Reclaiming Lesbian Pride [Archive] - Page 2

Jess

08-16-2011, 12:18 AM

me in blue, except the excerpt of yours I highlighted in red... I hope this isn't too confusing...

Well... I don't want to be oppositional, but NOW is one of those organizations that really had to work through its own homophobia and racism. NOW did not originally consider the voices of lesbians or women of color. In fact, the Lavender Menace was formed in 1970 to protest the exclusion of queer women from the feminist movement. Many feminists of Color are still having to carve out a voice in the feminist movement, especially in relation to issues of poverty. Femininsm is a notoriously white middle/upper-class movement.

It is historically correct that it began from very privileged origins... with a half- joking nod, I think this is because they were the only ones with time and means to begin to organize. They shifted portions of the time devoted to "quilting bees" or their "husband approved" book clubs/etiquette classes/ etc to fighting for their rights and became incredibly visible during the Sufferage/ Prohibition era. The organizing efforts began years before, but they only became truly effectual during this period , approx. 1920- 1933 giving a few years on either end. Their efforts , I can not dismiss, as they made available to women less "advantaged" the time and space to join in the struggle. The old saying , "it doesn't matter how you got here..." comes to mind.

I respect Gloria Steinem, but as recently as our last presidential election she wrote an editorial that constructed some problematic comparisons between Clinton and Obama in terms of which is worse - sexism or racism, and totally ignored the existance of women of color who deal with both. (Oppression olympics is a very bad idea.)

I respect Gloria Steinem also and have to disagree with your take on this article she wrote during Pres. Obama's campaign. I felt very clear that her message in the context of this article was a simple observance of the still very disproportionate ranking of women in the political sphere. It was not at all a dismissal of Women of Color, moreover a statement that a woman ( her example was a woman of mixed ethnicity) of ANY color would not have had the same credence ( based on served/ lived political experience) as a man ( of any color).

Here is the article she wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Nonetheless, NOW is still active and there is an upcoming PBS special about Steinem that I'm looking forward to seeing.

HBO is showing " Gloria: In Her Own Words" currently. I believe tonight was the first running. We recorded it and I am looking forward to watching it!

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a fierce feminist -- it's perhaps the most relevant social movement on the planet, but I feel that its important to keep a critical perspective.

I totally agree with the reminder to keep a critical eye on this, OUR movement and any other movement of such magnitude. Most begin from frustration/ agony and are almost always fraught with turmoil in their infancy, like stretching limbs or taking that first breath.

Heart

Thank you, as usual, for your insights. I truly believe that until Women's Rights are fully embodied ( since we are a mere HALF of the world population) then no other "ism" will be fully eradicated. Women, and lesbians in particular, are at the forefront of EVERY human rights movement. I can't imagine a world where lesbians weren't fighting for the next right thing. This , in huge part, is why I become fearful for "lesbians" , to become "passe/ obsolete/ unfashionable".

I am a hair short of a tangent, so I will go read a fluff thread and hopefully drift off to sleep. Pride/ Equality/ Human Rights are words that call to me from my waking slumber, in these "tired" years of struggling. It renews me to read the words of everyone here who seem to really "get it", that it is NOT about a "battle of oppressions" , but a convergence of all oppressed that will rise.

Wonderful conversation! Thank you to all ya'll from the dirty south!

Dean Thoreau

08-16-2011, 03:31 AM

As I read these posts, I could not help but recall a long number of years when my activity level in feminism/women's rights was high and it seemed every waking moment was somehow devoted to the cause or earning money so I could work for the cause.....then due to life circumstances my enthusism died down and the more my involvement in the Butch Femme community grew the further i strolled from feminism, women;s rights and thought it was my Identity, their lack of my identity acceptance or some such thing...
It has been a long road and I must confess at times a lonely one....No organization is without warts, or callusses nor are they deemed perfect after all mere humans are what keep them going.
Over the past year or so, I reentered society in many ways and rekindled and built my alliances with the women's movement, the hunger projects and a few other socio political organizations that I feel very strongly about. I must confess I am better able to see myself in the mirror after recommitting energy to the women's movement;

Until all women in the world young and old alike receive education, healthcare and the right to control their bodies no woman on earth will be free nor equal.
Maternal health, fistule repair, education things we take for granted must be granted to all woman in the world, for as long as there is a place on the earth where it is ok to beat a woman, rape a woman, not educate a woman, use her only as a male producing machine without regard for her as a human or her body....no woman in the world is equal. We are all still second class citizens and we as a group do not have human rights...

dean

Heart

08-16-2011, 07:39 AM

Good points all around Jess, however one of the things I've learned to do as a white feminist is listen to the voices of women of color about their experiences with racist constructs. Since you linked to the Steinhem article, I am providiing some links to responses written by WOC:

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/09/gloria-steinem-pitting-race-against-gender/

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/woman/politics_law/amoruso_steinem_clinton_0108.asp

And because I can't link to it, I'm posting the full text of a blog post by
"AngryBlackBitch." You can find her blog here: http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/

Jan 8th, 2008
I’m worried too, Ms. Steinem…
This isn’t an easy post to write. I am a proud black feminist who holds a deep respect for feminist leaders and has done a lot of inner work to come to terms with feminism’s history with race and class. Yeah, this is not an easy post to write…but a sistah’s got to do what a sistah’s got to do.

Gloria Steinem has an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled Women Are Never Front-Runners. I read the Op-Ed and I feel compelled to address it here. I highly recommend that you read the piece before you go on reading this post.
After reading Steinem’s Op-Ed I felt invisible…as if black and woman can’t exist in the same body. I felt undocumented…as if the history of blacks and the history of women have nothing to do with the history of black women.

When I read “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).” I felt both attacked and ignored at the same time.

I think of the women and men in my family who were not extended the protected vote until 1965. I wince at the lack of acknowledgment for the black women of Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery who had to march with their brothers in the 1960s to attain the vote because the suffrage movement abandoned them in a Southern strategy to get the vote in 1920.

And there it is again…that invisibility; like a brutal weight that I am so bloody tired of carrying. When I consider Steinem's “So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one?” I’m left confused. What country does Gloria live in where race barriers are taken seriously? I’d love to know…shit, maybe I’ll move there. But I’m a black woman and this is America where none of my barriers are given more than a token consideration and I’ll present this Op-Ed as exhibit A in that argument.

Steinem goes on to say, “I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.”

But this article is soaked in the fluid of competition. It reeks of frustration that I fear is born from a place of entitlement even though it is dressed in the language of the oppressed. And I’ll point out again, the suffrage movement progressed without racial or true class unity and many a sister were damaged by that division.
We should remember that, but first we have to know it.

What worries me is that Gloria bought that bullshit about Obama’s race being a unifying factor. C’mon now, these are early dates yet and campaign operatives have already taken a dip in the race baiting pool. Not for one second do I believe that the unifying power of Senator Obama’s blackness will not eventually collide with the same elegant condescension contained in Steinem's Op-Ed.

What worries me is that this is kind of article that makes some black women wary of feminism…wary of the sisterhood…because eventually, just give it time, it will all come down to black and white or women and men with black women vanished from the equation.

What worries me is the ease with which Ms. Steinem tossed out the insult of implying that Iowans, when faced with a black male candidate, went with that candidate because they are somehow more comfortable with black male leadership than female leadership. It begs the question how John Edwards failed to win by a landslide.

What worries me is that the author is frustrated that Obama hasn’t been accused of playing the race card for his civil rights references and feels that Hillary is getting a raw deal when she gets accused of playing the gender card. Let’s keep it real…Steinem is just frustrated about that race card because a black man is supposed to get called on that shit and she didn’t give permission for any rule change.

What worries me is the patronizing tone with which Steinem dismisses the choices of young women voters. Is it any wonder that young women pause before embracing the feminist movement? Steinem concludes that young women are not radical yet. Will she conclude the same of black women should Clinton lose South Carolina?

I agree with Ms. Steinem that we have to be able to say that we are supporting her, a woman candidate, "because she would be a great president and because she is a woman." But we also have to be able to say I’m not supporting her because I’ve evaluated her and examined her resume without being labeled a victim or self hating or not radical enough or not feminist enough or easily dazzled by great oratory skills or more black than woman or just too darn stupid to do what Ms. Steinem thinks we should do.

Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Heart

Chazz

08-16-2011, 07:45 AM

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but....... The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory.

Despite its problems, the tools of 2nd Wave Feminism were collectively liberating to all women. Even when women splintered off from the main body of Feminism to focus on oppressions of particular interest/importance to them, they took Feminism's "tools" with them. This is how Womanism, Lesbian Feminism, Third-world Feminism, Postcolonial Feminism, etc., were birthed. Thank HP for all of that.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Feminism is empowering and unifying even in its diversification - not solipsistic and individualistic like gender theory.

(Solipsism is the position that anything outside of ones mind is untrue. If a solipsist thinks or imagines something, it exists, objective, tangible reality be damned. Other people's reality be damned, too.)

I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

:vigil:

Heart

08-16-2011, 08:20 AM

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but.......

There are STILL knotty issues. It still gets ugly.

The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory.

As a femme, I have had to confront vilification from feminists.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Not sure I understand the reference to Mich Fest. I am also not sure that feminist WOC would agree that there has been no oppressive consequences.
As a femme lesbian, I do not agree with that assessment.

I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

Hmmmm.... I'm feeling pretty uncomfortable with the "this-vs-that" direction this discussion is taking. Does this mean that if I, as a feminist, point to warts, I am somehow enacting a betrayal? That feels possibly divisive and oppressive.....:vigil:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tone here, or maybe I'm pushing a point at the wrong juncture... but I am unwilling to wear rose-colored feminist glasses. It's funny, since I have been one of the most ardent feminists on these boards for years to be in this position, but I'm firm in both my feminism and my willingness to critique it.

Heart

Jess

08-16-2011, 09:04 AM

Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Heart

I get this. Thank you. I had not previously read the article, so when you mentioned it, I made a point of looking it up. Likewise, I had not read responses to that article. I can understand that frustration much better having read their actual words. I realize that when I read an article, I read it with different filters ( those being created by my life experience).

I am glad you posted those links and the last response. It gave me a chance to look at it a different way. I do not think it changes at all the overall point Ms. Steinem was making. I do, however, see how women of color can feel invisible in what has been seen historically ( by many) the "white heterosexual financially advantaged" feminist movement. I can certainly understand the anger that accompanies those feelings ( as expressed in the response that was fully posted).

I have had difficulty at times in being able to "hear" all of the nuances of white privilege. I think a great deal of this, for me, was in my questioning of much of the source material for this new "wave" of racism awareness coming from a white heterosexual male. It is much easier for me to hear the reality of life in America for People(s) of Color FROM People of Color. It rings crystal clear to me then. This is not me asking for someone else to do my work for me. This is me saying, I can hear what Shark-Fu ( the author of the last response) said far easier than I can hear Tim Wise saying it or something similar. I have been extremely bothered for a couple of years now that the most often quoted person in this country addressing white privilege is a white man. I ran across an article that at least allowed me to see I am not completely off base in this feeling. While some folks will probably want to rip my head off for what they may see is me besmearing Tim Wise, I would ask that they have a look at it first.:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/analysis/word-wise-unpacking-white-privilege-tim-wise/

I don't mean to derail or veer too far off topic, but I guess for me a huge part of my life as a lesbian has been wrapped in my feminism. My feminism tells me to listen ( I agree with your statement above, Heart, completely) to the voices of all women. I can not affect change if I don't understand completely what needs changed.

Thank you sincerely for sharing those responses as that act is the difference between saying "Steinem dismissed WOC" and "women of color felt dismissed by her and here is what they said". Too often I find the position of many white anti-racists to be so adamant they forget to "allow" someone else to really hear the feelings, thoughts, ideas of our women of color sisters. Their actual words are very important to me. I need to hear them. I do not need to be told to "go do my own work" when my work IS listening.

This is how feminism and my lesbian feminism works for me. I am equal to engage and that is a very powerful and freeing thing.

Chazz

08-16-2011, 09:40 AM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tone here, or maybe I'm pushing a point at the wrong juncture... but I am unwilling to wear rose-colored feminist glasses. It's funny, since I have been one of the most ardent feminists on these boards for years to be in this position, but I'm firm in both my feminism and my willingness to critique it.

Heart

Heart, maybe you're "misunderstanding the tone or pushing a point at the wrong juncture" of my post. Maybe, maybe not..... I don't know.

I don't wear "rose-colored feminist glasses", either.

I do think that Feminism (warts and all) offers much better tools for challenging patriarchy than gender theory. I also think the needs of, and issues of importance to, lesbians/butch/women have been marginalized under gender theory.

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but.......

There are STILL knotty issues. It still gets ugly.

I didn't say there weren't still "knotty issues". (I was using the past tense because I was referring to the Feminism of the 1970', 80's....) WHAT I AM SAYING IS: There a Feminist process (heuristic) which offers a way of talking about knotty issues without vilification. Here we are doing it.

A Feminist not utilizing a Feminist heuristic is NOT Feminism.

The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory. And that has been unproductive and the source of much strife within the LGBTQ community.

As a femme, I have had to confront vilification from feminists.

As a butch I have had to confront vilification from so-called feminists, too. Again, that's not Feminist process.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Not sure I understand the reference to Mich Fest. I am also not sure that feminist WOC would agree that there has been no oppressive consequences. As a femme lesbian, I do not agree with that assessment.

As a Lesbian Feminist, I support your right to disagree. As a Feminist, I assert that Mich Fest and women WBW events have a right to exist. As do WOC-only events, etc., etc......

I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

Hmmmm.... I'm feeling pretty uncomfortable with the "this-vs-that" direction this discussion is taking. Does this mean that if I, as a feminist, point to warts, I am somehow enacting a betrayal? That feels possibly divisive and oppressive.....

Umm, don't know where I implied betrayal on anyones part, but....

I feel uncomfortable with "this-vs-that", too. I'm just calling it out because it exists within the LGBTQ community. Naming it, isn't doing it.

I acknowledge that skirting around certain issues is considered PC, and often, an act of self-preservation. (Not that I am saying you're doing that, Heart, 'cause I'm not.)

However, it does matter to me that lesbians, female IDed butches and Feminists have been marginalized under gender theory. Calling that out on the heels of this "masculine of center" business seems like the thing to do. It should cause discomfort because discomfort is a motivator towards change.

:vigil:

Chazz

08-16-2011, 10:11 AM

....Thank you sincerely for sharing those responses as that act is the difference between saying "Steinem dismissed WOC" and "women of color felt dismissed by her and here is what they said". Too often I find the position of many white anti-racists to be so adamant they forget to "allow" someone else to really hear the feelings, thoughts, ideas of our women of color sisters. Their actual words are very important to me. I need to hear them. I do not need to be told to "go do my own work" when my work IS listening.

This is how feminism and my lesbian feminism works for me. I am equal to engage and that is a very powerful and freeing thing.

Well said, Jess....

There are times when, for good reason, women cannot "hear" one another. It may be because a woman cannot witness another woman's unearned privilege and listen to her at the same time. Hurt, anger, a need for healing is occupying the foreground.... This needs to be okay.

These are the times when women need to be afforded the intrinsic right to separate and coalesce around a common experience of pain or their particular experience of oppression. This should be okay, too.

Not everything can be resolved on command, or in one sitting, especially when the source of the pain and oppression is a day to day, lived experience.

That WOC (or lesbian women, for that matter) are asked to sideline their needs/imperatives for the greater good, or the benefit of others, or in the service of a "big tent" metaphor, it NOT okay.

That said, not everything can be resolved in one sitting or conversation, especially when the source of pain and oppression is ongoing.

Heart

08-16-2011, 10:15 AM

I do think that Feminism (warts and all) offers much better tools for challenging patriarchy than gender theory. I also think the needs of, and issues of importance to, lesbians/butch/women have been marginalized under gender theory.

I agree.

As a Feminist, I assert that Mich Fest and women WBW events have a right to exist. As do WOC-only events, etc., etc......

Ahhh... as a feminist, this I don't agree with. I vehemently support women-only spaces, (as I do POC spaces, which may have people in them who "appear" to be as white as me). Trangender women belong in women's spaces. Woman-born-woman is an exclusionary term to my feminist mind, based upon the extreme experiences of misogyny that transwomen deal with. To me, this is a feminist, (not a gender-theory) issue. I run a shelter for battered women and teach self-defense classes to women survivors of assault. Both spaces include transgender women.

However, it does matter to me that lesbians, female IDed butches and Feminists have been marginalized under gender theory. Calling that out on the heels of this "masculine of center" business seems like the thing to do. It should cause discomfort because discomfort is a motivator towards change.

I agree about the marginalization and the calling out. Perhaps I was personalizing.... thank you for the dialogue, warts and all.

Heart

Heart

08-16-2011, 10:36 AM

Chazz is right about the pain and hurt in these discussions. Also anxiety, sadness, frustration....

To share a bit further about my experience:

Just as I recognize the privilege that transmen garner, (even when they refuse to), I also recognize the misogyny and sexism that transwomen deal with. Hate crimes and violence towards transwomen is off the charts high.

I work in a field (anti-domestic violence) founded by 2nd wave feminists in the 1970s, many of whom were lesbians. The inability of many of the providers in this field to provide safety or services for transwomen who have been raped or were in abusive relationships (most often with a straight man), is deeply disturbing and divisive.

I have worked with other lgbtq advocates to help grass roots feminists shift their thinking on this. Yes, we have used "gender theory," which frankly hasn't been very useful. I did a presentation about using a more "gender neutral" lens at a conference once and the mainstram feminists in the room got up and walked out.

It's clear to me that we do not have to change our feminist, anti-patriarchal frmework one jot in order to bring transwomen into safe spaces, because transwomen are very vulnerable to patriarchal oppression and danger. But that's been a hard message to get across. The feelings of suspicion, threat, and betrayal within the feminist advocacy community remains intense. I think we have to shift away from gender-speak and go back to language and tools rooted in feminism in order to continue the discussion.

What I am reminded of, (thanks to this thread), is that patriarchy makes it hard for us to trust each other.

Heart

Chazz

08-16-2011, 10:47 AM

You're most welcome, Heart.

As a Feminist, I assert that Mich Fest and women WBW events have a right to exist. As do WOC-only events, etc., etc......

Ahhh... as a feminist, this I don't agree with. I vehemently support women-only spaces, (as I do POC spaces, which may have people in them who "appear" to be as white as me). Trangender women belong in women's spaces. Woman-born-woman is an exclusionary term to my feminist mind, based upon the extreme experiences of misogyny that transwomen deal with. To me, this is a feminist, (not a gender-theory) issue. I run a shelter for battered women and teach self-defense classes to women survivors of assault. Both spaces include transgender women.

My life as a WBW lesbian/butch, has, and still does, followed a trajectory that is different from that of transwomen's lives. There are times in my life when I need to coalesce around any one, or all, of those experiences. If that is seen as "exclusionary", I'm okay with it. I see it as particularistic, but I can live with "exclusionary".

It would not occur to me to attend to the "Sisters of Color" meeting at the local LGBTQ Center. I don't feel excluded.

I too worked (for many years) in a Battered Women's Shelter. Some issues are as yet unresolved, not from my perspective, but from clients' perspectives....

I'd prefer not to have this discussion lapse into any one, or another, particularistic derail, so.....

I agree about the marginalization and the calling out. Perhaps I was personalizing.... thank you for the dialogue, warts and all. - Heart

That's the common ground we can coalesce around, then. :)

AtLast

08-16-2011, 01:35 PM

And from Jeanne Cordova of Butch Nation:
http://networkedblogs.com/lINy3

Posted on FB: This Saturday, at the BV Conference 12pm. BULLDAGGER: For Women-Identified, Female-Pronoun Using Butches. This Sunday, 12pm. "Exploring Our Masculinities While Keeping Our Feminisms." Oakland Marriott. The room is under the name Goldberg. Free and open to the public. Butch Nation will be there. Post widely.

Also on FB, posted by Krys Freeman of BV: Friday, 12pm. Town Hall Meeting -- To discuss all that has transpired in the past few weeks. Jewett Ballroom Free and open to the public. Butch Nation encouraged to attend. Post widely.

Chazz

08-16-2011, 01:41 PM

This will probably be my last post on this subject. I would prefer to focus on issues of importance to me and women who have shared my life's experience.

BTW, I'm not feeling strident, though this post may come across as same.

Chazz is right about the pain and hurt in these discussions. Also anxiety, sadness, frustration....

To share a bit further about my experience:

Just as I recognize the privilege that transmen garner, (even when they refuse to), I also recognize the misogyny and sexism that transwomen deal with. Hate crimes and violence towards transwomen is off the charts high.

I think we may have a differing points of view about the "privilege" "transmen garner".

I don't see "passing" as a privilege for anyone. Nor do I see an assumption of male entitlement as a "privilege", either. To the extent that, that ever happens, it's buying in and selling out.

You, me, anyone can buy into any given oppressive paradigm, but does it serve us. I mean REALLY serve us? (This may be me being spirit focused, but hey....)

I'm sorry when hate crimes happen to anyone. Absolutely, ANYONE. It behooves all of us to get to the core of what causes hate crimes with an unblinking eye. I suspect we are all complicit in hate crimes, each in our own way.

I work in a field (anti-domestic violence) founded by 2nd wave feminists in the 1970s, many of whom were lesbians. The inability of many of the providers in this field to provide safety or services for transwomen who have been raped or were in abusive relationships (most often with a straight man), is deeply disturbing and divisive.

It's a much as most lesbians can do to provide for themselves, their children and one another, to the extent that they do and can. (Hell, my community has an impossible time keeping lesbian businesses open because lesbians are so short of resources.)

But, in the spirit of fairness, I promise to refer my lesbian and straight DV clients to DV shelters started, operated and financed by transwomen.

I have worked with other lgbtq advocates to help grass roots feminists shift their thinking on this. Yes, we have used "gender theory," which frankly hasn't been very useful. I did a presentation about using a more "gender neutral" lens at a conference once and the mainstram feminists in the room got up and walked out.

I'm sorry that happened to you. It must have felt awful, but people are entitled to vote with their feet.

It's clear to me that we do not have to change our feminist, anti-patriarchal frmework one jot in order to bring transwomen into safe spaces, because transwomen are very vulnerable to patriarchal oppression and danger. But that's been a hard message to get across. The feelings of suspicion, threat, and betrayal within the feminist advocacy community remains intense. I think we have to shift away from gender-speak and go back to language and tools rooted in feminism in order to continue the discussion.

I think it's okay for Feminists to have different perspectives about what constitutes "suspicion, threat, and betrayal" and any given identity. I think it's okay for women to choose, for themselves, how they wish to allocate their time and resources (where and to whom) without being pressured, cajoled or guilt tripped. The afore mentioned happens all the time in "our" current community. We are uniformly expected to jump onto the band wagon of the day, when it's all some of us can do to master our own particularistic destinies and self-understanding.

I may be a butch, but I may choose not to get involved with a "Butch Rights" movement. I can't imagine hanging out with the folks currently running BVs, for instance. This doesn't mean I'm suspicious, threatened, feeling betrayed", or wish them harm, or would be indifferent to their plight should harm befall them.... It means, my interests and proclivities lie elsewhere. Their deal doesn't speak to me. It doesn't further my understanding of myself as a woman IDed butch. Should I ignore my imperatives in the name of someone else's version of "solidarity"? Rally around other's cause(s) rather than my own? Send a check? What? ....I listen, I introspect, I choose, and then I act according to the beat of my own drummer.

One of the worst elements of 2nd Wave Feminism, in my estimation, was the pressure mostly white and/or privileged Feminists brought to bear on all women to adopt their agenda. And when "we" (lesbians, WOC, B&Fs....) didn't, we were castigated, vilified and tagged as being - %*#^@.

I see this happening, still, in the current LGBTQ constellation. It is precisely what the folks at BVs are doing. That kind of politic is wrong even in the post-modern world of abject subjectivity. Either subjectivity is equal for all, or it's a crock of diddlysquat awarded to the self-anointed, privileged few - based on what? Who is more oppressed, battered, subjected to hate crimes? That is oppression Olympics redux.

What I am reminded of, (thanks to this thread), is that patriarchy makes it hard for us to trust each other. - Heart

Exactly.... My "trust" isn't garnered when my personal agenda is set for me. Nor is it nurtured when I'm pressured or guilted into supporting people, places and things that don't "speak" to me, honor my boundaries or identity, or my take on reality. I'm a live and let live person. That's as much as I can do and stay my own course. I'll meet-up with everyone else where our imperatives intersect.

JustJo

08-16-2011, 02:06 PM

"Because women's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

~Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, 14 September 1987

Actually, these are the words of Joyce Stevens...

Written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet, International Woman's Day, 1975.
Joyce Stevens is author of Taking the Revolution Home, Work Among Women in the Communist Party of Australia 1920 -1945 and other books.

Just wanted to give credit where credit is due...

Heart

08-16-2011, 02:32 PM

Chazz - My responses in blue. I understand that you wish to move on, this response is not about the content (we have places we disagree, which is fine), but it is about the tone and the kinds of divisions/accusations/justifications that come up over and over when feminism and genderism cross -- always seeming to be at cross purposes....

I think we may have a differing points of view about the "privilege" "transmen garner". I don't see "passing" as a privilege for anyone.

Nor do I - I was not referring to "passing."

It's a much as most lesbians can do to provide for themselves, their children and one another, to the extent that they do and can. (Hell, my community has an impossible time keeping lesbian businesses open because lesbians are so short of resources.)

But, in the spirit of fairness, I promise to refer my lesbian and straight DV clients to DV shelters started, operated and financed by transwomen.

Huh? I do not get this statement (sarcastic?). Ouch.

I have worked with other lgbtq advocates to help grass roots feminists shift their thinking on this. Yes, we have used "gender theory," which frankly hasn't been very useful. I did a presentation about using a more "gender neutral" lens at a conference once and the mainstram feminists in the room got up and walked out.

I'm sorry that happened to you. It must have felt awful, but people are entitled to vote with their feet.

Chazz, my point here was that gender theory was NOT going to work for all the reasons you, among others, have elucidated, and that I agree with. I'm talking about my learning curve and you seem to be chastizing me.

I think it's okay for Feminists to have different perspectives about what constitutes "suspicion, threat, and betrayal" and any given identity. I think it's okay for women to choose, for themselves, how they wish to allocate their time and resources (where and to whom) without being pressured, cajoled or guilt tripped.

Nothing I have said was intended to pressure or guilt trip. Not my style.

The afore mentioned happens all the time in "our" current community. We are uniformly expected to jump onto the band wagon of the day, when it's all some of us can do to master our own particularistic destinies and self-understanding.

I'm sensing that the direction in which I took the discussion feels to you like a derail of the issue of lesbian pride and more specifically of lesbian BUTCH pride. Is that true? Coming off of the BV/BN thing, I get that, but this thread is not only about butches, but about all of us who are lesbians, and also those of us who are feminists.

My interests and proclivities lie elsewhere. Their deal doesn't speak to me. It doesn't further my understanding of myself as a woman IDed butch. Should I ignore my imperatives in the name of someone else's version of "solidarity"? Rally around other's cause(s) rather than my own? Send a check? What? ....I listen, I introspect, I choose, and then I act according to the beat of my own drummer.

This doesn't sound strident -- just defensive, as if you felt attacked or dismissed by the issues I raised. Of course you get to choose your focus, your imperative, and act accordingly. I don't know how what I raised opposes that, unless it was my belief that transwomen should be allowed at MWMF. It just doesn't strike me as very feminist for a transwoman to be barred, while transmen, male-pronoun-using, transmasculine, male-butch-3rd gendered people have access.

One of the worst elements of 2nd Wave Feminism, in my estimation, was the pressure mostly white and/or privileged Feminists brought to bear on all women to adopt their agenda. And when "we" (lesbians, WOC, B&Fs....) didn't, we were castigated, vilified and tagged as being - %*#^@.

Am I doing that?

What I am reminded of, (thanks to this thread), is that patriarchy makes it hard for us to trust each other. - Heart

Exactly.... My "trust" isn't garnered when my personal agenda is set for me. Nor is it nurtured when I'm pressured or guilted into supporting people, places and things that don't "speak" to me, honor my boundaries or identity, or my take on reality.

Again, is that what you have experienced from my posts here? Because truly that was not my intention or goal. And I wonder, feel both mystified, confused, and - okay yes, upset that we are in this place.

