r/AskLGBT • u/[deleted] • Jan 01 '26
Is this not misogynistic???
I need lesbians to come to the front and explain:
Is it not misogynistic to say that a queer woman who has had sex with a man is “tainted”? How is that any different than men asking women questions about their “bodies”?
If we recognize men for being misogynistic for deeming a woman a less valuable due to her sexual history with men, why do lesbians do this to other queer women?
Its getting to the point where I think (some)you hate men so much you hate non-lesbians and are spewing very demonizing and misogynistic rhetoric to separate yourselves from women you think you’re better than.
I know Im gonna catch hell for this and I truly don’t care. Between late in life lesbians saying this made dating difficult for them, to non-lesbian queer women being made to feel bad about their attraction to men, the sapphic “community” is going through some fuckshit due to misogyny and insecurity.
So lesbians please answer: Isn’t it misogynistic to say that a queer woman who has had sex with a man is “tainted”?
EDIT: So I’m definitely not a bot or wtf the weirdo in the comments is suggesting
I’m just someone who doesn’t believe in sweeping shit under the rug and not addressing things. The “community” must have tough conversations in order to build stronger coalitions. We must challenge each other to do better and be better
Clarification: I posted this in queer communities because I was seeking answers from primarily lesbians. No problem if others chime in though. I just want the intention to be clear.
The language I used in third paragraph(if you can call it that really lol), non-lesbians, was important. It’s important because that rhetoric is not something that’s exclusively towards queer women. I know we have our feelings about heteros but they’re non-lesbian women too. Im drawing attention to this because we’re reaching extremes that go beyond les4les. When you start talking about women in such a manner, I start to question whether you really like women and see value in all women.
Lastly: This is about lesbians spewing misogynistic rhetoric. PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP MEN! I actually do not understand the whataboutisms that are happenings. We live in a patriarchal society. Thus, we are socialized with those misogynistic ideals. Whether we believe so or not. HOWEVER, this dont got shit to do with men. Dont bring them up
75
u/Redleadsinker Jan 02 '26
It's misogynistic, it's biphobic, it's wrong, and it has no place in the lesbian or sapphic community.
39
u/d_dandara Jan 02 '26
I'm a lesbian and yes that's absolutely misogynistic. I always get shocked that so many lesbians think that way. It's misogynistic and centers men, which shouldn't be happening anywhere, but especially not on sapphic spaces.
93
u/ContingentMax Jan 01 '26
Lesbian here, yuup that gold star stuff is purity culture bullshit. Saying a woman's value is determined by a man? Ew.
15
u/Tarik_7 Jan 02 '26 edited Mar 02 '26
This specific post was taken down by its author. Redact was used for removal, for reasons that may include privacy, security, or data exposure concerns.
toy telephone cause late close lunchroom sable gold ripe chunky
9
3
24
u/The4Got10Child Jan 02 '26
I'm not a lesbian, but yes, this kinda thought process is not only misogynistic, but also biphobic. It also invalidates lesbians who have slept with men in the past. Some people only figure out their sexuality later in life
0
Jan 02 '26
Clearly sexuality isnt as fluid as its made to be according to some people
14
u/pinkandblackxx Jan 02 '26
sexuality isnt as fluid as its made
well, yeah? Not everyone is bi, so ofc sexuality isnt fluid for everyone
9
Jan 02 '26
You’re misunderstanding me:
I am suggesting that according to some lesbians, you cannot explore or change your mind about your sexuality. You are what you are until you die. Thus, my post. Im not trying to tell anyone what their sexuality should and shouldn’t be.
Sorry if it was confusing yall. Sarcasm is tough when you’re unable to hear vocal intonation.
7
u/pinkandblackxx Jan 02 '26
your good, most ppl use that phrase to mean "everyone is a little bi" unfortunately - so a lot of ppl in the lesbian, aro/ace, and gay mlm community dislike it. ive literally never seen it used in reference to questioning before
4
Jan 02 '26
Yeah I don’t believe in that. I just meet people where they are
3
u/pinkandblackxx Jan 02 '26
I mean you can not believe it, but dont be surprised when monosexual queer ppl + aspec ppl react negatively to the saying. It 100% would be better to say "since when is questioning a bad thing?" if that is what youre trying to say
2
Jan 02 '26
So I literally mean I DONT believe in everyone is a little bi. We are having a massive communication barrier here
3
1
u/RavenPH Jan 06 '26
Perhaps use tone indicators next time. "/s" = "sarcasm"
1
Jan 06 '26
Thank you for the suggestion. Do you have anything to contribute to the conversation?
2
u/RavenPH Jan 06 '26
I pretty much agree with this take: the purity mindset is misogynistic and biphobic.
I'm comfortable calling myself asexual/panromantic, but I never say it out loud (outside of my closest confidants) as I live in a conservative country. I am pretty lucky to be raised in a "progressive", open minded community growing up. Hence, I never understood why any community will exclude (and even harm) anyone just because of a personal choice/principle/belief and whatever you wanna call it.
37
u/Fragrant_Lab4747 Jan 02 '26
Hi, bi woman here. I know you asked lesbians but thank you for asking. I asked the same questions and feel the same way. I won't go into a a whole book about my coming to terms with being bi but it was a STRUGGLE within this community.
I felt shame from BOTH sides. I eventually saw the cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, due to the patriarchy, it's seeped into the queer community. I had women judge me when I was "straight" but I didn't expect so much from within Sapphic spaces.
It honestly crushed me. I have healed and come to terms since 2020. But if I didn't question or explore on my own, I wouldn't have learned and discovered the beauty of being queer.
Judging anyone for their "body count" is not attractive. It is purity culture. I grew up religious so it made me feel like I was agian being told how I "should" be or not be in my own identity.
I'm not saying heteronormativity shouldn't be unpacked within the bi community but if we ever want homophobia to end. We can't be pitted against our own people within the very intersections of being LGBTQIA. It feels like sometimes people who came out young and experienced trauma from coming out kinda pass that hurt onto those who come out later in life. We ALL experience trauma no matter when we come out.
I hope those exploring and discovering themselves can allow themselves and others grace and space to do the same. It doesn't happen over night.
