Lesbian Children are NOT Girls-How Hetero-Sociology Ignores Lesbians (part 1 of 3)

In my post last week I discussed how linking the symbol for Female with another symbol for Female does not equal Lesbian, it merely denoted two Females of any sexual orientation together:
Taking the next step in this post, I'll discuss how the HETERO sex categories of Girl and Woman have lead to centuries of discomfort, dysphoria, pathology and transition (Trans Trending) for Lesbians.

A well known, but until now unexplained commonality among Lesbians (no matter the variety) is feeling different from our earliest memories. Something that goes well beyond not merely fitting in with kids our own age. Our different is SO different, that as children (teens/adults even) we cannot locate ourselves anywhere. We are told we're girls, but nowhere among girls do we exist. This is often something that is pigeon holed as only occurring among Girls who are tomboys or baby Dykes or baby Butches, but the truth is, it occurs among ALL Lesbians, even the girliest of Dykes.Why? The simple answer is because we're Lesbians, but what does that really mean beyond attraction?

The very thing that makes us Lesbian is discussed somewhere between rarely and never and that thing is our brain, singular. We do not need two females or even two Lesbians, to be Lesbian. Lesbian isnt an action, Lesbian is a noun. Our Lesbianism was mapped out as soon as our father's sperm met our mother's egg. And based on that gene map, our Lesbianism, with each trimester created us accordingly. Thats the dry clinical simplistic breakdown of Lesbian, but how does that translate in the world as we know it for Lesbians?

One does not have to be a child psychologist to know that behavioural differences among general heterosexual males and heterosexual females is recognizable in infants/babies. As Lesbians, we've all been told childhood stories by our mothers/fathers and other family how we werent ever like normal girls. How we were more action oriented than Girls, more interested in how our toys worked rather than the toys themselves. Not doll or baby doll crazy. Crawled/walked before our sisters or girl relatives. Were either fine with playing alone or preferred it. More maverick than mainstream. Mrs Dirt for example, preferred girly little dresses, but her maverick behaviour for climbing trees or over barbed wire fences forced her mother to put her into pants more often than she would have liked. Girliness or lack there of (per heterosexual norms) does not define the Lesbian, but having a Lesbian brain does Re-define/unhinge girliness or lack thereof  (per heterosexual norms) in Lesbian children. 

It is this doing Girl differently that sets Lesbian children apart from Girls. We as Lesbian children know we're different and once around Girls our age, we know they know it! Usually by age three, Lesbians (no matter the variety) do not comfortably identify with the category Girl. Girls may resemble us, Girls may even dress like us, but we know they are not us. Girls do not simply confuse boys, Girls confuse Lesbian children as well, a pattern of behaviour that doesnt change as Girls age!

Some general but accurate early observations every dyke has noticed about Girls by age five at the latest:
  • Girls generally get upset quite easily.
  • Girls seem always to be upset about something.
  • Girls are catty about other girls.
  • Girls often tattle to authority figures.
  • Girls are indirect about their feelings.
  • Girls get horribly jealous over friendships with other girls.
  • Girls act silly or odd around boys.
And all this up to a decade before puberty generally hits. Lesbian children are often stumped/confused by the odd (to us) behaviour of Girls and most of us by school age do not feel we are Girls-because we effectively after all, are not-we are Lesbians.

Some general but accurate truisms about Lesbian children:
  • Lesbian children are not easily riled.
  • Lesbian children miss a lot of spoken and unspoken messages/rules Girls apply to other Girls.
  • Lesbian children do not often confine their friendships/interests to Girls or Boys. 
  • In the same token, Lesbian children feel they do not fit into  either category of Girl or Boy. 
  • Lesbian children say what they mean and mean what they say.
  • Lesbian children lack adequate language for their feelings and behaviour. 
  • Lesbian children tend to be more independent. 
  • Lesbian children often question social rules/concepts or outright ignore them.
When Lesbian children do play with Girls, we are often (no matter the girliness of the dyke) asked to play an action role by Girls rather than a passive role. Even in a group of new Girls, Lesbian children are often regarded by Girls as someone who is a helper, and when Boys are not present, even with Girls we do not know, Lesbian children are expected to play the role of Daddy/Husband. This relegation to male roles (husband/helper/helpmate) increases Lesbian children's confusion and discomfort with the category Girl.

