I see this from another point of view: I think that trying to define a “pure” sexuality, is falling into a No True Scotsman fallacy.
You have described some of your attraction pattern on several axes, and called that “lesbian”. Fine, nobody has the right to tell you otherwise. What I don’t see as clearly, is that it describes a “mono sexuality” or “pure lesbian”.
Sounds to me like you’re defining “lesbian” as “doesn’t get attracted to males, unless they don’t look, smell, or identify as males”… but that still leaves a whole lot of possibilities, while at the same time others might define “lesbian” in some other terms, including whether both people need to meet the same criteria, and that would be their definition of “mono sexuality”.
The point you raise about history, is where I think the labels, as we have them, make more sense: as a transitory means to fight for the rights of people who were otherwise oppressed. It’s a high call to have a heteropatriarhy suddenly become tolerant of all possible sexualities, so fighting for chunks at a time makes more sense. We still shouldn’t lose sight of the end goal, which should be letting everyone be themselves, in all their complexity.
Another interesting thing about history, is that throughout different periods of oppression, there always used to be “roommates” and “travel companions”, who used to share the same bed, behind closed doors. Nowadays some of the most oppressive cultures, still have a similar “out of sight, out of mind” approach. So the fight is more for the right to public expression and social acceptance, which of course benefits from labels, flags, and all the bells and whistles.
Dunno, maybe I’m raising the point too soon, maybe there needs to be another half a century of fighting chunk by chunk, adding more letters and symbols to the LGBTQQIP2SA+ initialism… but I sure wish we could do away with it already, and simply call it “sexuality”.
I see this from another point of view: I think that trying to define a “pure” sexuality, is falling into a No True Scotsman fallacy.
You have described some of your attraction pattern on several axes, and called that “lesbian”. Fine, nobody has the right to tell you otherwise. What I don’t see as clearly, is that it describes a “mono sexuality” or “pure lesbian”.
Sounds to me like you’re defining “lesbian” as “doesn’t get attracted to males, unless they don’t look, smell, or identify as males”… but that still leaves a whole lot of possibilities, while at the same time others might define “lesbian” in some other terms, including whether both people need to meet the same criteria, and that would be their definition of “mono sexuality”.
The point you raise about history, is where I think the labels, as we have them, make more sense: as a transitory means to fight for the rights of people who were otherwise oppressed. It’s a high call to have a heteropatriarhy suddenly become tolerant of all possible sexualities, so fighting for chunks at a time makes more sense. We still shouldn’t lose sight of the end goal, which should be letting everyone be themselves, in all their complexity.
Another interesting thing about history, is that throughout different periods of oppression, there always used to be “roommates” and “travel companions”, who used to share the same bed, behind closed doors. Nowadays some of the most oppressive cultures, still have a similar “out of sight, out of mind” approach. So the fight is more for the right to public expression and social acceptance, which of course benefits from labels, flags, and all the bells and whistles.
Dunno, maybe I’m raising the point too soon, maybe there needs to be another half a century of fighting chunk by chunk, adding more letters and symbols to the LGBTQQIP2SA+ initialism… but I sure wish we could do away with it already, and simply call it “sexuality”.