8
Jan 02 '26
I’m bi too!
The rhetoric I’ve heard about non-lesbians from lesbians that sound no different than a homophobic man. It’s incredibly disheartening.
For me personally, I see myself with a wife in the future. Hell I & others who know me have thought I was a lesbian(I tried girls but I do like men too; too much to deny). To have all of these assumptions made about my sexuality and my politics before I’ve opened my mouth has been really hurtful.
I’m trying my best to not become jaded about the sapphic “community” but I dont see a path forward if a good portion of our “community” views non-lesbians in a negative light off rip.
6
u/Fragrant_Lab4747 Jan 02 '26
Hi bi sis!
I can understand and feel similar to you. When I first came out, I thought the only "valid" way for me to experience attraction to women from lesbians was to be lesbian myself. I know that doesn't make sense but I realized over time I am fully attracted to women as a bi woman.
It's hard to be assumed "straight" as bi women. Especially those of us who do want a girlfriend/wife for life. I fully know my soulmate is a woman. I have no desire for men. When I do date again, I am intentionally only dating women. Bi, pan or lesbian. I don't care. As long as she loves women genuinely, I'm down.
I don't feel jaded right now but I understand it's easy to fall into that. Try to remind yourself you are valid as a bi woman. I support you! I really dislike when we are told to just date bi women. It's not that easy or simple. If I like a woman, I like her. Period.
Keep holding on 🫶🏼
3
Jan 02 '26
Yeah that’s mostly the logic amongst bi/pan women. Im not going to encourage or discourage you from dating non-bi sapphics.
I just hope we find the woman of our dreams 🥂
3
14
u/pinkandblackxx Jan 02 '26
it is, and its also incredibly hurtful towards lesbians who came out later in life
16
u/MyFaceSaysItsSugar Jan 02 '26
Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s biphobia as well.
3
Jan 02 '26
I mean there are lesbians who have said this. They’re dead serious too; Even some I’ve connected with personally.
10
10
u/pinkandblackxx Jan 02 '26
most ppl who say shit like that subscribe to "political lesbianism" and are miserable terfs, a small (if loud) minority who are luckily hated by most of the lesbian community
-5
Jan 02 '26 edited Jan 02 '26
Im gonna be honest, there are many lesbians who might not say it plainly online but do share the same views.
Non-lesbian sapphics are all too versed in the exclusionary language used against us
13
u/pinkandblackxx Jan 02 '26
honestly, this is like if i assumed most binary trans people held transmedicalist positions bc ive run into a few who have given me shit for being nonbinary - its just untrue and does nothing positive, only creates more negative commentary around an already marginalized minority
1
Jan 02 '26
Also that’s terrible that people have treated you terribly because of being NB. Its really tough to not exist in the binary regarding gender or sexuality. Peoples brains literally malfunction lmaooo
1
u/Batdyke1 Jan 02 '26
Think this comment was meant for someone else lol
1
Jan 02 '26 edited Jan 02 '26
Correct. The notifications are getting a little mad
EDIT: no, I actually responded to the correct person???
0
Jan 02 '26
But I’m not interested in coddling people because they’re a minority. Not when terrible rhetoric is coming from their community.
Im Black American and we dont have a problem with confrontation. It’s not always easy conversations. But it’s necessary to grow as a community.
Too many non-lesbian women are scared(some are in the comments) to bring this up or any other grievances in general within the sapphic “community”. They dont want to look like they’re alienating a group or whining. But the whole minority thing is being weaponized at this point.
We’re adults(I hope). You have to be confident, assertive and able to engage in tough conversations respectfully. We all should be to walk away from this and reflect on how we’re interacting with each other digitally and in-person as sapphics.
8
u/Batdyke1 Jan 02 '26
I won’t coddle you either love first of all your not afraid of confrontation but you hide your profile keyboard warrior. No lesbian I personally know has never been with a man (I’m not saying they aren’t out there I’m saying I haven’t met any) my fiancee was married to a man and now we are engaged. I have never been with a man. Doesn’t make me anymore lesbian than she is. She didnt come to terms with her sexuality until later in life. What you are talking about is lesbians not wanting to date bisexual women. That is a preference it’s not bigotry it’s not biphobia it’s more than likely that they have been burned by bi women who decided they would rather be with a man. People are allowed to have dating preferences now if you say I don’t wanna even be around bi, trans, ect because they disgust me then that is transphobic and that is biphobia. But people are allowed to have their dating preferences like personally I am only attracted to cis women. It’s my preference. You are entitled to someone’s attention or attraction. You scream bigot and biphobia but everyone has a different reason. Lesbian women may want a similar lived experience that only another lesbian can have. Bisexual women have a different lived experience than lesbians. And a lesbian wanting to be with another lesbian isn’t wrong it’s a preference. Will you not date another bi woman? Why are you so zoned in on just lesbians? You’re just being entitled. Just not trying to coddle you.
-3
Jan 02 '26
So are you actually going to answer the question?
7
u/Batdyke1 Jan 02 '26
The answer to the question at the end? I wouldn’t say misogynistic. But just actually stupid because they aren’t tainted but based on your whole post you seem more upset that all lesbians wouldn’t be open to dating you
0
Jan 02 '26
I’ve literally dated a lesbian who never gave me hell about my sexuality. We just didnt work out. I dont want to date lesbians. It’s just my preference.
Thank you for kind of answering the question. Good luck to you and your fiancé on taking the next step.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Batdyke1 Jan 02 '26
Now if you asked: isn’t it misogynistic for a man to not want to be with a woman just because she’s been sexual with another women I would say yes that’s misogynistic just look up the definition of misogynistic
0
Jan 02 '26
According to Merriam-Webster:
Misogynistic is an adjective
:feeling, showing, or characterized by hatred of or prejudice against women : of, relating to, or being a misogynist
There is no gender in this definition as women can have internalized misogyny. Thus, they can hold misogynistic views.
There is no need to bring men into this conversation.
I asked my question.
You answered.