It also signifies to Lesbian children that we are in fact NOT Girls:
  1. Because Lesbian children know the category Girl does not adequately describe us/fit us. 
  2. Because Girls never fully accept Lesbian children as one of their own.
  3. Because Girls view/treat Lesbian children as alien or other.
This wrongful identification, lack of understanding and blind heterosexual assumption of Lesbian children, beginning with parents/legal guardians set Lesbian children squarely in the locomotive path of confusion. Lesbian children are born with an intrinsic Lesbian esoteric sense of self untranslatable into language, since all known languages are heterosexually created/driven. Despite language's lack or absence, for natural purposes of survival, Lesbians can recognize each other. Our innate ability to pick out/pick up on other Lesbians/Lesbian children (mirroring) is another chapter in Lesbian children not seeing ourselves in Girls. In the same token, Girls do not see themselves in us.

It is a gargantuan disservice to label Lesbian children Girls. Girl implies much more than simply the clothes worn or toy preference, it specifically delineates heterosexuality and the schema that goes along with. Lesbian children are NOT heterosexual, therefore Lesbian children by nature are not Girls. Girl is the first (in a long line) of experiences Lesbian children undergo with mental and some cases physical discomfort. An uncomfortableness that is nameless, because as Lesbian children we are nameless.

This is the first post in a three part series I am writing to help Lesbians be better understood, to help Lesbians better understand themselves in a heterosexually dominated world and to give a voice to the namelessness that begins in Lesbian childhood and is now haunting Lesbians into transition rather than inspiring Lesbian survival as had in previous centuries.



  1. Great post. What are the differences between Lesbian children and Boys?

    1. Different sex, so wouldn't be applicable to this series. (Answering for Dirt, who is busy so can't answer right now). :-)

  2. I'm a heterosexual and don't identify with your list of behaviours attributed to girls. I identify much more with your list attributed to lesbians. I hope this is helpful in your research x

  3. I am a parent to both a young daughter and a young son I can honestly say that I disagree with you.

    There are no behavioural differances between my two children. We are trying very hard not to force them into any gender stereotypes. The differences between boy and girls are forced onto them because of social constructs, not genetics or biology.

    The roles forced upon little boys and girls are again done based on societal norms and not necessarily based on what a child naturally wants.

    If no one ever told a little girl that she is supposed to be the mama or that a little boy is supposed to like mud and trucks the they would never learn to expect that.

    1. Your two children do not represent the majority of children in the entire world from insertion then. And where do you think social "norms" sprout? The moon? The sun? STRAIGHT PEOPLE!

      And based on this comment alone, your son is a little homo.


    2. I don't know how old your children are, but anyone who has ever observed preschool (and older) children on a playground, at a birthday party, or in any other unstructured, unsupervised setting, can immediately tell the differences in play between girls and boys. To deny that there are basic differences between the sexes is to deny the actual reality of who your children are, and therefore, is unfair to both of your children. Children are just blobs you can turn into whatever you choose to be politically correct. If that were true that we are all just malleable blobs, John Money's experiment would have worked. It didn't. It failed miserably. I am not saying that most people aren't, to varying extents, affected by societal norms, but I am saying that basic differences between the sexes are, in fact, biological and real, and anyone who denies that is living in feminist lala-land.

    3. Well on the other hand, you don't have children and you're not around their daily lives. Observing children at a birthday party or a playgound is all well and good but it's not the whole story.

    4. Due to Mrs Dirt's recent surgery I'm answering on her behalf:

      "I never said it was the whole story, did I? But it doesn't need to be the whole story anyway; because it doesn't take a parent (or a professional) to use your eyes, brain, and basic common sense to ascertain the truth. And needless to say, a school psychologist and an active aunt I AM around children every day!"

    5. I am a lesbian adult who was a young child with an opposite-sex sibling, and I do agree with your observations, Dirt. I wasn't exposed to gender stereotypes -- how could I be? My father stayed home and cooked and cleaned and my mother went out and ran her own business. I grew up wearing gender-neutral colors and playing with toys that were for any child. But, differences between my brother and I became huge around age 7 for him. I was always just me and continued on the same trend. But, he started getting this strange obsession with his body functions -- farts, boogers, naked butts. It was pretty much as if he were enamored with anything offensive his own body could produce. He'd subject me to them and revel in how it gave him some strange sense of power. It was disgusting and never anything that I did. My father was really nothing like this, mind you -- so he didn't get it there. I continued on my independent trend of playing alone, trying to ignore him, and running, climbing trees, and biking. As he got older, he became more imposing. Now, whenever he talks, he yells (he's in his 20s now). He does not have any understanding of how to have a two-sided conversation. He'll just dump things on you and leave. If he doesn't like something you did, he'll say nasty, degrading things to you. And, talking things out, or working anything out is not in his repertoire. He's extremely disrespectful and imposing. He has sub-par intelligence but still seemed to end up as some ugly caricature of 'alpha male.' Even after we were both raised in a pretty gender neutral setting. My father was a weak person and he was pretty mean, but he was never anywhere close to the imposing, entitled, fundamentally disrespectful 'alpha' my brother turned out to be. -- And, please note that when I use that term, it's absolutely not a compliment. If he's on top of anyone or anything, it's because he disrespected other people. That's nothing to be proud of.