When I talk feminism, I highlight issues of race/gender that feminism erased or essentialized. When I talk gender theory, I highlight issues of feminism and patriarchy that gender theory erased and denigrated. So, lesbians think I'm being anti-feminist, and queers think I'm being anti-genderist. Guess I can't win. But none of it - NONE of it is intended to personally erase anyone else's experience or choices. It's all in the interest of dialogue, intersection, and growth. I was kinda hoping I wouldn't have to make that disclaimer in this thread.

Martina

08-16-2011, 02:33 PM

Feminism is empowering and unifying even in its diversification - not solipsistic and individualistic like gender theory.

What's individualistic about it? i am sure there are explanations that focus on individuals, but what is individualistic about it. i don't actually know what gender theory you mean, so it's hard for me to speculate.

AtLast

08-16-2011, 02:37 PM

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

No, there are areas of those "days" that I cannot embrace. What I know is that without the Second Wave (and the days of my Grandmother before it), we would not be having this discussion at all. By definition, "movement" includes a change in place or position- it is not static, therefore, gives rise to critical thought throughout time- as time gives us new perspectives.

We have a feminist foundation that begs us to explore and grow even when we have to re-examine ourselves and accept the warts. It was the second Wave that brought awareness of gender theory to the forefront as a feminist paridigm.

Given this, it is difficult to accept that gender theory remains a block to the entire LGBTQ population continuing to remain separate. The irony I spoke of earlier and what is at the heart of deep wounds.

This has actually come full circle for me as a butch woman. The very same tactics and male power structures of "old" are wounding me in ways within our very own community using what the Second Wave believed to be a means to heal.

*Anya*

08-16-2011, 03:46 PM

Actually, these are the words of Joyce Stevens...

Written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet, International Woman's Day, 1975.
Joyce Stevens is author of Taking the Revolution Home, Work Among Women in the Communist Party of Australia 1920 -1945 and other books.

Just wanted to give credit where credit is due...

Thanks, I appreciate it a lot. It is a quote of a quote of a quote.

I am always glad to know the origin of quotes I have come across over the years that are not atributed to the right person, in order to give credit where credit is due!

Chazz

08-17-2011, 08:41 AM

Heart, my responses are in purple.

Chazz - My responses in blue. I understand that you wish to move on, this response is not about the content (we have places we disagree, which is fine), but it is about the tone and the kinds of divisions/accusations/justifications that come up over and over when feminism and genderism cross -- always seeming to be at cross purposes....

I think we may have a differing points of view about the "privilege" "transmen garner". I don't see "passing" as a privilege for anyone.

Nor do I - I was not referring to "passing."

I understand that your statement: "the privilege that transmen garner" was more global. I got that.... I was making a finer point, that is, that I don't see assimilation into Patriarchy as a privilege. I think the whole concept of male privilege is a misnomer. When we speak of "misogyny", we're actually speaking about a grievous power imbalance. "Male privilege" is a byproduct of that imbalance. Speaking in terms of male privilege/misogyny obscures the foundation of both - a grievous power imbalance. This exists whether one aspires to it, or not.

It's a much as most lesbians can do to provide for themselves, their children and one another, to the extent that they do and can. (Hell, my community has an impossible time keeping lesbian businesses open because lesbians are so short of resources.)

But, in the spirit of fairness, I promise to refer my lesbian and straight DV clients to DV shelters started, operated and financed by transwomen.

Huh? I do not get this statement (sarcastic?). Ouch.

Not sarcastic, an acknowledgment of fact. In one way or another, lesbians/women tend to do most of the heavy lifting while males and once-males benefit from the bounty of lesbians/women's efforts, often, without ever making a tangible contribution to the effort. If I were in need of a DV shelter, I would prefer to be in one that was started, operated and financed by lesbians. Wait, many shelters are just that. (This may not be PC to say out loud, but it's a big issue in DV circles, nevertheless. This is just one of many issues that is deemed unacceptable to discuss, so resentments fester under the surface.)

I have worked with other lgbtq advocates to help grass roots feminists shift their thinking on this. Yes, we have used "gender theory," which frankly hasn't been very useful. I did a presentation about using a more "gender neutral" lens at a conference once and the mainstram feminists in the room got up and walked out.

I'm sorry that happened to you. It must have felt awful, but people are entitled to vote with their feet.

Chazz, my point here was that gender theory was NOT going to work for all the reasons you, among others, have elucidated, and that I agree with. I'm talking about my learning curve and you seem to be chastizing me.

None of my comments have been directed at you personally. I'm speaking to the issues you raise.

I think it's okay for Feminists to have different perspectives about what constitutes "suspicion, threat, and betrayal" and any given identity. I think it's okay for women to choose, for themselves, how they wish to allocate their time and resources (where and to whom) without being pressured, cajoled or guilt tripped.

Nothing I have said was intended to pressure or guilt trip. Not my style.

Again, not talking about you, personally, Heart.

Guilt tripping is pervasive within the community in overt and covert ways. There is an implicit expectation, for instance, that we should all be of the same mind about all sorts of gender theory doctrine. We're not all of the same mind, of course, but challenging any of the doctrine elicits recriminations, or accusations of transphobia. That's intimidation and censorship.

You may be focused on the unaddressed misogyny (which exists by the ream), but there are other issues of importance to some of us that are not safe to address. No, I'm not going there in this conversation. I'll just say the toe dancing gets exhausting, and I'm not always sure the myth of "community" is worth it. I know many other lesbians feel this way, too. This is a part of the reason many of "us" feel marginalized - our "voices" have been silenced. This is not only oppressive, it's anti-solidarity.

The afore mentioned happens all the time in "our" current community. We are uniformly expected to jump onto the band wagon of the day, when it's all some of us can do to master our own particularistic destinies and self-understanding.

I'm sensing that the direction in which I took the discussion feels to you like a derail of the issue of lesbian pride and more specifically of lesbian BUTCH pride. Is that true? Coming off of the BV/BN thing, I get that, but this thread is not only about butches, but about all of us who are lesbians, and also those of us who are feminists.

This is not about you, or me, personally.... It would feel like a derail if "we" focused on people who do not celebrate Lesbian Pride or identify as lesbian. Especially, since some of "us" lesbians have done both for an entire lifetime, and not as we traversed a hierarchical gender continuum.

My interests and proclivities lie elsewhere. Their deal doesn't speak to me. It doesn't further my understanding of myself as a woman IDed butch. Should I ignore my imperatives in the name of someone else's version of "solidarity"? Rally around other's cause(s) rather than my own? Send a check? What? ....I listen, I introspect, I choose, and then I act according to the beat of my own drummer.

This doesn't sound strident -- just defensive, as if you felt attacked or dismissed by the issues I raised. Of course you get to choose your focus, your imperative, and act accordingly. I don't know how what I raised opposes that, unless it was my belief that transwomen should be allowed at MWMF. It just doesn't strike me as very feminist for a transwoman to be barred, while transmen, male-pronoun-using, transmasculine, male-butch-3rd gendered people have access.

I'm not personally defensive - I am defending lesbian pride, lesbian/butch identity and heritage.

You think transwomen should be allowed at MWMF - I think Mich Fest's WBW mission statement should be honored and respected. There are too many places in this community where WBW aren't honored, respected or given "ground" to stand on in the fullness of their/our particularism. One event a year doesn't seem like much to ask for. (I've never attended Mich Fest, nor do I ever intend to.)

As to "transmen, male-pronoun-using, transmasculine, male-butch-3rd gendered people" having access to Mich Fest.... Apparently, a decision was made by the Mich Fest powers-that-be to include all WBW regardless of how they currently identify. It might not be your choice or mine (not necessarily for the same reasons), but Mich Fest isn't our pop stand. Me, I respect other people's boundaries, as I insist they respect mine.

One of the worst elements of 2nd Wave Feminism, in my estimation, was the pressure mostly white and/or privileged Feminists brought to bear on all women to adopt their agenda. And when "we" (lesbians, WOC, B&Fs....) didn't, we were castigated, vilified and tagged as being - %*#^@.

Am I doing that?

Heart, nothing I've said reflects on you personally.... Only you can answer the "Am I doing that?" question for yourself. I have no way of knowing.

What I am reminded of, (thanks to this thread), is that patriarchy makes it hard for us to trust each other. - Heart

Exactly.... My "trust" isn't garnered when my personal agenda is set for me. Nor is it nurtured when I'm pressured or guilted into supporting people, places and things that don't "speak" to me, honor my boundaries or identity, or my take on reality.

Again, is that what you have experienced from my posts here? Because truly that was not my intention or goal. And I wonder, feel both mystified, confused, and - okay yes, upset that we are in this place.

We're not in a bad place. We're dialogging.

When I talk feminism, I highlight issues of race/gender that feminism erased or essentialized. When I talk gender theory, I highlight issues of feminism and patriarchy that gender theory erased and denigrated. So, lesbians think I'm being anti-feminist, and queers think I'm being anti-genderist. Guess I can't win. But none of it - NONE of it is intended to personally erase anyone else's experience or choices. It's all in the interest of dialogue, intersection, and growth. I was kinda hoping I wouldn't have to make that disclaimer in this thread.

Heart, I trust your good intentions. No disclaimers are required.

I'm not calling you out. I'm calling out any and all assumptions, by anyone, that "we" have to be on the same line of gender or Feminist theory to be mutually supportive around some specific issues. The 'some specific issues' point is key to me.

I evolved in and out of gender theory. I don't see myself using it as a template for my life again. It doesn't speak to me on many levels.

I also don't believe my Feminism has to be anyone else's Feminism.... Which is to say, you'll never hear my Feminist-self saying you're anti-feminist.... As to queers thinking you're an anti-genderist because you won't drink the Kool-Aid unexamined, in it's entirety.... That's one of the things that turned me off to gender theory - i.e. it's adherents' insistence on unquestioning, doctrinal fervency.

I don't trust anything, or anyone, that insists upon unquestioning allegiance - OR ELSE! I had a belly full of that stuff as a Catholic. PLEEEEK ! ! ! The only thing I'm unconditionally loyal to is critical thinking.

Heart

08-17-2011, 09:03 AM

Chazz, Thanks for your responses, your efforts to clarify, and your willingness to dialogue. I know there was some personal clouding, and appreciate that you took the time.

Heart

Chazz

08-17-2011, 11:00 AM

Chazz, Thanks for your responses, your efforts to clarify, and your willingness to dialogue. I know there was some personal clouding, and appreciate that you took the time.

Heart

You're welcome, Heart. (f)

"Clouding", maybe so, necessarily cautious, likely and understandably.

I think you've been unfairly roughed-up by people unwilling to listen, hear, or engage respectfully. Their loss because you have a lot of insightful and thought provoking things to share. I learn a lot from you.

Thank you, too, for putting up with my terse writing style. The unfortunate byproduct of too much report writing for Da Sistem.

AtLast

08-17-2011, 01:05 PM

Kobi

08-17-2011, 01:28 PM

Chazz

08-17-2011, 02:09 PM

What's individualistic about it? i am sure there are explanations that focus on individuals, but what is individualistic about it. i don't actually know what gender theory you mean, so it's hard for me to speculate.

Postmodernism is a mix of philosophies: Primarily, subjectivism and epistemic relativism. These philosophies hold that no epistemic standard is defensible, true or factual.

A postmodernist might argue “that modern science is nothing more than a “myth,” a “narration”, a “social construction.” (Professor Steven Luper, Trinity University)

Gender theory is the offspring of postmodernism. One of its primary tenets is that gender performativity is a way of destabilizing/deconstructing gender conventions.

Feminists hold that gender conventions are fictional, grotesque myths; and that re-enacting them in any context perpetuates oppression.

Gender performativity is an individual, self-focused activity – even when performed in a group…. Models at a Playboy photo shoot are individually re-inscribing gender constructs even when posing for a group photograph.

The enactment of real-world, gender conventions - of performing/embodying fictional constructs – makes them appear (feel) natural, organic, real. This reinforces gender stereotypes whether the performativity is meant to be parody or not; whether it’s meant to be a burlesque metaphor or not.

African Feminist and author, Nnameka, had this to say about sex roles: Western European and North American epistemologies since ‘post structuralism’s [now referred to as postmodernism] focus on discourse and aesthetics instead of social action encourages the egocentricity and individualism that undermines collective action.’ (Nnameka, 2003, p.364).

:vigil:

ScandalAndy

08-17-2011, 07:51 PM

CherylNYC

08-17-2011, 08:21 PM

I was cruising some of the older posts (lol cruising) and noticed that there was a bit of discussion about feminist reading material.

Is there any other reading material/movies that anyone finds particularly prideful or that portrays lesbians in a positive light? I know one of the major critiques of lesbian representation in the media is that they're either crazy or they die at the end of the film. I always struggle with that.

As a side note, I spent the past five days in a very small town and was openly talked about when my friend kissed me. It was a tiny peck, but apparently all the old men in the firehall saw fit to flap their gums about it. I refused to let them make me feel bad about who I am. There's my prideful moment for the week.

Call me a sap, but for a happy, stress-free lesbian movie night, I never get enough of The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls In Love. The butch/femme girls bumbling into love are adorable. The butch lesbian aunt and her femme partner, (and exes), are perfectly portrayed. It's sweet, and the lesbians get to be happy. It was one of the first times I saw movie images that looked like people I know.

Kobi

08-17-2011, 08:43 PM

Most of the novel type things I love are probably out of print :blink:

I do like the tv series Exes and Ohs - is like a lesbian version of "Friends", sweet, cute, and very funny.

DapperButch

08-17-2011, 08:57 PM

Just wanted to chime in to say that I appreciate the respectfulness in this thread. It can get so hard to exchange ideas on such sensitive topics. I am taking in many different ideas from the posts as they are giving me more insight into how each of us has experienced things from our own lenses. Also, there isn't any of the "hidden gem" slights wrapped in sugar that only serve to divide us instead of listening to each other.

It is refreshing and I, too, appreciate it.

It really helps to be able to express many different opinions and perspectives and reminders that are a tribute to the diverse group that we are. And I also appreciate that we can be honest about our own truths and see them as a bridge to each other and to further dialogue.

One of you please help me understand this.

How can either of you talk about how "refreshing" it is that everyone is being so "respectful" in this thread?

There is blatant bigotry of transwomen going on in this thread. Did you guys just miss that part, or are you ok with that part? Really, I want to understand this.

There is more than one lesbian transwoman on this message board. They are a PART of our community. Do you not think they are reading the words that have been written here? Do you have any freaking concept as to how it might be making them feel?

I agree with you, AtLast, there is no "hidden gem" slights...there are right out there in the open!

Yes, I know that June handled this, but I cannot sit idly by and not have some member of the community acknowledge how shitty this is, so I am doing it, even though I do not belong in this thread.

Chazz, we have lesbian transwomen here. They are an important part of our community. Please consider that the next time you speak about "once-male", people.

(P.S. I will not be available to post again until Sunday, Good nIght, all).

EnderD_503

08-17-2011, 08:59 PM

I'm sorry to intrude on the discussion, though perhaps apologies are pointless when I've already waltzed in...but I'm sorry. It's difficult to stand by, especially when we've already got a thread going on the issue, when such blatant transphobia is displayed. I fully support lesbians claiming lesbian pride, but what I don't support is doing it by degrading transwomen and claiming that transwomen lesbians are not "real" lesbians or "real" women. To me that is utterly and completely transphobic. I know that June addressed part of what I have to say, but I don't think the point can be stressed enough.

@Chazz

You think transwomen should be allowed at MWMF - I think Mich Fest's WBW mission statement should be honored and respected. There are too many places in this community where WBW aren't honored, respected or given "ground" to stand on in the fullness of their/our particularism. One event a year doesn't seem like much to ask for. (I've never attended Mich Fest, nor do I ever intend to.)

Claiming that transwomen are not born women, and that their presence among lesbians/women that they deem to be their sisters is not "honouring" or "respecting" women who were born with XX chromosomes, is so utterly transphobic. Transwomen are women in every way. They may have been born with the wrong chromosomes and in the wrong body, but they are women through and through. They are not lesser women than women who were born female-bodied. I fail to see how you think that excluding one component of the lesbian community is somehow benefiting that community. That kind of mentality wreaks of the typical Janice Raymond bullshit of transwomen somehow being a threat to other women, or being sent to "infiltrate" women's spaces in order to corrupt or destroy them.

Not sarcastic, an acknowledgment of fact. In one way or another, lesbians/women tend to do most of the heavy lifting while males and once-males benefit from the bounty of lesbians/women's efforts, often, without ever making a tangible contribution to the effort.

And here you ignore the history of the G/L liberation movement, the same way you ignored the history of transmen in the butch community some months back. Or perhaps you just like to omit the portions of history that don't suit you and your ideas. Transwomen in particular have been a part of the struggle for gay and lesbian rights since the beginning of the movement. They were among the pioneers who struggled against discrimination and police brutality exhibited against gays, lesbians and alongside them transwomen/drag queens of all sexual orientations. Transwomen in particular were thrown under the bus despite the sacrifices they made. So when you sit there and claim that transwomen have just sat back and waited for lesbians and women born XX to fight their battles for them, I'm sorry but you're twisting history so perversely that it is nothing short of insult to the transwomen who sacrificed so much.

dreadgeek

08-17-2011, 09:15 PM

:bowdown:

Thank you. Well-spoken. Both of you. I am genuinely verklempt.

Cheers
Aj

One of you please help me understand this.

How can either of you talk about how "refreshing" it is that everyone is being so "respectful" in this thread?

There is blatant bigotry of transwomen going on in this thread. Did you guys just miss that part, or are you ok with that part? Really, I want to understand this.

There is more than one lesbian transwoman on this message board. They are a PART of our community. Do you not think they are reading the words that have been written here? Do you have any freaking concept as to how it might be making them feel?

I agree with you, AtLast, there is no "hidden gem" slights...there are right out there in the open!

Yes, I know that June handled this, but I cannot sit idly by and not have some member of the community acknowledge how shitty this is, so I am doing it, even though I do not belong in this thread.

Chazz, we have lesbian transwomen here. They are an important part of our community. Please consider that the next time you speak about "once-male", people.

(P.S. I will not be available to post again until Sunday, Good nIght, all).

I'm sorry to intrude on the discussion, though perhaps apologies are pointless when I've already waltzed in...but I'm sorry. It's difficult to stand by, especially when we've already got a thread going on the issue, when such blatant transphobia is displayed. I fully support lesbians claiming lesbian pride, but what I don't support is doing it by degrading transwomen and claiming that transwomen lesbians are not "real" lesbians or "real" women. To me that is utterly and completely transphobic. I know that June addressed part of what I have to say, but I don't think the point can be stressed enough.

@Chazz

Claiming that transwomen are not born women, and that their presence among lesbians/women that they deem to be their sisters is not "honouring" or "respecting" women who were born with XX chromosomes, is so utterly transphobic. Transwomen are women in every way. They may have been born with the wrong chromosomes and in the wrong body, but they are women through and through. They are not lesser women than women who were born female-bodied. I fail to see how you think that excluding one component of the lesbian community is somehow benefiting that community. That kind of mentality wreaks of the typical Janice Raymond bullshit of transwomen somehow being a threat to other women, or being sent to "infiltrate" women's spaces in order to corrupt or destroy them.

And here you ignore the history of the G/L liberation movement, the same way you ignored the history of transmen in the butch community some months back. Or perhaps you just like to omit the portions of history that don't suit you and your ideas. Transwomen in particular have been a part of the struggle for gay and lesbian rights since the beginning of the movement. They were among the pioneers who struggled against discrimination and police brutality exhibited against gays, lesbians and alongside them transwomen/drag queens of all sexual orientations. Transwomen in particular were thrown under the bus despite the sacrifices they made. So when you sit there and claim that transwomen have just sat back and waited for lesbians and women born XX to fight their battles for them, I'm sorry but you're twisting history so perversely that it is nothing short of insult to the transwomen who sacrificed so much.

Heart

08-17-2011, 09:30 PM

Dapper, Ender... did you see where I, a lesbian feminist woman, pushed back against excluding transwomen? I'm just curious if you saw that part of the dialogue that was going on here? Because one of the things that was important to me, in the wake of the BV/BN split, was that butch women were speaking up, finally about things that had long been festering. Which was an opportunity.

I have no argument with June modding Chazz's comment, but I do have a problem with the suggestion that Chazz leave the site. Chazz is no longer here to read your posts or to engage in discussion, whether it's about transwomen belonging or butch women belonging. That's a loss.

Sadly,
Heart

AtLast

08-17-2011, 10:41 PM

One of you please help me understand this.

How can either of you talk about how "refreshing" it is that everyone is being so "respectful" in this thread?

There is blatant bigotry of transwomen going on in this thread. Did you guys just miss that part, or are you ok with that part? Really, I want to understand this.

There is more than one lesbian transwoman on this message board. They are a PART of our community. Do you not think they are reading the words that have been written here? Do you have any freaking concept as to how it might be making them feel?

I agree with you, AtLast, there is no "hidden gem" slights...there are right out there in the open!

Yes, I know that June handled this, but I cannot sit idly by and not have some member of the community acknowledge how shitty this is, so I am doing it, even though I do not belong in this thread.

Chazz, we have lesbian transwomen here. They are an important part of our community. Please consider that the next time you speak about "once-male", people.

(P.S. I will not be available to post again until Sunday, Good nIght, all).

I must apologize to you (and all, really) as I did a goof by not going to the very start of the thread to read from there (and ALL posts) and stayed with "opening pages." My way bad.

We most certainly do have lesbian transwomen here and I really feel very foolish for not catching this.

As i now have re-read

Kobi

08-17-2011, 11:56 PM

Dapper,

To answer your inquiry, sometimes within a certain context we might perceive things differently or interpret them differently or miss them all together. There is a built in system of checks and balances for when this happens. The system was on top of things today.

From my point of view, this doesn't detract from the good things that are occuring in this thread. Amongst those good things are the following:

1. People who, perhaps, didnt feel they had a "safe" place to talk about a multitude of issues of concern to them found a place. And, the space was respected. Wow.

2. In this "safe" place, stuff that has been festering below the surface began to see the light of day. As you are aware, when things fester without a voice, when they do find a voice they dont always come thru in the most optimal way.

3. When this occured, and it did on many occasions, it was addressed. And, it was addressed in a respectful manner which was educative rather than punitive, exploratory rather than presumptive, and aimed at expanding a dialogue rather than shutting a dialog down. To me, this is a huge accomplishment. Not perfect but a huge step forward.

4. This thread, aside from the times there were attempts to turn into something it wasnt, has had a conspicuous lack of histrionics, drama, and reactionary behavior. This too has helped further a dialog and exploration and goodwill among its participants. It hasnt been about consensus. It has been, from my standpoint, about sharing, listening, learning, and a lot of other neat stuff geared toward growth and understanding.

5. There is a process going on here that feels and looks a lot different. It is not perfect but it feels generally healthy and helpful.

If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to pm me.

DapperButch

08-18-2011, 02:44 AM

Kobi/AtLast,

The reason I felt comfortable posing my question/speaking up is b/c I know you both to be women who are not transphobic and care about others' feelings. I really considered you all missed the "once-male" comment.

Kobi, I hear you and do appreciate that the thread had no drama and such and Heart I did see how you did pushed back in a healthy, dialoging way. I would not/did not post when I read about Chazz's comfort in excluding transwomen from MichFest. I know this is to be a safe place, as Kobi said. What put me over the edge was the praising of a respectful discussion, when there were parts that are just simply DAMAGING to a part of your community, lesbian transwomen.

I'm sorry I need to run...I have a plane to catch...no, seriously.

Dapper, Ender... did you see where I, a lesbian feminist woman, pushed back against excluding transwomen? I'm just curious if you saw that part of the dialogue that was going on here? Because one of the things that was important to me, in the wake of the BV/BN split, was that butch women were speaking up, finally about things that had long been festering. Which was an opportunity.

I have no argument with June modding Chazz's comment, but I do have a problem with the suggestion that Chazz leave the site. Chazz is no longer here to read your posts or to engage in discussion, whether it's about transwomen belonging or butch women belonging. That's a loss.

Sadly,
Heart

dreadgeek

08-18-2011, 10:40 AM

Kobi:

Thank you for explaining your position. You may have noticed that pretty much the *minute* MWMF was invoked, I backed off the conversation and went silent. That is because I *knew* that it was only a matter of time before something was posted where transwomen would be portrayed as 'not really women' or 'not really belonging to the lesbian community'. At that moment, the space--not just this thread but this entire site--became unsafe for me. Now, I don't really expect the world to be a safe space. I would not have made it into middle-age as a black lesbian if I expected the world to welcome me with open arms. I do, however, strongly prefer to be in spaces where I won't be subject to reading things that explicitly state--for reasons entirely beyond your control, you do not belong here. But it goes farther than that. Yesterday, as I wrestled with saying something in response, a question crossed my mind: is there any amount of time or effort a transwoman could spend in the lesbian community that would allow her to not be thought of as an interloper and to be brought into the circle of 'sister'. My gut instinct is that for anyone who uses the term 'once-males' to refer to transgendered women a million years wouldn't be half enough time. I also get the feeling--and I may be wrong--that if a transwoman carried not just her own weight but the weight of the next 10 women around her, those contributions would *still* not be enough.

So what I read was that transwomen had no legitimate place and in that moment, as I said before, this place became deeply 'unsafe'. So why am I still here? Why did I not leave? Because before I was a queer, I was already black. I know unsafe space. I know how to maneuver around unsafe space. My neighborhood was unsafe space--in the way that being the only black kid in your class from kindergarten to sixth grade can be. At some point in between being subjected to the tender mercies of elementary school children picking on the kid who looks most different to the experience of coming out and promptly being told that I was a race traitor (yes, I have had people say that to me) for being queer, I realized that if someone holds a prejudice against me, there is very little I can do to change their mind. I can, however, decide that I will hold my head high, that I will carry myself with dignity and that I will hold to a very high standard of conduct. My logic is that the bigot will still think me low, undeserving or an interloper but I will, in the fullness of time, make that bigot look like a fool. How? By being a shining star. By being honorable, intelligent, erudite, kind, expansive, friendly and hard-working. What could do more damage to any of the myths that people might have about me because I'm black, queer, etc. than to be the kind of woman you could proudly take home to mother?

Years ago, when I came out and first discovered that there were two groups within the queer community--particularly the lesbian community--that were considered once and for all time outside the circle of sisterhood; bisexuals and transwomen. The blatantly racist or anti-Semitic statement had no place and any woman fool enough to utter it in public would have the wrath of Sappho herself visited upon her. But bisexuals could be spoken of in terms of being vectors of disease contaminating what would otherwise have been an ostensibly disease-free lesbian community. At least bisexuals were not thought to be intentionally volunteering to be disease vectors while transwomen were thought to have truly evil intent--although this being the 90s and post-modernism being what it was, no one used the term evil. Rather, it was couched in terms of transwomen having some nebulous, shadowy but nefarious intent to do undermine the lesbian community from within. At the time, I was writing for every gay or lesbian newspaper or magazine that would publish me. I stumbled across a question that was relevant in 1991 and is relevant 20 years later, what are we in this for? By this I mean the Movement for the rights of queer people to live their lives as full citizens with agency. Are we in it because--as I believe--that it is simply wrong for individuals to be discriminated against in either law or custom because of some arbitrary characteristic OR are we in this because such discrimination is happening to *us*. This is a non-trivial difference. If you believe that bigotry and prejudice are wrong then one would hope one would spread that net as far as possible. It goes beyond the discrimination that happens to me, it is the discrimination I make others the target of. If, on the other hand, one believes that the discrimination that happens to one's own group is wrong but not that bigotry or prejudice are generally wrong, then one need not look to the plank in one's own eye. All that matters is that the other person standing on one's foot get the hell off your foot. IF the queer movement is against bigotry or prejudice based upon arbitrary characteristics of gender or sexual orientation, then our movement cannot give much quarter to a form of bigotry that says "I don't care, nor do I have to care, how long ago you transitioned you will always be, in my eyes, whatever your chromosomes say you are". If, on the other hand, we are concerned only with the more limited question of "lesbians and gay men are subject to injustice because they are gay or lesbian" that allows for the community to have a space for bigotry against bisexuals or transsexuals or transgendered people or, for that matter, butches and femmes.

