LHMP

One of the things that is implicit in Boehringer's analysis, but not (yet) stated overtly (perhaps because she assumes her readers are aware of it?),  is that there is a major shift in the development of "gender categories" between the earlier Greek evidence and the Roman evidence. Under Greek pederasty, the erastes and eromenos took on categorically different roles in the relationship, but they were not viewed as inhabiting distinct life-long identity categories.

Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 218 – Abstract by Kat Sinor - transcript

(Originally aired 2021/12/18 - listen here)

One of the things Boehringer points out in the earlier discussion of the Callisto myth (in the Greek chapters) is that pre-Ovid sources tend to include only fragments of the story. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that one of Ovid's goals was to create "definitive" versions of the myths he includes (as well as combining them into a connected and unified whole).

Classical Roman views of female homoeroticism, though more numerous than the Greek references, can be just as hard to evaluate due to a tendency to displace discussions of f/f sex onto past eras and foreign locations. We've encountered some of the same difficulty in trying to interpret how mythological data can shed light on real-life dynamics. We also run into the problem of scholars projecting their preconceptions about f/f relations onto the Classical data and reading-in interpretations that may not be present in the data.