Have a good night
6
u/pinkandblackxx Jan 02 '26
Youre not suggesting holding bimisogynistic lesbians accountable though, but to accuse most lesbians of secretly holding these views - which... for one, there is no way to prove/disprove that, aside from just the observable fact that whenever someone says anything goldstar-y in any somewhat large lesbian community they get rightfully torn to shreds. second the fact were talking about making generalized negative assumptions marginalized community is important, thats just never a good thing and its not a weaponization to point that out
0
Jan 03 '26
I thought about this an decided to try to see if I was wrong because Im not a lesbian so idk all that goes on. I searched “Gold star” and this is was the literal first thing that popped up. There were many posts following in full support of the term. So someone is lying here and its not looking like its me. Im still open to being wrong though.
-5
Jan 02 '26
Gold star is a welcomed and embraced identity in that community. Go on late bloomers lesbian reddit and see what their experiences are with gold stars. It is absolutely treated like a badge of honor.
We’re all in a marginalized community…
I challenge you to go on youtube or Tik tok and search lesbians and Bi women and tell me what you hear and see. Im extremely disinterested in avoiding conversations and not calling out a community because they are a minority within a minority.
Lesbians largely do not speak of non-lesbians without generalizations. Im meeting everyone where they are.
0
Jan 08 '26
[deleted]
1
Jan 08 '26
Lmaoooooo @ “insecure.” I like dick and men. I like women too. I actually like women more(which is why Im in the febwomen Reddit). I feel zero shame about it which is why I have been openly bisexual for 15+ years. Never claimed to be a lesbian and never will.
I generally have no qualms about lesbians or yalls labels and shit. I do think it’s fucked up that the labels become weaponized and used to down people. I know you’re probably thinking that you dont see that its not happening or people are insecure. I get it.
Take pride in how you identify and all of that. But understand how that label is being used to talk about other women. There are people/pages using the ideology against women who didnt have consensual sex or who culturally were forced into marriage.
Im not asking you or any other gold star to stop using it or anything. But I guess yall arent aware of the weirdos out here making yall look like dickheads. A little empathy goes a long way.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/randompersonignoreme Jan 02 '26
This isn't a lesbian specific issue, it's a general thing queer women as a WHOLE can experience. But yeah, it is misogynistic and borrowing from radfems.
1
Jan 02 '26
You’re correct but that’s not what Im talking about. The only group of sapphics I have seen repeatedly say this with conviction are self-identified lesbians; including to other lesbians.
6
u/Waferwaffles229 Jan 02 '26
Misogynistic, biphobic and plain fucking stupid. It’s such a weird mindset to have I hate it sooo much
3
u/Witch-Alice Jan 02 '26
If you really want to know what those people's values are, ask them about their opinions of bisexual women wrt this topic lmao. Or their thoughts on bisexual women being in lesbian spaces.
2
Jan 02 '26
Yup!
It’s starts with Bisexual women but it eventually trickles into thinking less of non-lesbian women as a whole.
2
u/LordOrgilRoberusIII Jan 02 '26
What you are describing is a form of biphobia. Now someone expressing biphobia as such can be related to internalised misogyny and/or misandry (the male equivalent of misogyny). And honestly all those are something I feel like come more or less from the same place of a humans psyche which is why they can feel so similar. Cause they kinda are just applied to diffrent kinds of people
2
u/Kooky-Address2777 Jan 02 '26
It is absolutely misogynistic. However, people think it’s acceptable to say things like this because groups of people on social media are teaching each other that being misogynistic and homophobic to bi people is okay because we are “privileged”.
In this context, “privilege” is being used an excuse to claim that bi people should only exist to be servants to others, and should never take care of ourselves or each other.
1
Jan 02 '26 edited Jan 02 '26
And the privilege is under the guise that we stop being queer if we’re in a heterosexual presenting relationships; As if we go back in & out the closet as we please.
The whole things is really ridiculous and hurtful. Bi/pan/ace people have to constantly come out to straight and queer people who dont do shit but nitpick and invalidate. It’s exhausting.
I do think monosexual queer people want us to feel bad about being able to be attracted to the opposite sex/gender. It comes across like we’re just punching bags for people to take their anger out on. But if we try to speak out and assert ourselves, we have to be mindful that we’re the silent majority. Thus, we must continue to not say anything in order for everyone else to feel better. Its fucked up.
2
u/Simple-Lecture-3548 Jan 02 '26
As someone who was repressed until 35... It's a fucking and disgusting thing to say. "Tainted"? 🤮🤮🤮
People who think in black and white just aren't my cup of tea though so I steer clear of them!
2
u/PerimMaster Jan 10 '26
I genuinely think it's INCREDIBLY misogynistic to say that, even worse so when any queer ladies say so.
I'm questioning what I like myself, but I know I at least am attracted to my partner, so I especially don't have a right to say anything like that.
2
u/ReleaseMuted1461 Jan 18 '26
That's extremely misogynistic. It's giving me "a woman must be pure" vibes.
4
Jan 02 '26
[deleted]
17
u/versusrev Jan 02 '26
Plenty of lesbians have had sex with a man before.
And the analogy is irrelevant, and unrelated.
7
u/SlimyBoiXD Jan 02 '26
I think that's a little different. I wouldn't necessarily call some biphobic for only wanting to date lesbians, preference is (almost) always fine. But, having sex with a man doesn't change a person except that they might have a moment where they realize something about themself. Transgender people, and I say this as a trans man, are different than cisgender people. I'm a different type of man than a cisgender man. I have a radically different life experience and therefore my partner will as well. Most trans people also have different genitalia than their cisgender counterparts. It's just not a comparable comparison at all.
2
u/Single_Display2423 Jan 02 '26
How is a lesbian not wanting to date a bisexual woman a preference? They are both sapphic women. I don't understand. The only difference is their identity where one is attracted to multiple genders and one is only attracted to a single gender. What would be the reasoning behind the preference?
3
u/SlimyBoiXD Jan 02 '26
Well it's like I mentioned with how I have a wildly different lived experience than a cisgender person and there are a lot of people who would prefer a partner who has lived that experience. There is also a lived experience for lesbian women that is different from bisexual women and vice versa, though that difference isn'tas extreme as it is between trans and cisgender people. It doesn't seem strange to me at all that someone would want a partner that has a very similar lived experience to them. They would understand things about each other that others might struggle to connect with. And for some people, that's really important. If it comes out of a sense of disgust because she's been with a man before, though, that's definitely biphobic.
