Bisexual & Pansexual Lesbians: An Essay and Ongoing List of Sources and Commentary
If you’re a relatively young queer person who is genuinely curious about the history of your community, this article is for you.
Gatekeeping, the practice of excluding a class of people from their community due to arbitrary differences, has long been an ugly part of queer history. Trans people (especially trans women), sex workers, BIPOC, bisexual and pansexual people, intersex people, fat people, femmes, butches, disabled people, and kinksters have all suffered marginalization at the hands of their supposed community.
Today, a wave of mostly young, mostly online-centered queer people believe that bisexual/pansexual and lesbian are mutually exclusive, strictly taxonomic categories. Thus, they believe that “bi/pan lesbians” don’t exist or are inherently harmful and that bisexual and pansexual people cannot reclaim homophobic slurs such as dyke and faggot.
They are wrong in these beliefs. So utterly wrong, in fact, that I have compiled literature and commentary beginning from Sappho from today to show how and why terms like “lesbian” and “dyke” were never exclusive terms and the project to treat them as such is part of an ongoing, fundamentally harmful project backed by the most regressive lesbians.
Many of these people willfully ignore the facts when presented in good faith. Much like transgender transphobes and gay homophobes, they are dealing with their own struggle against patriarchy, homophobia, and other systemic issues in ways that are actively harmful to others. I retain the hope that some of these people are merely uneducated and willing to consider the perspectives of their peers and elders. However, it is equally possible that they will simply continue their narrative of exclusion supported by alternative facts and baseless accusations of harm leveled at multiply marginalized populations.
I intend to update this article as both available sources and my understanding of the subject increase. This is not intended as an exhaustive list, but rather as a reference with commentary which started as a series of tweets.
If you‘re in need a quick primer, here’s an article from bi dyke Gabrielle Kassel giving a historical overview of the usage of dyke and why gatekeeping is fundamentally wrong-headed.
Origins of Dyke and Lesbian
Lesbian derives from the Greek island Lesbos, home to the poet Sappho. While she was most famous for her numerous writings on her love and yearning for other women, an is that she also loved the ferryman Phaon. Regardless of how you interpret it, this aspect is important in that not even Sappho would be considered a lesbian by modern exclusionary standards. Additional reading on Sappho with sources here and here.
While the origins of the term dyke are somewhat contested, no theory claims that dyke was used exclusively for women exclusively loving women. Rather, they point to the perceived overt masculinity or hermaphroditic character of dykes.
Early-mid 20th century sexologists (who were mostly men) used dyke to refer to all homosexual practices between women. See journal snippet with commentary:
Usage of Dyke and Lesbian from the 1970’s to the 1990's
During the surge of queer activism that followed the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Inn, lesbians (both those who loved women exclusively and those who did not) formed coalitions to support one another and demonstrate for their rights. To be a woman who loved women in this era, regardless of your assigned sex at birth other sexual/romantic interests, meant risking your community, career, and life. The distinction between monosexual and bisexual lesbians would not have been (nor is it now) meaningful for solidarity among women who love women.
From its beginning in 1973, the San Francisco Dyke March included trans, queer, and bisexual dykes. Their mission statement reads thus:
“Dyke is not just a sexual orientation. It’s a political identity. It stands for community. It stands for solidarity. It stands for radical fight. It stands for trans*, black, brown, queer, bisexual, lesbian, disabled, chronically ill, fat, femme, butch, indigenous, gender expansive love. It does not stand by erasure. By displacement. By appropriation. By hate.”
Since its inception, the SF Dyke March has remained true to its mission in a continued demonstration of the diversity of lesbianism and dyke-hood that strengthens, rather than weakens, our community.
Likewise, the Dykes on Bikes (1976) group, aka the Women’s Motorcycle Contingent included and fought for all LGBT rights, and did not distinguish between exclusive attraction.
In her 1980 essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” scholar Adrienne Rich wrote of lesbianism as emotional commitment to women and resistance to the domination of men. She additionally recognizes that the term lesbianism itself resists a unified definition proposed by many of her contemporaries. The excerpts below from a lesbian encyclopedia discuss in further detail (additional snippets in thread):
Audre Lorde said of lesbianism and feminism in a 1980 interview:
“The true feminist deals out of a lesbian consciousness whether or not she ever sleeps with women.”