Twenty years ago, I cast my lot in with that part of the community that believed that the discrimination that happens to bisexuals or transsexuals *within* the queer community is no better than discrimination that happens against all queer people. I would have preferred that gender theory were not the vehicle by which transgendered people gained a greater level of acceptance because I think that post-modernism, upon which gender theory is based, is deeply and profoundly broken because it is incoherent. I almost feel guilty at having benefited from gender theory and its ancestor, post-modernism, because I would be quite happy putting the final nail in the coffin of that ideology.

Cheers
Aj

Dapper,

To answer your inquiry, sometimes within a certain context we might perceive things differently or interpret them differently or miss them all together. There is a built in system of checks and balances for when this happens. The system was on top of things today.

From my point of view, this doesn't detract from the good things that are occuring in this thread. Amongst those good things are the following:

1. People who, perhaps, didnt feel they had a "safe" place to talk about a multitude of issues of concern to them found a place. And, the space was respected. Wow.

2. In this "safe" place, stuff that has been festering below the surface began to see the light of day. As you are aware, when things fester without a voice, when they do find a voice they dont always come thru in the most optimal way.

3. When this occured, and it did on many occasions, it was addressed. And, it was addressed in a respectful manner which was educative rather than punitive, exploratory rather than presumptive, and aimed at expanding a dialogue rather than shutting a dialog down. To me, this is a huge accomplishment. Not perfect but a huge step forward.

4. This thread, aside from the times there were attempts to turn into something it wasnt, has had a conspicuous lack of histrionics, drama, and reactionary behavior. This too has helped further a dialog and exploration and goodwill among its participants. It hasnt been about consensus. It has been, from my standpoint, about sharing, listening, learning, and a lot of other neat stuff geared toward growth and understanding.

5. There is a process going on here that feels and looks a lot different. It is not perfect but it feels generally healthy and helpful.

If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to pm me.

dreadgeek

08-18-2011, 12:15 PM

June:

When I was little--probably 12 or around there--I was baking biscuits with my grandmother and I asked her if she hated white people. She was born in 1903 and lived her whole life in the same town in Louisiana (Ruston). If anyone had a reason to hate white people, it was Mama Gus. She looked at me, sat me down and gave me this which, to this day, forms the core of my ethics:

"Baby, we can't hate them back. See, maybe the Klansman just don't know any better. He might not know that black people are also children of God. But you and I know what it's like to be hated. Now, if you do evil out of ignorance, God will forgive that because only He knows everything. But if you do evil because you have seen it, you know it is evil and you choose to do it anyway, that makes you worse than any Klansman. It means you wanted to be evil, even though you know that it hurts real people."

Every time I feel tempted or seduced by hatred--and hating others IS seductive, looking down on others is the easiest mental trick in the world--I remember her words. When I think of Michelle Bachmann, who I have no doubt would happily sign laws that would all but outlaw us, I remember my grandmother's words. I can think her a fool, I can certainly point out that the woman knows slightly more American history than my dog only because my dog can't read, I will absolutely rush to the barricades to defend my nation against the theocracy she wishes to bring but I cannot *hate* her. Oppose, yes. Hate? No.

Cheers
Aj

On a personal note:

It is truly heartbreaking for me that in a thread about Lesbian Pride that a Butch Lesbian has to essentially make a case for herself to be included in the "Loving Circle of Sappho".

In all of our personal narratives, I am sure we can point to many, many people of all kinds who have usurped, oppressed and tread unpleasantly upon our backs in order to lift themselves up.

When we, as a microcosm community allow a few people to do this in order to exert their "Pride" and/or ownership of something, in this case, Lesbian, it does not make us stronger, it divides and others us into factions.

It is my opinion that people who do this are no better, and possibly worse than the likes of Michelle Bachmann, et al. The people who see us as less than human and actively seek to oppress us further based solely upon who we love.

My personal narrative contains experiences that prove to me that it is when I am seen for all the other things I am, a mother, great employee, volunteer, friend, that who I sleep with becomes less important, than who I am as a whole.

It is perplexing to me when "we" do not allow this same courtesy to others that we meet, but instead choose to paint all with the same brush based on opinions formed previously. This is how, even now, in 2011, Racism, Sexism, Misogyny, Sizism, Classism and any other ism you can think of is still running rampant.

Remaining silent = Complicity and approval.

As far as I know, save for personal ones, there is no universal litmus test for Lesbian, and yet some of us act as though there is and actively seek to impose it on others in order to exclude and silence.

--June

BullDog

08-18-2011, 12:24 PM

I have been reading the thread and there have been some great points made. I was put off by some of the remarks earlier about qualifying who was lesbian and it felt exclusionary to me. That's pretty much when I checked out. Also, I certainly am not going to support any lesbian or any organization that attempts to exclude or "other" transwomen.

I am proud to be a lesbian and celebrate our diversity.

AtLast

08-18-2011, 12:40 PM

Kobi

08-18-2011, 01:50 PM

There is no nice way to address this so I will just be straight forward.

There was an issue here yesterday. It was moderated. When I saw the moderation, I had to ask what it was about because my interpretation of it and the reason for it wasnt the same thing. And when I got the answer, I sat here and mulled over how or if I address this because, to me, I was between a rock and a hard place. No matter how I handled this, someone would be somehow umbridged about it. And I knew it.

Aj you are right, this isnt a safe place. It never was. I had to make a stink to get this space and I had to fight for the right to have this thread and to clarify over and over and over its intent. I ask to ask over and over why it was so threatening for lesbians, like me, to have a place to talk about stuff - even unpleasant stuff. Stuff that people do not want aired because it is too threatening to the pervailing opinions we expect everyone to spout off like good little doobies. And I had to ask why there was such a need to try and silence lesbians like me.

We are thousands of different people with thousands of different perspectives and life stories and horror stories and experiences. Yet, somehow we are all supposed to tow the same line for the sake of "unity" because we are all queer? That is illogical.

This thread isnt a safe place and never was. Anyone who was brave enough to post here was a fish in a barrel with a ready supply of vultures sitting on the sidelines reading every word of every post under a microscope waiting for the moment to pounce.

And the minute they got it, a moderation wasnt enough. The PATRIARCHY had to come roaring in with a vehemence worthy of an Oscar and chastise the bad bad lesbians. AND, they demand that we bad bad lesbians/women explain ourselves.

I wish I could say this is about bigotry but it doesnt feel like it. Bigotry may have been the impetus but there are larger issues here that cannot be swept under the rug over and over and over again without continuing to
feed into the resentments, pecking order, and the right of people to have and express differing opinions.

We would much prefer that everyone have the same perspective, the same values, the same opinions.....ahhh yes our beloved diversity of sameness. Just because we put blinders on doesnt mean all is right with the world. And there will continue to be deep resentments in this community because the things that need to be aired and discussed cant be.

And the saddest part is those who straddled the fence, waiting to see which way the wind was going to blow before they weighed in today.

I wish I could say I was surprised this happened but I am not. Nor am I disappointed. It was only a matter of time until lesbians, like me, would be put in their proper place ......again.

There was a concerted effort to silence our voices and our concerns and our opinions. Seems to me, mission accomplished!

BullDog

08-18-2011, 02:00 PM

Kobi, lesbians who are also transwomen should feel safe in a thread on lesbian pride.

Lesbians who are partnered with male identified people should feel welcome in a thread on lesbian pride.

Lesbians who have a different idea of what lesbian pride means than you (for example me) should feel free to share our thoughts on lesbian pride.

Your opinion is one lesbian's opinion. So is mine.

Heart

08-18-2011, 02:11 PM

*sigh*

The thing is Kobi, a choice was made to use terminology that was, in fact, transphobic. The phrase "once-men" was erasing of the butch lesbian transwomen that were participating in this thread! The moderation was appropriate. Why are you making it about silencing lesbians overall? That's just counter-productive.

I do have a beef with the fact that months ago when a male-identified butch called lesbians "man-haters," the comment was parsed and explained away, diluted as part of that person's "truth," and lightly moderated, if memory serves.

The rest of the paragraph that was moderated in this thread, about lesbians doing the "heavy lifting," spear-heading the funding and building of domestic violence shelters, could most certainly be called someone's "truth."

So inevitably and defensively I find myself wondering... do trans identities just have more currency at this juncture than lesbian identities? How else to compare the swift modding of a transphobic slur and the support that followed with the lack of moderation of a phobic stereotyping of lesbians?

But beyond the issue of moderating, which is at best an inexact art form, I am feeling, (based in part on a discussion with a very smart femme lesbian), like the whole issue of "re-claiming" lesbian pride has a whiff of "othering" about it. Like we are taking something back from someone who isn't really "one of us." In light of what happened -- that feels off to me. I don't want to participate in that. I'm not interested in pure feminism or pure lesbianism for that matter. Hell, there are plenty of reasons why I am quite impure myself.

I'm down with lesbian pride, but if it means that a transwomen who is a lesbian isn't fully included in this space, then like MWMF, I'm out.

Heart

dreadgeek

08-18-2011, 02:46 PM

So, in order for lesbians like you to be heard, to be validated, it was necessary for someone to be able to use a term that was rather bigoted. Look, if the only way that lesbians like you can feel that this is your space and that your concerns are being addressed, is for women like me to have to just put up with terms like 'once-male' being thrown around without challenge, then okay. Okay, here, doesn't mean I'm going away. It does mean that that is a piece of information that is useful to have and I'm glad I now know.

I am not arguing--and my presence here does not militate for--not airing issues that need to be aired. Yet, I have two questions for you:

1) If, instead of saying something about transwomen, the statement had been that black women--for whatever reason--had no legitimate place within lesbian community and had people spoken up against it, would you still feel that lesbians like you had been silenced? If not, why not? Why is it that, if all you knew was that I'm a black lesbian, it would be unacceptable to say that 'women like that' (who are not, after all, lesbians like you) are not legitimately apart of this community but since it is transwomen, that is in bounds?

2) Is there any amount of time, any amount of effort, any action whatsoever that would EVER earn a transwoman the right--in your eyes--to legitimately claim a seat at the table?

I, too, was enjoying the conversation right up until the point where it became clear that transwomen--in the eyes of some--aren't woman enough to deserve to call themselves lesbian. At that point, I had a decision to make; do I risk starting WW III or do I just let someone else speak up and see what happens. I chose the latter path.

I think these issues are important. I think they need to be discussed. I don't, however, think they need to be discussed at the cost of letting statements of the "transwomen, you are not welcome here". If some transwoman did X, where X is some horrible thing, then she should have to answer for that. Not because she is a transwoman, but because she did some act that was unacceptable. Being trans should not make one subject to a lighter standard or a heavier standard but the same standard, as much as is possible. But that's not what was being put forth. What was being put forth was the idea that transwomen qua transwomen are not, cannot and should not be welcome in lesbian community. Not actions, simply the fact that the woman in question has a Y chromosome and that's enough.

This statement is not meant to be silencing, nor is it meant to be putting lesbians like you in their place. I am no apologist for patriarchy. I feel that my years in this community--and by this community I mean the lesbian community--have earned me a place at the table. I earned it at the Whiptail Lizard Lounge in San Francisco, where I spent two years volunteering every weekend. I earned it going around the Bay Area in the mid-nineties, when the Internet was just starting to come to public consciousness and either wiring up organizations that helped women, building their web sites, or training women how to use computers. It was earned teaching classes at a DV shelter so women could use the web to find safe, permanent housing for themselves and their children. It was earned by doing *precisely* the opposite of what Chazz said transwomen did. Instead of showing up and saying "seat me", I showed up, asked permission to enter, and then said "how can I help". When I came out as trans on this board last year, I talked about asking whether or not women like me were welcome at the Whiptail Lizard Lounge. I got blasted because people said I shouldn't have had to ask for permission and maybe they were right. But I had read my feminist theory, I knew about male privilege and I wasn't about to be one of those transwomen who pretended that since we had been at war with our own bodies since childhood, we could pretend that male privilege never had anything to do with us. Instead, I intuitively grasped that the way to approach things was to show up, be useful, live my feminism, and I would gain acceptance. It worked spectacularly and that attitude has served me well for 22 years. It serves me well to this day.

To this day, I still try to give more than I take from the lesbian community because I like the feeling of being a sister who, when the hard work needs to be done, is right up at the front, painting the walls, or dumping the trash, or doing whatever needs doing whether it is pleasant or easy or not. That, to me, is part and parcel of being a sister.

This isn't an apologia nor is it asking for your acceptance. I am too old and too strong to need the acceptance of anyone else. It is a statement that regardless of what others might think, I AM a strong black woman and I AM a lesbian who is proud to be a lesbian. I will never apologize for that nor will I ever apologize for standing up for myself. I will also not apologize for being grateful that people stood up and spoke for women who might otherwise not have been spoken for.

In sisterly spirit
Aj

Kobi

08-18-2011, 02:58 PM

June,

I have no issue with the moderation. It was necessary. It was a derogatory term. I expect stuff like this to be moderated.

What I also expect is, it was moderated. To have Dapper and Ender come in and add fuel to the fire, to me, was the patriarchy coming in to silence and chastise the lesbians. It was unnecessary except to send a message.

I also expect moderations to be fair across the board and they are not. Trans issues and racial issues are moderated with a very heavy hand. I have no problem with that either. But, I expect when lesbian issues crop up or female issues, they will be given the same weight and the same forcefulness. In my opinion they are not.

I am not going to be dragged into a debate about the definition of a lesbian. Lesbian connotates something very specific, very particular and very unmistakeable. I havent seen any dictionary change it over the last 40 years.

And this is not about "othering". It is about being "othered". This about voicing a right to exist along side others on an equal par. And it is about having the right to voice the right to exist and have it validated. It is about speaking to the truth of feeling marginalized. From where I stand, only lesbians, like me, have to sit here and defend themselves in discussions like this. No other id has to defend itself. Why do I?

Lesbian has become a huge, widespread thing to basically mean anything other than male. That, to me, diminishes me and my identity. Yet, I am not supposed to be offended by this or even speak to it. But, I do have to defend it....over and over and over.

I have deliberately not used the volatile word "censorship". And I will continue to avoid it.

Again, the issues are being swept under the rug while we focus on terminology and bigotry.

Kobi --

Is it censorship and a call for sameness if we moderate someone for using a derisive term "Once Men" to describe Transwomen?

This thread is about Lesbian Pride. How does denigrating a portion of our community make you or anyone feel personally proud?

What I am reading here as both a participant and a moderator is some serious gatekeeping around who is a Lesbian and who is not.

Perhaps I am not a real Lesbian in the eyes of some because I was married to my sons father for 14 years prior to coming out? Even though I have been in a Lesbian relationship for 12 years.

We are asking that people refrain from using derogatory terms. Period.

Who is the patriarchy that came in here? Is it me? Is it Bulldog? Is it Aj? That is a pretty serious accusation to throw out there, and frankly, it's offensive and judgmental to me.

Because we have said "This is not the place for that" suddenly, we are censoring people and part of the "Patriarchy".

Would you feel the same way if someone on this forum threw the term "Rug Munchers" into their post? How is that different. Tell me. Because I can guarantee you that would get moderated as well. Would it still be censorship?

--June (Member to member)

Kobi

08-18-2011, 03:31 PM

Aj,

I have a great deal of respect for you.

I am dismayed to learn you and others saw something going on in this thread that I didnt. And rather than speak to it, even privately, you and others decided to sit back and see what happened. And, now, after the fact, you and others almost seem to be patting yourselves on the back for having knowledge others didnt. You sat back and did nothing but it is ok to chastize others after the fact?

Wow. Kind of a throw back to women against women days of the old feminism.

I, of course, feel you set me and this thread up. And that feels pretty shitty. Not surprising but still feels shitty.

And I am getting getting really tired of taking the brunt of this. I did not say a freakin thing about transwomen but the entire thing is getting dumped on me. I didnt see it. I didnt understand the implications of it.

I am happy to own my shit. I anxiously await the day others begin owning theirs.

Oh btw, thanks to those "friends" of mine who had the need to distance themselves. What a powerful message that sends along.

So, in order for lesbians like you to be heard, to be validated, it was necessary for someone to be able to use a term that was rather bigoted. Look, if the only way that lesbians like you can feel that this is your space and that your concerns are being addressed, is for women like me to have to just put up with terms like 'once-male' being thrown around without challenge, then okay. Okay, here, doesn't mean I'm going away. It does mean that that is a piece of information that is useful to have and I'm glad I now know.

I am not arguing--and my presence here does not militate for--not airing issues that need to be aired. Yet, I have two questions for you:

1) If, instead of saying something about transwomen, the statement had been that black women--for whatever reason--had no legitimate place within lesbian community and had people spoken up against it, would you still feel that lesbians like you had been silenced? If not, why not? Why is it that, if all you knew was that I'm a black lesbian, it would be unacceptable to say that 'women like that' (who are not, after all, lesbians like you) are not legitimately apart of this community but since it is transwomen, that is in bounds?

2) Is there any amount of time, any amount of effort, any action whatsoever that would EVER earn a transwoman the right--in your eyes--to legitimately claim a seat at the table?

I, too, was enjoying the conversation right up until the point where it became clear that transwomen--in the eyes of some--aren't woman enough to deserve to call themselves lesbian. At that point, I had a decision to make; do I risk starting WW III or do I just let someone else speak up and see what happens. I chose the latter path.

I think these issues are important. I think they need to be discussed. I don't, however, think they need to be discussed at the cost of letting statements of the "transwomen, you are not welcome here". If some transwoman did X, where X is some horrible thing, then she should have to answer for that. Not because she is a transwoman, but because she did some act that was unacceptable. Being trans should not make one subject to a lighter standard or a heavier standard but the same standard, as much as is possible. But that's not what was being put forth. What was being put forth was the idea that transwomen qua transwomen are not, cannot and should not be welcome in lesbian community. Not actions, simply the fact that the woman in question has a Y chromosome and that's enough.

This statement is not meant to be silencing, nor is it meant to be putting lesbians like you in their place. I am no apologist for patriarchy. I feel that my years in this community--and by this community I mean the lesbian community--have earned me a place at the table. I earned it at the Whiptail Lizard Lounge in San Francisco, where I spent two years volunteering every weekend. I earned it going around the Bay Area in the mid-nineties, when the Internet was just starting to come to public consciousness and either wiring up organizations that helped women, building their web sites, or training women how to use computers. It was earned teaching classes at a DV shelter so women could use the web to find safe, permanent housing for themselves and their children. It was earned by doing *precisely* the opposite of what Chazz said transwomen did. Instead of showing up and saying "seat me", I showed up, asked permission to enter, and then said "how can I help". When I came out as trans on this board last year, I talked about asking whether or not women like me were welcome at the Whiptail Lizard Lounge. I got blasted because people said I shouldn't have had to ask for permission and maybe they were right. But I had read my feminist theory, I knew about male privilege and I wasn't about to be one of those transwomen who pretended that since we had been at war with our own bodies since childhood, we could pretend that male privilege never had anything to do with us. Instead, I intuitively grasped that the way to approach things was to show up, be useful, live my feminism, and I would gain acceptance. It worked spectacularly and that attitude has served me well for 22 years. It serves me well to this day.

To this day, I still try to give more than I take from the lesbian community because I like the feeling of being a sister who, when the hard work needs to be done, is right up at the front, painting the walls, or dumping the trash, or doing whatever needs doing whether it is pleasant or easy or not. That, to me, is part and parcel of being a sister.

This isn't an apologia nor is it asking for your acceptance. I am too old and too strong to need the acceptance of anyone else. It is a statement that regardless of what others might think, I AM a strong black woman and I AM a lesbian who is proud to be a lesbian. I will never apologize for that nor will I ever apologize for standing up for myself. I will also not apologize for being grateful that people stood up and spoke for women who might otherwise not have been spoken for.

In sisterly spirit
Aj

Heart

08-18-2011, 04:01 PM

Kobi - Aj had just read herself termed as a "once-man" yet you think she owed YOU something? She wasn't setting you up by withdrawing, she was protecting herself - which she has every right to do. Taking the victim position here really stretches the limits of credulity.

Nothing is being dumped on you, no one is holding you solely accountable for this thread, or what happened in it, but it's also nobody else's fault or responsibility that you didn't see something or understand it. Least of all Aj.

Aj,

I have a great deal of respect for you.

I am dismayed to learn you and others saw something going on in this thread that I didnt. And rather than speak to it, even privately, you and others decided to sit back and see what happened. And, now, after the fact, you and others almost seem to be patting yourselves on the back for having knowledge others didnt. You sat back and did nothing but it is ok to chastize others after the fact?

Wow. Kind of a throw back to women against women days of the old feminism.

I, of course, feel you set me and this thread up. And that feels pretty shitty. Not surprising but still feels shitty.

And I am getting getting really tired of taking the brunt of this. I did not say a freakin thing about transwomen but the entire thing is getting dumped on me. I didnt see it. I didnt understand the implications of it.

I am happy to own my shit. I anxiously await the day others begin owning theirs.

Oh btw, thanks to those "friends" of mine who had the need to distance themselves. What a powerful message that sends along.

dreadgeek

08-18-2011, 04:06 PM

Kobi:

What was I supposed to say? I didn't say anything because I was not about to make Chazz correct. Not giving them that satisfaction. I've walked into that trap enough times to know what the snare line looks like. The term 'once males' gets thrown out, I object loudly about it and I'm throwing about male privilege. I defend myself, I'm doing it wrong. I don't defend myself, I'm doing it wrong. I didn't post initially because I don't like to post when I'm upset and seeing 'once males' was upsetting. I am not putting this on you. I don't blame people for things they did not do--I don't do it because I have spent 45 walking this Earth, carrying the weight of other people's actions on my back. If I had a dollar for every time someone had asked me why so many blacks are on welfare, I'd make Warren Buffet, George Soros and Oprah *combined* look like paupers. So I don't hold you responsible for the words that others used.

Set you up, how? Precisely how could I possibly have set you up in this thread? I am genuinely mystified by that accusation. Now, I admit, I am not the queen of social graces so there are things I do that I miss but here, I'm not sure how I could possibly have set you up. I participated on this thread like I do on other threads. What could I have done differently where you would not have been set up?

When you say "having knowledge others didn't" do you mean the knowledge I'm a transwoman? Look, up until about a year ago NO ONE on this board knew. I didn't say anything, because I didn't think it relevant, until someone said something that I found sexist and in order to blunt the accusation of transphobia when I called them out on it, I disclosed that I was a transwoman so the *last* accusation that could reasonably be leveled at me was that I held bigoted attitudes about transgendered people. I didn't put it out there on this thread because, as a general rule, I don't announce my being transgendered. There was certainly no way in hell, I was going to just introduce that into the conversation unless it became necessary to do so. My heuristic, another one that has served me well--although it puts me at odds with many in the trans community, FTM and MTF alike--is that people get to know either when I choose to let them know or if they are in the circle of people who need or have a right to know. Need or right to know is if you are my doctor, my therapist, or someone I want to date. Right to know is if you are someone I want to date. Everyone else, I disclose in the manner of my choosing. So I was not about to come in here and open up with "hi, before we get into the meat of this discussion, I'm a transwoman, just so you know".

Of all the things I'm doing, patting myself on the back is pretty well near the bottom of the list. Keeping myself calm and reminding myself that this is my community too? Yes, I'm doing that. Reminding myself that no one can take away the last two decades of my life and the peace I've found in my body? Yes, there's a bit of that going on as well. Second-guessing myself? Plenty of that as well. Keeping my emotions in check so every word I type is carefully thought out? Absolutely! But self-congratulations? No, not even in the same zip code as to what is going on with me right now. I see nothing to congratulate at any rate. I feel gratitude, but not congratulatory.

To me, every iteration of this discussion in the community--a discussion that has gone on since *at least* 1973--is a loss for us all. I see nothing for anyone to feel congratulatory for.

Cheers
Aj

Kobi

08-18-2011, 04:41 PM

Aj,

I did not know your history. I appreciate you sharing this.

I also did not know what "once man" or "WBW" meant. There is a presumption that people should know this stuff. I dont. I was having a hard enough time figuring out the jist of posts. Thus, underlying innuendo flew right past me. I am still going back over posts trying to understand.

It seems to me, if you see something derogatory going on, you either speak to it publicly or at least privately. It is never safe to assume someone sees something or understands it or knows the implications of it. To do so is a disservice to oneself and to others.

And, to me, one does not need to use a 2x4 or a baseball bat to make a point.

I do, however, understand that one is often put in a no win situation and can sympathize with this without any problem whatsoever.

Kobi:

What was I supposed to say? I didn't say anything because I was not about to make Chazz correct. Not giving them that satisfaction. I've walked into that trap enough times to know what the snare line looks like. The term 'once males' gets thrown out, I object loudly about it and I'm throwing about male privilege. I defend myself, I'm doing it wrong. I don't defend myself, I'm doing it wrong. I didn't post initially because I don't like to post when I'm upset and seeing 'once males' was upsetting. I am not putting this on you. I don't blame people for things they did not do--I don't do it because I have spent 45 walking this Earth, carrying the weight of other people's actions on my back. If I had a dollar for every time someone had asked me why so many blacks are on welfare, I'd make Warren Buffet, George Soros and Oprah *combined* look like paupers. So I don't hold you responsible for the words that others used.

Set you up, how? Precisely how could I possibly have set you up in this thread? I am genuinely mystified by that accusation. Now, I admit, I am not the queen of social graces so there are things I do that I miss but here, I'm not sure how I could possibly have set you up. I participated on this thread like I do on other threads. What could I have done differently where you would not have been set up?

When you say "having knowledge others didn't" do you mean the knowledge I'm a transwoman? Look, up until about a year ago NO ONE on this board knew. I didn't say anything, because I didn't think it relevant, until someone said something that I found sexist and in order to blunt the accusation of transphobia when I called them out on it, I disclosed that I was a transwoman so the *last* accusation that could reasonably be leveled at me was that I held bigoted attitudes about transgendered people. I didn't put it out there on this thread because, as a general rule, I don't announce my being transgendered. There was certainly no way in hell, I was going to just introduce that into the conversation unless it became necessary to do so. My heuristic, another one that has served me well--although it puts me at odds with many in the trans community, FTM and MTF alike--is that people get to know either when I choose to let them know or if they are in the circle of people who need or have a right to know. Need or right to know is if you are my doctor, my therapist, or someone I want to date. Right to know is if you are someone I want to date. Everyone else, I disclose in the manner of my choosing. So I was not about to come in here and open up with "hi, before we get into the meat of this discussion, I'm a transwoman, just so you know".

Of all the things I'm doing, patting myself on the back is pretty well near the bottom of the list. Keeping myself calm and reminding myself that this is my community too? Yes, I'm doing that. Reminding myself that no one can take away the last two decades of my life and the peace I've found in my body? Yes, there's a bit of that going on as well. Second-guessing myself? Plenty of that as well. Keeping my emotions in check so every word I type is carefully thought out? Absolutely! But self-congratulations? No, not even in the same zip code as to what is going on with me right now. I see nothing to congratulate at any rate. I feel gratitude, but not congratulatory.

To me, every iteration of this discussion in the community--a discussion that has gone on since *at least* 1973--is a loss for us all. I see nothing for anyone to feel congratulatory for.

Cheers
Aj

AtLast

08-18-2011, 04:53 PM

Hummmm... and are we ready to discuss discrimination and bigotry against butch lesbians of every corner of our community dating or partnering with a lesbian transwoman? Where does the crux of this conversation usually go first- the "once a woman" issue? Are these relationships viewed with the same disdain that I have read in threads (mainly in the dash site) about butch on butch relationships and bi-sexuality?

We have many areas in which there existing a safe space is not felt to be so. hell, there have been times I have felt disdain for having been heterosexual in my life time on these forums.

WOW- no one corrected my error- it is "once a man" not once a woman. This gets thrown out a lot at butches that relate/date transwomen- and a whole lot of "not a real lesbian" slights.

It has always appeared to me that transwomen do not feel comfortable in our community as either butch or femme identified. The only thread I recall (but I certainly have not read/viewed them all) that focused on transwomen in the B-F dynamic was one in dash site. And it was derogatory- it was about why transwomen were even on the site!! This was over 3 years ago.

Medusa

08-18-2011, 06:52 PM

Further than that, if you see something problematic and don't report it, then ask yourself why you are waiting on someone else to handle it.

You have a voice as an adult. Use it. Use it respectfully, but use it.