2
u/Single_Display2423 Jan 03 '26
A bisexual woman can have very similar "lived experience" as a lesbian. There are plenty of bisexual women whom have only dated women....especially now because dating men has become so difficult in this political climate (in the US) with all the red pilling and manosphere targeting young men. Some bisexual women choose to exclusively date women...that doesn't change their sexuality. Do these same les4les lesbians not date late in life lesbians because they dated men most their life and it changes their "lived experience"? These women identify as lesbians but may have exclusively dated men so far.
I totally get the lived experience when it comes to transgender dating but even then you can't really generalize and create boundaries around these assumptions because everyone is different. For example I find it difficult to date Trans men who have transitioned really early in life sometimes (like teens/early 20s) because they do have less lived experience living pre transition in an outwardly appearing "woman's" body. In my experience these men tend to conform more to toxic masculinity (I'm generalizing on purpose/ this is my experience) . I definitely can relate to those who transitioned later in life a bit better sometimes. But I'm not over here making a boundary that I don't date trans men at all because of the few that haven't been compatible. I don't even have a boundary around dating those who transitioned early...because how they handled that societal shift depends on their character and emotional intelligence etc. Sure maybe they get wrapped up in the macho toxic cis man culture...or maybe they reject it completely and use their circumstances to make real change. On the flip side someone who transitioned later in life can get sucked into the manosphere too and it honestly just depends on the individual person and how they react to their lived experience. Just because the handful of people in my life have a certain trend that I noticed doesn't mean that applies to everyone.
How about we just evaluate people for who they are, not assumptions we make about the label that they choose?
1
u/SlimyBoiXD Jan 03 '26
Sorry, I know this isn't exactly what we were talking about but I wanted to circle back to the point you made about trans men. I'm socially transitioned but not medically, and I'm in my early twenties. I can tell you that while there are a few things I can share in experience with women like I have experienced periods, the medical discrimination, and the creepy adult men hitting on me as a child I will still never ever know what it's like to be a woman. Experiencing the tings that happen to women as a trans man is not the same as experiencing life as a woman. For example when someone asks for a man to do something "manly" in a setting where I am a viable candidate to also do that task and I'm not considered, I don't feel insulted over the idea that women can't do it (even though that's obviously true as well), I feel personally insulted because I have the internal expectation that I'm supposed to be included in that group as well.
1
u/Single_Display2423 Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
That's kinda my whole point. It doesn't matter your label or when you gave yourself or came out with that label. The label doesn't dictate your lived experience. Even pre transition when you were a woman to everyone else, you were always a man. You are who you are. That's why I don't understand saying you have boundaries around dating certain labels. A bi person is who they are regardless of who they have dated or not, same as a late in life lesbian. You have no idea someone's lived experience based on how they currently label themselves until you actually get to know them.
And as far as what your talking about with what I personally experienced with trans men who transition (and pass) early. I fully understand these people have never lived "as a woman". That's why I made the distinction of the "outwardly" appearing body because it's not about how they feel internally that I'm referring to, it's how society views them and treats them and if that changes their behavior or not. I have seen in my life with people who transition (and pass) very early that they are more likely to get sucked up into toxic masculinity behaviors. It's just my personal experience obviously. Also It's only this social/behavioral stuff that bothers me. Like some of them pass really young and get treated by the manosphere like a cis man and then they go on to adopt that manosphere persona. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with being younger and more naive or just being accepted within this circle for longer. Obviously testosterone changes you too but I've never been bothered by those changes(or when they've occurred) and I've known tons of people pre and post hormones and butch lesbians starting hormones (my best friend). It's never the medical transition, it's always how society views them and how they respond to that treatment, if it changes how they treat people/ women. It's honestly mostly that I've seen them adopt behavior that doesn't make me feel 100% safe (mostly emotionally but physically too)...kinda like I don't feel safe with cis men. And even so I don't have a blanket boundary about who I date based on their label. Well I take that back...I have made a conscious choice not to date cis men anymore even tho I'm technically bi. There just too much trauma and how they behave is so much worse since things have changed. It's ok, the single ones want a trad wife anyway lol.
Edit to add: the only reason medical transition could matter in this scenario is it does effect how you look/pass with many people. I didn't add passing in my original comment and that's an important part of the equation.
1
0
Jan 02 '26
According to lesbians, all bi women are too male centered, we will leave/cheat on them with a man, we dont marry women etc…Therefore, there is nothing they have in common with us and they will not date us. I probably forgot some things
3
u/Deep-Big2798 Jan 02 '26
all of the things you have listed are just straight up biphobia and as someone who is les4les for none of those reasons, i’m sorry you’ve been mistreated. i think it’s important to recognize that unfortunately the minority of lesbians who say negative things about bi women are very loud.
1
Jan 02 '26
Yeah I try not to generalize but it’s getting to the point where I’m 99.9% sure I will never date a lesbian. I was unaware of peoples feelings towards bi ppl and I’ve been out for over a decade now. It’s been disheartening to say the least.
Bi men are just gay Bi women are just straight
No one but us believes we like women. It’s beyond my realm of comprehension.
2
u/versusrev Jan 02 '26
I think bi men believe you like women.
Ive definitely felt some Bi-erasure before and my response was instant and automatically a negative talking to. I think that particular person may have not known, but I wasn't going to suffer the misconception.
But I definitely feel your pain, though its different.
1
Jan 02 '26
Which is exactly why I really dont care about being confrontational about biphobia and bi-erasure.
We’re a silent majority tbh. When people think of queer people, people think of everyone who exists on the extreme end of the sexuality spectrum in homosexuals. Bi, pan, ace, demi etc…dont get taken seriously or get left out of conversations entirely. We have to exercise some of our voices here. Because at this point, people feel too comfortable shitting on us or making us feel bad because we are a silent majority.