Ann Ferguson spoke of the subject thusly:
The definition of lesbian that I suggest, one that conforms to the two methodological considerations above, is the following:
5. Lesbian is a woman who has sexual and erotic-emotional ties primarily with women or who sees herself as centrally involved with a community of self-identified lesbians whose sexual and erotic-emotional ties are primarily with women; and who is herself a self-identifed lesbian.
My definition is a sociopolitical one; that is, it attempts to include in the term lesbian the contemporary sense of lesbianism as connected with a subcultural community, many members of which are opposed to defining themselves as dependent on or subordinate to men. It defines both bisexual and celibate women as lesbians as long as they identify themselves as such and have their primary emotional identification with a community of self-defined lesbians. Furthermore, for reasons I will outline shortly, there was no lesbian community in which to ground a sense of self before the twentieth century, a fact which distinguishes the male homosexual community from the lesbian community. Finally, it is arguable that not until this particular stage in the second wave of the women’s movement and in the lesbian-feminist movement has it been politically feasible to include self-defined lesbian bisexual women into the lesbian community.
Many lesbian feminists may not agree with this inclusion. But it may be argued that to exclude lesbian bisexuals from the community on the grounds that “they give energy to men” is overly defensive at this point. After all, a strong women’s community does not have to operate on a scarcity theory of nurturant energy! On feminist principles the criterion for membership in the community should be a woman’s commitment to giving positive erotic-emotional energy to women. Whether women who give such energy to women can also give energy to individual men (friends, fathers, sons, lovers) is not the community’s concern.
Ann Ferguson, “Patriarchy, Sexual Identity, and the Sexual Revolution,” Signs, Autumn 1981. As cited by woman loving: bisexual/lesbian studies.
In her 1991 historical chronicle “Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers,” Lauren Faderman concurs with Rich on identifying as a lesbian: “…You are one only if you consider yourself one.” Commentary and choice selections included below:
The comic “Dykes to Watch out For” by Alison Bechdel ran from 1983–2008 and prominently featured, among many other things, the inclusion of bisexual and trans lesbians. Though the project began as a way to chronicle contemporary lesbian culture and events, Bechdel herself soon enough found that there were no universal constants to lesbianism. Comics and additional commentary below:
Brenda Blasingame spoke of the need for alliances between all different identities in the LGBTQ umbrella.
The first step is to move toward building alliances within our bisexual communities. Many communities are united by a commonality of the oppression. This is not so in our community, partly because of the different ways people identify as bisexual: gay-identified, queer-identified, lesbian-identified, or heterosexual-identified. Some people are bisexual in an affectional manner only; some are bisexual both affectionally and sexually; and some are bisexual only sexually. Since there are so many ways to express our bisexuality, the first step toward alliance-building is to work internally to accept all members of our own community. It is imperative that we build alliances across our own differences; otherwise, alliance-building will fail. Acceptance of the diversity of bisexual labels within our community will allow us to pursue alliance-building with decisive strength in the heterosexual community and what many of us consider our own lesbian/gay community.[3]
–Brenda Blasingame, “Power and Privilege Beyond the Invisible Fence, in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions, 1995. As cited by woman loving: bisexual/lesbian studies.
Multi-ethnic bisexual poet Dajenya wrote of her experiences as a bisexual lesbian in 1995.
Personally, I am unable to separate out the various ways that I am oppressed (as a woman, as an African American, as a bisexual lesbian, as an impoverished single mother) and say that one oppression is worse than the other, or that I desire one form of liberation more than another. I do not want to experience threats to my life, my child custody, or my job security because of racism or homophobia. I don’t want to be oppressed for any reason!!!
–Dajenya, “Which Part of Me Deserves to Be Free?,” in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, & Visions, ed. Naomi Tucker, 1995. As cited by woman loving: bisexual/lesbian studies.
Bisexuality within lesbianism is clearly not a new phenomenon; women have loved women regardless of their other attractions since the Bronze age. Why then are exclusionists so adamant about keeping bisexuals and pansexuals out of lesbianism?
Backlash and the Ongoing Harm of Gatekeeping
The ongoing backlash against bisexual and pansexual lesbians is not new. Exclusionist lesbians have been fighting bisexual inclusion for years, such as when they shut down the 1989 Northampton Pride Parade for bisexual inclusion. Unicorn March details the account in the thread below:
Why the animosity towards bisexuals? Much of it comes from the radical feminist rejection of all things male, including anyone who associated or cavorted with men. While it is important to be cognizant of the trauma many lesbians have experienced at the hands of men and patriarchy, we cannot overlook the fact that most who have such trauma do not unjustly hold other lesbians responsible for this trauma, as many exclusionary radfems have historically done.