Medusa

08-18-2011, 07:42 PM

There are a couple of things I need to say, mostly because I can't get it out of my head and partly because I'm hoarse from saying "NUH UHHH" at my screen. :)

First, (and Kobi, this isn't meant to pick on you so please don't take it that way), I want to clarify how and why the "Lesbian Zone" came into creation on this site. It actually was out of multiple discussions but mostly because AtLast wouldn't let it go (wink at you, Atlast, you know I adore your tenacity!). My recollection wasn't that there was a throng of angry Lesbians demanding it, it was that we had a few folks who thought it would feel more validating so I begrudgingly implemented it.
The "begrudgingly" part is still there. Vehemently.
I need to talk about that or my head might explode.
I have said 100 times that a Lesbian zone on this website is redundant. To make a "zone within a zone" on a website where the core/essence/foundation is Lesbian is redundant and has bothered me since day one.
Not saying that I haven't found it to be super delightful at times, but it has pushed some buttons for me that I have been very apprehensive to talk about. Until now.

My "begrudging" implementation of the "Lesbian" zone is not because I'm an agent of the Patriarchy and am wanting to deny the voices of Lesbians. It's because I was and am super fearful of creating a space that has the HUGE potential to become militant and separatist and unwelcoming to Transwomen, Transmen, and even BUTCHES based on my own experiences as an out Lesbian of 20 years.

Is that Lesbian-phobic? Remember, I'm a Lesbian.

That is me, as a Lesbian, acknowledging that we as Lesbians have the ability to fence ourselves into tight spaces based on identity, politics, and gender theory even if we, as Lesbians, are often super pissed off when someone who is not identified as a Lesbian talks openly about this.

There have been instances of denial on this very site where someone who identifies as Lesbian tries to paint this rosy picture of Lesbian history where no instance of misandry, identity-fencing, presentation-fencing, separatism, or militancy has ever existed and the very idea of mentioning a diametrically opposed experience is enough to invoke cries of "unsafe!" or "anti-Lesbian!" or worse, the "Patriarchy".

Well guess what, I'm not the fucking Patriarchy. I'm a Lesbian and I have witnessed and been part of it. And I'd venture to guess that the vast majority, if not all of us, have experienced or contributed to it in one form or another at some point in our Lesbian lives.

To deny that does not do us any service. In fact, it's privileged and inauthentic.

Let a Transman talk about his experience of growing up in a Lesbian commune, identified as a Lesbian, and make a statement like "had a I been like most Lesbians 30 years ago, I would have hated him based on his gender" and we'll be talking about it a year later.
We'll also say that because one Transman made that statement that the entire BFP experience is anti-Lesbian.
Let the Mods and myself say "We could have done that better" and we'll talk about how we're quick to call out racism and transphobia but we let anti-Lesbian sentiment slide on some premise of Patriarchal adaptation.
Even if we're Lesbians.
Even if the Transman in question comes back to clarify the context.
Even if he further clarifies that he was talking about the "Lesbians he knew".
Even if he's no longer a member of this site.
Even if it was said in the Red Zone where we have said multiple times we DO NOT MODERATE.
Even if we create a Lesbian zone, add language in multiple places to our TOS, and do our best to tap that shit.

Do I sound butthurt and defensive? I am.

I'm a Lesbian who was called "anti Lesbian" by other Lesbians. I took that shit hard and I take it hard now when, a year later, we are still talking about it.

I felt that because it was a Transman making the comment, his history of living as a Lesbian (which he spoke heartfully about) was erased and that his head would need to be affixed to a stick to satisfy that we had taken the issue seriously.

I felt that there was some serious denial going on about the militancy that can happen in Feminist and Lesbian circles. I'm a Lesbian and I can acknowledge it. But if a Transman even alludes to it, it's seen as Lesbian-bashing. What is that about?

We have this space and someone makes a shitty comment about Transwomen.
We had the Red Zone and someone made a shitty comment about Lesbians.
I keep rolling it over in my head how speaking about something you actually experienced (even if the filter is fucked up) is NOT. THE. SAME. as invoking hurtful and highly-insensitive terminology such as "once men" in a "Lesbian Zone" where Transwomen have experienced historical marginalization.

I am a Lesbian and I support my Lesbian sisters. ALL of them. And that means that I hold in my memory the echos of all of the MWMF's where Transwomen were treated like dogs outside the gates. That means that I don't sweep that shit under the rug or pretend like that very same separatist thinking doesn't STILL exist. Because it does.

We are all responsible for this space. Not just this zone, but this site. My hope was that we'd all be invested in sharing our experiences with one another and learning from one another.
One of the things that triggers me about having separate Lesbian space on a Lesbian site is that it pushes so many of my personal buttons about identity fencing. It becomes easy to discount voices as "Patriarchy" even if those same voice share our history.

I think we can celebrate our shared Lesbian herstory and listen to the voices of those who do share, will share, and have shared that path, even if those voices are now deeper.

CherylNYC

08-18-2011, 09:17 PM

Thank your for all your posts, Aj. Like Kobi, I missed 'once male' altogether. I didn't understand the reference, and giddy with the joy of FINALLY reading posts by and for lesbian feminist butch-femme women, instead of reading posts about how far butches can push themselves towards maleness on the spectrum(sic), I didn't bother to sort out the meaning of the term.

I've been excited about a seeming resurgence in lesbian pride. As much as I wish we were not talking about the acceptance of transwomen in our community instead of lesbian pride, clearly we're not done yet.

Your post has made me thoughtful about my own history. I have a baaad history with men. I've been the object of a lifetime of very invasive, not to mention criminal behaviour. The reason I'm far more wary of men, even though I've also been financially and sexually abused by a woman, is that my issues with men are current and ongoing. I may be pushing 50, but they still sniff up my butt like a pack of dogs. No, there's nothing flattering about it. I would be a fool and a victim if I didn't maintain a VERY guarded posture with most men. For me, safety is relative and the safest space is women's space. Like many feminists of my era, I treasure and guard women's space because it's very meaningful to me.

This is relevant because many lesbians have felt, just as you pointed out, that transwomen are really men who have come to invade women's space. I certainly felt that way for a long time. A close friend, A, changed that view. She's a woman. Period. I don't care that A has a long history as a man prior to her transition. Like you, she holds her head high, carries herself with dignity, and holds herself to a very high standard of conduct. I'm quite certain that she did that before she transitioned, too.

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet.

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting, and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As far as I know, here in NYC my friend is no longer in danger of being disrespected or made to feel unwelcome in any part of our communities. MWMF is the only event from which she's excluded. I've observed her getting the fish-eye in straight settings, but according to her she hasn't felt or heard any anti-trans actions or words directed towards her from anyone in our LGBT, BDSM, or women's communities. Ironically, she has been vilified by other trans people because of her views about what it means to be a woman. My friend can happily come and go to women's groups and events in safety because there's been such a strong push towards trans acceptance here in NYC.

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.)

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off.

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

Kobi:

Thank you for explaining your position. You may have noticed that pretty much the *minute* MWMF was invoked, I backed off the conversation and went silent. That is because I *knew* that it was only a matter of time before something was posted where transwomen would be portrayed as 'not really women' or 'not really belonging to the lesbian community'. At that moment, the space--not just this thread but this entire site--became unsafe for me. Now, I don't really expect the world to be a safe space. I would not have made it into middle-age as a black lesbian if I expected the world to welcome me with open arms. I do, however, strongly prefer to be in spaces where I won't be subject to reading things that explicitly state--for reasons entirely beyond your control, you do not belong here. But it goes farther than that. Yesterday, as I wrestled with saying something in response, a question crossed my mind: is there any amount of time or effort a transwoman could spend in the lesbian community that would allow her to not be thought of as an interloper and to be brought into the circle of 'sister'. My gut instinct is that for anyone who uses the term 'once-males' to refer to transgendered women a million years wouldn't be half enough time. I also get the feeling--and I may be wrong--that if a transwoman carried not just her own weight but the weight of the next 10 women around her, those contributions would *still* not be enough.

So what I read was that transwomen had no legitimate place and in that moment, as I said before, this place became deeply 'unsafe'. So why am I still here? Why did I not leave? Because before I was a queer, I was already black. I know unsafe space. I know how to maneuver around unsafe space. My neighborhood was unsafe space--in the way that being the only black kid in your class from kindergarten to sixth grade can be. At some point in between being subjected to the tender mercies of elementary school children picking on the kid who looks most different to the experience of coming out and promptly being told that I was a race traitor (yes, I have had people say that to me) for being queer, I realized that if someone holds a prejudice against me, there is very little I can do to change their mind. I can, however, decide that I will hold my head high, that I will carry myself with dignity and that I will hold to a very high standard of conduct. My logic is that the bigot will still think me low, undeserving or an interloper but I will, in the fullness of time, make that bigot look like a fool. How? By being a shining star. By being honorable, intelligent, erudite, kind, expansive, friendly and hard-working. What could do more damage to any of the myths that people might have about me because I'm black, queer, etc. than to be the kind of woman you could proudly take home to mother?

Years ago, when I came out and first discovered that there were two groups within the queer community--particularly the lesbian community--that were considered once and for all time outside the circle of sisterhood; bisexuals and transwomen. The blatantly racist or anti-Semitic statement had no place and any woman fool enough to utter it in public would have the wrath of Sappho herself visited upon her. But bisexuals could be spoken of in terms of being vectors of disease contaminating what would otherwise have been an ostensibly disease-free lesbian community. At least bisexuals were not thought to be intentionally volunteering to be disease vectors while transwomen were thought to have truly evil intent--although this being the 90s and post-modernism being what it was, no one used the term evil. Rather, it was couched in terms of transwomen having some nebulous, shadowy but nefarious intent to do undermine the lesbian community from within. At the time, I was writing for every gay or lesbian newspaper or magazine that would publish me. I stumbled across a question that was relevant in 1991 and is relevant 20 years later, what are we in this for? By this I mean the Movement for the rights of queer people to live their lives as full citizens with agency. Are we in it because--as I believe--that it is simply wrong for individuals to be discriminated against in either law or custom because of some arbitrary characteristic OR are we in this because such discrimination is happening to *us*. This is a non-trivial difference. If you believe that bigotry and prejudice are wrong then one would hope one would spread that net as far as possible. It goes beyond the discrimination that happens to me, it is the discrimination I make others the target of. If, on the other hand, one believes that the discrimination that happens to one's own group is wrong but not that bigotry or prejudice are generally wrong, then one need not look to the plank in one's own eye. All that matters is that the other person standing on one's foot get the hell off your foot. IF the queer movement is against bigotry or prejudice based upon arbitrary characteristics of gender or sexual orientation, then our movement cannot give much quarter to a form of bigotry that says "I don't care, nor do I have to care, how long ago you transitioned you will always be, in my eyes, whatever your chromosomes say you are". If, on the other hand, we are concerned only with the more limited question of "lesbians and gay men are subject to injustice because they are gay or lesbian" that allows for the community to have a space for bigotry against bisexuals or transsexuals or transgendered people or, for that matter, butches and femmes.

Twenty years ago, I cast my lot in with that part of the community that believed that the discrimination that happens to bisexuals or transsexuals *within* the queer community is no better than discrimination that happens against all queer people. I would have preferred that gender theory were not the vehicle by which transgendered people gained a greater level of acceptance because I think that post-modernism, upon which gender theory is based, is deeply and profoundly broken because it is incoherent. I almost feel guilty at having benefited from gender theory and its ancestor, post-modernism, because I would be quite happy putting the final nail in the coffin of that ideology.

Cheers
Aj

Martina

08-18-2011, 10:11 PM

i thought the Daryn thing was annoying. i appreciate that the mods acknowledge they could have handled it better. He also made a snipe on another thread about Japanese lesbian feminists or something like that. Maybe he was angry after the big reaction he got. But i didn't see his participation as particularly well-intentioned.

i also think that whether it crops up frequently on this site or not, there is a lot of lesbian bashing still common in our community. i have heard it. i get way tired of it. And sometimes you know what someone is saying even if they stop short of saying something that one could report.

That said, i think this thread has bordered on transphobia off and on throughout. i tried to make that point, but was every so gently shown the door. Maybe i didn't make it well.

Talking about pure feminism is a dangerous discourse. It suggests an other, an impure feminism (gender theory?). Also talking about what it used to be like to be a lesbian compared to now suggests to me that people feel displaced, unrecognized, not valued for their contributions. The context of the Butch Voices controversy makes it pretty clear who the other is, the other whose voice is supposedly heard and valued more. Framing the conversation this way requires that it be understood as either-or, as a conflict.

Reclaiming from whom? is the question.

As i said to someone in PM, even the great gender outlaw posts seem to be trying to reclaim a status that was lost or has lost cache. If we are saying we were the original badasses, we're clearly also talking about who is now considered to be a gender outlaw. i am just saying that there has been an invisible other present throughout, and to my mind, it is at least in part the transperson.

Interesting that instead of a transman, the eruption of bigotry was that older anxiety, the presence of transwomen in our communities.

i am going to be offline for a couple of days. i have a new smart phone that should allow me to see stuff, but i don't know if i can use it well enough yet.

BullDog

08-18-2011, 11:13 PM

Medusa I don't think you are an agent of the patriarchy and I do think you are supportive of lesbians, but I super bummed that you think having a Lesbian Zone is going to create a "militant, separatist and unwelcoming" space for those who don't i.d. as lesbians.

There are lesbians calling for more inclusive space, there are lesbians speaking out against transphobia, there are lesbians being supportive across the gender spectrum. I get that lesbians can post in any thread from 'What's For Dinner" to Racism to Gender theory threads. I also see a clear need for lesbian visibility and don't get why having a Lesbian Zone would be more potentially divisive than say a Trans Zone or Butch Zone or Femme Zone. I am seriously bummed.

I spoke out in this thread about things that I saw as exclusionary, I spoke out against the transphobia. I am not coming from a "purist" or separatist state at all.

Medusa

08-19-2011, 06:26 AM

Wait a minute.

Let's be clear. I did not say the zone *is* going to create a separatist environment.

"Is" is an action verb and would mean that I think that is occurring right now. I don't.

I said "has the potential to create". That is me expressing my own personal fears. Me expressing a fear is very different than labeling something as "this is occurring as we speak".

I'm sorry if that wasn't more clear.

I have read and posted in this zone multiple times. It has existed on this site for well over a year. None of the conversations here have ever been redirected, renamed, or moved. My support of this zone is clear given that it scares me but that I work to overcome that fear by participating in and digesting the discussions here that sometime make me cringe or want to pull my hair out (and that isn't specific to the LZ, it has happened in multiple threads and zones on these forums).

I'll say it again: I support the Lesbian Zone.

ScandalAndy

08-19-2011, 06:49 AM

I have a confession to make.

I need to thank everyone who stood up and said "you are excluding your transfeminine sisters".

I consider myself a huge trans ally and activist. I don't want to quantify my contributions, but I do a lot of work in the field with organized groups, as well as helping individuals who are in my life as friends, partners of friends, etc.

I never stopped to think about transgendered lesbians in this discussion, and my privilege as a cisgendered woman blinded me to them. I am sorry to all of the women I inadvertently excluded because of that. This has been a giant kick in the pants that I needed.

Now I am stuck in a dilemma. I do not want to "sweep it under the rug", but I am terribly frustrated because I've just recognized this massive gap in my support and don't know how to fix it. I don't want to have had this epiphany and do nothing with it.

There are a lot of ruffled feathers going on here, and I think maybe I'm not the only one who is a little ashamed at not seeing something happening, or not speaking up, or whatever it is that is causing such discomfort. I hope we can all come full circle and get back to supporting each other.

Also, to all of you talking about current gender theory, I'm a student of that new school and i support it wholeheartedly. That being said, I agree that there are issues that arise when no clear cut boundary lines are drawn. I feel it's very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. This causes even MORE frustration for me, which tends to make me withdraw from the conversation and I'm sorry for that. I just don't do well with confrontation and the passion on the threads lately has been off-putting and frightening to me. I don't want to get caught in the crosshairs.

BullDog

08-19-2011, 08:39 AM

Medusa, I put potentially divisive in my second paragraph, I neglected to do so in my first paragraph. I still don't understand your take, but I will just try to chill.

Kobi

08-20-2011, 04:26 PM

Angie,

I appreciate you sharing this. I had asked repeatedly early on what was so threatening about lesbians, like me, having a space like this thread was meant to be. More and more pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together.

I think I have distanced myself from the anger and the hurt caused by these words to the point where I can now address this in a respectful manner. My hope is that by doing so, a dialogue can develop to address some stuff. It is not to make your life difficult. Nor mine. Trust me, I would much rather be sailing the Atlantic today taking my chances on being lunch meat for the great white sharks than doing this. But. it's important. So here I am.

I apologize for the format here. It wouldnt let me multiquote, so I have to cut and paste.

And, let me add, to respond to some of your points, I have to deal with things like the patriarchy. I want to be clear I am not ranking on the transmen here. These are patriarchal society issues.

You said: I have said 100 times that a Lesbian zone on this website is redundant. To make a "zone within a zone" on a website where the core/essence/foundation is Lesbian is redundant and has bothered me since day one.

Perspective is everything. Your intent is clear. The fact that lesbians kept pushing for their own zone indicates that their experience wasnt matching your intent. The fact that it keeps cropping up is probably as annoying for you to hear as it is for me to have to speak to it.

Sometimes when things keep coming up over and over, we have to ask why. We have to put our own stuff aside, and look at something with a different set of eyes and ears. If I didnt have faith in you to be able and willing to do this, I wouldnt even bother writing this. But I do. And, I know if I can put my shit aside and begin to see racism in a different light, and grapple with trans issues that I am beginning to understand, I know this can be done as well.

You said: "My "begrudging" implementation of the "Lesbian" zone is not because I'm an agent of the Patriarchy and am wanting to deny the voices of Lesbians. It's because I was and am super fearful of creating a space that has the HUGE potential to become militant and separatist and unwelcoming to Transwomen, Transmen, and even BUTCHES based on my own experiences as an out Lesbian of 20 years." Is that Lesbian-phobic? Remember, I'm a Lesbian.

First off, if I was 30 years younger, the thought of being seen as a potentially dangerous, militant, separatist kind of thing would be invigorating and kind of sexy. At my stage of life, the biggest threat I pose is the loss of bladder control when laughing.

Seriously tho, I understand your fear. Once started, some things are difficult to control. But, I dont and I havent heard anyone else say anything like we must overcome, revolt, protest, and other such stuff energy depleting stuff. I am saying and hearing others say, we have issues. We want to be heard in a way that we feel heard, understood, appreciated for the unique people we are amongst other unique people. We want our issues given the same weight as others issues are. If we felt this was happening, I doubt it would keep coming up over and over.

You are not lesbian-phobic. But, we both know queer folk can be homophobic and women can be misogynistic and sexist. Belonging to the group doesnt always stop the dynamic from occuring.

From my perspective, what I see happening is what is called overcompensation. This is defined as a defense mechanism that conceals ones undesirable shortcomings by exaggerating desirable behaviors. It is understandable. In this case, one is representing and working to create a community of diverse peoples who have been and continue to oppressed. It is hard to find a balance and to serve everyone equally. I understand the fear and apprehension. I even understand the overcompensation.

The fact that people have been addressing or trying to address what is seen as an inequity of sorts, means they are experiencing a different reality. It doesnt make their reality any less real or any less pertinent. When we have stuff going on like was/is occuring at BV, when we have lesbians saying their ids are being hijacked, when we have lesbians saying they are feeling marginalized, like guests in their own community, and like there is a push to make them extinct.....that is or should be seen as very powerful stuff. And the fact that these feelings are not the result of what is going on out there but from what is going on within our own umbrella community, should be a HUGE red flag for every single member of this community. And it is not just butches. We have femmes saying they have issues as well.

And, there have been supportive allies here as well saying yeah, I see that. So on the reality check scale, I know what I am seeing and feeling is not a figment of my imagination. It is a reality.

To remain silent, is to be untrue to oneself. To speak up is to be self respecting, self advocating, and to be put under a microscope at the same time. It is an incredibly uncomfortable reality for me. And, if it wasnt important, I sure as heck wouldnt invite this drama, the stress it provokes, the anger it provokes and the pain it provokes into my life. It IS or should be important to this site, this community, and ALL the people who use it.

One of the things that triggers me about having separate Lesbian space on a Lesbian site is that it pushes so many of my personal buttons about identity fencing. It becomes easy to discount voices as "Patriarchy" even if those same voice share our history.

I think we can celebrate our shared Lesbian herstory and listen to the voices of those who do share, will share, and have shared that path, even if those voices are now deeper.

With all due respect Angie, we disagree on a very pertinent issue here. We have a mixed group of people here. We have males and we have females. To say that patriarchal issues are not present here would be untrue. We have women speaking to sexism, we have women speaking to male privilege, we have a transmen thread about male privilege, we have the BV stuff. It is wasn't here, there would be no reason for these topics or discussions to be had. We wouldn't ask POC to ignore racism nor would we ask transperson to ignore transphobia. So, why would we ask women to ignore the manifestations they see of sexism and misogyny and lesbians to ignore what looks like and feels like homophobia?

We don't want to sanitize the negative aspects of the women's movement and how we discriminated against groups of our own people. We don't want to sanitize the issues of how lesbians, like me, were oppressive to other groups in gay rights. We don't want to sanitize history. I hear you. I agree with you. Then, we shouldn't want to sanitize the patriarchy on the grounds of dna profiles either. That's not transphobia. That's applied logic.

From my perspective, we shouldn't be trying to sanitize the present day stuff either. It sucks the big one and its ugly. But, should that mean we don't step out of our comfort zones and deal with it head on? Does it mean we have to sweep it under the rug and hope it will go away? Does it have to mean people cant discuss things that impact them on very deep levels because it pushes our own buttons? I have more faith in us than to believe that needs to be the case.

You started this site for a reason. And you had a vision for how you wanted it to be. It's a good site. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think so. But, we cant stick our collective heads in the sand ad infinitum. It might work for a while, but somewhere another BV is going to be brewing, and it will come back to smack us in the face again. Life is funny that way.

Not dealing with stuff creates a lot more, slightly below the surface, resentment. That resentment makes it very hard to be open to listening to others when you (generic you) feel others aren't listening to you. Resentment breeds anger. Anger breeds hatred. Hatred makes our lives miserable.

I truly believe in the vision you have. It is a good vision that can benefit a great many people. There is stuff maybe you didn't think would come into play when you started it. But, like it or not, it found its way to your doorstep. And you don't have to do it alone. This is a community. And it is a community that is no stranger to oppression, to opposition, to controversy, to struggle, to muddling its way thru to the other side. And when we get there, we are wiser, stronger, more respectful of the struggles of one another, more peaceful and more harmonious.

We can make that happen, if we want to, if it is important to us, if we understand that it benefits all of us. Cuz if there is one thing our collective histories/herstories should have taught us, is when one of us hurts, we all feel the pain. When one of us gets cut, we all bleed. When one of us gets pushed around or pushed aside, it could happen to us as well.

The process of getting stuff in the open isnt likely to be pretty. But, it can be done respecfully I think. People do have to be able to say what they need to say and how it makes them feel. It might sting sometimes but others have said worse to us and about us in hatred and out of fear.

Being human, it isnt going to be a smooth and flawless undertaking. Mistakes will be made. Errors in judgement, a poor choice of words, and stuff is likely to happen. We dont need a 2x4 or a baseball bat to address it, for the most part. Paying closer attention and a heads up would be nice tho.

To me, even tho we will likely never know the entire story of what happened over at BV, we have seen what happened as a result of people feeling unheard. Is splintering the answer? Can something new and never tried before be created? Does it have to be one way or the other? I dont have the answers or an agenda for where something should go. What I do know is not talking about it isnt the answer.

The question that should be on the table is do we want to deal with it or do we want to lift the rug and get a broom again?

BullDog

08-20-2011, 04:51 PM

I have to say I agree with quite a bit of what Kobi is saying- and I am not shy about disagreeing with her.

Why do many lesbians keeping asking for a Lesbian Zone or wanting a Lesbian Zone if it is completely redundant? I think lesbians have spoken to some of those desires to those who read the threads.

Why are lesbians so suspect?

I think women need to be a hell of a lot more militant than they are now in this world for us to finally get somewhere.

There are lesbians that are transphobic, there are transmen who are misogynist, there are people of every gender persuasion that are bigots. I think it's great that we have a Trans Zone, but I have seen things written there that I didn't care for. Why is it the Lesbian Zone that is questioned and disparaged? Why is it the Lesbian Zone in particular seen as having HUGE potential for being unwelcoming?

Again why are lesbians in particular so suspect?

Why are lesbian stereotypes so difficult for people to distinguish between what are supposedly people's personal truths, when other isms seem to be more recognizable as perpetuating stereotypes? Just a few of the questions that I have.

Edit: And to be clear the Lesbian Zone keeps getting questioned over and over again. My response is not just to one post made by Medusa.

AtLast

08-21-2011, 04:38 AM

Kobi

08-21-2011, 10:17 AM

My main reason for requesting a specific zone for lesbianism (which I know Angie knows) was due to it being a sexual minority and to help educate members about lesbian-phobic attitudes. Other sexual minorities such as BDSM had a zone, so it seemed appropriate for there to be a lesbian zone. Although a part of me understands the "redundancy" factor in theory, not all members are lesbian, just as not all members are trans, non-trans, etc. Since I joined online B-F sites, I have noticed lesbian-phobic attitudes.

I would not condone the use of the lesbian zone as a vehicle for any kind of bigotry against any other group or population represented on the site or to serve as a wedge between any of the populations that call the Planet home. Nor rallying some kind of divide among us. That would run contrary to the entire mission of the site which, I truly believe has the spirit of consciousness and awareness at its heart (lesbian-phobic remarks are also covered in the site's TOS and can be grounds for moderation). Having a specific lesbian zone in which the recognition of lesbianism as a sexual minority (which it is in all literature in the study of human sexual behavior) that can be stereotyped negatively and has resulted in discrimination on the Planet is much appreciated by lesbian members. And no zone represented here should ever promote division among all of the groups that make up this community.

Personally, I feel like there is a lot of effort on the Planet to promote space for all of us to be represented fairly. I, too, have read things in other zones that I felt were negative toward other groups here, even bigoted- that is what the report button is for.

I appreciate having this zone, but if comments were made that were transphobic, racist, etc., I would report the posts the same as I would in any other zone.

I hope this doesn't sound too clinical or stiff- that isn't my intent- I'm trying to show appreciation, explain why I (and others) asked for a lesbian zone in which our issues could be addressed in the context of a sexual minority and also state that I don't want it to ever be used for divisive agendas. LOL… and I know I have been redundant!! Sorry, its late!

ALH,

It was late when you wrote this. I am still working on my first cup of coffee.

So, I am going to ask you to clarify something that I am not sure I understand. Forgive me if I use the wrong words here cuz meanings have been modified over the years and I am far from current on the changes.

You referred to lesbianism as a sexual minority like BDSM. I dont understand what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

Also I had to go check but I dont see a BDSM zone here. I see the Lesbian Zone listed under the Gender and Identity category. I see a BDSM entry under the Love category. Am I missing something or am I just not following your train of thought?

I agree with you that bigotry isnt acceptable behavior here nor should it be anywhere else.

I am not sure if you and I are on the same page when it comes to divisiveness. From my standpoint, the queer umbrella is huge. We are a diverse people. Diversity implies differences. Sometimes those differences are easy to negotiate. Sometimes the roots of those differences run so deep and are so complex they are not easily overcome.

Ideally, we should be able to transcend differences, perhaps in creating a new and different reality. Realistically, we are evolving humans who have a way to go on the journey to ideal.

As a community we are a system. As you know, changes to one part of the system impacts other parts of the system, sometimes in unexpected ways. How we deal with it, if we deal with it, effects the final (currently final) outcome. Outcomes are processes too.

What you have said feels different to me. Does it feel different to you? Or am I not reading you correctly?

AtLast

08-21-2011, 04:34 PM

My main reason for requesting a specific zone for lesbianism (which I know Angie knows) was due to it being a sexual minority and to help educate members about lesbian-phobic attitudes. Other sexual minorities such as BDSM had a zone, so it seemed appropriate for there to be a lesbian zone. Although a part of me understands the "redundancy" factor in theory, not all members are lesbian, just as not all members are trans, non-trans, etc. Since I joined online B-F sites, I have noticed lesbian-phobic attitudes.

I would not condone the use of the lesbian zone as a vehicle for any kind of bigotry against any other group or population represented on the site or to serve as a wedge between any of the populations that call the Planet home. Nor rallying some kind of divide among us. That would run contrary to the entire mission of the site which, I truly believe has the spirit of consciousness and awareness at its heart (lesbian-phobic remarks are also covered in the site's TOS and can be grounds for moderation). Having a specific lesbian zone in which the recognition of lesbianism as a sexual minority (which it is in all literature in the study of human sexual behavior) that can be stereotyped negatively and has resulted in discrimination on the Planet is much appreciated by lesbian members. And no zone represented here should ever promote division among all of the groups that make up this community.

Personally, I feel like there is a lot of effort on the Planet to promote space for all of us to be represented fairly. I, too, have read things in other zones that I felt were negative toward other groups here, even bigoted- that is what the report button is for.

I appreciate having this zone, but if comments were made that were transphobic, racist, etc., I would report the posts the same as I would in any other zone.

I hope this doesn't sound too clinical or stiff- that isn't my intent- I'm trying to show appreciation, explain why I (and others) asked for a lesbian zone in which our issues could be addressed in the context of a sexual minority and also state that I don't want it to ever be used for divisive agendas. LOL… and I know I have been redundant!! Sorry, its late!

Hi Kobi-

lesbianism as sexual minority is about it being part of sexual minority (status) curriculum in our colleges and universities and studied in terms of discrimination. Lesbians are part of a minority group that has (like others) been discrininated against as well as been subjected to hate crimes.

I have been both raped and physically beaten up by multi-offenders in my life as a lesbian as well as been subjected to unfair employment practices as many other lesbians have. How often are our trans members called lesbos, dykes, etc. when victims of a hate crime? They are often perceived to be lesbian... no matter their actual gender status.

It is part of our unfortunate array of "Isms" in our society. Does this help?

Chazz

08-24-2011, 10:25 AM

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by [B]male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting [hence my reference to 'once men'] , and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, [hence my reference to once men] but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.) [This happens a lot. I've been at several explicitly lesbian "parties" where this has happened.]

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

:vigil:

ScandalAndy

08-24-2011, 10:45 AM

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

:vigil:

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

If my response is in any way threatening or violates the TOS for the site, I welcome the mods to contact me about it so that i may modify my behavior accordingly.

The_Lady_Snow

08-24-2011, 10:53 AM

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Chazz,

I felt and feel uncomfortable with this particular part of your post. It's feels like you're wanting to have this conversation using slurs? Yet transfolk are not allowing you? It seems oogy it feels oogy am I misreading you?

Admin

08-24-2011, 11:27 AM

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

:vigil:

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

The use of the term "once men" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

Chazz

08-24-2011, 12:11 PM

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.

I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

Coming after????

Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.

Chazz

08-24-2011, 12:23 PM

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

[Of course you had multiple reports.... It's not me who had propagated the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma. I'm just pointing at it from this lesbians perspective as some one who has felt increasingly marginalized by trans/gender ideology within the "community".]

The use of the term "once women" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

[It could be because I take no pride in what has/is happening to lesbians within the community.... But because you mentioned it.... I, in no way, trashed the "trans experience". Nor was I aware that it was a one size fits all "experience".]

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

I'm out of the conversation. So........

Heart

08-24-2011, 12:48 PM

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

Heart

ScandalAndy

08-24-2011, 01:22 PM

I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.

No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.

I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.

Coming after????

Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.

I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.

You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.

You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.

I respect that you maintain my opinion about your motives is incorrect. Thank you for letting me know that I was mistaken in that respect, I feel better knowing you are only speaking for yourself. I apologize for my error in attempting to guess your motives and appreciate that you took the time to answer my question directly.

Is your use of quotations around the word "policing" intended to be sarcasm? I can assure you, the only reason I directly called you out on continuing to use the phrase in question is because it was already deemed inappropriate by an admin, and I take direct offense to it. I am not afraid to call you out on something that bothers me, and I believe I am within my rights to do so, just as you are within your rights to respond or not as you see fit.

I asked who you were "coming after" because you quoted Cheryl's post, posted comments in red which appeared to be you agreeing with her points (albeit in a, to me, inflammatory manner), then proceeding to respond below in such a way that accused her friend of "not genuflecting enough" (more sarcasm?) then implying that she is a lesbianphobe. That seems contradictory and accusatory to me, which is why i brought it up. I may be incorrect in this thought as well, so I pose the following question: For what purpose did you quote Cheryl's post if not to agree or disagree with it?

Finally, I would like to make sure I am not misinterpreting your last paragraph in response to me. Are you implying that I am wearing blinders and am so inundated with trans ideology that I am incapable of critical thinking? I hope not, since I spend a large amount of time questioning why I feel the way I do, and whether it is beneficial and inclusive (or exclusionary) to do so. I know I am not required to justify myself, but in this case I feel it can only help.

You have repeatedly said you are questioning ideology, politics and behaviors. Please direct me to where, in a trans discussion/space, you have stated what specific ideology/politics/behaviors you take issue with and why you do so. If those specifics were pointed out in a lesbian space, or have yet to be addressed, I hope that they can be moved to a trans specific area where they can be pulled apart and discussed in depth so that I may better understand you and your deep feelings about this subject. I also hope that you understand how, in my personal opinion, they have no place in a lesbian discussion since it is not the politics of being a lesbian that you take vehement opposition to.

It is clear that you are proud to be a lesbian, like the title of this thread states. I hope you will not leave the thread in which you have invested much experience and dedication. That would be a great loss indeed.

*Anya*

08-24-2011, 01:47 PM

CherylNYC

08-24-2011, 02:30 PM

...

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

Heart

Yes, some of my very ambivalent experiences with trans people have been damaging. The individuals were acting as individuals. No one should expect each member of a minority to represent that minority in all their actions. That said, all transwomen have spent at least part of their lives being socialised as male. Aj has written about this eloquently in another thread, but I don't have the patience to find it. She spoke about many small ways in which she was privileged over her sister while growing up because she was a boy. She acknowledges the obvious, which is that she benefitted from this, and probably continues to benefit a bit from that early boost, whether or not she wanted to be a boy. (Apologies for the paraphrase.)

As I wrote previously, my experiences with transwomen who have been socialised as male, who, unlike Aj and my friend A who I mentioned previously, have never questioned their history of privilege, who continue to use male-centric power dynamics they've learned over their lifetimes to gain advantages in personal and business matters, who have always lived by a 'power-over' model rather than a feminist universal empowerment model, are very VERY visible when they enter women's space. Those are the transwomen that make my friend A cringe, and that cause her to fear that she will be judged based on others' bad behaviours.

Denying the reality that some transwomen who haven't questioned their conditioning and socialised behaviours can make other women uncomfortable in what's supposed to be women's space, is painful and erasing for women like myself who rely on women's space for it's relative safety. When I'm told that I must not say the above because it's allegedly transphobic, I hear that my sense of safety is secondary to the safety of people who are acting 'like men'. Their oppression as transpeople is more important than my oppression as a woman, etc.

In real terms that means that when I'm at a women's sex/play party and a crossdressing man exposes his naked dick tied up in a bow, women who know he doesn't belong there don't feel empowered to challenge his invasive presence. That man with all the sensitivity of a tree stump felt emboldened to circumvent my playmates' efforts to shield me from a sight they KNEW I didn't want to see. More than a year later I still think about my anger and feelings of being invaded instead of the lovely scene I was having before Mr. Dick-in-a-bow stuck it in my face. He claimed to be trans. His safety was more important than mine.

...it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces...

We lesbians have the most to lose when we lose women's space. Because issues of trans inclusion have proved difficult, the trend is to dismantle women's space altogether in favor of queer space. Eliminating the language means eliminating the problem, right? Not on my watch.

Heart

08-24-2011, 03:24 PM

What you just posted Cheryl is eloquent in the ways it illustrates how we cannot avoid patriarchal history, (built upon racism/sexism/classism), as individuals or as communities, no matter how inclusive and correct we want to be.

I did not ask for help with the person following me around in that space because I feared, a) that I would be seen as transphobic by others, and b) because I questioned myself for having a reaction to her behavior.

In some ways b. is even more insidious than a. It's a classic internalized self-blaming/blame-the-victim reaction women are specifically trained to have, so as to keep accountability off perpetrators. That particular conditioning, as a woman, may not be something I share with my trans sisters who grew up male.

Heart

Heart

08-24-2011, 03:49 PM

On the other hand -- the transwomen that I know personally grew up living in fear. They were not socialized as girls, they had access to boy/male privilege, but because of their internal wiring, they knew early that they were "counterfit" and therefore at risk. And they also internalized self-blame, not in the same way as girls, but as "others," as queers, as being different. It's not easy to belong to the privileged class (boys/men), and know that you don't "measure up," especially when you know that the consequences for that can be harsh, (for a large group of transwomen, that translates as rape). This feels important to me, in part because of the work I have done with transwomen survivors.

But. It doesn't mean that one should not be held accountable for their actions. One of the problems with individualizing these issues (i.e. some people are just jerks, there are assholes in every group, etc) is that when someone is called out on their inappropriate behavior, they evoke their status as part of an oppressed group, and then become untouchable. They shift the focus away from their behavior and onto others' behavior as "oppressors." Classic. And dangerous. I see too much of that. And I tend to agree with Cheryl, that women and lesbians stand to lose the most in that game.

What it brings me back to is something I've talked about before -- the importance of coalescing around shared values and goals, rather than just shared identities.

Heart

AtLast

08-24-2011, 04:06 PM

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.
Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not. Heart

Yes, heartbroken sums it up for me. And an unwillingness to participate in any way with something that matters to me, but just cannot do it any longer. the cost is far too high.

dreadgeek

08-24-2011, 06:33 PM

Cheryl:

Up until you posted the other day, I honestly thought I was a minority of one. As it turns out, maybe I'm in a minority of two.

Reading the part about the transwoman who was nude in a woman's space makes me cringe and makes me sad. It also makes me sad that NO ONE can have this conversation without being accused of transphobia. The older I get the more I see that the queer community has tried to have the right ethic but implemented it crudely. The ethic that no one should be judged for what they are has been transmuted into one where no one should be judged BECAUSE of what they are. Here's the difference:

Judged by what you are = Because Aj is a transwoman she is...

Not judged because of what you are =
Someone: "Aj, you know that thing you did that just annoyed me..."
Me: "The only reason you are criticizing me is because I'm..."

Both statements are equally ridiculous. In the first, I stand in simply for some label 'transwoman'. Everything I do is filtered through the lens of 'transwoman' and whatever the speaker thinks of when they use that term.
In the second, no matter how open or friendly the speaker may be, I'll deploy my being trans as a shield.

If I should not be judged harshly because I'm transgendered, then I should not be judged loosely based on that criteria. However, it goes beyond that. That is what I would hope to receive from the spaces I move through. That's only half of the contract. The other half is my behavior.

Yes, I need to be aware of my background. I need to be *especially* aware of my background when the question comes round to issues of space and privilege. I need to be hyper-alert to it and err on the side of caution. It means that feminism and taking feminist ethics seriously is non-optional. I'm going to go so far and say that it is non-optional for transwomen. By non-optional, I mean it two senses; I think that transition is hard. At least it was 20 years ago and I doubt that it is significantly easier today. If one is going to transition successfully then I think one must go into the process with a feminist sensibility. If one doesn't then one is going to be blind to male privilege and will drag it around with one. I am not going to say that there are NO vestiges of male privilege in my life. Certain head starts I receive can't be undone.
That means I have something to keep my eye on, something I need to self-monitor throughout my life.

Now, before anyone says that it shouldn't be that way--I agree. It *shouldn't* be that way. I *shouldn't* have a Y-chromosome. Certainly, I didn't ask for it and if I could give it up and have actually gotten to give birth to my son I would do so in a heartbeat. You could even take my one good eye in the bargain! But I don't get to have everything I want in this life, in the time frame that I want it, delivered in the manner I prefer and in the color I like. I just don't and all the exclamations of 'that's not fair' don't change it.

There are always trade-offs, there are always costs. We can try to pretend that there are not but they will still be there and the longer we pretend that there are no costs, no matter what decision path we follow, the more we spin our wheels in these conversations where people go off feeling that they are being accused of bigotry--sometimes even when they are not.

It isn't in the adjectives, it is a bit in the pronouns, but ultimately it is in how we treat people as individuals and how we take responsibility for ourselves. Part of me wants to apologize, on the part of the transwomen who 'get it' but that is not my apology to make. It has not been my path. I have tried to model the idea and to 'spread the gospel of feminism', if you will forgive the phrase, so that transwomen who are just starting their journey will have an easier time of it and transwomen who have been at it for a while and keep wondering why certain kinds of things keep happening will have some reference for what they might want to consider.

We can debate whether people are less 'harmed' by the use of the termed 'colored' or the use of the term 'people of color' (which, by the way, POC strikes me as 'colored people' met coming the other way, just so you know). Or we can decide that adjective games don't help people, treating people as human beings--full human beings capable of agency--helps people.

Honestly, I'm done with identity politics. I was suspicious of it 20 years ago but thought I lacked both the intellect and education to perhaps understand it in its subtlety. Two decades and a lot of pages and discussions and panels and workshops later, I return to where I started but more confident than ever that my first impression of identity politics was right. This emphasis on identity, this idea that *as a black woman* I have certain rights is the wrong way to achieve a noble goal. If bigotry is saying that *because* I am a black lesbian that I am less deserving of certain rights, responsibilities and opportunities anti-bigotry is NOT stating that *because* I'm a black lesbian I deserve those very things. My rights are my rights as a human being *regardless* of whether I am a member of this or that group. Until we decide that you and me and that woman over there are all entitled to a certain level of civility and, perhaps, maybe even the benefit of the doubt and thus are all required to treat one another civilly we will get nowhere.

Do I have a right to be treated civilly. Yes, I would argue I do. But the price of being treated civilly is treating others civilly as well. My being a black, transgendered lesbian does not exempt me from either.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, some of my very ambivalent experiences with trans people have been damaging. The individuals were acting as individuals. No one should expect each member of a minority to represent that minority in all their actions. That said, all transwomen have spent at least part of their lives being socialised as male. Aj has written about this eloquently in another thread, but I don't have the patience to find it. She spoke about many small ways in which she was privileged over her sister while growing up because she was a boy. She acknowledges the obvious, which is that she benefitted from this, and probably continues to benefit a bit from that early boost, whether or not she wanted to be a boy. (Apologies for the paraphrase.)

As I wrote previously, my experiences with transwomen who have been socialised as male, who, unlike Aj and my friend A who I mentioned previously, have never questioned their history of privilege, who continue to use male-centric power dynamics they've learned over their lifetimes to gain advantages in personal and business matters, who have always lived by a 'power-over' model rather than a feminist universal empowerment model, are very VERY visible when they enter women's space. Those are the transwomen that make my friend A cringe, and that cause her to fear that she will be judged based on others' bad behaviours.

Denying the reality that some transwomen who haven't questioned their conditioning and socialised behaviours can make other women uncomfortable in what's supposed to be women's space, is painful and erasing for women like myself who rely on women's space for it's relative safety. When I'm told that I must not say the above because it's allegedly transphobic, I hear that my sense of safety is secondary to the safety of people who are acting 'like men'. Their oppression as transpeople is more important than my oppression as a woman, etc.

In real terms that means that when I'm at a women's sex/play party and a crossdressing man exposes his naked dick tied up in a bow, women who know he doesn't belong there don't feel empowered to challenge his invasive presence. That man with all the sensitivity of a tree stump felt emboldened to circumvent my playmates' efforts to shield me from a sight they KNEW I didn't want to see. More than a year later I still think about my anger and feelings of being invaded instead of the lovely scene I was having before Mr. Dick-in-a-bow stuck it in my face. He claimed to be trans. His safety was more important than mine.

...it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces...

We lesbians have the most to lose when we lose women's space. Because issues of trans inclusion have proved difficult, the trend is to dismantle women's space altogether in favor of queer space. Eliminating the language means eliminating the problem, right? Not on my watch.

ScandalAndy

08-25-2011, 08:35 AM

I think I have a lot to learn from all of you here, there are plenty of people who have been fighting these battles long before me.

I still have trouble figuring out how to have a safe space for women while respecting everyone's gender identity. There MUST be a way to do it, but I'll be danged if I can figure it out. I think at the end of the day it will come down to sticking to your guns and repeating that it isn't about excluding, it's about making a safe space, and that the boundaries are there for protection. There will be other events that will not have as stringent of boundaries, but those that are strict should be respected instead of vilified.

Does that sound like othering? Is there a better way to go about delineating what is acceptable in a safe space without being exclusionary? Is there a good way to enforce rules about safe spaces without being vilified as a phobic person?

I think proud lesbians can coexist with proud transpeople. I am proud of my lesbian identity, but I am also proud to be a trans lover and trans ally. All of these things live together in me, so I cannot understand why I am struggling so much to find a way for them to coexist in our community as a whole.

dreadgeek

08-25-2011, 09:37 AM

SA:

I think that the way forward has two parts. One part is public--spaces being open to people. The other part is personal--people holding themselves accountable. As a community (and here I'm talking about the queer community) I think we've focused on the former at the detriment to the latter. What I would LIKE to see is that we put some emphasis on the former but that is going to require breaking the spell that we cast on ourselves perhaps a quarter century ago--one manifestation of that spell is this idea that if you are a member of an oppressed group, your moral slate is not just wiped clean but remains forever a tabula rosa. This cannot continue because *until* we break that spell there can be no accountability.

Regardless of one's gender identity one should not be given a free pass. I would go further than that, though--much further. One cannot use one's gender identity (or kink or sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or religion, etc.) as an excuse to abandon feminist ideas. This means that if, for instance, a trans-woman claims that she could never have had male privilege because she never identified as a boy, we call bullshit on it. Because, in fact, OTHER people identified her as a boy and treated her as such. She might have felt survivor's guilt (which is how I experienced it) but she still had the male privilege. It is her task, as a woman *becoming* a woman--and Simone Beauvoir wisely said "one is not born a woman one becomes one--to be vigilant about male privilege. In the same way, trans-men don't get a free pass either. If a trans-man behaves in a way that is sexist, that does not take women seriously or acts in a manner consistent with throwing his male privilege around it simply should not matter whether that person lived everyday before that very day as a woman. What matters is how that person behaves.

Does that mean we cannot understand context? No. It means that in this minefield, there are costs. If we are going to have a community that errs on the side of openness (and I think we should strive for that) then we as individuals are going to have to err on the side of accountability, self-reflection and taking the hard path when called for. What does that look like? It looks like trying to have consistent standards of what is and is not considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other form of bigotry we might care to mention. That means that we abandon this idea that when a trans-man behaves in a sexist manner it isn't really sexism because he's a transman. It means taking the words that the individual in question may have just uttered and putting it in the mouth of some heterosexual white male and then asking the question of how we would take it. IF, as I suspect we would in most cases, we would call that man out on his sexism then we call ALL men out for the same behavior. All men. All men includes trans-men.

Is that fair? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is fair. Is it respectful? Actually, yes, it is in fact MORE respectful than what we've been doing. It is taking trans-men at their word that they are men. When my son was growing up, I tried to explain to him what I meant by 'when you grow up, I want you to be a good man'. One of the components of that was self-reflection and being accountable. I look at my trans-brothers and if I love and support them, I will think that they should be accountable. Why? Because they are men and part of how we designate a man from a boy--at least in the black community--is whether or not he is accountable. The same applies to our trans-sisters and for the same reasons.

I am talking about a very different kind of community than what we've built so far. I don't think we need tear it all down and start from scratch but what we have been bequeathed by our foremothers and forefathers is kind of a fixer-upper of a community. It's pretty, the lawn could use some work, definitely needs some new paint, some roofing, electrical work and it probably wouldn't hurt if we stripped and redid the hardwood floors while we're at it. Heart mentioned a community based less on identity and more on shared values and goals. I think that is a stronger basis upon which to build community and while I'm sure it has pitfalls of its own, it will certainly avoid the pitfalls that have brought us to this place.

What are those values? What are those goals? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Back when I first came out, I recognized a weakness in the queer community. At the time I thought I might either be wrong or I might not have understood. As an older woman now, I realize that my instinct was right. What is that weakness? We lack generational transmission of our values and goals. Growing up as a black child, I was immersed in a set of values, goals and expectations that were handed down to me by my parents who received them from their parents who received them from their parents before them. It was automatic and just happened in a very organic fashion. The queer community, because the vast majority of us come to it in or near adulthood, has not yet developed a mechanism for transmitting those values, goals, expectations and lessons from one generation to another. If we are a community--as opposed to merely a temporary conglomeration of identity groups--then part of what a community does is transmit that which has been learned and that which is necessary.

We have the potential to do this, but first we're going to have to unlearn much that we thought we knew. We will have to break the spell and in doing so, move forward.

Cheers
Aj

I think I have a lot to learn from all of you here, there are plenty of people who have been fighting these battles long before me.

I still have trouble figuring out how to have a safe space for women while respecting everyone's gender identity. There MUST be a way to do it, but I'll be danged if I can figure it out. I think at the end of the day it will come down to sticking to your guns and repeating that it isn't about excluding, it's about making a safe space, and that the boundaries are there for protection. There will be other events that will not have as stringent of boundaries, but those that are strict should be respected instead of vilified.

Does that sound like othering? Is there a better way to go about delineating what is acceptable in a safe space without being exclusionary? Is there a good way to enforce rules about safe spaces without being vilified as a phobic person?

I think proud lesbians can coexist with proud transpeople. I am proud of my lesbian identity, but I am also proud to be a trans lover and trans ally. All of these things live together in me, so I cannot understand why I am struggling so much to find a way for them to coexist in our community as a whole.

ScandalAndy

08-25-2011, 10:21 AM

AJ, I like where you're going with this and I agree with you. I want to find a way to turn this back toward the lesbian pride this thread was created for, too, since I consider that one of the values that, while I wasn't raised with it, has become something very important to me. Pride in who I am.

I have an overwhelming sense of right and wrong, and i get very prickly when that feels threatened or another person I interact with tells me it isn't functioning properly according to their beliefs. I want very much to hang on to the values I have, but I also want to be open to the re-examining the principles I built those values on.

I began identifying as bisexual as a way to shield myself from the brunt of the absue in high school, but along the way changed that to identifying as a lesbian. Now I choose to identify as queer, but I still want to hold on to my lesbian identity. Is that contradictory? I'm not sure.

SA:

I think that the way forward has two parts. One part is public--spaces being open to people. The other part is personal--people holding themselves accountable. As a community (and here I'm talking about the queer community) I think we've focused on the former at the detriment to the latter. What I would LIKE to see is that we put some emphasis on the former but that is going to require breaking the spell that we cast on ourselves perhaps a quarter century ago--one manifestation of that spell is this idea that if you are a member of an oppressed group, your moral slate is not just wiped clean but remains forever a tabula rosa. This cannot continue because *until* we break that spell there can be no accountability.

Regardless of one's gender identity one should not be given a free pass. I would go further than that, though--much further. One cannot use one's gender identity (or kink or sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or religion, etc.) as an excuse to abandon feminist ideas. This means that if, for instance, a trans-woman claims that she could never have had male privilege because she never identified as a boy, we call bullshit on it. Because, in fact, OTHER people identified her as a boy and treated her as such. She might have felt survivor's guilt (which is how I experienced it) but she still had the male privilege. It is her task, as a woman *becoming* a woman--and Simone Beauvoir wisely said "one is not born a woman one becomes one--to be vigilant about male privilege. In the same way, trans-men don't get a free pass either. If a trans-man behaves in a way that is sexist, that does not take women seriously or acts in a manner consistent with throwing his male privilege around it simply should not matter whether that person lived everyday before that very day as a woman. What matters is how that person behaves.

Does that mean we cannot understand context? No. It means that in this minefield, there are costs. If we are going to have a community that errs on the side of openness (and I think we should strive for that) then we as individuals are going to have to err on the side of accountability, self-reflection and taking the hard path when called for. What does that look like? It looks like trying to have consistent standards of what is and is not considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other form of bigotry we might care to mention. That means that we abandon this idea that when a trans-man behaves in a sexist manner it isn't really sexism because he's a transman. It means taking the words that the individual in question may have just uttered and putting it in the mouth of some heterosexual white male and then asking the question of how we would take it. IF, as I suspect we would in most cases, we would call that man out on his sexism then we call ALL men out for the same behavior. All men. All men includes trans-men.

Is that fair? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is fair. Is it respectful? Actually, yes, it is in fact MORE respectful than what we've been doing. It is taking trans-men at their word that they are men. When my son was growing up, I tried to explain to him what I meant by 'when you grow up, I want you to be a good man'. One of the components of that was self-reflection and being accountable. I look at my trans-brothers and if I love and support them, I will think that they should be accountable. Why? Because they are men and part of how we designate a man from a boy--at least in the black community--is whether or not he is accountable. The same applies to our trans-sisters and for the same reasons.

I am talking about a very different kind of community than what we've built so far. I don't think we need tear it all down and start from scratch but what we have been bequeathed by our foremothers and forefathers is kind of a fixer-upper of a community. It's pretty, the lawn could use some work, definitely needs some new paint, some roofing, electrical work and it probably wouldn't hurt if we stripped and redid the hardwood floors while we're at it. Heart mentioned a community based less on identity and more on shared values and goals. I think that is a stronger basis upon which to build community and while I'm sure it has pitfalls of its own, it will certainly avoid the pitfalls that have brought us to this place.

What are those values? What are those goals? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Back when I first came out, I recognized a weakness in the queer community. At the time I thought I might either be wrong or I might not have understood. As an older woman now, I realize that my instinct was right. What is that weakness? We lack generational transmission of our values and goals. Growing up as a black child, I was immersed in a set of values, goals and expectations that were handed down to me by my parents who received them from their parents who received them from their parents before them. It was automatic and just happened in a very organic fashion. The queer community, because the vast majority of us come to it in or near adulthood, has not yet developed a mechanism for transmitting those values, goals, expectations and lessons from one generation to another. If we are a community--as opposed to merely a temporary conglomeration of identity groups--then part of what a community does is transmit that which has been learned and that which is necessary.

We have the potential to do this, but first we're going to have to unlearn much that we thought we knew. We will have to break the spell and in doing so, move forward.

Cheers
Aj

DapperButch

08-25-2011, 10:24 AM

Chazz

08-25-2011, 10:28 AM

I'm not sure how to have a discussion about lesbian pride without discussing issues that drain me of my lesbian pride.

Perhaps I made a mistake in thinking that a thread about lesbian pride was an appropriate place to address that drainage. It is what I had in mind when I was approached by the OP about starting this thread. This thread did evolve out of the thread about BV changing the definition of butches, after all.

It never occurred to me that this was suppose to be a kumbaya retrospective of the not so glorious lesbian/Feminist past. My bad, I guess.... I did anticipate it would be a difficult discussion, but a necessary one for many of the reasons Heart and Cheryl have touched upon in their posts.

The LGBTQ "community" is seething with resentments that foster both transphobia and lesbianphobia. The mostly well intentioned response to those resentments has been denial, kumbayaism, magical thinking, and when all else fails, censorship. That may have perpetuated the "big tent" mythology, but in reality it has not served anyone well. It's fragmented and depoliticized the "community"; it's allowed parallel phobias to fester....

Sequestering ourselves in endogenous (online or off) "communities" and going la, la, la, la, is avoidance - not something to take pride in. Genuine ally-ship is about engaging in a heuristic, facing hard truths and conflict, not wishing, or dear me-ing, them away.

Perhaps it was naive of me to dare addressing these issues, here. I could limit my expenditure of time and energy to communities that reinforce my beliefs. You know, places that are preaching to the already converted. That isn't my understanding of "community" building.

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Respectfully Heart, this has always been going on. It's not new to the BV controversy. It's what I've been trying to speak to from my perspective. It's what keeps getting driven underground.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

That's how it go.... However, the merits of a point of view should not turn on who has the weight of numbers on their side (as in the number of people agreeing with them). Nor should the worthiness of a discussion be evaluated prematurely, before issues have been excavated and clarified.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

Wanting ally-ship, solidarity and coalition is good stuff - BUT - those things do not come without sustained effort by people committed to the process. The neoLGBTQ "community" has not made that commitment or investment. Instead, it's fragmented into different camps. When one of us wanders into a different camp and tries to talk about it.... well, you see what happens.

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

It's the things you mention and more.... See the quote below.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

You're welcome, Heart.... As to my adding to "the endless loop of erasure", this kind of characterization holds no meaning for me until AFTER the airing of the issues of a conflict is achieved. Conflict resolution is a process. Skipping steps because they're uncomfortable sabotages the process.

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I've seen the same thing and been illuminated, too.

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Some of it IS individual, but not all of it. It isn't consistent to say, on the one hand, that certain attitudes are culturally induced, pervasive, a byproduct of patriarchal indoctrination.... and, on the other hand, dismiss them away as "individual" jerkiness. Sexism, misogyny, classism, bigotry, etc., often gets played out in one-on-one encounters. These things need to be excavated, deconstructed, argued not dismissed as individual anomalies.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

But this is precisely what has happened - i.e. performing inclusiveness as if everyone started with a clean slate.

Heart

“Now if you learn philosophy in a given language [gender vs. Feminist theory], that is the language in which you naturally philosophize, not just during the learning period but also, all things being equal, for life. But a language, most assuredly, is not conceptually neutral; syntax and vocabulary are apt to suggest definite modes of conceptualization.... If that philosophy was academically formulated in English [or, gender vs. Feminist theory] and articulated therein, the message was already substantially westernized [both gender and Feminist theory are painfully westernized - it's just that too few of us are willing or brave enough to look at that]….
- Kwasi Wiredu, African Studies Quarterly

:vigil:

Kobi

08-25-2011, 10:55 AM

I keep reading yesterdays postings over and over. Each time, I see something different in them. They all, in one way or another, speak to me and for me.

In another thread, Aj referred to something which seems very pertinent to this one. She said something like, we need to apply the abstractions/theories to the real life experiences of people who have tried to live by them.

Abstractions have their benefits but they sometimes obscure the real life implications and experiences of those who are trying to apply them. Heart also spoke to how our life experiences and our socializations also affect our current realities and perceptions. It rings so true to me.

I am very thankful to all these women for beginning to identify the elephant(s) in the room. I'm not sure if it is one elephant with many parts or many elephants, each with its own issues. Hard for me to sort out at this point. I have few answers but many many questions.

Personal safety is something, I think, we can all agree is an individual thing and a right of sorts. Safety comprises a lot tho. It means physical, psychological, emotional, identity and more that is just not coming to mind right now. It refers to internal safety, external safety, and the interplay between the two. Complicated stuff. But, who gets to make the decisions about it?

I had an experience I'd like to share that falls in the same kind of categries that have been discussed here about safety. I was on another site not long ago, having a wonderful chat with a transman in his 20's about sports. It was nice even if he was a Yankee fan.

At some point, the conversation went from nice to internal warnings sprouting all over. It became very uncomfortable for me because boundaries were being challenged and crossed. This was posing a dilemma I would rather not have had to deal with.

The process was like this.... if I looked at it with my butch glasses I was both annoyed and amused i.e. I am a lesbian and a butch, what part of these was confusing him? And why?

If I looked at it with my female glasses, I felt threatened and my personal space felt violated. I was also doing that internal dance of what vibe am I giving off that would make him think this was an okay thing to do? Is it me or is it him?

If I used my lesbian glasses, I was thinking things like what kind of messages might this guy be getting and from where to think lesbians are fair game for him? There was a definate sense that he was entitled to do it because he was a transman and that made it different even tho his behavior, to me, was just plain male privilege and attempts to dominate.

His behavior isnt indicative of all transman or even all men. It was an individual thing which just had a lot of implications and reprecussions from where I stood and from the experiences of my life.

From here, the issues became a little more general in my head. How and IF I was going to address this was a problem. Is my establishing boundaries going to be perceived as a phobia or an ism? Is it a phobia or an ism? Have I become so socialized to be mindful of phobias and isms that I really need or have to second guess my gut feelings and initial assessments everytime something potentially conflictual arises? Do we use phobias and isms to correct actual trangressions or are we using them to obscure something else?

In the same arena is woman's space and lesbian space. I am a big advocate for both. Does this make me a separatist or someone looking to exclude or a phobic? Or am I just someone who believes I am entitled to define my space and who all is invited into it and when? Sometimes, it feels like some force outside of me is trying to coerce me into believing I, as a woman and a lesbian, should not feel entitled to my own spaces. Here, to me, is when the abstract and the reality clash big time.

As I said I dont have answers or even suggestions. I am even hesitant to try and define the issue(s) as being indicative of this or that. Seems to me we are just beginning to explore this stuff and the ways in which it affects us. Deciding what it is and where it might come from seems prudent. Recognizing it is a process which is unfolding is paramount. Listening to one another, talking to one another, validating one anothers experience(s) can be nothing other than helpful.

I am just hesitant to rush to potential solutions without better understanding of what is actually happening and why it might be occuring.

dreadgeek

08-25-2011, 10:55 AM

I loved your whole post, dreadgeek, especially the part about NO ONE being given a free pass on what we expect in terms of behavior. I do believe that this has been overlooked in our community.

Additionally, I think that you pointing out that it is actually BETTER for the person themselves to be held accountable, is an important point. Being held accountable is how we grow as individuals. How we grow our community into being a healthy place.

(nod to our mods here at the Planet)

The above reminds of how "back in the day", butches and femmes would take on mentoring new members to the community. You hear about the "butch code", where one would not date a friend's ex-girlfriend, for example.

Although I believe that the mentoring of the "baby butches" happened more often by both butches and femmes, I do believe that this was true for some femmes in the community as well (I have read less about this, however).

This was what I was thinking of when I wrote that post. There was once a time when an older butch would feel comfortable taking a younger butch under her wing and saying "listen to me, young pup, you got the swagger, you got the attitude, you got the recognition nod down pat but there's more to being a butch than just that. I've been around the block so stick with me, kid, because someone has to give you this teaching and those of us in the life are the only ones who give enough of a damn about you to do it". I would like to see us return to that idea.

When I first came out, there was a group of women who had a D&D group that met every Friday. For three years, we got together, broke bread and rolled dice and generally geeked out. Those women taught me so much. When I needed a shoulder and advice, one of them was there for me. When I needed a kick in the ass, one of them was there for that as well. They routinely said things to me that would, today, have them excoriated for being ---ist or --phobic. Yet, that wasn't the place they were operating out of. They were operating out of a sense of love, tenderness and a sense that as older, wiser lesbians they had a responsibility to help me find my way in the world as an adult, queer woman.

To me, that WAS community and it was as strong a sense of community as I'd had sense leaving home.

Cheers
Aj

ScandalAndy

08-25-2011, 11:13 AM

I read about these communities but haven't experienced one. While I was in college a group of butches who were seniors did attempt to recreate that by having Sunday potluck dinners and inviting all us young bucks over. Unfortunately they were all fighting over the same femme, who took me aside and patiently explained to me that while i looked great in drag, I wasn't actually a butch. It fell apart after a while because their libido got in the way of the drive for community, and i ended up just as lost and confused as when I got there, albeit with a new wardrobe.

Why don't these things exist anymore? Is this online community the only place where I can find something like that? Am I supposed to be mentoring the young queers? Who is going to mentor me? I have lots of questions!

This was what I was thinking of when I wrote that post. There was once a time when an older butch would feel comfortable taking a younger butch under her wing and saying "listen to me, young pup, you got the swagger, you got the attitude, you got the recognition nod down pat but there's more to being a butch than just that. I've been around the block so stick with me, kid, because someone has to give you this teaching and those of us in the life are the only ones who give enough of a damn about you to do it". I would like to see us return to that idea.

When I first came out, there was a group of women who had a D&D group that met every Friday. For three years, we got together, broke bread and rolled dice and generally geeked out. Those women taught me so much. When I needed a shoulder and advice, one of them was there for me. When I needed a kick in the ass, one of them was there for that as well. They routinely said things to me that would, today, have them excoriated for being ---ist or --phobic. Yet, that wasn't the place they were operating out of. They were operating out of a sense of love, tenderness and a sense that as older, wiser lesbians they had a responsibility to help me find my way in the world as an adult, queer woman.

To me, that WAS community and it was as strong a sense of community as I'd had sense leaving home.

Cheers
Aj

BullDog

08-25-2011, 11:16 AM

I think we value individualism (with lack of accountability) over community far too much. It is all well in good to have freedom of expression to identify in way(s) that we feel suit us. However, the isms we face are value and institutionally based. The strength of feminism is the critique and deconstruction of these values and structural inequities. I am not sure some of the gender theories that seem to be in vogue now speak to this.

I can't stand being talked down to by men. I can't stand it when men take up too much space. I can't stand when men feel all knowing about women's experiences. This is what I face as a woman out in the world. I also feel that I face it here at times. I believe in listening to our youth, but I also believe in respecting one's elders and that years and years of life experience do account for something- particularly when it comes to being part of specific communities and social circles. When this happens to me in this community and I voice these frustrations I am charged with being transphobic and/or anti-youth. Where is the accountability for being a male in a predominantly female community? I take transmen seriously as men. I speak out time and time again against transphobia. When I do that I am praised and get lots of reps. When I speak out as a lesbian or butch woman the response is much more mixed or non existent.

I went to bed last night feeling that it isn't possible for me to speak as a butch woman without being accused of being transphobic and/or racist and not being willing to be part of the "big tent." I feel the message over and over again is that I must accommodate and be subsumed under the big tent all for a greater cause. My identity is no more important than any other, but I feel at times that we asked to sacrifice far more for the "greater good." It leaves me feeling frustrated and empty. Perhaps the solution, as some have said, is to get away from identity and back to values. It's just that I already feel I am being redefined on others' terms and being asked to go quietly into the night. Today I woke up feeling a bit better, so who knows.

dreadgeek

08-25-2011, 11:31 AM

[COLOR="Navy"]

I keep reading yesterdays postings over and over. Each time, I see something different in them. They all, in one way or another, speak to me and for me.

In another thread, Aj referred to something which seems very pertinent to this one. She said something like, we need to apply the abstractions/theories to the real life experiences of people who have tried to live by them.

Abstractions have their benefits but they sometimes obscure the real life implications and experiences of those who are trying to apply them. Heart also spoke to how our life experiences and our socializations also affect our current realities and perceptions. It rings so true to me.

Yes, we have to do that hard work because all our theories about gender or how society might be organized in a different manner ultimately will effect the lives of people. Not idealized human beings but actual people--who are a mixed bag on a really good day. :) We need to take all of the assumptions that have become part of our language and way of thinking about identity and space and community and ask can they stand up under their own weight. I do not think that gender theory--as currently formulated--passes that test.

It doesn't because it gives cover to some rather misogynistic behavior coming from within the queer community that would never be tolerated if it were coming from a cisgendered heterosexual men from outside of the community. Never. If we would call for the head of a cisgendered man should he behave in manner X then we cannot make any argument that lets a transgendered man off the hook for the same behavior.

I've always felt that true in my bones but one day I had an epiphany that told me I needed to be vigilant because the 'identity = victim and victim = blameless' equation led me to this. It was the 2008 election, near the end-game and I made an off-hand comment about 'crackers'. My wife, who is white, turned on me and said "really? Crackers? Really?" And in that moment I realized what I had done wrong. I used a racial slur. I spoke *as a racist would speak*. If my wife could not use racial slurs, then neither could I. I did not earn the right to use racial slurs because my parents couldn't vote until they were forty-five. I could not justify using racial slurs for the years ancestors of mine were held in bondage. I had no excuse. I apologized, she forgave me but I held myself accountable for that. Since then, I hope that I have never again used a slur like cracker. I don't believe that I have.

I'm not holding myself up as a paragon of accountability but I offer that anecdote as an example of consistency even when it is hard. ESPECIALLY when it is hard. It would have been easier to mumble some words about how, as a black woman, I can't be racist because I don't have power but neither my wife or I would really believe that. We would both be engaging in an illusion. If I would ask for the head of any white person who used the 'n-word' in my presence, then I have no business calling people crackers (unless I am using it in the old-school sense that hackers would use to separate themselves from those who hacked for crime as opposed to those who hacked for curiosity). :)

THAT ethic I can defend and I can do so robustly because I'm perfectly happy to have that rule applied universally--I won't use racial slur X, if you don't use racial slur Y because using racial slurs is wrong. Wrong for you, wrong for me, wrong for people not yet born.

How much of the ethics of our community can stand under its own weight? Can "I'm a <fill in list of oppressed group membership here> and therefore I should be held to a lighter standard than others" stand on its own? No, it can't. The incidents that several women have shared with us--uncomfortable as that must have been and I thank you, sisters, for doing so--show the *inherent* weakness of the dominant ideology of the queer community of the last two decades. That ideology is if you are oppressed you are a victim and if you are a victim, you are *incapable* of moral blemish. It falls apart under the weight of a person with a penis whipping it out in a women's play space and making all the other women there uncomfortable. It breeds resentment and, quite honestly, makes it harder on women like Cheryl's friend A or myself because WE are seen in that same light.

The trans-woman in Cheryl's anecdote should have been escorted out. It would have been ideal if some older (meaning been on the path longer) transwoman should have, forgive the term, boxed that woman's ears (metaphorically of course) and said "what the HELL were you thinking?! You are invited in, you are given a seat in the room and then you piss all over the carpet? What the hell kind of woman are you trying to be?" At that point, it's on the woman who took the action to ask herself "was that feminist?" or "can I defend that same action if I were a cisgendered woman?" But we haven't given her a language to ask those questions in and we have, even worse, told her that for anyone--ANYONE--to raise the issue is for her to be victimized. The women in that space, who were *also* victimized, were lost in the shuffle. That is how they are paid for being open, inclusive and welcoming? Does anyone here think the organizers would be willing to be so open the next time? I don't. They would be entirely within their rights to NOT be welcoming.

Again, that is not about a transgendered woman being in a lesbian play space. It is about a transgendered woman behaving in a manner indicative of her not having sufficiently questioned the ways in which male privilege operates. The only OTHER reading is that the person DID question, came up with the answer that was comfortable for them which was that they would be damned if they were giving it up. Ignorance or not giving a damn, take your pick but those are pretty much the only ways that situation came to pass. Neither one is pretty and neither one recommends the dominant ideology that has held the queer community in thrall almost all the days I've been out.

Cheers
Aj

ScandalAndy

08-25-2011, 12:54 PM

Does anyone with better forum skills than I want to do me a solid and link the "Rethinking Queer Community" thread here to redirect traffic?

I'm busy standing in the road waving my pride flag like a fool and overflowing with loving thoughts for all of you. :) :LGBTQFlag:

Slater

08-25-2011, 12:57 PM

I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think it is (as you alluded to in another post) a complication inherent in organizing around identity instead of issues or ideology, and especially in organizing around sexual and gender identity in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux.

We need to let of the notion that every single event or grouping has to be for everyone all the time. Maybe the key is in understanding that sometimes it’s not just about shared identity but shared paths or experiences. Being a woman-identified person who was born into a female body is a different experience than being a woman-identified person who was born into a male body. They are different paths to womanhood and each comes with its own (sometimes overlapping and sometimes not) set of challenges and wounds and triumphs.

I don’t think it’s hard for most people to see how transwomen (in this example) might in some circumstances want and need space that is exclusive to those who have that shared experience and path. But it’s a harder leap for some to make that it would be reasonable and valid for the other group of women (for which there is no specific name that I am aware of that neither casts them in an oppressor role nor is offensive to transwomen – but I may just be behind on the lingo) to want and need the same. This is the failure point. This is where the standard conceptual model we use around autonomous organizing breaks down and doesn’t quite fit the situation.

In our standard model, there is a marginalized or oppressed group that exists within a larger group, e.g. lesbians of color in a lesbian organization and then there is the dominant group, e.g. white lesbians. It’s pretty clear in a situation like this when and how autonomous organizing should work. I think the problem stems from trying to apply this exact model to groups of women; it doesn’t quite work. Yes, the cis/trans axis of marginalization exists and is a factor. But it doesn’t negate sexism. The women-who-must-not-be-named still face, in our society, mountains of shit specifically around being women. And the mountains of shit may sometimes be the same or similar as those faced by transwomen but sometimes they will be very different. <<disallowed word>>It is also not unreasonable to think that during the portion of their lives that transwomen were seen as male they absorbed some of the messages of male privilege. There are incredibly powerful and pervasive forces that are brought to bear upon us all from birth, basically. It would be naïve to think they don’t have an impact.

So maybe instead of using that conceptual model of autonomous organizing, we need to use a different one. I know the analogy I’m about to use is profoundly imperfect, it doesn’t fit exactly, and I know that even making these kinds of analogies is tricky at best. It’s simply meant to present a different frame of reference than the one that is typically used in this situation. <<disallowed word>>But what it brings to mind are times when I have seen, within PoC groups, organizing that coalesces around specific racial groups. Because although these groups are all affected by racism, their experiences are different. Being African American is not the same as being Asian American and neither of them is the same as being Native American.

As I said, it’s not a perfect analogy. But my thought is that if we approach these situations differently than we have been, if we can agree that the model we have been trying to use doesn’t fit, then maybe we can see our way clear to occasions of autonomous organizing that don’t feel oppressive or erasing, that don’t rely on policing identity, and that do feel supportive and respectful of our different experiences and paths.

Dude

08-25-2011, 02:01 PM

SA:

Regardless of one's gender identity one should not be given a free pass. I would go further than that, though--much further. One cannot use one's gender identity (or kink or sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or religion, etc.) as an excuse to abandon feminist ideas. This means that if, for instance, a trans-woman claims that she could never have had male privilege because she never identified as a boy, we call bullshit on it. Because, in fact, OTHER people identified her as a boy and treated her as such. She might have felt survivor's guilt (which is how I experienced it) but she still had the male privilege. It is her task, as a woman *becoming* a woman--and Simone Beauvoir wisely said "one is not born a woman one becomes one--to be vigilant about male privilege. In the same way, trans-men don't get a free pass either. If a trans-man behaves in a way that is sexist, that does not take women seriously or acts in a manner consistent with throwing his male privilege around it simply should not matter whether that person lived everyday before that very day as a woman. What matters is how that person behaves.

Does that mean we cannot understand context? No. It means that in this minefield, there are costs. If we are going to have a community that errs on the side of openness (and I think we should strive for that) then we as individuals are going to have to err on the side of accountability, self-reflection and taking the hard path when called for. What does that look like? It looks like trying to have consistent standards of what is and is not considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other form of bigotry we might care to mention. That means that we abandon this idea that when a trans-man behaves in a sexist manner it isn't really sexism because he's a transman. It means taking the words that the individual in question may have just uttered and putting it in the mouth of some heterosexual white male and then asking the question of how we would take it. IF, as I suspect we would in most cases, we would call that man out on his sexism then we call ALL men out for the same behavior. All men. All men includes trans-men.

Is that fair? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is fair. Is it respectful? Actually, yes, it is in fact MORE respectful than what we've been doing. It is taking trans-men at their word that they are men. When my son was growing up, I tried to explain to him what I meant by 'when you grow up, I want you to be a good man'. One of the components of that was self-reflection and being accountable. I look at my trans-brothers and if I love and support them, I will think that they should be accountable. Why? Because they are men and part of how we designate a man from a boy--at least in the black community--is whether or not he is accountable. The same applies to our trans-sisters and for the same reasons.

Cheers
Aj

I loved your entire post and hated to snip out any of it but did, so I could focus on what I wanted to post.
In my 20's I had the very good fortune of knowing long term, butch femme couples in their 40's and 50's who I very much looked up to. They had what I wanted and I paid attention. The Butch's were never sexist ( or frat boyish) in their behaviour and always treated their femme partners with respect.

Fast forward to online things that I have witnessed.
Butch's, Tg's ,Ftm's (and other id's I may have left out) behaving badly and being excused ,coddled and many times encouraged by femme's to continue
their sexist behaviour.

I remember seeing a post recently by an Ftm who denied having any male privilege and wonder how that computes in their mind. I chose to go off on my grumbly way and think about it rather than try to respond. Sometimes
it's exhausting to get involved in any of these gender community conversations. Accountability can also be exhausting on a daily basis and
maybe that's why some people choose to not delve too deeply..

I work with a transman who shared with me that the hr woman at work reported him for touching her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable.
He is a touchy guy and touched me prematurely as far as chums go too, so
she may very well have had a valid complaint that was not a personal beef at all about him being a transman.(but a man rubbing her shoulder and neck, much like he did mine)
If you are seen as male there is a lot of accountability that needs to go with that in this world.

Again, I thank you for your post ,AJ.

Off to work on my own fixer upper and try to make it feel
like mine again.

Kobi

08-25-2011, 02:16 PM

I don't think it's contradictory at all. When we "out" ourselves as Femmes to co-workers, family and friends, we, or at least I do not say "I'm a Queer Femme" because most people in the heterosexual world don't have a clue what that means. Usually, it's more subtle than that, I make a reference to my partner, which leads them to the conclusion that I am a Lesbian. When you get right down to it, that's what I am. I am in a Lesbian relationship.

I am proud of many things in my life, being a mother is foremost followed by being able to create and maintain long-term relationships of both the friend and lover types. I am not necessarily "Proud" of being a Lesbian, it is simply, or perhaps intricately, part of who I am.

What I am proud of, is to be part of a community that has historically done a lot of the really hard work in building networks of Social Services aimed at making the lives of others better. Increasingly now, we are being joined by men who have been raised with a more evolved social consciousness. I see this as forward movement in the evolution of us as a Human Species, and not as interloping, as some do. It is better to work together, we get more done.

I have worked alongside some amazing, dynamic women over the course of my life. I have also been appalled at the behavior of some women in positions of leadership. Being a Lesbian does not automatically attach a halo to your noggin. We're all still bound by the personal narratives and lived experiences that make us operate in certain ways, both good and bad.

I do believe that women can make better, more compassionate leaders in general, even though it may take longer to achieve the desired goals because of the more thoughtful processes we tend to have. "How are you feeling about that?" - "How does it work for you?" more often than "We're doing it this way", although that also has its place in the process.

I keep reading fear from a few of you that I don't understand. If you are living your life as a Lesbian, however you define that, how can you be erased? How does someone else living their lives in the way they choose negate your own? What exactly is it you're fighting for?

I don't feel the need to carve my space out of anyone elses flesh. I am not threatened by anyone elses identity. (I spoke about one of my personal processes in the Gatekeeping thread).

With that said, I do understand that Butch Women are feeling under-represented and pushed aside by the false masculine hierarchy that is present in our community, but don't we share that struggle as Lesbians? Don't you see me and many, many others standing up to say "Woman/Female is not less than you bastards!" -- Okay, sometimes we're more subtle than that.

It feels sometimes that those of us whose idea of community is more inclusive ARE seen as traitors by some, as though we have abandoned our Lesbian and feminist roots and have actually become "Tools of the Patriarchy". I see this much differently. Just as I want to be accepted for all the facets of who I am, in order for me to be whole, I have to extend that to others. Everyone gets judged on their own merits as a human being first, their sexual orientation and gender are secondary to me.

June,

I have spent the better part of 2 hours trying to figure out why this post bothered me so much. I think I have it now tho I am not sure I can get my point across here.

You came into a discussion where folks are trying to, little by little, speak to the things which are problematic for us. And, it does have to be done little by little cuz we go forward a step and then have to address our right to have feelings and experiences and why we need to speak to them again and again and again.

It bothered me to see a post where you readily admit this isnt a problem for you, the abstract works in your reality, you have had both good and bad experiences with women in different capacities, and only apparently good ones with men "who were raised with a more evolved social consciousness."

I dont know what your intent was here but to me, this said, I am dismissing the concerns others have raised because it isnt my reality.

I have a hard time believing if a POC or a transperson came into a thread talking about difficult experiences they were encountering, that the response would be - well that isnt my experience. My experience is x,y,z and as a matter of fact I have had awesome experiences with white people who "were raised with a more evolved social consciousness".

Can you really picture yourself saying that to a POC? Do you really believe saying this to a POC is going to make them feel heard, understood, validated, and as an accepted member of this diverse community? If you wouldnt do this to a POC, why is it ok to do it to other women and lesbians? What message do you think this sends versus the message you meant to send? Or maybe this was the message you meant to send.

And after you got finished with telling us of your experiences and what works for you, and how you expect is should or could work for everyone else, THEN you ask questions? Felt to me like you were already saying , 'I have told you I am not buying this but I will give you the opportunity to convince me'. That really stung. Again, I doubt this is the approach that would be taken if it was a POC or a transperson. But, it is the approach you chose to take with women and lesbians.

You are asking good questions tho. We have begun to answer exactly what you asked. You hearing it or being open to hear it, is another matter altogether.

In another thread, the question was asked why is it when a woman says something, it will go unnoticed. But if a man comes along and says the exact same thing, there is a totally different response? Something to think about. And I believe the person who asked was Aj.

DapperButch

08-25-2011, 03:54 PM

Does anyone with better forum skills than I want to do me a solid and link the "Rethinking Queer Community" thread here to redirect traffic?

http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3734

Kobi

08-25-2011, 07:07 PM

Are you telling me that I am behaving in a masculine way here? That I am taking up too much space like a man will in womans space? What exactly is your point? I get that you don't want me here in this Lesbian space sharing my Lesbian ideas and thoughts because they make you uncomfortable, but I do not get that last paragraph at all.

June,

I wish I could respond to you. But your attitude, your anger, your rudeness made it difficult for me to read more than a line or 2 of your response.

I do not wish to waste my energy trying to respond to a continuous litany of yeah but, yeah but, yeah but.

Should you wish to have a different type of dialogue, I am always happy to discuss it with you. You know where to find me. :)

Toughy

08-25-2011, 07:25 PM

wow........

a butch lesbian telling a femme lesbian she is angry rude and has an attitude...because her feminine lesbian experience is different from said butch's lesbian experience.....talks about that femme as if she is not a lesbian and questions her intent????

just wow

Kobi

08-25-2011, 07:50 PM

This is complete bullshit. You came at me insinuating I wasn't a good Lesbian and I wasn't participating with a good heart and managed to make several snarky, nasty digs at me and my character, and then I take the time to respond to you and you condescendingly dismiss me because I'm not worth your time?

You might as well have patted me on the head and told me not to be so hysterical.

Kobi -- You clearly have no problem dishing it out, but when a woman, in this case, a Femme (and yes, I think that's relative) gives it back to you, all of a sudden she loses all value. This type of behavior is evocative of what I was referring to back in my corporate days.

June,

With all due respect, to me, your response is bullshit.

I didnt come at you. You wrote something I found offensive and I told you how it made me feel, what it represented to me, and why I felt that way. That is being honest, above board, and straightforward. And, it was done, I think, without taking personal pot shots at you, June, the person.

And, now you apparently have the need to add a bunch of value judgements and assumptions to it in a pretty personally insulting way as to what I said or meant. That is your right to do so. But, lets not confuse what I said and how I said it with your current level of defensiveness because you didnt care for what I said or how what you did made me feel.

If you want to understand what people here have been trying to discuss and why, it requires listening. If you want to genuinely understand, I am happy to answer your questions.

I will not, however, be drawn into an unhealthy and counterproductive interaction with you. That is not communicating or having a dialogue. That is a sparring match.

You seem to think you have a great deal of "insight" into other people's behavior. Maybe you do, maybe you dont. But, to me, it would be helpful to perhaps putting a little more energy into looking at your own behavior.

If I was rude and disrespectful to you, your response would be understandable. I was neither.

ScandalAndy

08-25-2011, 08:03 PM

This is going to sound naive, and for that i apologize but...

Why are we fighting?

I get that Kobi and June's ways of interpreting and assimilating the world around them are very different.

I am really confused. I tend to function much like June does where I do not want to establish my identity by destroying anyone else's. Sometimes that makes me come across as a bit "la-dee-da, let's accept everone" and flighty in my worldview. I also understand how that could be a little off-putting to Kobi, since her process is different and progresses using small steps with regular self-examination and settling into a new routine of thinking. (Kobi, please let me know if i misinterpreted, I promise i mean no offense by this, i'm just trying to make sure i understand) I think both these approaches are valid and I like to use some of each when tackling new things that I must adjust to.

Aren't we all working towards the mutual goal of sharing our own personal experiences and reinforcing our pride and support of each other? I think there is common ground here and I hope we can all find it. The tension and hurt and anger here is somewhat frightening to me since it seems to have exploded out like it's been bubbling under the surface for a while. I hope you all can help me understand why we are reacting with anger. That seems like it would push us further apart in the end...

Admin

08-25-2011, 09:06 PM

Kobi and June -

You need to take this line of conversation private. This is not the Red Zone, unless you think this discussion needs to be moved there.

ETA: Clarifying that I mean the personal stuff and not the actual constructive part.

Thanks,
Admin

imperfect_cupcake

08-26-2011, 01:11 AM

I'm personally feeling slightly stupid. I thought Michigan festival changed it's stance and let transwomen in. No? ah. ok. I'd kind of feel weird about attending a women's festival that doesn't include all women.

There's a place in wales called Women's Land. Only females are allowed - no male children or dogs - are allowed. I do know the history of how the place got started as I know one of the women who was part of it and left it and frankly, I'm disgusted at how atrocious those women acted to one another, but that's a different story, I'm just not convinced a place that's "all xx females, all the time" is going to be safe by default. That's not exactly been my experience.

I do know some women who live there - I actually do think those gals need a seperate space as I really don't think they are able to cope with outside life and I'm glad they have a place to be. However, I won't ever visit them on Women's Land because - to be blunt - I think the vibe there is fucking nuts. I don't find it safe in ANY way shape or form.

I personally have been raped by a hella lot of men. But I've also been publicly mauled by women, trans and all other rainbow people of every flavour. No matter what the sex or gender, it's been seen as perfectly ok to grab my tits, slap my tits, pinch my ass, pat my cunt through my skirt, pinch my upper thighs, etc. So, due to my experince, before assuming ANY space is safe enough to express ANY sexuality (sexy dressing, nudity, play etc) I'm going to assess it in a covered and protective manner. One of things that has really upset me since going gay-er is nocticing how piggish I get treated by queers (and that includes ALL genders). I have had to re-asses the concept of "safety."

There's a point in there somewhere, but it's probably personal.

ScandalAndy

08-26-2011, 05:59 AM

If I had a dollar for every time someone molested my chest without so much as speaking to me, let alone going so far as ASKING, I'd be a rich woman indeed. Gay men think it's perfectly fine to squeeze my breasts, and i've been motorboated by women I've never met.

I concur that there is quite a bit of boundary crossing in the queer community. It makes me uncomfortable, but I'm not really sure how to deal with it as the last time I slapped a gay man's hand away he asked me why I was being such a bitch.

Thank you for your post. I didn't think i was being unreasonable, but there was some self doubt there. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who has issues navigating "safe" space of any kind.

I'm personally feeling slightly stupid. I thought Michigan festival changed it's stance and let transwomen in. No? ah. ok. I'd kind of feel weird about attending a women's festival that doesn't include all women.

There's a place in wales called Women's Land. Only females are allowed - no male children or dogs - are allowed. I do know the history of how the place got started as I know one of the women who was part of it and left it and frankly, I'm disgusted at how atrocious those women acted to one another, but that's a different story, I'm just not convinced a place that's "all xx females, all the time" is going to be safe by default. That's not exactly been my experience.

I do know some women who live there - I actually do think those gals need a seperate space as I really don't think they are able to cope with outside life and I'm glad they have a place to be. However, I won't ever visit them on Women's Land because - to be blunt - I think the vibe there is fucking nuts. I don't find it safe in ANY way shape or form.

I personally have been raped by a hella lot of men. But I've also been publicly mauled by women, trans and all other rainbow people of every flavour. No matter what the sex or gender, it's been seen as perfectly ok to grab my tits, slap my tits, pinch my ass, pat my cunt through my skirt, pinch my upper thighs, etc. So, due to my experince, before assuming ANY space is safe enough to express ANY sexuality (sexy dressing, nudity, play etc) I'm going to assess it in a covered and protective manner. One of things that has really upset me since going gay-er is nocticing how piggish I get treated by queers (and that includes ALL genders). I have had to re-asses the concept of "safety."

There's a point in there somewhere, but it's probably personal.

Heart

08-26-2011, 06:12 AM

Of course women can be shitty and oppressive. Women are human.

But that can obscure the fact that as a group men commit the bulk of both public and private violence and oppression. The vast bulk. Men hold the institutional power (like white folks do) and that changes the game when it comes to enacting oppression.

I too am the mother of a son. He's a decent, thoughtful, respectful young man. I work with numerous feminist male allies. One of the things that makes them allies is that they know they carry male privilege. Without that awareness, they cannot be allies.

As for safe space -- I've learned over the years that it's not created simply by filling it with those who are alike in terms of identity or even experience. That creates a superficial kind of safety. It takes enormous effort to create a safe accountable space. The fact that safe space doesn't always work is really about the trauma of oppression. It is very easy and common for the oppressed to become oppressive. Those in the space must be accountable for their actions and the way they share the space. That's largely the topic in Aj's new thread about community.

Heart

imperfect_cupcake

08-26-2011, 07:07 AM

As for safe space -- I've learned over the years that it's not created simply by filling it with those who are alike in terms of identity or even experience. That creates a superficial kind of safety. It takes enormous effort to create a safe accountable space. The fact that safe space doesn't always work is really about the trauma of oppression. It is very easy and common for the oppressed to become oppressive. Those in the space must be accountable for their actions and the way they share the space. That's largely the topic in Aj's new thread about community.

I'll check that out. as I said, I'm not sure what my point was, I think I was addressing half a dozen posts at the same time and not really linking to it - my lazymind and fingers. There *are* a LOT of people who do actually assume that a women only space is going to be safe and that's really not been my experience and a hard pill to swallow. And really really upsetting. It took me a long time to come to terms with dealing with the human aspect of safety, rather than the gender. There was some deep mourning of expectations to be had.

S.Andy - fuckin eh. I once grabbed a butch by the scruff and twisted her collar tight and rammed her into a wall for slapping my tits. She yelled "watch the shirt! I paid a lot of money for it!" my response was "and I paid a lot of money for my tits." I wanted to rip her lungs out. That wasn't over-reacting as far as I'm concerned. It took me a long time to understand I had the right to physically correct people who physically grabbed me without asking. Gender, nor gender presentation seems to make a difference in group space with how much I get grabbed if I'm wearing a low top or a tight skirt.

sulky fag who asked what your problem knew exactly what was wrong. Next time grab his balls and use a vice grip.

ScandalAndy

08-26-2011, 08:03 AM

I effing love you, dear! I need to go to honeybarbara's school of personal protection. :)

I'm still proud to be a lesbian, just not always proud of the way I, or my sisters, act in certain situations.

I'll check that out. as I said, I'm not sure what my point was, I think I was addressing half a dozen posts at the same time and not really linking to it - my lazymind and fingers. There *are* a LOT of people who do actually assume that a women only space is going to be safe and that's really not been my experience and a hard pill to swallow. And really really upsetting. It took me a long time to come to terms with dealing with the human aspect of safety, rather than the gender. There was some deep mourning of expectations to be had.

S.Andy - fuckin eh. I once grabbed a butch by the scruff and twisted her collar tight and rammed her into a wall for slapping my tits. She yelled "watch the shirt! I paid a lot of money for it!" my response was "and I paid a lot of money for my tits." I wanted to rip her lungs out. That wasn't over-reacting as far as I'm concerned. It took me a long time to understand I had the right to physically correct people who physically grabbed me without asking. Gender, nor gender presentation seems to make a difference in group space with how much I get grabbed if I'm wearing a low top or a tight skirt.

sulky fag who asked what your problem knew exactly what was wrong. Next time grab his balls and use a vice grip.

Chazz

08-26-2011, 11:10 AM

I think it is.... a complication inherent in organizing around identity instead of issues or ideology, and especially in organizing around sexual and gender identity in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux.

It is more than a complication....

I-identity politics is a claim to a particularistic form of victimization by patriarchy and the redress of same by patriarchy. Seeking acceptance or redress by patriarchy, does not change patriarchy. Nor does it do anything to better the lot of the still oppressed by patriarchy.

I-identity gender politics reinforces the false authenticity of gender constructs - "yours", mine, everyones. It doesn't matter how good or bad, alternatively or faithfully, we perform a construct.... it doesn't matter if we willing or knowingly or not comply with a construct.... it's still a construct authored, more or less, by patriarchy.

As you say, Slater: "....in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux", what does identity even mean anymore?

We need to let of the notion that every single event or grouping has to be for everyone all the time. Maybe the key is in understanding that sometimes it’s not just about shared identity but shared paths or experiences Being a woman-identified person who was born into a female body is a different experience than being a woman-identified person who was born into a male body. They are different paths to womanhood and each comes with its own (sometimes overlapping and sometimes not) set of challenges and wounds and triumphs.

Coalescing around "shared paths or experiences." and shared oppression, what a novel concept ! (Said ironically, not sarcastically.)

I don’t think it’s hard for most people to see how transwomen (in this example) might in some circumstances want and need space that is exclusive to those who have that shared experience and path. But it’s a harder leap for some to make that it would be reasonable and valid for the other group of women (for which there is no specific name that I am aware of that neither casts them in an oppressor role nor is offensive to transwomen – but I may just be behind on the lingo) to want and need the same. This is the failure point. This is where the standard conceptual model we use around autonomous organizing breaks down and doesn’t quite fit the situation.

Apparently, it is impossible for some to make that leap.

I think the term is "cisgendered woman". A term many lesbians, myself included, find insulting and an erasure of our lived experience under patriarchy. Nonetheless, it's a term that is used constantly. It falsely casts women as privileged (compliance is not privilege), and it inaccurately casts lesbians as gender congruent. Why do that? Really why? And, why use terms that offend many lesbians while arguing against language that offends others? Where is the consistency or ally-ship in that?

In our standard model, there is a marginalized or oppressed group that exists within a larger group, e.g. lesbians of color in a lesbian organization and then there is the dominant group, e.g. white lesbians. It’s pretty clear in a situation like this when and how autonomous organizing should work. I think the problem stems from trying to apply this exact model to groups of women; it doesn’t quite work. Yes, the cis/trans axis of marginalization exists and is a factor. But it doesn’t negate sexism. The women-who-must-not-be-named still face, in our society, mountains of shit specifically around being women. And the mountains of shit may sometimes be the same or similar as those faced by transwomen but sometimes they will be very different. <<disallowed word>>It is also not unreasonable to think that during the portion of their lives that transwomen were seen as male they absorbed some of the messages of male privilege. There are incredibly powerful and pervasive forces that are brought to bear upon us all from birth, basically. It would be naïve to think they don’t have an impact.

The "cis/trans axis of marginalization exists" not because of WBW/lesbians, it exists because of patriarchy.

Why is it permissible to call out the patriarchal messages absorbed by some, but not others? ....And before someone chimes in - NO they are not equally called out. In many cases the privileged behaviors of trans. are overlooked, even ignored, because a false (albeit patriarchal) hierarchy of oppression has been erected in the "big tent". This too is a byproduct of I-gender politics.

So maybe instead of using that conceptual model of autonomous organizing, we need to use a different one. I know the analogy I’m about to use is profoundly imperfect, it doesn’t fit exactly, and I know that even making these kinds of analogies is tricky at best. It’s simply meant to present a different frame of reference than the one that is typically used in this situation. <<disallowed word>>But what it brings to mind are times when I have seen, within PoC groups, organizing that coalesces around specific racial groups. Because although these groups are all affected by racism, their experiences are different. Being African American is not the same as being Asian American and neither of them is the same as being Native American.

As I said, it’s not a perfect analogy. But my thought is that if we approach these situations differently than we have been, if we can agree that the model we have been trying to use doesn’t fit, then maybe we can see our way clear to occasions of autonomous organizing that don’t feel oppressive or erasing, that don’t rely on policing identity, and that do feel supportive and respectful of our different experiences and paths.

Slater, you may call it "autonomous organizing" - I call it by it's philosophical/post-modern name: Subjective relativism.

But that can obscure the fact that as a group men commit the bulk of both public and private violence and oppression. The vast bulk. Men hold the institutional power (like white folks do) and that changes the game when it comes to enacting oppression.

Yes, it does.... It also changes the dialog when some people are more invested in claiming oppression than excavating it within themselves.

I too am the mother of a son. He's a decent, thoughtful, respectful young man. I work with numerous feminist male allies. One of the things that makes them allies is that they know they carry male privilege. Without that awareness, they cannot be allies.

I'm the mother of a daughter - a Black African-American/Cuban-Chinese daughter. The straight males friends that I count as some of the best human beings on the planet get it, too. The people who don't get it, but claim to be just like me, are the ones I worry about.

ScandalAndy

08-26-2011, 11:52 AM

I-identity politics is a claim to a particularistic form of victimization by patriarchy and the redress of same by patriarchy. Seeking acceptance or redress by patriarchy, does not change patriarchy. Nor does it do anything to better the lot of the still oppressed by patriarchy.

What do you mean by "Identity politics"? I'm just looking for a definition so that I can be sure to interpret the term in exactly the same way that you do.

I-identity gender politics reinforces the false authenticity of gender constructs - "yours", mine, everyones. It doesn't matter how good or bad, alternatively or faithfully, we perform a construct.... it doesn't matter if we willing or knowingly or not comply with a construct.... it's still a construct authored, more or less, by patriarchy.

SO your statement is that gender constructs are false, okay, but all social constructs are, doesn't mean they don't exist nor does it mean we can function without social behaviors. I don't know about you, but I personally author and act out my own behaviors regardless of where they fit in anyone's definitions. How is "the patriarchy" influencing this for me? Forgive me if I am misinterpreting these terms.

As you say, Slater: "....in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux", what does identity even mean anymore?

Coalescing around "shared paths or experiences." and shared oppression, what a novel concept ! (Said ironically, not sarcastically.)

Apparently, it is impossible for some to make that leap.

I think the term is "cisgendered woman". A term many lesbians, myself included, find insulting and an erasure of our lived experience under patriarchy. Nonetheless, it's a term that is used constantly. It falsely casts women as privileged (compliance is not privilege), and it inaccurately casts lesbians as gender congruent. Why do that? Really why? And, why use terms that offend many lesbians while arguing against language that offends others? Where is the consistency or ally-ship in that?

What is it about "cisgendered" that you find insulting and erasing? In the context of gender, cisgendered women do have some instances of privilege that transgendered women are not privy to. If you doubt this, please examine our current correctional system for a pointed example. However, in relation to male privilege and patriarchy, all women regardless of trans or cis status suffer oppression.

Also, may i point out that you use "cisbutch" to identify yourself in your sidebar? If you have objections to the word "cis" in any terminology, it undermines your argument to use it for yourself, correct?

The "cis/trans axis of marginalization exists" not because of WBW/lesbians, it exists because of patriarchy.

Please tell me why you believe this. I do not believe that only those with male privilege judge based on cis/trans. I believe that marginalization is widespread indeed.

Why is it permissible to call out the patriarchal messages absorbed by some, but not others? ....And before someone chimes in - NO they are not equally called out. In many cases the privileged behaviors of trans. are overlooked, even ignored, because a false (albeit patriarchal) hierarchy of oppression has been erected in the "big tent". This too is a byproduct of I-gender politics.

Perhaps you are right, not all patriarchal messages are being called out. then again, perhaps they are not patriarchal messages and your personal experience is influencing the lens through which you view and interpret interactions with others.

Slater, you may call it "autonomous organizing" - I call it by it's philosophical/post-modern name: Subjective relativism.

Yes, it does.... It also changes the dialog when some people are more invested in claiming oppression than excavating it within themselves.

I'm the mother of a daughter - a Black African-American/Cuban-Chinese daughter. The straight males friends that I count as some of the best human beings on the planet get it, too. The people who don't get it, but claim to be just like me, are the ones I worry about.

I do not claim to be like you, as you have experienced intersectionalities that I have not. I do, however, want to learn from that while at the same time questioning the information I am given. I have never been one to accept what someone (anyone) says just because they've said it. I like to ask why and get clarification, as I'm sure you do too. I hope that you will help me understand you better.

Chazz, you and I have been butting heads quite a bit lately, but I genuinely wish to understand why you feel the way you do, and what these terms mean to you. Thank you.

CherylNYC

08-26-2011, 12:06 PM

SA- Many butch women who feel that their gender is butch have expressed that they're offended by the term cisgendered. Chazz is not the only one. She's more than able to give you her perspective, so I won't presume to speak for her.

I think it's a very poor term because it divides people into two camps. I strongly feel that there's a vast difference between women and men, and even I understand that there's a fluidity that a world divided into 'cis' and 'non-cis' denies.

Heart

08-26-2011, 12:09 PM

SA - there have been numerous ongoing discussions about why "cis" is experienced by some lesbians, butches, and women as erasing, and Chazz's use of "cisbutch" came out of a particular conversation and is used in a somewhat ironic sense, I believe.

Being cisgendered implies alignment with one's assigned gender, and while I was assigned "woman," and do not disagree with that assignment, being gendered as a woman is not a privilege in the context of patriarchy. That is the crux of the argument. Further, being assigned woman and being a lesbian and/or being visibly queer/butch further reduces the privilege of living as one's assigned gender of woman, adding homophobia to the misogyny/sexism that we live with every day.

Living as a woman (queer, straight, etc) is a risk, and the prefix "cis" can feel like it erases that reality by implying that if we are congruent with our gender, then all is well and we can sail forth without concern. That's pretty much a gross erasure of sexism and misogyny.

Chazz coined "cisbutch" as a means of indicating that she is NOT congruent with her assigned gender of "woman, in the sense of what "woman" is supposed to mean in a patriarchal culture. For that matter, I am also not congruent with what its supposed to mean to be a woman. But calling me a "ciswoman" erases that completely. If it were used in a very narrow sense of only comparing me to a woman of transgender experience, then it is accurate. But the fact is that much of the violence transwomen experience is rooted in the same sexism and misogyny that all women face. It feels to me that "cis" is used far more in the context of transmen who are not grappling so much with sexism/misogyny, but more with the boundary struggles they are having in women's communities.

Heart

Chazz

08-26-2011, 12:11 PM

Chazz, you and I have been butting heads quite a bit lately, but I genuinely wish to understand why you feel the way you do, and what these terms mean to you. Thank you.

ScandalAndy, I don't see myself as butting heads with you. I don't give disagreements with other people that much space in my head.

I-identity politics is a complex subject that cannot be explained in one sitting. It may take some research on your part.

I've discussed my issues with the term "cisgender" in a number of prior posts. It's a neologism that assigns false privilege to gender congruent women - compliance with patriarchy is not a privilege for the overwhelming majority of women on the planet. And the term "cisgender" holds absolutely no meaning, whatsoever, for lesbians who are gender incongruent women by patriarchal standards.

It should be enough that I, and other lesbians, find the term, "cisgender", inaccurate and insulting. I resent that it is not policed the same way other terms are. More than this I should not have to say.

lettertodaddy

08-26-2011, 12:14 PM

Thank you for bringing up your issues with the term cisgender, chazz. That word doesn't sit well with me, and it wasn't until I read your posts that I understood why.

ScandalAndy

08-26-2011, 01:55 PM

Dominique

08-26-2011, 02:00 PM

Many thanks to all of you, for speaking about cisgendered.

And the great divide.:bananasplit:

Slater

08-26-2011, 07:53 PM

I-identity gender politics reinforces the false authenticity of gender constructs - "yours", mine, everyones. It doesn't matter how good or bad, alternatively or faithfully, we perform a construct.... it doesn't matter if we willing or knowingly or not comply with a construct.... it's still a construct authored, more or less, by patriarchy.

Yes gender is a construct. Culture is a construct. Values, ideology. And all of it exists with a patriarchal systems and is inevitably influenced by that system. If that renders identity and identity politics inherently meaningless, then it renders all of culture inherently meaningless.

Suffice to say you and I have different ideas about identity politics, about how they work and what purpose they can serve. Similarly, we see autonomous organizing quite differently as well. Given how dismissive you were when ScandalAndy asked you to elaborate on your ideas about identity politics, I don’t feel inclined to try to pursue that particular matter any further, so I’ll leave it that.

I agree that the cis- terminology is problematic. I think it has utility in talking in general terms about transphobia. And clearly it is an identifier that works for some people. I don’t think it works well as a broad identifier because it is oversimplified and binary, which is why I didn’t use it in that context.

The "cis/trans axis of marginalization exists" not because of WBW/lesbians, it exists because of patriarchy.

Why is it permissible to call out the patriarchal messages absorbed by some, but not others? ....And before someone chimes in - NO they are not equally called out. In many cases the privileged behaviors of trans. are overlooked, even ignored, because a false (albeit patriarchal) hierarchy of oppression has been erected in the "big tent". This too is a byproduct of I-gender politics.

I’m not sure where you thought I was suggesting that lesbians or women had created it. Of course it is all tied up with sexism, just as homophobia is all tied up with sexism.

Oppression hierarchies are hardly limited to gender politics. They come up whenever you have populations that face multiple kinds of oppression. I will say that I think the way that transphobia intersects with and interacts with sexism is a bit different than the relationships among other oppressions and that’s why trying to use the same sorts of conceptual structures that we often use with other combinations of oppressions has not worked well.

I suppose I could go on and try to explicate the differences you and I have in how we see trans oppression as functioning in society, but as nothing in the tone of your responses suggests that you have interest in actual dialog, I’m not sure anything would be served by it.

CherylNYC

08-26-2011, 08:57 PM

ScandalAndy

08-26-2011, 10:26 PM

That's close, but Heart gave a far better explanation.
"Being cisgendered implies alignment with one's assigned gender, and while I was assigned "woman," and do not disagree with that assignment, being gendered as a woman is not a privilege in the context of patriarchy. That is the crux of the argument. Further, being assigned woman and being a lesbian and/or being visibly queer/butch further reduces the privilege of living as one's assigned gender of woman, adding homophobia to the misogyny/sexism that we live with every day.

Living as a woman (queer, straight, etc) is a risk, and the prefix "cis" can feel like it erases that reality by implying that if we are congruent with our gender, then all is well and we can sail forth without concern. That's pretty much a gross erasure of sexism and misogyny."

Calling me cisgendered, meaning that my gender conforms to the gender I'm expected to exhibit, might pass muster in a simplistic way even though I detest the term. Calling any of my butch partners or girlfriends cisgendered is laughable. I may have been a tomboy as a child, but I was never mistaken for a boy. I may have deliberately put myself in unsafe positions by coming out, but my girlfriends never had that luxury. They were out whether or not they would have chosen it. Their presentation and their masculine energy made them targets and kept them from fitting in. They weren't like other girls. They weren't like other women. Many perceive their gender as butch. That's why calling them cisgendered is offensive. It erases butch women.

Heart did such a great job explaining why it erases us as lesbians that there's no need to further elaborate. I really resent that somehow this problematic term has suddenly gained so much currency.

My apologies. I interpret cisgender to mean an individual who does not experience body dysphoria. That is my context. To me, identity along the butch/andro/femme spectrum is a completely different kettle of fish. It isn't my place to dictate how others interpret the term.

I do not intend to sit here and insist one of us is right and one is wrong because i don't think it's that clear cut. Thank you to Heart for explaining your position, thank you to you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

DapperButch

08-26-2011, 10:36 PM

My apologies. I interpret cisgender to mean an individual who does not experience body dysphoria. That is my context. To me, identity along the butch/andro/femme spectrum is a completely different kettle of fish. It isn't my place to dictate how others interpret the term.

I do not intend to sit here and insist one of us is right and one is wrong because i don't think it's that clear cut. Thank you to Heart for explaining your position, thank you to you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1] Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2]

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

SA you seem to be speaking of cissexual, while others are speaking to the definition of cisgender. Not unlike transsexual and transgender.

ScandalAndy

08-26-2011, 10:44 PM

imperfect_cupcake

08-27-2011, 01:56 AM

I've always known the term to be used in a cissexual way then, when I left the dash site and didn't involve myself in North American gender politics for quite a while. I see it's changed somewhat.

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

I'm sorry... but pardon? I feel like I've grown stupid in the last four years of my life (that's actually true, I do feel that way) but I have no idea how that's supposed to fit very many people. A match between an individual's gender idenitity (so take for example an individual gender - for someone who feels their gender is not described by anyone else and I know a Bucket load of people like that - and the behaviour or role (ok still following) considered appropriate for one's sex. ok at that point I'm lost. considered approriate by whom exactly? My family? my community? my sub-culture? my wider culture? my boss? Which country and what subculture and what community am I in? Jesus you could turn from cis to non-cis in a matter of 15 minutes depending on the people you are standing with. I'm sorry, that too subjective a term for me to really agree with. That would be like considering my gender, femme, to be based on whether my mom and my boss agree it exists as a gender or something absurd like that. and I'm only femme depending on what other people think. In that case, according to my point of view, a lot of trans are actually cisgendered - which seems to have defeated the point of making a word for non-trans people. I'm sorry but I think the term was invented in some kind of subcultural vaccuume.

Good try though. It does bring up the issue of a women's gender(s) being decided by others (if the community decides one is allowed to be a woman or not). Which is extremely degrading and fucked up and happens to a lot of women due to their journeys. So I see the point of trying to achieve a term.

ScandalAndy

08-27-2011, 06:48 AM

Hit the nail on the head, love.

I feel I should point out that if we want to bring in the younger generation of queers and activists who are still concerned with equal rights for all, we are going to have to find a way to accept and have dialogue with those who use this word. Not for nothing, four years of gender studies and a minor in the subject, and not once was any terminology other than this used.

Do i still find it imperfect? Sure, but what system of language isn't?

SO how do we get back to being proud of all the members of our community if we disagree with the current language being used/taught?

I've always known the term to be used in a cissexual way then, when I left the dash site and didn't involve myself in North American gender politics for quite a while. I see it's changed somewhat.

I'm sorry... but pardon? I feel like I've grown stupid in the last four years of my life (that's actually true, I do feel that way) but I have no idea how that's supposed to fit very many people. A match between an individual's gender idenitity (so take for example an individual gender - for someone who feels their gender is not described by anyone else and I know a Bucket load of people like that - and the behaviour or role (ok still following) considered appropriate for one's sex. ok at that point I'm lost. considered approriate by whom exactly? My family? my community? my sub-culture? my wider culture? my boss? Which country and what subculture and what community am I in? Jesus you could turn from cis to non-cis in a matter of 15 minutes depending on the people you are standing with. I'm sorry, that too subjective a term for me to really agree with. That would be like considering my gender, femme, to be based on whether my mom and my boss agree it exists as a gender or something absurd like that. and I'm only femme depending on what other people think. In that case, according to my point of view, a lot of trans are actually cisgendered - which seems to have defeated the point of making a word for non-trans people. I'm sorry but I think the term was invented in some kind of subcultural vaccuume.

Good try though. It does bring up the issue of a women's gender(s) being decided by others (if the community decides one is allowed to be a woman or not). Which is extremely degrading and fucked up and happens to a lot of women due to their journeys. So I see the point of trying to achieve a term.

Heart

08-27-2011, 07:12 AM

imperfect_cupcake

08-27-2011, 08:06 AM

Hit the nail on the head, love.

I feel I should point out that if we want to bring in the younger generation of queers and activists who are still concerned with equal rights for all, we are going to have to find a way to accept and have dialogue with those who use this word. Not for nothing, four years of gender studies and a minor in the subject, and not once was any terminology other than this used.

Do i still find it imperfect? Sure, but what system of language isn't?

SO how do we get back to being proud of all the members of our community if we disagree with the current language being used/taught?

well I see your point but I have to be honest and say that under that definition, cisgendered really means next to nothing to me. it's so other-subjective that I've lost any inclination to bother trying to figure it out. It sounds very othering - as I'm sure the precurser "trans" feels to many women. Perhaps that's the point, to wear a shoe that doesn't really fit to gain perspective. But I'd have no idea how to have a conversation with someone applying cisgendered to me if they had no idea who I was or how I felt about my own gender and all they saw was feminine gender presentation and a female body. they wouldn't know my self concept, nor my gender "role" with my parter, nor how I fuck, nor how I work, nor what pronouns I prefer.

But I'm pretty sure that's how many women feel about the qualifyier "trans" as well. Heart is right, the dichotamy is false and misleading. And frankly I'd have a hard time thinking of when I'd actually use either one in my daily life unless someone told me they self-identified that way. When the fuck do I ever refer to my women friends as trans or cis? never. that's like saying "my butch friend" which to me sounds a bit odd. It's my friend Bill, or Hilary or Seven. I dunno maybe it's only purpose is defining boundaries of inclusion. Like if someone was putting up a dating add. And frankly my local community is lucky enough not to have to use those. Perhaps it's a position of privilege not to have to find further qualifiers.

and yeah, heart, body dysphoria is a pretty awful thing in women - I've had it for YEARS, most of my life. It is different in target than my partner but the pain is quite similar. Learning to live with it has certainly been a challange but being able to claim things without shame has helped, and as I discover more things about myself, the more controllable it gets. It do think it's ultimately about control over one's own body, in the end, in all cases.

And I am interested in that book. Which I oddly never read.

ScandalAndy

08-27-2011, 08:14 AM

But Heart, I'm not using it with any consideration of behaviors and roles that are appropriate for one's sex. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks is "appropriate". So what does that make me?

I think it is quite a broad statement you've made regarding dysphoria. Do you not agree that all women, butch/andro/femme/whatever have objectification and violence practiced upon them in some form or another under patriarchal values?

Now, imagine the added burden of feeling the physical body you are contained within does not represent the gender of your mind and thought patterns. Gender dysphoria is a struggle that is added to the experience of trans men and women. Trans women then take on the burden of objectification of and violence against women. Trans men struggle with the scars of that burden and how to address it throughout their transition.

I don't think gender studies is side stepping the reality of living as a woman. It is very much stressed that there is still a deep inequality there. However, that is being taught alongside the assertion that there are multiple gender presentations and identities that deserve to be recognized and supported just as much. This is not a trans. vs. non-trans thing, here. Please do not mistake me as someone who is supportive of a binary system. Cissexual and cisgender ARE being used interchangeably because you can identify with your sex, or you can not, or you can sometimes identify with it. The roles you identify with, the behaviors, the way you dress, walk, act, and talk? Those can change in a heartbeat and are not the same for everyone.

Put me next to my friend C*, we are both femme lesbians. We both like computers, play nerdy games, have long hair, swear by black mascara, enjoy volleyball, have fantasy football teams, and change the oil in our cars. We have similar behaviors which do not clearly fit into any sort of role. We are both women who struggle against the pay difference in our field. We both have complaints about dating. The difference is that she was tormented and fired from her previous job because the name and gender on her birth certificate did not match the name on her resume.

She needs language to describe and validate that struggle, which I have never had to go through. It is not fair for us to deny her that language and invalidate her experience either.

Since I am using cisgender and cissexual interchangeably, I would go so far as to state that butch lesbians could be cis or trans gendered, it is the behaviors they choose for themselves, wardrobe, and introspection that dictate the butch identifier. Only the individual has the right to choose their label, anyone else trying to label is just overstepping their bounds. I do not intend to overstep my bounds and tell someone what word they should use to describe how they identify with their sex. I just attempted to put forth an example of how someone who does not share the same issues with the terminology could use them to describe themselves.

I respect that there are some butches and femmes who vehemently disagree with me. Thank you for your disagreement, you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. We are all correct.

You are correct, women transgress gender restrictions all the time, whether it be out of necessity or inclination. I am happy to applaud my sisters who challenge everything we know about gender and it's so-called boundaries. Without brave women throughout history, we wouldn't have the redefined view of what it means to be a woman today.

And there you have it. "Behavior and role appropriate for one's sex" reeks of patriarchal assumptions.

And as far as body dysmorphia: again, it's impossible to be female in a patriarchal culture and not have body dysmorphia, considering the objectification and violence routinely done to women's bodies.

Odd, how gender-studies terminology has managed to side-step the historical realities of living as a woman (whether born that way or not), in favor of a very narrow focus on trans vs non-trans. I get awfully tired of the rareified Ivory Tower approach to gender and "North American gender politics," as HB so aptly put it.

Women transgress rigid and limited gender definitions all the time in order to survive. I'm not talking just about queers, I'm talking globally, about women. Read the book in my sig line. As for young activists -- the book in my sig line should be required reading.

Heart

ScandalAndy

08-27-2011, 08:25 AM

well I see your point but I have to be honest and say that under that definition, cisgendered really means next to nothing to me. it's so other-subjective that I've lost any inclination to bother trying to figure it out. It sounds very othering - as I'm sure the precurser "trans" feels to many women. Perhaps that's the point, to wear a shoe that doesn't really fit to gain perspective. But I'd have no idea how to have a conversation with someone applying cisgendered to me if they had no idea who I was or how I felt about my own gender and all they saw was feminine gender presentation and a female body. they wouldn't know my self concept, nor my gender "role" with my parter, nor how I fuck, nor how I work, nor what pronouns I prefer.

But I'm pretty sure that's how many women feel about the qualifyier "trans" as well. Heart is right, the dichotamy is false and misleading. And frankly I'd have a hard time thinking of when I'd actually use either one in my daily life unless someone told me they self-identified that way. When the fuck do I ever refer to my women friends as trans or cis? never. that's like saying "my butch friend" which to me sounds a bit odd. It's my friend Bill, or Hilary or Seven. I dunno maybe it's only purpose is defining boundaries of inclusion. Like if someone was putting up a dating add. And frankly my local community is lucky enough not to have to use those. Perhaps it's a position of privilege not to have to find further qualifiers.

and yeah, heart, body dysphoria is a pretty awful thing in women - I've had it for YEARS, most of my life. It is different in target than my partner but the pain is quite similar. Learning to live with it has certainly been a challange but being able to claim things without shame has helped, and as I discover more things about myself, the more controllable it gets. It do think it's ultimately about control over one's own body, in the end, in all cases.

And I am interested in that book. Which I oddly never read.

I can see why that definition would not hold very much meaning for you. I think my point is getting lost here, and that is something I am trying very hard to avoid.

I do not think that anyone other than the individual should be identifying anyone other than themselves.

I believe that there are different struggles faced by different individuals that are radically influenced by sex and behavior and physical appearance. I think these experiences need to be shared and we are constantly inventing and adapting language as an imperfect vehicle to help us share these stories and create dialogue, address social injustice, and enact change.

I think you bring up a good point with "boundaries of inclusion". I did not think that my personal boundaries of inclusion could be construed as exclusionary, but upon further examination i see that, under certain interpretations, they could be.

I am glad that you and Heart are bringing up these points, they are important for me to examine. I may not always agree with you both, but I appreciate your willingness to explain where you are coming from and the importance of your point of view as well as mine.

I do not want to put forth the impression that I am not fully aware of the inequality of women in the world. Being a woman still sucks. There are still rules in place to keep women from positions of power, that encourage violence against them, and, ultimately, keep women in subservience and pain. This is terrible behavior and it is wrong. I just don't want to exclude anyone who could be a valuable community member or ally because the way they describe their experience doesn't fit into what we think is okay.

imperfect_cupcake

08-27-2011, 08:31 AM

Put me next to my friend C*, we are both femme lesbians. We both like computers, play nerdy games, have long hair, swear by black mascara, enjoy volleyball, have fantasy football teams, and change the oil in our cars. We have similar behaviors which do not clearly fit into any sort of role. We are both women who struggle against the pay difference in our field. We both have complaints about dating. The difference is that she was tormented and fired from her previous job because the name and gender on her birth certificate did not match the name on her resume.

She needs language to describe and validate that struggle, which I have never had to go through. It is not fair for us to deny her that language and invalidate her experience either.

I see your point. I think where my brain was at was the use of trans or cis as applied by others, to others. Cause I've seen a heap of that, especially online. it's a very casual use of a descriptor. I've done it online, though I do make an effort to avoid it as much as possible. If someone self identifies, fab. But just like the "just me's" who ask what the name is for those who don't ID as butch or femme, because having a dichotamy infers only two choices - what is there for those who don't feel cissticks properly? Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. I personally don't think I'd fit into that - femme fits me because for me, it is it's own gender - therefore I can do anything with it and I don't need anything else.

I wouldn't want to remove terms from those who have a home in them. I'm quite attached to mine, so I know the feeling.

I guess I don't really have certain kinds of conversations any more in my flesh life, even though I hang out with mostly genderqueer people of various different shades than I ever did on the west coast. I wonder why that is. I never ask people how they define any more, I honestly don't care. However if they want to talk to me about it, I'm perfectly happy listening. I'm happy talking about all kinds of ID they have in regards to sexuality (pan, bi, lezz, heteroflexible wotever...) or gender, but I only really debate it much when I come *here* to this sight. Not that it's a bad thing, but slowly, it's getting more and more foreign, I think.

I dunno perhaps my brain just stalled about five years ago and the damp has set in.

ScandalAndy

08-27-2011, 08:39 AM

I see your point. I think where my brain was at was the use of trans or cis as applied by others, to others. Cause I've seen a heap of that, especially online. it's a very casual use of a descriptor. I've done it online, though I do make an effort to avoid it as much as possible. If someone self identifies, fab. But just like the "just me's" who ask what the name is for those who don't ID as butch or femme, because having a dichotamy infers only two choices - what is there for those who don't feel cissticks properly? Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. I personally don't think I'd fit into that - femme fits me because for me, it is it's own gender - therefore I can do anything with it and I don't need anything else.

I wouldn't want to remove terms from those who have a home in them. I'm quite attached to mine, so I know the feeling.

I guess I don't really have certain kinds of conversations any more in my flesh life, even though I hang out with mostly genderqueer people of various different shades than I ever did on the west coast. I wonder why that is. I never ask people how they define any more, I honestly don't care. However if they want to talk to me about it, I'm perfectly happy listening. I'm happy talking about all kinds of ID they have in regards to sexuality (pan, bi, lezz, heteroflexible wotever...) or gender, but I only really debate it much when I come *here* to this sight. Not that it's a bad thing, but slowly, it's getting more and more foreign, I think.

I dunno perhaps my brain just stalled about five years ago and the damp has set in.

You know, that's a good question. Why don't we have these conversations anymore? Is there a shift in what is considered important? Am I overlooking something? Have you evolved past wanting to pick apart these things? Is it okay that I am still knee deep in wanting to know why and how and throw myself into all the experiences I can because I want to know how it feels and how I can help? Will I some day be able to leave this crazy turmoil of having to defend my opinion?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I thank you for inspiring me to take a closer look. Maybe I am getting too bogged down and failing to see the forest for the trees.

DapperButch

08-27-2011, 08:52 AM

Not that I actually know the history, but.....

I think it rolled just like it did with the terms transgender and transsexual.

People mean transsexual when they say transgender.

People mean cissexed when they say cisgender.

The difference is we have accepted that when someone says transgender they actually mean transsexual. When it comes to cissexed/cisgender, some people are still wanting to hold onto the actual definitions of the terms (and good for them!)

Personally, it still annoys the fuck out of me that people use the terms transsexual and transgender interchangeably. But, that's just me.

ETA: What I meant by the above. I think what has happened here in the past is that people have used the term cisgender when what they meant was cissexed. Folks who don't know what the term (cisgender) means looks it up. The reader becomes frustrated because what they read is that the term cisgender means a person who fits society's gender expectations in looks and behaviors. They cry foul b/c that doesn't fit for many here. As well they should. The speaker was referring to people who don't have gender dysphoria (cissexed). If the speaker had used the correct term to begin with (cissexed), all would be well.

Just my opinion as to what I have seen.

Slater

08-27-2011, 01:01 PM

You know, that's a good question. Why don't we have these conversations anymore? Is there a shift in what is considered important? Am I overlooking something? Have you evolved past wanting to pick apart these things? Is it okay that I am still knee deep in wanting to know why and how and throw myself into all the experiences I can because I want to know how it feels and how I can help? Will I some day be able to leave this crazy turmoil of having to defend my opinion?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I thank you for inspiring me to take a closer look. Maybe I am getting too bogged down and failing to see the forest for the trees.

There's a bunch of interesting tangents going on in this thread. I'm going to try to tackle them one(ish) and time.

Perhaps the conversations aren't happening as much anymore because it feels like the terrain has gotten too complicated, the language so diverse and usage so idiosyncratic that it becomes difficult to even have a conversation that gets much beyond "This is what I mean by that term, what do you mean by it?" "I don't use that term anymore, I use this other one." So although these conversations are still possible, I think it's more challenging.

There may also be an element of been-there-done-that for some people. I'm a total wonk for this kind of stuff though, so I'm content to go there and do that again and again.

I do think there is still desire to have these conversations, as evidenced by the popularity of events like the Femme Con and the Butch Voices Conference. I just would like to see an organization that does not focus so much on a big once-a-year thing that winds up reaching only a tiny fraction of the community. I'm hoping Butch Nation will do things differently, and Jeanne Cordova indicated to me that she was going to take my butch org wish list to the BN planning committee, but given that they have already annouced a big national conference for next year, I'm inclined to think that it will be more of what we already have.

And ScandalAndy, maybe don't think of it as defending your opinion, so much as explaining it. All you have to do is try to be thorough in your thought processes, clear in your explanations, and be open to hearing other perspectives and rethinking things if need be. Now, if you are in a discussion with someone who is not entering it with similar intentions, then a different strategy might be called for. But even that would be about protecting yourself rather than defending your opinions, per se.

Honeybarbara, I totally know what you mean about feeling like the brain has been in mothballs for awhile. A couple months ago, I was looking through old threads on "dash" and I found myself thinking, among other things, "Cripes, I used to be so smart. What happened?"

lettertodaddy

08-27-2011, 01:52 PM

You know, that's a good question. Why don't we have these conversations anymore?

I've tried. Most of the queer folks I know (1) don't really ID with the queer community as a whole, or (2) seem to have moved past it. But then again, I don't really have a queer circle of friends here, and the last time we had a discussion about it, we were all three sheets to the wind and it was about 3 am.

I tried bringing it up with my ex, but conversations like this bored her. She knew who she was, was happy with it, end of story. She wasn't interested in theory (and she also thought she wasn't smart enough to talk about it in detail) -- she, to quote her, was "just living (her) life the only way (she) knew how."

I miss discussions like this.

Slater

08-27-2011, 08:33 PM

Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1] Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2]

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

Before we break out the stone tablets and enshrine what Wikipedia offers up as the definitions, let's acknowledge that these are not "official" definitions and may or may not reflect actual usage all that well.

But what I am really interested in is, if possible, stepping back from these words as identities and trying to nail down exactly what work we want this language to accomplish and then seeing how close or far it is from accomplishing that. Because I think this language was essentially rushed out into common and academic usage while it was still in the beta-testing stage and not all of the bugs had been worked out yet. Basically, it's a linguistic Windows Vista.

I realized though that this thread is probably not the place for that, so I'll poke around in the other forums looking for a suitable home.

loremar

08-27-2011, 09:26 PM

Yes, people should have the right to free thoughts and enjoy there life the way they want it to live. You can't bar someone's freedom unless you have good reasons to do so. Lesbians have nothing against other innocent people, they just want to be lesbians, so let them be lesbians.

Chazz

08-30-2011, 12:27 PM

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you)

I'm afraid I don't view the world the same way you do, as I am not dividing into "cis and non-cis". There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer, and every flavor combination therein. I detest binary systems, and this is probably a failing on my part that I did not communicate that, when I personally use nomenclature that defines the opposite ends of a spectrum, that I am including all identities within that spectrum.

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it nicely.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when, in fact, I'm the recipient of unearned white privilege?

This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and in some cases, an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière about how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere over this.

Thank you for letting me know that you find that term offensive. I would like to find a universally acceptable term that I may use around the site that will not offend any of the members. If you have any suggestions, that would be great. Until then, though, I hope I may ask for a bit more of your patience as I still would like to describe my identity with a term.

ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.

....I wasn't aware of the discussions regarding the terms that were happening here. I believe my main misunderstanding here was that I am not content with using the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy, therefore I do see the privilege experienced by women whose path does not include the same gender introspection that transgendered women experience. I do agree with you that all women, regardless of gender journeys, under a patriarchal system, are oppressed.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender - it makes of us, gender consumers.

I apologize if I implied that women who identify with their birthassigned gender can sail forth without concern. That was not my intention as that is not at all my belief. All women face many struggles in defining themselves and holding their own in the world.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga

Chazz: I am very sorry to hear that I do not warrant any of your time, as I have taken my time to respond to your post and ask questions. It hurts me quite a bit that you see fit to dismiss me so readily as someone of no consequence to you.

I asked you to explain identity politics because I cannot address your statements unless I know how you see it. I'm sorry your response was "go look it up", or at least, that's how it felt to me.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation of my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

Please feel free to report my post for using the term you find offensive.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not....

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you)

I'm afraid I don't view the world the same way you do, as I am not dividing into "cis and non-cis". There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer, and every flavor combination therein. I detest binary systems, and this is probably a failing on my part that I did not communicate that, when I personally use nomenclature that defines the opposite ends of a spectrum, that I am including all identities within that spectrum.

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it for you.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when I'm not? This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere because of this.

Thank you for letting me know that you find that term offensive. I would like to find a universally acceptable term that I may use around the site that will not offend any of the members. If you have any suggestions, that would be great. Until then, though, I hope I may ask for a bit more of your patience as I still would like to describe my identity with a term.

ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.

Heart: Thank you, I wasn't aware of the discussions regarding the terms that were happening here. I believe my main misunderstanding here was that I am not content with using the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy, therefore I do see the privilege experienced by women whose path does not include the same gender introspection that transgendered women experience. I do agree with you that all women, regardless of gender journeys, under a patriarchal system, are oppressed.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender. I think of this as gender consumerism.

I apologize if I implied that women who identify with their birthassigned gender can sail forth without concern. That was not my intention as that is not at all my belief. All women face many struggles in defining themselves and holding their own in the world.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga

Chazz: I am very sorry to hear that I do not warrant any of your time, as I have taken my time to respond to your post and ask questions. It hurts me quite a bit that you see fit to dismiss me so readily as someone of no consequence to you.

I asked you to explain identity politics because I cannot address your statements unless I know how you see it. I'm sorry your response was "go look it up", or at least, that's how it felt to me.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation about my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

Please feel free to report my post for using the term you find offensive.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not.

I am a scientist, and when I see the word trans, I see a molecule with two reactive groups, one on each side of the molecule. When i see cis, i see a molecule with both reactive groups on the same side. Thank you biochemistry. I am able to apply that scientific knowledge to gender theory and see that for some, like myself, it makes sense. Since there appeared to be a need for transgendered individuals to use the word "trans" to describe themselves and their gender journey, it made sense to me to use "cis" to describe myself and aspects of my journey. I admit this system does not work well for everyone.

I'll leave you to your molecules and, instead, say: When I see terms like "CIS" or "trans", I see people, not molecules. But then, I'm a scientist, too, but of a different order (Human Services). I spend 60+ hours a week trying to disavow teenage girls of their misbegotten notions of gender. Notions that are contributing to their being exploited, abused, impregnanted and infected with STDs and HIV. Notions that keep them depressed and abusing their bodies ("cutting", eating disorders, substance abuse, etc.). Their modern day hero(in)es keep them gender, self-preoccupied, too; it's often fatal. It doesn't matter which gender construct or deconstruct one buys into, it still keeps the myth of gender constructs alive. We're all gender consumers under patriarchy. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs - it simply re-envisages constructs.

Lesbians/women like me, who's life's work it is to keep young women from being systematically (systemically?) murdered by gender constructs, find the self-preoccupation with labels and gender identity maddening.

Perhaps the best solution would be to get rid of trans and cis altogether, but then would we have adequate language to describe ourselves and our experiences? I am not so sure.

Here's a thought.... How about dropping the concept of gender altogether? Constructed or deconstructed, it's still all about gender.... Everyone is a gender consumer under patriarchy. There's no escaping it. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs. The myth of gender has to go.

Perhaps the best solution would be to get rid of trans and cis altogether, but then would we have adequate language to describe ourselves and our experiences? I am not so sure.

How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

Chazz

08-30-2011, 01:12 PM

Yes gender is a construct. Culture is a construct. Values, ideology. And all of it exists with a patriarchal systems and is inevitably influenced by that system. If that renders identity and identity politics inherently meaningless, then it renders all of culture inherently meaningless.

The leap to meaningless is, well, quite a leap.... But no, it doesn't render anything meaningless. It does render it open to discussion.

Suffice to say you and I have different ideas about identity politics, about how they work and what purpose they can serve. Similarly, we see autonomous organizing quite differently as well. Given how dismissive you were when ScandalAndy asked you to elaborate on your ideas about identity politics, I don’t feel inclined to try to pursue that particular matter any further, so I’ll leave it that.

Different ideas about identity politics and how they work are good, that is, until they don't work for everyone.

I already responded to my being "dismissive" of ScandalAndy in a prior post.

I agree that the cis- terminology is problematic. I think it has utility in talking in general terms about transphobia. And clearly it is an identifier that works for some people. I don’t think it works well as a broad identifier because it is oversimplified and binary, which is why I didn’t use it in that context.

The utility of the term "CIS" doesn't serve lesbian women. In this thread about lesbian pride, I'm arguing for those it doesn't serve - lesbians.

I’m not sure where you thought I was suggesting that lesbians or women had created it. Of course it is all tied up with sexism, just as homophobia is all tied up with sexism.

I didn't think you were "suggesting that lesbians or women had created it".

Oppression hierarchies are hardly limited to gender politics.

Yeah, I know....

They come up whenever you have populations that face multiple kinds of oppression. I will say that I think the way that transphobia intersects with and interacts with sexism is a bit different than the relationships among other oppressions and that’s why trying to use the same sorts of conceptual structures that we often use with other combinations of oppressions has not worked well.

I agree that trans identity politics "intersects and interacts" with sexism differently than other oppressions. In fact, I'm arguing that very point in my way.

What gets overlooked in most identity politics, especially when ally-ship is expected (demanded?) of other groups, is the need for excavation.

Not all identity "conceptual structures" carry equally well. Especially, when they dilute another groups identity politics and/or carry forward the seeds of the system's oppression they presume to challenge. The sexism within the Black Panther Movement by luminaries like Carmichael, Cleaver, Newton and most recently Malik Zulu Shabazz is well documented. And then, there's the lesbianphobia, racism and class privilege of many 2nd Wave Feminists to consider.

A claim to oppression even when valid, does not ensure an absence of horizontal oppression.

I suppose I could go on and try to explicate the differences you and I have in how we see trans oppression as functioning in society, but as nothing in the tone of your responses suggests that you have interest in actual dialog, I’m not sure anything would be served by it.

Someday, perhaps, some linguistic wizard will clarify how "tone" is conveyed in posts and text messages. Until then, I'll consider "tone" a feature of perception based in unanimity of thought.

Chazz

08-30-2011, 01:36 PM

It's just been pointed out to me that not everyone is familiar with certain terms and concepts. Thank you to the person who graciously pointed this out to me without jumping to the conclusion that I'm being "dismissive".

It's difficult to have discussions of complex issues that require years of accumulated knowledge, lived experience and herstory.

It's not possible for me to always qualify what I'm saying for a number of reasons. I IMAGINE this is how POC feel while having discussions about racism and white privilege. They can't always set aside what they are doing in a conversation to impart their meanings, perspectives and accumulated information to others.

Thanks to the person who gave me the heads up.

Chazz

08-30-2011, 02:00 PM

And there you have it. "Behavior and role appropriate for one's sex" reeks of patriarchal assumptions.

And as far as body dysmorphia: again, it's impossible to be female in a patriarchal culture and not have body dysmorphia, considering the objectification and violence routinely done to women's bodies.

Odd, how gender-studies terminology has managed to side-step the historical realities of living as a woman (whether born that way or not), in favor of a very narrow focus on trans vs non-trans. I get awfully tired of the rareified Ivory Tower approach to gender and "North American gender politics," as HB so aptly put it.

Women transgress rigid and limited gender definitions all the time in order to survive. I'm not talking just about queers, I'm talking globally, about women. Read the book in my sig line. As for young activists -- the book in my sig line should be required reading.

Heart

"What is required for the hegemony of heteronormative [patriarchal] standards to maintain power is our continual repetition of such gender acts in the most mundane of daily activities (the way we walk, talk, gesticulate, etc.).... That style [of gender performance] has no relation to essential "truths" about the body but is strictly ideological. It has a history that exists beyond the subject who enacts those conventions...." Dino Felluga

ScandalAndy

08-30-2011, 03:24 PM

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it nicely.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when, in fact, I'm the recipient of unearned white privilege?

hijacking identities? Identity is established by the individual. I'm not telling anyone who they are or who they aren't.

Are my thoughts less important because I haven't been in the community as long?

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.[/COLOR]

Well since I said it was surprising to me, feel free to get out the markers and color yourself amazed. This was the first time I have come across the term being offensive.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender - it makes of us, gender consumers.

I beg to differ. There may be clear bias to you, but that bias is not clear to me. I don't believe anyone strives to be biased.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

So because I learned that particular brand of gender theory, I am unintentionally offensive because gender theory is presumptive. I have no idea what to make of this, but you are entitled to your opinon.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation of my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

I find it contradictory indeed to say "you're not being dismissed, i just don't have time and don't care, you should be able to figure it out from my comments" when I made a distinct point of telling you that was how i was feeling. Conversely, you have every right to not give a rat's derriere about how I feel. My emotions are my responsibility.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not....

[COLOR="Red"]You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it for you.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when I'm not? This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere because of this.

ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender. I think of this as gender consumerism.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation about my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not.

This is a repeat, so I'll just leave it at that.

I'll leave you to your molecules and, instead, say: When I see terms like "CIS" or "trans", I see people, not molecules. But then, I'm a scientist, too, but of a different order (Human Services). I spend 60+ hours a week trying to disavow teenage girls of their misbegotten notions of gender. Notions that are contributing to their being exploited, abused, impregnanted and infected with STDs and HIV. Notions that keep them depressed and abusing their bodies ("cutting", eating disorders, substance abuse, etc.). Their modern day hero(in)es keep them gender, self-preoccupied, too; it's often fatal. It doesn't matter which gender construct or deconstruct one buys into, it still keeps the myth of gender constructs alive. We're all gender consumers under patriarchy. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs - it simply re-envisages constructs.

Lesbians/women like me, who's life's work it is to keep young women from being systematically (systemically?) murdered by gender constructs, find the self-preoccupation with labels and gender identity maddening.

I refuse to be drawn into the oppression olympics with you. This whole statement smacks of "holier than thou" and is positively infuriating to me.

Here's a thought.... How about dropping the concept of gender altogether? Constructed or deconstructed, it's still all about gender.... Everyone is a gender consumer under patriarchy. There's no escaping it. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs. The myth of gender has to go.

How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

These two statements are redundant but you have a point. The concept of eliminating gender is the only thing I will take from this so-called conversation.

I find your tone and responses to be ageist and dismissive, and it is clear to me that you and I are unable to have a productive dialogue on this subject. You are clearly quite intelligent and I'm sure will continue to contribute to the threads in productive ways. With that in mind, I wish you all the best and hope that you and I can limit our interaction regarding this subject in particular to discussions about the weather.

CherylNYC

08-30-2011, 06:21 PM

Well since I said it was surprising to me, feel free to get out the markers and color yourself amazed. This was the first time I have come across the term being offensive....

... These two statements are redundant but you have a point. The concept of eliminating gender is the only thing I will take from this so-called conversation...

SA,
It's been my experience that most people who use the term 'cis' are very surprised to learn that someone finds it offensive. Like you, they've learned that it's a way to acknowledge the struggles that trans people face, and the alleged lack of similar struggles that people who have never been trans supposedly get to avoid. We've spent quite a bit of time discussing the real problems such a term brings up, (Heart, will you run for President?), and the way some of us have felt ambushed by the rapid, community-wide adoption of this term that feels quite erasing to us. We didn't get to consent to this. To complete the erasure, many of us who object to the term have been repeatedly silenced by others who tell us that makes us transphobes. No wonder you haven't heard anything about 'cis' being offensive thus far. The power of being labeled a transphobe is so great that it took the establishment of a lesbian zone on a website catering to butch/femme people, the vast majority of whom ID as women who partner with women, for us to feel safe enough to have a discussion about the offensiveness of 'cis'.

Like most of us here, I would like to get back to the important topic of lesbian pride. As it has in many other parts of our community, arguments about trans inclusion have diverted us. We can't seem to keep from letting those arguments divert our attention in this thread any better than we can in the lesbian community at large, or so I perceive it.

Like many, I deeply resent that feminist thought, which I hold as my touchstone, has been dismissed and derided in favour of gender theory in academic circles. That brings me to the second of your statements which I quoted. This is the very crux of the problem I perceive with current gender theory getting in the way of my lesbian pride. I understand that this statement about eliminating gender came up in the context of an acrimonious argument between you and Chazz, but it's telling.

My understanding of gender theory is that it seeks to undermine binary gender by simply declaring that there is no such thing. The world isn't made up of women and men, the world is made up of millions of beings of indeterminate gender. