The meaningful difference between 'gay' and 'lesbian'?

[Module]

Gay does not mean specifically male homosexuality, and gay men are called 'gay men' rather than the term 'gay' also encompassing their gender,
But for homosexual women they have the specific term 'lesbian'.
I have tried Googling the answer to why this is, but haven't really had much success besides one discussion page where some comments from gay women saying that they consider 'lesbian' to be more of a political term, whilst 'gay' just referred to the sexual orientation in itself (or something along those lines).
Why do you think that gay women are seen (by the rest of society or by themselves) as politically separate from gay men?
There are no gender specific terms for heterosexual men and women, obviously, so why is it the case that being gay and a woman is seen as being a specific sexual (and political) identity?

Edit: For the record, to maybe establish the way I'm looking at this question, it was this dodgy little comment that prompted me to start this thread;
I meant that as in I am accepting of homosexual men, but still need to work through being ok with lesbian women. It will happen, I just don't think I'm there yet. Obviously this doesn't directly deal with the term 'gay', but is probably a good example about how even being just 'homosexual' and being a 'lesbian' are not considered the same thing, socio-culturally.
(And for the record I think that male and female homosexuality both 'challenge the status quo' in some very different ways!)

[Junius]

I'd say that the term 'lesbian' is more politically charged because it involves women, by definition, 'denying' sex to men which is seen as subversive to patriarchy and so on, more so than homosexual men, since heterosexual men, funnily enough, don't want to have sex with other men. To put it simply, one homosexual man doesn't prevent a heterosexual man from having sex with another woman. A lesbian, on the other hand, does (i.e. isn't sexually active with men).


Originally posted by Desrumeaux
And for the record I think that male and female homosexuality both 'challenge the status quo' in some very different ways! Err, in the sense that they idealistically 'challenge' patriarchy which is fairly fundamental to capitalism. But they certainly don't challenge capitalism. And if you see the fundamental nature of capitalism as the main 'enforcer' of patriarchy, then it follows that to really oppose patriarchy necessarily involves being anti-capitalist.

Does support for legalizing drugs 'challenge the status quo.' Maybe in the sense that it challenges the 'protestant' work ethic (i.e. work hard, abstain from things which damange your working capaicty). It might make workers less efficient and less caught up in the spectacle of capitalism, but it doesn't really challenge their exploitation.

So I don't think its a serious challenge to the 'status quo', since homosexuality is the non-majority sexuality, whereas the working class makes up the substantial part of society and have a unique place based on their economic relations which doesn't relate to their sexuality at all. And I think feminists who try to turn a sexuality into a political position are missing the whole point of destroying discrimination.

[apathy maybe]

While at high school I never understood why all the boys would object to other boys being "gay". After all, if that boy were gay, it would mean that they aren't in "competition" for the girls.

Alas, people aren't swayed by "logic", and they continued to insult.

[Kukulofori]

Why is beer a masculine noun in Greek while wine is feminine?

Sometimes stuff just happens and doesn't mean anything.

[Module]

Err, in the sense that they idealistically 'challenge' patriarchy which is fairly fundamental to capitalism. But they certainly don't challenge capitalism. And if you see the fundamental nature of capitalism as the main 'enforcer' of patriarchy, then it follows that to really oppose patriarchy necessarily involves being anti-capitalist.

Does support for legalizing drugs 'challenge the status quo.' Maybe in the sense that it challenges the 'protestant' work ethic (i.e. work hard, abstain from things which damange your working capaicty). It might make workers less efficient and less caught up in the spectacle of capitalism, but it doesn't really challenge their exploitation.

So I don't think its a serious challenge to the 'status quo', since homosexuality is the non-majority sexuality, whereas the working class makes up the substantial part of society and have a unique place based on their economic relations which doesn't relate to their sexuality at all. And I think feminists who try to turn a sexuality into a political position are missing the whole point of destroying discrimination.By 'challenging the status quo' I obviously mean challenging and changing social norms, gender roles, which the cultural acceptance and influence of homosexuality does and has done. But again this is a matter of degree, regardless.
No form of hetero/sexism, racism etc. is a 'fundamental' part of the capitalist system, but social inequality is generally the inevitable product of economic inequality.
If you want to continue this discussion, please start a new thread.

[Black Dagger]

Why do you think that gay women are seen (by the rest of society or by themselves) as politically separate from gay men?

Well historically speaking gay female activists have organised a lot autonomously - that is separate from gay men - because of the huge cross-over between politically conscious lesbians and feminism (esp rad fem). Of course there has always been 'all in' gay lib struggle, encompassing men, women - gay, bi and trans folks - and i think this is probably a much stronger tendency today, particularly around the issue of same-sex marriage for example. But there is def a history of lesbian feminism, which makes distinctions between gay folks on the basis of gender (not in the sense that it advocates discrimination, but in terms of political struggle, goals, attitudes etc.)



so why is it the case that being gay and a woman is seen as being a specific sexual (and political) identity?

It certainly is odd, and there is a lot of this sort of stuff surrounding queer issues - like the usage of homosexual vs. gay vs. queer vs. lesbian etc. I remember when i asked a friend of mine why she identified as a lesbian and not as a gay woman, she said it was because 'gay' is associated predominantly with men - and so she felt 'lesbian' was more fitting for her. That doesn't explain why this gendered distinction has occurred, but perhaps a little about why it continues, the whole 'gay' = male, 'lesbian' = female, 'gayness' is gendered thing. That too has historical roots, as for a long time gay women didn't really 'exist' - there were men who enjoyed the company of men (something to be kept on the down low), but two women? This is reflected strongly in the archaic anti-sodomy laws - that there is a raft of anti-male homosexuality laws globally, but comparatively fewer anti-female homosexuality laws says something about the low visibility of gay women in socio-cultural terms for a long time - patriarchy - and about how homosexuality was regarded predominantly male practice. That probably has something to do with the marginalising of women in patriarchal society generally.

[apathy maybe]

Another nugget to inject into the conversation:

In Britain as I understand it, homosexuality between two women was never outlawed, but only between men (though anal sex between a man and a women was also outlawed).

Also, if you have a look at the bible, I believe it doesn't mention sex between two women, but only men (I could be wrong, but I don't recall any quotations condemning sex between two women).

A couple of possibly useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_Against_the_Person_Act#Unnatural_offences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_of_1885

[Black Dagger]

Yup yup, good examples of what i was saying - thanks :)

[Pawn Power]

Also, if you have a look at the bible, I believe it doesn't mention sex between two women, but only men (I could be wrong, but I don't recall any quotations condemning sex between two women).


That's because the bible was written by men. They probably didn't even know sex between women existed.

[Demogorgon]

The separate word for lesbians seems to be a linguistic quirk, it comes from the Greek myth about the island of Lesbos, you get such things in language sometimes.

Incidentally, people from the real island of Lesbos are also called Lesbians. Needless to say, this has led to some degree of amusement.