Indeed, many younger lesbians define themselves by their lack of attraction to men rather than the presence of attraction to women or nonbinary people, a value they unfortunately share with biphobic and transphobic lesbian feminists of an earlier era.
Carol Queen and Beth Herrick wrote in 1992 and 1993, respectively, of the ongoing issue of bisexual exclusion and its implications.
Closer to Home successfully deals with these and other problems of self-identification. As most of the writers are “lesbian-identified bisexuals” (one of several labels used for the sake of convenience), the definition of lesbianism is also reevaluated. Is a lesbian a woman who relates emotionally and erotically with women or a woman who does not relate emotionally and erotically with men? Must a woman fit both criteria to be considered a lesbian?
The “Principles and Practice” section expands these main course theories of identity with side dishes of memories and personal feelings–feelings of not being queer enough; of breaking all the rules, even the gay rules; of being dissatisfied with the waste of energy from political infighting. It’s odd for lesbian-identified bi’s to find themselves viewed as politically incorrect. It’s maddening to have one’s past feminist work invalidated by the inclusion of a man (or men) in one’s life. It’s frustrating to find oneself faced with a choice of being honest or potentially losing support of women’s groups. It’s confusing to work for the freedom to come out of one closet only to be asked to stay in another. As Rebecca Shuster write:
“If we choose a lesbian identity, we are subject to systematic oppression and internalize that oppression in a package that includes marginality; invisibility; isolation…; and countercultural rules about how to relate to women and men. If we choose a bisexual identity, we are subject to systematic oppression and internalize that oppression in a package deal that include a feeling of not belonging or having a home; defensiveness; isolation…; and countercultural rules about how to relate to women and men. Precisely because bisexuality represents freedom of choice, society ensures that the identity comes with its own package of mistreatment and constraints.”
— -Beth Herrick, “Bisexual Women Pushing the Limits,” Sojourner, Vol. 18, Issue 10, June 1993. As cited by woman loving: bisexual/lesbian studies.
Representatives of lesbian-feminist separatism may feel singled out as special targets of our anger and distress. To the extent that this is true, the seeds of anger lie in lesbian separatism as a politic: In this reading of feminism, specific sex acts take on politicized meaning. These are said to have consequences for the consciousness of the person performing them. Lesbian feminism is arguably the most proscriptive gay or lesbian politic, generating in its adherents the greatest tendency to judge others’ (especially sexual) behavior. Gay men, for example, seem more likely to cite personal antipathy or simple stereotypes about bisexuals as a source of their chagrin. A great many bisexual women, particularly those who are feminist and lesbian-identified, have felt both personally and politically rejected and judged by the separatist sisters. Even those with no such experience may feel wary having heard of other bisexual women’s stories. No one like to feel attacked, even politically.
— -Carol A. Queen, “Strangers at Home: Bisexuals in the queer movement,” Out/Look, Vol. 4, Issue 4 (16), Spring 1992. As cited by woman loving: bisexual/lesbian studies.
Sharon Dale Stone wrote of the oppression of bisexual women in lesbian movements in 1996 in her essay, “Bisexual Women and the “Threat” to Lesbian Space: Or What If All the Lesbians Leave.” She describes starting her life as an initially homogenous group of lesbians in the Lesbians biphobic feelings at an earlier time:
“I saw bisexual women as a threat to my vision of lesbian nation. I perceived (correctly, as it turns out) bisexuals as saying that in order love women it was not necessary to reject men as potential sexual partners. My vision of lesbian nation, however, was predicated upon the valuing of all things female, and this I didn’t think possible without rejection of men. And I perceived (incorrectly, as it turns out) bisexual women as saying that no woman should give up men.”
Stone commented on a study of lesbians by sexologist Paula Rust where “only one-third of lesbian-identified respondents stated that they were one hundred percent attracted to women” and 91 percent had had heterosexual relationships since coming out. She observes that the line between lesbian and bisexual women is in practice less firm than purported to be, stating:
“Clearly, a lot of lesbians are sleeping with men. Without suggesting that all lesbians sleep with men, it would seem that the difference between lesbians and bisexual women is that the former group does not publicly acknowledge attraction to men, whereas the latter group does.”
