Urgh--I just wrote a terrific post and lost it; urgh.

Wee recap: how write--sing!--woman (eeky singular, I agree) without singing heterosexism.  Can one?  No, not one; can we; will that we always be a wee one?

Homo-hetero divide as (and in terms of need for critical recognition, more) important as male-female divide.

I, personally, think of heterosexual women as totally like men (and vice-versa) because of the heterosexual common denominator.

The male female divide is a great way to divert attention from the hetero-homo one, and to downplay feminism's frequent complictity in heterosexual hegemony.  It is also a great fit with capitalism, and may be more geniunly the naturalization of marketing/Maddison avenue as much as anything else.

For straight I propose strayt!  A touch didactic, a touch homosexist?: yes, that cld very well be, and the being not very well.

Straight is not neutral, it is judgmental; it is insidious because it masquerades as neutral; it is used by feminists all the time (should I give a list of examples or wld that look like cruel intention?) and I assume this is habitual/non-critical language use; and that, dear world, strikes me as utterly unfeminist.

I wonder if literary feminism--that articulated by poetry and fiction writers and hybrid aesthetics etc--is likelier to use straight than heterosexual.  I'm not positive but I have a hard time imagining M Nussbaum not using heterosexual.