It seems double-think to us because of the structure of the social categories we fit those characteristics in. But this is a point where I can see the usefulness of a Foucaultian analysis of sexual identities. Identities are complex and composed of bundles of characteristics. Those characteristics can be bundled in other ways just as easily to slice up the social space into entirely different chunks. A number of papers in the volume I covered on lesbians in the 18th century look very closely into the specific features in the "romantic friendship" bundle that could provoke social disapproval, even while the "basic bundle" remained admirable.
Western social disapproval of women who "acted like men" is a very persistent strain, but it was not always assumed to include "had sex with women" by default.
And the relationship between sex, erotic desire, and romantic attraction is a constant complicating factor in tracing the historic roots of our modern "lesbian feature bundle" where the three are assumed to be inextricably linked. Consider, for example, the anxiety over trying to claim particular historic individuals as "lesbian" when the determining feature is considered to be whether of not they had sexual interactions with women (leaving aside the definition of "sexual interactions"). There has often been a tendency on the one side to say, "This woman clearly had romantic and erotic attachments to women, therefore she was a lesbian, therefore she must have had sex with women" and on the other side to say, "We have no direct evidence that this woman had sex with other women, therefor she was not a lesbian, therefore the romantic and erotic desire she had for women is not a feature of lesbianism and those characteristics can't be used to claim someone for the lesbian team."
All of this is one of the big reasons the LHMP isn't really about identifying historic people or acts as "lesbian" (even though it's a very convenient shorthand in context), but rather about identifying historic features that (modern) fiction can use as lesbian signifiers.
no subject
Western social disapproval of women who "acted like men" is a very persistent strain, but it was not always assumed to include "had sex with women" by default.
And the relationship between sex, erotic desire, and romantic attraction is a constant complicating factor in tracing the historic roots of our modern "lesbian feature bundle" where the three are assumed to be inextricably linked. Consider, for example, the anxiety over trying to claim particular historic individuals as "lesbian" when the determining feature is considered to be whether of not they had sexual interactions with women (leaving aside the definition of "sexual interactions"). There has often been a tendency on the one side to say, "This woman clearly had romantic and erotic attachments to women, therefore she was a lesbian, therefore she must have had sex with women" and on the other side to say, "We have no direct evidence that this woman had sex with other women, therefor she was not a lesbian, therefore the romantic and erotic desire she had for women is not a feature of lesbianism and those characteristics can't be used to claim someone for the lesbian team."
All of this is one of the big reasons the LHMP isn't really about identifying historic people or acts as "lesbian" (even though it's a very convenient shorthand in context), but rather about identifying historic features that (modern) fiction can use as lesbian signifiers.