In the evolution of language in the queer community, few phrases have been adopted as quickly (and with as little critical examination) as non-men loving non-men (nmlnm) and non-women loving non-women (nwlnw). Often presented as the ‘inclusive’ definitions of lesbian and gay, these definitions instead create a whole new set of problems and solve non-existent problems. A Note on Scope: While this article will focus its critique on the nwlnw definition of ‘gay,’ it is important to note that nearly all the criticisms raised here apply equally to the nmlnm definition of ‘lesbian.’ To put it simply, these definitions suck. The first and most obvious reason is that it defines people on who they are not and who they are not attracted to. Sure, a binary homosexual man is not a woman and is not attracted to women, yes, but his identity isn’t based on that omission; its based on his love of men while being a man. Furthermore, this opens up a question on what it actually means to be a “non-woman”. Specifically, does “non-woman” refer to the presence of a non-female gender, or to the absence of womanhood? This may sound silly, but I can personally attest, myself being active in many bigendered spaces, to seeing men who love men told they cannot be gay because they are also women — and gay means “non-woman”. Then, ‘non-woman’ does not refer to the presence of manhood or another non-female gender — this definition of ‘gay’ does not refer to men who love men — it refers to those who are not women who do not love women. This leads me to my next point: inclusivity. Some argue that these definitions are “more inclusive” towards enben. I find that laughable. I have already mentioned its exclusion of bigender individuals, but the entire definition also hinges on the idea that anyone not male(-aligned) is female(-aligned), and that anyone not female(-aligned) is male(-aligned). The inclusion is entirely superficial. These definitions give no consideration at all to enban that are neither male-aligned nor female-aligned. Under these definitions, an abinary or unaligned enban who is attracted to enben of the same nature is both a lesbian and a gay man. They were not even an afterthought; they weren’t a thought at all. If an enban considers themselves gay, then they consider their attraction to men to be homosexual. They love men as a man love men; there is no need to change the definition. If an enban considers themselves straight (or strayt), toric, or diamoric, defining ‘gay’ as being a ‘non-woman’ forces enben under an umbrella that they may find dysphoric or simply not accurate to their experience. So, where does this leave us? The “non-woman loving non-woman” definition is not the inclusive upgrade it pretends to be. It is a regressive step that locks our identities in ‘nots’. It tells a bigender person they can’t be gay, it forces an unaligned enban into a binary box, and it tells every gay man that his identity is fundamentally about the absence of womanhood, rather than the presence of his love for men. The solution is not to contort our definitions into a one-size-fits-all formula, but to embrace the diversity of gay and lesbian experience itself. We must move beyond definitions that center absence, and return to a understanding of “gay” that trusts people to define the homosexual nature of their own attraction.
