Talk:Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism

	This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Hang on

Hang on a second. If lesbians are such vile, transphobic, biphobic, intolerant and bigoted excuses for human beings, then why do our victims want to identify with us so much?🤔

Also, I'm not attracted to penii. Does that make me phallo-centric? What should I do to get over my obsession with them, then?

UninspiringNickname (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article is it asserted that lesbians as a whole are any of those things, and in no way is that this article's goal. If you read it as such then you ought to reflect on why that is. Vandalizing the article's (currently hidden) categories doesn't constitute constructive discussion or a rebuttal. Mahboison (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I read it like that because of the all-too-common dogwhistles that I've seen online many, many times (of which that lesbian women are ultimately andro/phallocentric is just one example - I'm still wondering what I should do to get rid of my supposed obsession with men and/or penii 🤔). I think the draft isn't just snarky, it's aggressive. I also think the sources don't support what you wrote, you present your personal opinion as fact, don't understand what "political lesbianism" was (or sexual orientation for that matter, I think), do a few Gish-gallops, engage in non-sequiturs, more than just incidentally associate lesbianism with prejudice, and present lesbian women and bisexual women as parties at conflict with each other.

Almost nothing like this takes place in real life, it's mostly internet drama. Lesbian don't hate bi women, nor do bi women hate lesbians (we actually kinda date and marry each other). Transphobic cis lesbians do exist, but transphobic bisexual cis women do too. And bisexual cis women who call themselves lesbian can too be transphobic (EJ Levy springs to mind).

Actually, I do think I forgot what should be the main category in my "vandalism": biphobia, for which I apologise. It's not lesbian women who object the most to bisexual women calling themselves lesbian: it's the other bisexual women from whom they want to dissociate themselves.

Honestly, I'm wondering what made you write all of this? Are you a bisexual woman who was discriminated by lesbians? If so, I'm really sorry, and would gladly have a word with them concerning that. But please don't assume lesbians are all like that. It's not entirely fair, and actually hurts both bisexual and lesbian women. UninspiringNickname (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Also: "for most of the history of the English language lesbian simply meant a feminine person who experiences attraction to other feminine people"

Holy FSM (Sweet and Sour Sauce be upon Him), just no. Unsourced (obviously), objectively false, and plain gender-essentialist / sexist. I'm sorry, I think you really have no clue what you're going on about. UninspiringNickname (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions for making the article read less aggressively I'd be glad to hear them. I will admit my note was a bit on the nose and more made out of personal annoyance with people whose entire conception of lesbianism is based around disliking or outright hating "men" and wasn't actually contributing to the topic at hand, which is why I removed it. I appreciate the criticism of my phrasing in the rhetoric section, admittedly I was trying a bit too hard to be inclusive and I muddied my meaning. I do apologize if it comes off as lesbophobic, but the unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of folks who I've witnessed engaging in this behaviour, especially in an organized fashion, are self-proclaimed lesbians, and there's historical precedent (political lesbianism) that explains why that is. Does that mean I think all lesbians are gatekeepers or exclusionists? No, absolutely not. Quite the opposite, this is intended to highlight an alarming behavioural outlier in the queer community and hold them to account for said behaviour.

As for my reason for writing all of this? I don't identify as lesbian, bi or pan or otherwise. I am pansexual (used to identify as bi) and I'm nonbinary. I've many friends and people who I follow who are also queer, some of whom personally identify as bi lesbians or pan lesbians. I'm tired of seeing people harass and throw other queer folks under the bus accusing them of being lesbophobic, biphobic, etc when all they're doing is using an ultimately harmless microlabel. There are homophobes trying very hard to erode the community's solidarity from within whom such discourse benefits greatly. In my research for this article, it was also brought to my attention that this kind of discourse can even serve as a pipeline towards more extreme exclusionist views. This compelled me to write an article to properly debunk it, much like the other articles on here regarding types of LGBT gatekeeping such as asexual exclusionism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Mahboison (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Twitter arguments

Note: deletion question was discussed at AfD, in 2023. Chillpilled (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s about shit that nobody talks about in real life, and it’s citations are almost entirely social media threads. I think we should consider deletion. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

TBF most alt-right shit is also an almost exclusively online phenomenon. Vee (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe we have an article about how it's okay to call yourself a lesbian if you're not actually a lesbian. Fundamentally, the argument behind this effectively boils down to "words mean whatever I want whenever I want." Which isn't necessarily without merit, but is certainly a bold take for this website made to combat and inform on pseudoscience and authoritarianism-Hastur! (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is poorly-written. The tone is overly-passionate and "preachy," and the content fails to be convincing. "Lesbians insisting on a set definition for the term lesbian is morally incorrect and adjacent to far-right ideologies and bigotry" feels like a pretty extreme stance and one that contradicts Rationalwiki's page on Lesbianism. It's ultimately a nonissue; half of the sources are Twitter threads. I think this page should be deleted or extensively rewritten. Rixor (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Rixor

Show your work. Show us that it's "overly-passionate and preachy" and that the "content fails to be convincing." You're just asserting your feelings, not actually engaging with the content of the article. I also looked, and I couldn't find "Lesbians insisting on a set definition for the term lesbian is morally incorrect and adjacent to far-right ideologies and bigotry" in the article. That's a strawman right there. Carthage (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's way too preachy considering the subjectivity of what definitions are "better". Chillpilled (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I feel like we're all ignoring this passage here: "Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism is another pointless, counter-productive wedge issue meant to undermine queer solidarity and cause infighting to distract from actual bigotry, be it prejudice against bisexuals and pansexuals, transphobia, and enbyphobia within the community or from homophobes outside trying to trample on LGBT rights. Worse, it can serve as a dogwhistle and a jump-off point for normalizing more extreme exclusionist views to younger, impressionable members of the queer community."

I don't know what y'all are up in arms about. This article gives its justification quite eloquently. I think this is a decent justification for this article. Carthage (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The page forgot to justify why women exclusively attracted to women should have to go make a new word to identify with, while bisexuals shouldn't have to use a relatively unpopular term because it's "nowhere near as recognized in the public consciousness". I mean this is a topic worth covering but the page is really over the top partisan about it leaving a lot of glaringly obvious questions unanswered, even if it does answer others satisfactorily. To continue defining lesbian as women exclusively into women is the most generally helpful use of language (or maybe one of those definitions aimed at including non-binary people but I find no satisfying one there, bit in the weeds though as this page is more about subjects of attraction rather than one's own gender).

To end the page off on a "bottom line" section declaring the whole thing is "not really your problem anyway" is some real faux pas; people have to conduct studies, organize things concerning lesbians. Obviously definitions matter to that. I'm conscious of some of the things raised on the page about it being a wedge issue or comparisons to TERFs but that doesn't make this go away, and I don't see the real-world benefits evident to definitional inclusivity on this side that I do on the trans side (or even e.g. counting asexuals as LGBT by definition). Only potential harms to lesbians weighed up against a vague sense that insisting on an exclusive definition might lend itself to a more generally exclusionist attitude. This is my personal view backing how I define this word, but others may prefer to define things based on other criteria than me. Chillpilled (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC) I will say though, I wrote the lesbianism page and found it amusing Rixor cited it as contradictory to this article in some way when I very consciously wrote it in such a way as to take no clear stance on this and be acceptable to either interpretation. Chillpilled (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally would like to see evidence that this is an actual phenomenon worth covering. In earlier times, there was some legitimate biphobia within the queer community, but I really don't think there is as much of that these days. This article is very poorly sourced and even searching social media I see little evidence that "BLERF" and "PLERF" is even a thing except for a post or two here and there. There's some social media posts with people using the terms "bi-lesbian" or "pan-lesbian", but in most cases where I'm finding a post, it's "just a label", often to describe a split attraction model sort of thing, and nobody is angry or excluding. BobJohnson (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So, say for a bigender person, who is both a man and a woman, are they not a lesbian even if they're only exclusively into women since they're bigender? Keep in mind that they are a woman. That would be exclusionist, wouldn't it? Keep in mind this whole thing started in the first place only because "lesbian" was redefined in the 1970s to suit a particular political agenda. Carthage (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There may be something to your argument, I should read the carrds in the external links because there may be some parts I haven't digested. This is a real throwback to Tumblr trenches I bothered to dwell in 5+ years ago. The fact I have to dig into the external links in search of something more convincing (or get it from talking to you here) is probably indicative of one of the page's issues. Chillpilled (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To (many days later, sorry) respond to Carthage's request for elaboration, my problems with the article are as follows. The tone is, for lack of a better term, "preachy." The "bottom line" section is the best example of this. It very clearly makes a stance on what definition is morally correct. I'm aware RationalWiki isn't neutral and does take stances, but to take such an extreme stance on a Tumblr discourse issue feels strange. It compares bi/pan lesbian exclusionism to pretty extreme forms of bigotry here: "It has parallels and connections to trans-exclusionary radical feminism, asexual exclusionism, and those who insist that "queer" is a slur. Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism is another pointless, counter-productive wedge issue meant to undermine queer solidarity and cause infighting to distract from actual bigotry, be it prejudice against bisexuals and pansexuals, transphobia, and enbyphobia within the community or from homophobes outside trying to trample on LGBT rights. Worse, it can serve as a dogwhistle and a jump-off point for normalizing more extreme exclusionist views to younger, impressionable members of the queer community." I feel it's unconvincing because, as someone else already pointed out, there are a lot of unasnwered questions, and because most of the sources are Twitter threads and Carrds. In real life, if a bi lesbian goes to a lesbian meet-up and talks about her boyfriend, chances are she's going to get odd looks or confused questions, just as a bi gay man would get if he went to a gay meet-up and spoke to men about his girlfriend. Although the term hasn't always implied exclusivity, "lesbian" as an identity most often means "exclusively homosexual," as the main page on lesbianism states, and lesbian issues and stereotypes often stem from their exclusivity for WLW attraction, such as with corrective rape. In real life, lesbian as "exclusively homosexual" has utility in research and politics, as Chillpilled mentioned. Bottom line--I think it's silly, at best, to have an entire page dedicated to Tumblr/Twitter discourse, and harmful, at worse, for this wiki to state that those who maintain a stricter definition for lesbianism are engaging in behavior that parallels, or is connected to, TERFism, ace exclusionism, homophobia, etc. I do think it contradicts the lesbianism page somewhat, because the page on lesbianism already encompasses that 'lesbian' is often (but not always) used as an exclusive term. This page indicates that maintaining an exclusive definition of lesbian is harmful/bigoted, which would imply the lesbianism page shares, and engages in discussion based on, a harmful/bigoted definition. Rixor (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Rixor