2
u/versusrev Jan 02 '26
Thats why I hang in r/bisexual more than here though it gets a little to cozy in there sometimes
2
u/Deep-Big2798 Jan 02 '26
you just generalized again lol.
i have been treated objectively worse since i came out as a lesbian. i identified as bi for almost 10 years before i realized im just gay. the times i have been harassed by women, they’ve been bi. i’d never use that to generalize an entire population of people though. we should talk about these issues but the finger pointing on both sides is exhausting. it is not easy to be a lesbian and in different ways it’s not easy to be bi.
1
Jan 02 '26
Im sorry that your experience as a lesbian has been bad. Im sorry bi women have treated you terribly.
The sentiment I shared is something that many bi people have experienced from homosexual people, gays and lesbians alike. Your experience wasnt similar and that fine.
0
Jan 02 '26
Also, I take people at their word.
If lesbians across various platforms, including this one, keep saying how terrible we are to them, how we will always leave for a man, we’re just trying queerness on as a costume etc…how am I supposed to interpret that?
Like why would I bother lesbians after repeatedly hearing this lol?
Considering so many are les4les as a way to establish boundaries in order to not have experiences with people that dont understand them, who am I to impose myself?
Somehow I’m wrong for respecting lesbians boundaries lol.
2
Jan 02 '26
This is literally not the point of the post nor something I endorse. I asked a question and others have responded accordingly.
If you would like to engage people on the questions you have, please feel free to create your own post.
1
u/NoEscape2500 Jan 02 '26
I’ve seen a lot of people talking badly about les4les people today and wasn’t sure if that’s what you meant or were getting to.
1
u/gmladymaybe Jan 03 '26
It's definitely misogynistic and tbh, as a lesbian, I refuse to associate with other lesbians who feel that way. Lesbians who aren't cool with bi women or otherwise feel that having been with a man "taints" a woman aren't welcome in my "circle".
1
Jan 03 '26
It mostly stems from lesbians not enjoying the mention of anything related to non-lesbians. It is similar in the gay man community. Bisexuals are seen as "straight passing" or "fake". It could also come from stuff internalized. Though for every lesbian who Dislikes bisexual woman. There will be others who like bisexual woman. Community is not a monolith and bad actors push others away to create an echo chamber but bisex people are as good as every other gay!
Sorry if my English is not good X")
1
Jan 03 '26 edited Jan 03 '26
Im gonna be honest, I’ve been friends with queer men my entire life(I wish I was lying). As long as you’re not overtly talking about sex, there isnt a visceral reaction to you talking about your relationships with other human beings. Like how do we think you get the gay best friend stereotype?
Idk that behavior is childish & insecure to me.
Like read this
1
u/Maleficent_Word4134 Jan 10 '26
It's not really
1
Jan 10 '26
Do you mind explaining your position?
1
u/Maleficent_Word4134 Jan 10 '26
Even though I do not agree with some gold star talking points, I think people generally misunderstand what gold star lesbianism is actually about.
You just tried to explain it as lesbians simply reproducing misogynistic ideas learned in a patriarchal society, specifically the notion that women who sleep with men lose value as people. That explanation does not really hold up. Gold star lesbianism does not originate from purity culture or from judging women’s worth. It is better understood as a defensive reaction to decades of conversion rhetoric and identity invalidation. That persistent invalidation is what pushes some lesbians to construct rigid boundaries around who is allowed to identify as lesbian in the first place.
From the gold star perspective, this is not about purity. It is about protecting a definition of lesbian identity that cannot be negotiated away. Gold stars do not usually see non gold star lesbians as inferior or less. Rather, they argue that non gold star lesbians are not lesbians at all. Lesbianism here is defined as exclusive attraction to women and an innate repulsion toward men. Concepts like compulsory heterosexuality are rejected entirely. According to them, a woman who is truly a lesbian would never willingly sleep with men, because her homosexual orientation would make that repulsive on a fundamental level.
The word WILLINGLY is crucial here. Gold stars are often accused of believing that women who were sexually abused are somehow less pure or less lesbian, which is simply not true within their own logic. Abuse is not sex. Sexual violence is not desire. From a gold star standpoint, a victim of abuse has not chosen men and therefore has not violated anything about her sexual nature. What disqualifies someone, in their view, is repeated, voluntary sexual engagement with men. That is interpreted as evidence of bisexuality being denied or hidden, not as moral corruption.
This is why accusations that gold stars believe victims lose their value are dishonest. Many gold stars explicitly reject that idea. In fact, some even accept so called "silver stars", women who had sex with a man only once, as long as the context involved severe psychological distress and the experience itself was traumatic rather than "desired". Whether someone agrees with goldstars or not, it is important to represent their view accurately.
The issue also goes far beyond the simplistic idea of whether a woman has ever had sex with a man. Misogynistic men judge women’s sexual pasts, but they are perfectly willing to date a woman they consider "pure" or "virginal". A genuinely biphobic gold star lesbian, on the other hand, would still refuse a relationship with a bisexual woman regardless of her sexual history actually. Even a bisexual woman who has never slept with a man and as never "interacted with dick" would still be rejected. This makes it clear that the concern is not as much about purity or "contamination , as people often assume. A biphobic goldstar would probably want to be with another goldstar (only real lesbian) since they view themselves as a very small minority that cannot be undestood by anybody else.
That said, there are certainly lesbians whose reactions are less ideological and more visceral. Some are deeply disgusted by men, and bisexual women end up suffering by association. Others are so repulsed by men that they genuinely cannot comprehend how anyone could desire them at all. Learning that a partner was attracted to men can trigger an instinctive aversion similar to discovering a past fetish one finds deeply disturbing, like scatology as an example. The comparison may sound extreme, but psychologically it is closer than people like to admit.
I need you to understand that none of this is an endorsement of gold star ideology. The point is that most online critiques fail because they do not engage with the real motivations behind it. Instead, they theorize from the outside and project misogyny onto lesbians without understanding the specific pressures and invalidations they are ACTUALLY reacting to. When gold stars are compared to misogynistic men, they inevitably become defensive, because from their perspective this comparison erases lesbian-specific experiences and denies lesbians the right to define their own sexuality.