      So, while I'm not sure if these sex differences are innate, if they're not, I'd sure wonder where the heck they came from. Because I can't think of one person in our immediate or extended family who could've provided a model for his behavior. Maybe it was kids at school, but I never remember him having close friends at age 7. So, even there, there seems to be some gap. Very odd...

    6. Anonymous - how strongly we believed what you apparently still believe, and how ardently we wished it to be true! The children of my feminist, lesbian and gay friends, and my own stepson, are all grown up now. It's a small sample, 12 that I can think of, 8 girls and 4 boys. They are not remarkably different from their contemporaries, and, despite our best anti-sexist parenting, neither was their behaviour in childhood. It's true they seem more open and tolerant than my own contemporaries were at their age (20s now), but I think that's true of their generation in general. To our consternation, the boys all behaved in the bizarre, inexplicable ways that boys do (as a proto-faggot, I was never a boy myself, of course).

      I don't want to underplay the role of sexist expectation and societal pressure, but I think what that does is take biologically existing behaviour differences and magnify them to the point almost of parody, whereas we might rather seek to mitigate and "tone down" those differences; it needs some "raw material" to work on. I'm hard put to think of any mammalian species in which there are NOT marked behavioral differences between males and females. Why should we be different? It's true that as rational beings we are in some sense called upon to "rise above" our mere biology, but we can't do that by simply denying or ignoring it.

      You don't say how young your daughter and son are, I'm guessing pre-pubertal. I hope you won't be too shocked or surprised by the hard lesson that all parents have to learn, that we have remarkably little control of what kind of adults our children grow into. The most we can hope to do is make their journey toward becoming who they are "called to be" a little easier. It's never easy, nor is it "meant" to be, so it's largely a negative role of not putting extra obstacles in their path. We all do far too much "parenting" these days. If we could manage it, we should treat our children like our house or garden plants: feed them, water them, watch them grow (-:

  4. "Climbing trees or over barbed wire fences" Wow! Call me a smother-dad, but if our son had shown any inclination to climb barbed wire, we'd have had him on a very short leash, probably literally!
    But that may just be because I was never a "Boy". Your thoughts are both interesting and true, in my opinion, and require no endorsement on my part; it just so happens that they chime with mine, as a faggot.

  5. lesbians are female homoesexuals
    YOU don't know JACK about LESBIANS or GIRLS or FEMALES
    lesbians are female homosexuals
    to say otherwise is cultural appropriation at it's finest
    have a good life but make up your own words
    a girl is a female child
    a woman is an adult female
    a lesbian is a female homosexual
    it's really quite easy

  6. Silver, it is unclear who you are talking to, and unclear what your point is. If you are talking to Dirt, Dirt is definitely NOT "erasing lesbians". Duh!

  7. I dunno how much of this is universal and inherent and how much of it is due to the bizarre American practice of imposing extreme gender roles on small children while simultaneously raising them in mixed sex environments. The intense distinction between boys and girls in childhood might not actually be as "natural" as people raised like this tend to think it is. In cultures which don't separate children by sex, but where pre-pubescent children are not socialized to believe that some clothes, some activities, some toys are for girls and some are for boys, children think of themselves more as children and less as girls/boys and don't sort out by sex as strongly - they still do it to a certain extent but it's not as intense, boys and girls play together. In single sex environments - well I can tell you from my own experience, there is no "girl" behavior because there is nothing but girls, girls are the norm.

    I don't want to deny your experience here and I hear you saying that lesbian childhood is a different experience from girlhood and I wouldn't know, but I do think it's possible that some of this is a result of typical American upbringing - mixed sex education and intense indoctrination as to appropriate sex role behavior - which aren't actually universal.

    1. Exactly, you wouldnt know. Forrest for the trees.


    2. You don't know very much about living with children though. "Active aunt" and "school psychologist" isn't being a parent and it also isn't observing children in non-North American, mainstream, public school cultures. This whole intense division between girls and boys and policing of who can do, wear, and be interested in what isn't actually universal.