Stone later repudiates Jan Clausen’s claim that bisexual women dilute the movement:
“It remains common to hear lesbian feminists argue that bisexual women dilute the movement. Bisexual women, however, have been in the lesbian feminist movement all along — perhaps the movement has always been diluted. It seems to me that bisexual women do not dilute the movement; rather, there are lesbian feminists who would weaken the movement by kicking them out.”
The connection between biphobia, homophobia, and the AIDS crisis ought not be ignored either. Lani Kaahumanu describes how bisexuality within the lesbian community was itself treated as a vector for HIV transmission:
I recognize that homophobia is at the root of biphobia. I came to lesbianism long before my sexuality was clear to me. I lived an open lesbian lifestyle for four years. I cannot deny the importance of this experience, nor do I want to. For me lesbian identity is more than, and/or in addition to sexuality; it is a political awareness which bisexuality doesn’t altar or detract from. 10 years ago when I left my husband and full-time role of motherhood, it didn’t make me less conscious of what being a mother means. In fact, it gave me a deeper understanding. I am still a mother. That experience cannot be taken away from me. In much the same way, my lesbian awareness isn’t lost now that I claim my bisexuality. When I realized my woman-loving-woman feelings, and came out as a lesbian, I had no heterosexual privilege; yet there were important males in my life, including a son. I am bisexual because it’s real for me, not in order to acquire or flaunt the privilege that is inherent in being with men. My political consciousness is lesbian but my lifestyle is bisexual. If I keep myself quiet for another’s sense of pride and liberation, it is at the cost of my own which isn’t healthy–emotionally, politically or medically. Not only is it unhealthy, it’s ineffective.
Since I have come out I have triggered many lesbians to blurt in whispered confidence–“I have a man in the closet. You’re brave to be so open. What am I going to do?” These are not easy times. AIDS has given biphobia free reign in the lesbian community (and admittedly with much less destructive effect than how AIDS is fueling homophobia in society at large), it is all right to trash bisexuals, not to trust us for fear of AIDS. Bisexuals are untouchable to some lesbians.
We have to deal with oppression in a constructive way or we will be factionalized forever. Time is running out. We have to see the whole and the part we play in it. Forming family communities with people who share your sexual identity is important, but trashing is nonproductive. The sexual choices we make are equally valid for our individual experiences. AIDS is not a gay disease; it is a human tragedy, a plague that doesn’t recognize boundaries. I urge bisexuals to take a political stand, and to become a visible, viable energy force. It is important and timely to open this dialogue in each of our communities. Nobody belongs in the closet. The only way to get a sense of “our” community is for us to begin to speak out and identify ourselves. When we verify the connections and the networks of our oppression, we build a unity that avoids the, “I’m more oppressed than you” syndrome
–Lani Kaahumanu, “Bisexuality & Discrimination,” BBWN Vol. 3, №6, Dec 1985-Jan 1986; Reprinted from the 1985 Gay Pride March magazine, San Francisco. As cited by woman loving: bisexual/lesbian studies.
Oddly, many of the younger lesbians advocating against bi/pan inclusion are themselves lesbians who have been subject to gatekeeping: trans, nonbinary, he/him, or asexual/aromantic. I offer a warning: you’re next on the chopping block. You are not more likely to be included by throwing other lesbians under the bus. In one week where bi/pan lesbians were being excluded by lesbians, nonbinary and he/him lesbians were simultaneously being excluded.
To any sincere exclusionist still reading this, I pose the following questions:
Why should a lesbian who loved a trans man for decades prior to his transition be considered less of a lesbian for continuing to love him?
Why should a lesbian who has been invested in lesbianism and is accepted by lesbians be considered less of a lesbian for having attraction to or involvement with men?
Why, as Sharon Dale Stone writes, are you so insistent on weakening the lesbian movement by removing us from the communities we built?
Towards a Diverse Lesbianism
Lesbians have been diverse and multifaceted since the beginning. The use of lesbian as an exclusive, exclusionary term is a modern invention of a small, but vocal subgroup of lesbians and other women who, knowingly or not, seek to deprive some lesbians of the shared identity that all lesbians are entitled to.
There is no singular, unifying definition or experience that encompasses lesbianism for all lesbians. We experience attraction, relationships, and romance differently relative to our other circumstances and intersections of our identity. And yet, we are all lesbians because we are invested in the idea of lesbianism, even as that concept changes across history.
And also, girls.