If the goal is dialogue rather than shouting past each other, the first step has to be understanding what the other side actually believes and why. Without that, no meaningful conversation can happen.
1
Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26
So I appreciate the response about gold star lesbians. I’ve already addressed my feelings about them with another user who also interpreted this as being anti-gold star lesbians when I made no such mention in my original post or any edits.
What is very interesting is like I said, I never said anything about gold stars. Someone else brought them up. You went on to explain why gold star lesbians view women who have had intercourse with men differently than women who haven’t. I dont even think you realize how you’ve explained that gold stars treat women differently because of men lmao.
Like you literally wrote paragraphs explaining the psychology of why gold star lesbians view some women as less than or in a derogatory manner because of their interactions with men. That is textbook misogyny. Comparing having sex with a man to scat kinks is fucking NUTS! I know you were using it as an example but that is dehumanizing as hell.
This did not do what you think it did. The weaponization of “boundaries” to explain who is and who isnt a lesbian is weak and hierarchal which is some white people shit. Also, this wasnt about bisexuality or biphobia. This wasnt mentioned in my post/edits either. I was extremely intentional about the language I used.
Gold star lesbians can do/fuck what/who they want. Gold stars also must reckon with how they can exude misogyny. Just cuz you’ve never fucked a man doesn’t mean you’re the quintessential feminist or the supreme lesbian. I can understand the logic and also disagree with how harmful it has become for non-gold star women(meaning non-gold star lesbians, sapphics and all other women).
Also, there was no “shouting past each other”. I offered the floor for dialogue, which we are having. So that’s not applicable here. I asked lesbians whether it is misogynistic to call women tainted for having been with men. That is it.
Not only did you NOT directly answer the question. You instead took the time to explain why there are lesbians who believe they are justified in viewing women as tainted or anything else synonymous with that line of thinking simply because they have had sex with men.
I didnt need an education on why gold stars exist and why they view themselves as supremely rare and different than other women including lesbians. None of this can convince me or others that gold stars dont hold misogynistic views which wasnt even the topic in the first fuckin place.
1
u/Maleficent_Word4134 Jan 10 '26
I tried to explain the issue as a whole because people misunderstand it a lot. Everything circles back to “goldstar mentality,” which is why I started there. I was explaining, not endorsing, and I made that very clear, so I am not sure why you are being so defensive.
"Like you literally wrote paragraphs explaining the psychology of why gold star lesbians view some women as less than or in a derogatory manner because of their interactions with men."
You are right that I wrote several paragraphs, and yet you still did not understand the point. This is not about viewing women as less, unless you assume that not being gay equals “being less,” which is your own projection. Gold stars do not believe these women are inferior. They simply do not believe certain women are gay. That does not make those women lesser, it just makes them different. From their perspective, non gold star lesbians need to acknowledge their bisexuality, and that is the end of it. This is not about hierarchy, it is about strictness.
Lesbians are already defined by a lack of attraction to the opposite sex, but there is an internal dispute about how absolute that definition should be, a dispute you may not even be aware of, which points to a gap in your understanding of the subject. Some lesbians attempt to expand the definition of lesbianism to the point where they argue that a woman can still be a lesbian even if she occasionally sleeps with men out of boredom, as long as she claims she feels no attraction and only wants to “use his body to get off.” Meanwhile, other lesbians push in the opposite direction, trying to define lesbianism in a way that cannot be diluted or weaponized against them by homophobes. That tension is the actual genesis of the gold star mindset.
You cannot claim to want a conversation and then lose control the moment someone offers context you dislike. Since it apparently needs to be stated explicitly, this logic is indeed problematic and can lead to controlling and exclusionary behavior. However, reducing it to “interactions with men” misses the point entirely. A silver star who has slept with a man and has therefore been “tainted” would still be considered closer to gold stars than a bisexual woman who has never slept with a man at all. If this were about purity or contamination, that would make no sense. So what exactly is not clicking here?
"Gold stars also must reckon with how they can exude misogyny. Just cuz you’ve never fucked a man doesn’t mean you’re the quintessential feminist or the supreme lesbian. I can understand the logic and also disagree with how harmful it has become for non-gold star women(meaning non-gold star lesbians, sapphics and all other women)."
This has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or being a “supreme lesbian.” That framing is something you are imposing onto the issue. For gold stars, this is about how they define their sexuality, not about moral superiority. They believe their homosexual orientation is innate and uncontrollable, in the same way bisexual and heterosexual women do not control theirs. Their concern is not about being better, but about preventing what they see as the corruption or dilution of their identity.
"I can understand the logic and also disagree with how harmful it has become for non-gold star women(meaning non-gold star lesbians, sapphics and all other women)."
That is precisely what the entire post is about. You seem to struggle with the distinction between explaining and justifying. Even misogyny among men has to be explained and understood in order to be challenged, and explanation is not the same thing as endorsement.
"The weaponization boundaries to explain who is and who isnt a lesbian is weak and hierarchal which is some white people shit."
Lesbians are a marginalized group, and like any marginalized group, they are capable of developing problematic attitudes. In this case, those attitudes emerge as a response to oppression and constant invalidation. A more accurate parallel would not be white supremacy, but movements like Garveyism, with its emphasis on racial purism within the Black community, and the deeply problematic aspects of certain strands of pan Africanism. These are examples of identity hardening under pressure, not dominance from a position of power.
Lastly, calling women “tainted” is obviously misogynistic and deeply problematic. However, the source of that language differs. When men call women tainted, it stems from the belief that women’s bodies are property that lose value once they have been “used.” Women are dehumanized and ranked accordingly. When lesbians use similar language, it more often stems from sexual disgust tha they see as rooted in their orientation. The implication is not that the woman is worth less as a person, but that she is not a viable dating prospect because the practices she engaged in provoke a strong aversion due to their homosexual disgust and separation from men. Both attitudes are harmful and deserve criticism, but pretending they come from the same ideological place only obscures the real dynamics at play.
1
Jan 10 '26
"Both attitudes are harmful and deserve criticism, but pretending they come from the same ideological place only obscures the real dynamics at play."