      I'm totally willing to believe that there are basic bio differences between lesbian and nonlesbian girls - or nonmature female humans if you object to the word "girl" - but that list of characteristics of girls - emotionally labile, jealous over female friendship, easily upset, tattling - is completely alien to me and I spent my entire childhood in a single sex school. It's cultural. You had a particular kind of upbringing in a particular place with a particular kind of socialization. Maybe little lesbians are always going to be super different from nonlesbian girls no matter what. It could be. Lesbians are rare and it's hard to say. I do think you should consider that the intensity of the difference you felt however was due more to the intense sex role socialization present in your culture, socialization which nonlesbians complied with more easily, but which in a different cultural environment would have simply been absent, so that the differences between little lesbian females and little nonlesbian females would not have been a big deal, just like the differences between boys and girls aren't a big deal in cultures that don't make them a big deal.

    3. Anonymous February 4, 2017 at 4:32 AM:

      I do know a lot about children, adolescents, and people in general, but I have no desire to argue with you about it.

      You don't know me, and you clearly think (in typical heterosexually-privileged fashion) that breeders know more than non-breeders.

      I don't have to pop a kid out of my vagina to know what I am talking about, and the assumption that giving birth makes someone better (or more knowledgeable) is offensive.

      The ONLY qualification for being a biological "parent" is for an egg to meet a sperm, and that certainly doesn't make a woman who chooses to bring additional humans into an (already overpopulated!!) world smarter than anyone else who chooses not to.

      So give that argument a rest, because it isn't going to fly here.

      Furthermore, your anti-American bullshit is ludicrous. To assume that ALL Americans are egocentric and naive enough to think the "American" way is the only way is just as ignorant as the actual Americans who DO think that our way is the only way. I have spent extensive time in Europe, as well as traveled to other places, and I am fully aware that there are cultural differences; but to say that there aren't any differences between the sexes, or between lesbians and straight females, in other cultures is not only incorrect, but also you are totally missing the point of Dirt's post.

      Bottom line, stop with your hetsplaining. We are NOT saying that socialization isn't a real thing, and we are NOT saying that there aren't exceptions to every rule, but we ARE saying that there are indeed basic differences between Lesbians and straight females, outside of and regardless of all the arguments you are trying to make.

    4. Thank you for proving my points. Your Het privilege is not merely showing, its raging. Straight people are not the only ones who have/raise children, Lesbians do so also. Presuming Lesbian parents are not REAL parents or our experiences are limited highlights your heterosexual brain function as outlined in this post.

      Straight culture exists in EVERY culture, it isnt something magically American and heterosexuality (straight brains) functions in every culture similarly as it can only naturally do. Even in higher functioning animals, heterosexual animals function no so dissimilar to their straight female counter parts, that you cannot see that in the MAJORITY signifies you cannot see the Het forest for the straight trees. While there are straight brained exceptions in nerdy girls, they are just that, exceptions.

      But hey, thanks for trying to invalidate Lesbianism with your STRAIGHT(bian?) privilege. NOT!


    5. "Being a parent" doesn't give us some magic insight denied to other mortals. As your children grow a little older, you may meet the day when everybody seems to know and understand them better than you do. I hope you're prepared for that, but it sounds like you have a lot of growing up to do yourself in the meantime.

      Like you, I attended a single-sex school, as did my sister. If you imagine, as you seem to imply, that such environments are oases of egalitarianism, then either you had an extremely fortunate childhood, or really do live in your own la-la land.

      I'm not much given to taking offense on my own behalf, but I do take offense at your implication that Saye, who has had time and experience to forget more about children and young people than you and I ever had the opportunity to learn, is somehow less qualified than us - or perhaps just less qualified than you? Maybe you think I love and care less about my son because I didn't squeeze him out of my body?

      Loving and caring are great things, that's our job. Knowing, understanding, interpreting - those are different things. Great if we're good at them too, but they aren't really in our "job-description" as parents.

  8. Wow, that was a fabulous post. So true -- and it's wonderful to feel so understood. The only thing that didn't seem to fit to me was this: "Lesbian children say what they mean and mean what they say." -- Because that applies perfectly to me, but not a single girlfriend I've ever had. Now, trust me when I say that I WISH it had applied to them. But, sadly, no. While there was one who I'm pretty sure was bisexual, another definitely wasn't and she still did not fit that description at all. I guess it's an unfortunate individual variation...?

