a capital L, I’m not sure). This is odd, given that a) I do identify as a queer dyke, b) I identify as a Femme, and c) I write on the advice panel for The Lesbian Lifestyle. I had one “hmmm, let me see if I still can be into bio guys” fiasco on New Year’s (unless his name is Johnny Depp, I’m really not), but other than that, my partners for the last 2+ years have been exclusively female-bodied. I find women incredibly attractive, I like fucking cunts/pussies/vaginas, I like giving and receiving cunnilingus, I enjoying fisting, I am a vegetarian with two cats, and I like to drink tea. Clearly, I should be a Lesbian, right?
Here’s the deal. Firstly, not all the people I’m attracted to (or have had sex with) identify as women. Some are Butch dykes, some are bois, some are transmen, some are genderqueer, some are androgynous, etc. There are also the lesbians, the dykes, the Femmes, and the women. I like people, not their gender per se. Granted, I tend to be attracted (usually) to people who are female bodied, and towards the more masculine end of the spectrum (I’ve only made out with three make-up wearing women), but I leave myself open. If I meet someone, and they are interesting, and smart and funny, and I am attracted to them, it shouldn’t matter what their gender is. I’m not going to turn away a good connection because they don’t fit in with “my type.” Hell no.
So I feel that if I identify as “Lesbian,” I am invalidating both my attractions, and the identity of the people I’ve been with (slash hope to be with). If I call myself a Lesbian, that (generally) means that my partners are women…and not all my partners have been. So it’s either saying that I’m not a “true” lesbian, or that my parters are defined by their genitals, and not their gender identities.
Plus, if I was to ever meet someone with whom I really clicked, and was really attracted to, and could have good conversation, and made me laugh, and I wanted to be with so badly…and he was a man, I would still give it a go. Again, it’s not worth it to me to completely shut down someone. Granted, it would be interesting, as I’m not the biggest fan o’ the penis, and I absolutely detest semen, but hey, this is all hypothetical anyways.
So I’m not bisexual. I think the term bi is off-putting to me; it makes it seem more of a binary than a spectrum. I used to like the term pansexual, but I’m starting to not like it so much (for me), for a few reasons. Firstly, it seems to be used bi people whom society would deem “bisexual,” but who realize there are more than two choices, and embrace that. See, that’s not me. I’m really not into XY guys. It’s also a word that is increasingly academic, and unaccessible to a lot of people.
Ergo, I’ve decided to be queer. Queer covers lots of things. It covers all my partners I’ve had and will have. It covers my crushes…even my one on Johnny Depp. It allows me to like who I want to like while validating both of our identities and orientations, and not boxing me in. Dyke does the same, because I feel it doesn’t have the same connotations and expectations as “Lesbian.”
I feel this explanation goes along with my people tattoo on my back. The front one is a little more feminine looking — that’s me. The other one? It’s completely in the eye of the beholder. It could be a person of any sex, any gender. It’s just two people, caring for one another, embracing each other. And that’s how I am; I like people, I don’t like genitals. Granted, I tend to be more attracted to one sex, but I’m not going to rule out any genders, just so I can fit into a “sexual orientation” box.
I met a queer couple the other day. A biological female who presented as a woman, and a biological male who presented as a man (albeit in an Asian style dress when I met him). Basically, what people on the street might peg as a “straight” or “heterosexual” couple. But she was bisexual, and had been in a relationship with a woman for 9 years, and he was in a dress and heels in an awesome genderbending way. And we talked, and had great discussion, and although they might been seen as a “traditional straight couple,” they were most definitely queer. And I loved it, because it challenged my beliefs just a little. And I love that.
Queer is a great term. It’s an adjective and a noun. It is so all encompassing, so affirming and validating (at least for me).
So that is why, dear friends and readers, I identify as a queer dyke, or a queer Femme, rather than a Lesbian. I want the world ahead of me open and accepting, rather than shoving me into some definition that just doesn’t fit.
What are your thoughts on queer vs. Lesbian?
-Essin’ Em
10 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I am male bodied, and identify as bisexual, for simplicity’s sake. But I much prefer (and find more accurate) the label of
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sapiosexual.