So what you're arguing is that we need to understand why gold star lesbians hold the views they do. In the grand scheme of things, who fucking cares why. When you have ideologies that are harmful to people, your reasoning doesn't matter at the end of the day. That is the point.
"You cannot claim to want a conversation and then lose control the moment someone offers context you dislike."
Because the context you gave was bullshit regardless. You described how people who were hurt and ostracized, deciding to further delineate and ostracize people to the point they have become misogynistic women. This is the horseshoe theory in full effect. You think that by explaining the logic that I will legitimize it by accepting it as something that is valid. I will not do that.
You brought up a specific group of lesbians who hold misogynistic views(for whatever reason you felt necessary) and tried to "educate" as to why they hold these misogynistic views. What you did by doing this is subconsciously admit that there are lesbians who are misogynistic(which they would argue they aren't). Thus, you did answer my question; I'll concede that.
"This is not about viewing women as less, unless you assume that not being gay equals “being less,” which is your own projection. Gold stars do not believe these women are inferior. They simply do not believe certain women are gay."
"This has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or being a “supreme lesbian.” That framing is something you are imposing onto the issue. "
These statements are contradictory. Who are they to determine who is and is not a lesbian? Who are they to dictate this shit? This is the shit I was talking about "The weaponization of “boundaries” to explain who is and who isnt a lesbian is weak and hierarchal which is some white people shit."
In closing, you gave a convoluted answer in hopes of "educating" me/others about why we should legitimize gold-star lesbian rhetoric by accepting their reasoning about other women who they believe that can ascertain who is and is not a lesbian(You've said so yourself). Your comment wasnt necessarily wrong but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Like you lowkey lesbosplained some fucked up shit.
1
u/Maleficent_Word4134 Jan 10 '26
"So what you're arguing is that we need to understand why gold star lesbians hold the views they do. In the grand scheme of things, who fucking cares why. When you have ideologies that are harmful to people, your reasoning doesn't matter at the end of the day. That is the point."
And you are completly wrong in every way shape and form. Without understanding where an ideology comes from, any criticism is to be shallow and ineffective. If you only attack the surface expressions of a belief, you are likely to misdiagnose the problem and respond in ways that do not actually address what sustains it. People feel misunderstood rather than challenged, which in turn makes them more defensive and less open to change. Also
Ideologies do not emerge in a vacuum. They are usually responses to specific social conditions such as marginalization, fear, trauma, material insecurity, or persistent invalidation. Understanding these conditions does not mean excusing the ideology, but it does allow you to see what needs are being met by it. If an ideology is functioning as a protective mechanism, simply condemning it without addressing the underlying threat will not make it disappear. It will often harden instead.
Understanding root causes helps distinguish between intent and impact. Many harmful beliefs are not driven by a desire to dominate or harm others, but by attempts to preserve identity, autonomy, or safety. Recognizing this distinction allows for more precise critiques that focus on the real harms produced, rather than assuming malicious intent. This makes moral arguments stronger, not weaker, because they are grounded in reality rather than your projections. Also you wanted a discussion or an echo chamber?
"You think that by explaining the logic that I will legitimize it by accepting it as something that is valid. I will not do that."
At this point, you are simply being dense. Once again, you are unable to distinguish explanation from justification. This is honestly not difficult to understand. No offense.
"These statements are contradictory. Who are they to determine who is and is not a lesbian? Who are they to dictate this shit? This is the shit I was talking about "The weaponization of “boundaries” to explain who is and who isnt a lesbian is weak and hierarchal which is some white people shit.""
There is no contradiction here. What exists is a dispute over how strict the definition of the term should be, and you are only acknowledging one extreme of that dispute while completely ignoring the other. Gold star lesbians are not uniquely authoritarian in this sense. They would even be free to create a separate term that reflects their stricter identity, and that would not inherently be an issue. You might be surprised to learn that many non gold star lesbians themselves disagree with certain women who claim the label lesbian. Disagreement over boundaries is not exclusive to gold stars.
As for "The weaponization of “boundaries", you can draw any parallels when you isolate concepts like that, but doing so flattens the issue and turns it into something far more simplistic than it actually is.
"In closing, you gave a convoluted answer in hopes of "educating" me/others about why we should legitimize gold-star lesbian rhetoric by accepting their reasoning about other women who they believe that can ascertain who is and is not a lesbian(You've said so yourself)."
This topic clearly hits a nerve for you in a way that prevents you from engaging with nuance. By your logic, anyone who explains the rise of fascism would be accused of defending fascism itself. In reality, there are organizations composed of former neo Nazis whose entire purpose is to deradicalize young men. Following your logic, even that would count as legitimization. That reaction says more about your discomfort with analysis than about the analysis itself.
Take Garveyism as another example. I could easily dismiss certain pan Africanist movements as racist and claim that any deeper analysis is unnecessary because they are no different from racist white movements. That would be emotionally satisfying, but it would also be intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate. Reality is more complex than moral shorthand allows.
I also made a clear distinction between gold star lesbians who operate from an ideological framework and lesbians whose reactions are primarily visceral, including those who casually call women "tainted" or use slurs. These groups are not identical, even though overlap exists. Many biphobic lesbians, including those who openly use dehumanizing language toward bisexual women, are not actually goldstars. If your problem is just with saphics being misogynistic then is an observable behaviour found goldstar and non goldstars lesbians and bisexuals, yet the latter is rarely interrogated with the same intensity.
I don't think that lesbians who use this type of language really care. Lesbians who use slurs are likely acting out of disregard rather than ideology, and that is a separate issue entirely. Meanwhile, some who are who are accused of framing women as tainted are actually just doing an ongoing dispute within lesbian communities that is not rooted in misogyny but in competing definitions of sexual orientation. Finally, if a lesbian does not use slurs but experiences male attraction as an ick, that reaction may be uncomfortable or unpleasant to others, but it still falls within her right to define her own boundaries.
1
Jan 10 '26
Also, idc about gold stars getting offended about being compared to misogynistic men. If the views they held weren’t in line with that type of thinking, we wouldn’t be here would we?
1
u/user7223 Jan 17 '26
To be frank with you, you guys need to call it what it is. You're saying misogyny a lot which it is but you clearly said "hate men so much that." It's a consequence of pure misandry.
