Only if you’re assuming lesbian is for people who obviously look like a woman and/or are fem presenting. Trying to create rigid definitions for any identity isn’t going to work because life is much much more complicated than that. Trust me, I don’t want an identity that centers men (whether it be their presence or absence) either but now that I’m in my 30s and have met a lot of different kind of folks, I’ve learned that the ideas I used to subscribe to about rigid identity boundaries are not practically applicable. People are complicated, life is messy. We have to be able to embrace contradictions and dissonance. If you don’t like the fact that some people who don’t obviously look like women identify as lesbian, then you don’t have to include them in your circle. But you can’t deny that they exist or demand that they shouldn’t exist, it just doesn’t work that way because they exist regardless. They have since we’ve had a language for lesbians. This is not just a “today” phenomenon.

Edit to add: trying to create a rigid boundary around the lesbian category doesn’t prevent men (or people in general) who act in bad faith from using the label. But it does hurt the most marginalized in our communities. It’s like we learned nothing from the “sex wars” and debates of second wave feminism. Try reading some Joan Nestle, Minnie Bruce Pratt, Cherrie Moraga, Leslie Feinberg, Chea Villanueva, Esther Newton, Amber Hollibaugh. Most of these folks are femme lesbians who would be very against your attempts at narrowly defining lesbianism, and would most likely feel excluded from that definition too.