I don’t use sapiosexual as much because I don’t want to have to define it to people who don’t understand it.
I don’t use queer, because I don’t feel like I have the right. I live with my girlfriend, she’s my primary partner, and we pass in the world. We haven’t had to face the discrimination that queer folk have had to.
i would say i’m pretty much the same. although i really don’t think i would every be truly interested in a bio guy. might as well give myself the option, though. in case the situation should ever arise.
i think i can identify as lesbian because i don’t take it so seriously.
i mean, i don’t think it wildly inaccurate because although i do like some boys, i only like them a little bit, and i don’t see myself in a relationship with a guy again. also, if i do happen to date a guy in the future, i have no problem with changing my orientation/label if i need to. like, “well, i was a lesbian, but now i’m —–, and maybe in the future i’ll be something else.”
and it serves my purposes. it puts out the general “i like girls, not boys” message, which is close enough to true, and makes my life a lot easier. i kind of dislike that in theory, but it is convenient.
i love queer, though. i love the ambiguity. because, really, what could be a more accurate description of sexuality than ambiguity?
Great picture, as always.
I think queer is more liberating, less confining. It leaves the door open for change. If you change your mind or find someone new that peaks your fancy, you don’t have to change your term.
But in the same regard, I think people can define themselves as lesbian as well. I think everyone needs to define themselves, and you define yourself well.
i like lesbian for its lack of ambiguity. but more i guess because it’s the word i used when i came out to myself. i’m coming at this from the other side of the glass: i prefer female-bodied people exclusively, and the feminine ones at that, but i’m not completely comfortable thinking of myself as a woman. i mean, i am one, but it doesn’t quite fit nonetheless. oddly lesbian seems less awkward to me than woman. but yeah, queer rocks.
While I’ve certainly toyed with the issues of labelling in my own head, I think the real question is not one of one-line philosophical summation-it’s one of statistics. Does the statistically mean gowner of a functional, homegrown male apparatus, almost always interested in the owners of functional homegrown female apparatus, have roughly the same odds of success in engaging in mating-related/complementary/derivative activities as with the statistically mean owner of said female gear? The answer is very definitely no. Ergo, I’d ‘lesbian’ a useful label, in the sense that it does leg work-If I were playing matchmaker, for example, I’d probably mention you to other friends calling themselves lesbians, and not in the same context to friends with working testicles.
I think as liberal thinkers we can hairsplit ourselves into corners because broadbrush distinctions reek of racism, sexism, and a few hundred other examples of overzealous categorization. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with the concept of applying a selection criteria itself-it has to do with applying it overeagerly, inappropriately, and with cruelty. Regulating access to a job based on race is clearly of no use and wrong-applying statistical conclusions about the effect of heart medications on people of different races is clearly good sense.
Biology has a similar problem, in that no one can exactly say what a species is. You can’t look at a lineage and find a point when an animal of one species gave birth to another, or a day and hour when two isolated populations claded into different species. No switches are thrown. The fact remains, however, that creatures tend to come in related lumps that (nearly) always breed with only members of the same lump, and when they do breed outside the lump, (almost) never create lineages fertile into the indefinite future. Biologists know the boundaries aren’t razor cut, and acknowledge the boundary cases in footnotes and such, but the term ‘species’ is still such incredibly useful shorthand that it is used.
I’d say something like ‘lesbian’ is a similar case. I call myself ‘straight’ but contained in that term is no mortal opposition to a theoretical male partner, or that every human being being I’ve ever eyed could be guaranteed to have XX chromosomes-it’s just shorthand that I am biologically male, and the odds are high that, all other things being equal, the significant majority of the partners I would consider pursuing romantically right now would be biological women. Nothing more political or ontological than that.
That got long fast. Rant off. ;-)
Oh, should have mentioned that was ABIP in there. Love and such.
All interesting comments on identity. Glad I posted it :)
Z – What is ABIP?
Awkwardness-inducing Boy in Play.
The problem, as I see it, is that the words we have available don’t always do the job. ‘Lesbian’ is, quite simply, antiquated. It has its roots in the home of the poetess Sappho, who herself was not lesbian, but bisexual. The term endures out of simple tradition.