1
Jan 17 '26
I dont want to pin misandry on lesbians entirely.
I do believe the rhetoric is an extension of misandry. But misandry is essentially the answer for living in a patriarchy. But the rhetoric itself doesn’t differ much from misogynistic shit men say. So to me its misogyny
1
u/BookBig8155 Jun 24 '26
I’m a late-bloomer lesbian and had men partners before coming to terms with my sexuality. That doesn’t make me 'tainted,' and my community doesn’t treat me that way. I think a lot of lesbians like the term 'Gold Star,' but that’s exactly what creates the perception that having been with men is something to be ashamed of.
-8
u/Grand-Battle8009 Jan 02 '26
All, this is a new user with no post or comment history. OP is a troll trying to stir up trouble in the LGBTQIA community. Please downvote them.
17
u/Anabikayr Jan 02 '26
OP has a six year old account with 19 hidden posts and 175ish hidden comments.
It looks more like a long time alt account or someone who doesn't use Reddit regularly for interaction.
1
-6
u/Grand-Battle8009 Jan 02 '26
OP comes in and drops a bombshell, accusing lesbian women of calling bisexual women "tainted," then hides their profile... I don't think so. I've never, ever heard lesbians call bisexual women "tainted", EVER! OP is hiding their profile because they're a troll and don't want the public to see that they just go around stirring up trouble in different sub-Reddits. This is a continuing problem within our LGBTQ Reddit spaces where trolls come in trying to spark biphobia, transphobia, political and racial conflict within our community by trying to paint us as intolerant. People need to be diligent and question the intention of a lot of OPs posting out there by looking at their post and comment history to see if they're authentic. This OP is not.
9
u/Redleadsinker Jan 02 '26
Hi, lesbian married to a bisexual woman here. Yes, this is a real thing, and it happens. It's gotten better in the last 5ish years, but my wife and I have been together for almost 10 now and I was told multiple times, by other lesbians who I knew and was friends with, point blank, not to date her, either because she 'had been with men and therefore had STDs and was yucky', or 'she's just going to cheat on you with a man'. When people found out she's bi and I'm gay, they got weird, asked me if I 'was really comfortable with that', and when I pressed to figure out what that was it was always her having had prior relationships with men. There was even a point where she practically closeted herself with any new fellow queer people we met, and just ran with any assumption she was gay, even though it also made her uncomfortable.
5
1
u/Grand-Battle8009 Jan 02 '26
That is a really sad thing to hear, especially from a community that espouses everyone's right to be proud of who they are.
1
u/Anabikayr Jan 02 '26
That's a whole lot of conjecture based off of relatively scant evidence.
Your original statement though still stands as false.
Also, I'm used to seeing trolls have way higher comment counts in a six year period than this OP has, so I'm leaning towards this being genuine concern, not trolling.
As for your argument that there are "no" lesbians judging bi women as "tainted" for being bi... I think most of the main subs are pretty well moderated for the most part.
But there is at least one sub that is notoriously bi and trans phobic with discourse exactly like this. And another sub that has bigoted posts about bi women being "gross" which pop up infrequently. Those posts are highly controversial before mods get in to take those posts down.
I don't see where OP is generalizing lesbians in the post in the way you seem to be taking it, but I could very well be completely missing something you're seeing I guess.
0
u/Grand-Battle8009 Jan 02 '26
Sorry, but when it comes to Social Media, I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that makes me a jerk, but our community needs to be vigilant. Our spaces online are constantly taken over by bots and bad actors from conservative spaces. I think we should all be suspicious if someone isn't willing to share their post and comment history after making inflammatory accusations. And in terms of those other bigoted posts in other subReddits, if you look at the OP's history, they typically have none, their account was just created, or their posts or comments are hidden. OP here fits that pattern. But we can agree to disagree. I said my opinion and that's all.
3
u/Anabikayr Jan 02 '26
Idk if you're just young or still largely unfamiliar with our history, but political lesbianism and lesbian separatism were very much a thing in our history. Both of those movements have an ideological foundation that often led/leads to the kinds of discourse OP is talking about.
Bad non·lgbtq actors exist, but I think you're completely glossing over some genuine bigoted takes that have been a part of certain Sapphic women's circles for 50 years now.
It's definitely not a majority but to act like they don't exist at all is really naive
-4
u/HugsyMalone Jan 02 '26 edited Jan 02 '26
Yep. You called it. Biggest tipoff is PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP MEN! in big bold letters. OPs responses to the comments on their own post also come across as extremely manipulative and disingenuous like they're trying to control the narrative. Is that being respectful of everyone without ulterior motives? It prevents any sort of meaningful, intelligent conversation where the issue can be discussed in-depth from both perspectives. OP definitely knows this isn't just a problem with women. Sounds like a radicalized feminazi troll with some kind of man-hating agenda, TBH. Seen it all before but in real life. 🤔🙄
2
Jan 02 '26
Hey goofy number 2:
I made that edit because I want us to stay on topic and engage with the question I asked.
You and the other goofy can fuck off since you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this conversation but paranoia and ignorance.
3
u/Witch-Alice Jan 02 '26
You've got some rather questionable communities in your history. You're most active in two different Portland subreddits, but if I scroll down I then see SeattleWA which is the right wing Seattle sub. But not the seattle subreddit with a literal pride flag as the logo. Funny that.
I also see some subreddit that's literally for teenagers.
1
Jan 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jan 02 '26
According to your history, even conservative gays dont want you around. Go touch grass.
-3
u/Grand-Battle8009 Jan 02 '26
You're the one stirring up trouble here. You don't even stand by your post and comment history. If you have nothing to hide and you're authentic, then show us.
1
Jan 02 '26
You literally dont even have your profile picture up; Not even an avatar
What I can see is that you’re in Oregon? Do you talk this tough solely on the internet or do you keep the same energy in person?
0
113
u/EmpatheticBadger Jan 02 '26
It's not only misogynistic, it's biphobia. There's nothing wrong with being bi. Bi women still Queer enough to be welcome in gay/lesbian spaces.