    1. Thanks Blue and thanks for your input.


  9. Yes! I have long maintained there are boys, girls and lesbians. I know you're talking about younger kids, but I really felt this in college, not long after I came out (probably around 20 y.o.). I used to go out to the one gay bar (with mixed gender clientele) in town with my gay male best buddy every Saturday night, and we would dance and flirt and scope out the folks we thought were cute (men for him, dykes for me). One weekend, we decided we were bored with the same music, the same people, the same bar, so we decided to go to another dance club popular with (straight) college students. Well, he was in heaven, drooling over all the jock-y dudes there, but I was like...wow, there is not one single cute woman here at all. And I realized in that moment that men were men were men, but women and lesbians were completely different animals, even if we had similar bodies. I just wasn't one of them, I felt that very clearly, and not b/c of how anyone specifically treated me. He had a great time that night, and I was like "can we just go now?" The next week, it was back to the queer bar for me and I appreciated it so much more after that.

    1. How deeply hurtful. You have Triggered me outrageously, and I must rush away to my Safe Space. "There are boys, girls and lesbians." Where are the fags? I'm not talking about your boozy-croozy pal "drooling over all the jock-y dudes", but about faggot-loving faggots like me. Great that real lezzers are re-asserting themselves, but throw us a crust, milady!

  10. I can accept that there is a genetic spectrum of genders beyond the two we primarily recognise. What I object to is your negative and dismissive tone/statements regarding 'girls'. It makes you sound like a sexist, misogynist, XY expressing the traditional derision that Patriarchal culture holds towards XX's. This perpetuates the attitude problem you are attempting to counter by redirecting it's target. I appreciate frustration and anger, but that is not constructive. Why?

    1. Alexandra, you're simply wrong about a "genetic spectrum of genders". Humanity, like other mammals, is a sexually dimorphic species. The existence of rare individuals with variant chromosome configurations (XXY, XYY, XXXX... ) does not justify a "spectrum of genders" model any more than we would be justified in describing the quadruped species of bovines as "a species with a variable number of legs" because occasionally calves are born with three of five limbs. We may indeed choose to socially recognize more than two genders, and there are historical precedents for that, but let's be clear that that's a social/political choice, not something rooted in biology.
      Regarding the second part of you comment, I didn't read Dirt's remarks as being as "negative and dismissive" as you did, but I suspect other readers can argue that with you more productively than I.

    2. I should clarify what I put badly: it should be 'a genetic spectrum of expression of genders...' by which I mean this:

      Two genders, XX & XY, yes, absolutely and that is it. Scientific fact.

      But when cell division occurs it is not always exact. At the far end of the scale are Turner's and Kleinfelters Syndromes - not common at all, but they happen. Tiny, tiny variations in information at the point of chromosome division could very easily explain the so-called boyishness and effeminate qualities of lesbains/gays.

      There was a superb program in the States on this potential of cell variation during meiosis and the resulting differences in gental appearance about twelve years ago - the program wasn't referring to gender and its expressional variations but just the visual physical effects - that the numbers of children born not having instantly identifiable 'perfect' genitals according to XX/XY was massively more common than ever previously thought.

      This has now become a much more accepted mainstream concern and directly relates to the whole trans phenomenon. (The program was science based, not opinion based but sadly I have no memory of the title) It seems pretty logical to extrapolate on the possibilities of minor variations resulting in a spectrum of sexual preference. Hopefully I made my opinion a little clearer, that I do see it as a socio/political choice but with this in the background adding the weight as to why those choices are made.

      To my second point: Check the tone of the list of statements below...

      Girls generally get upset quite easily. - Negative
      Girls seem always to be upset about something. - Negative
      Girls are catty about other girls. - Negative
      Girls often tattle to authority figures. - Negative
      Girls are indirect about their feelings. - Negative/Neutral
      Girls get horribly jealous over friendships with other girls. - Negative
      Girls act silly or odd around boys. - Negative
      Lesbian children are not easily riled. - Positive
      Lesbian children miss a lot of spoken and unspoken messages/rules Girls apply to other Girls. - Neutral
      Lesbian children do not often confine their friendships/interests to Girls or Boys. - Positive
      In the same token, Lesbian children feel they do not fit into either category of Girl or Boy. - Neutral
      Lesbian children say what they mean and mean what they say. - Positive
      Lesbian children lack adequate language for their feelings and behaviour. - Neutral
      Lesbian children tend to be more independent. - Positive
      Lesbian children often question social rules/concepts or outright ignore them. - Positive bent
      I am not going to go through the articles with a highlighter pen, but the list above was a pretty damning.


Missing Person Kristin Snyder: Lost in a Sea of Myths Pt 4

Next up in our series on the The Lost Women of NXIVM mockumentary is Joseph O’Hara of Albany, NY. O'Hara was an attorney who worked fo...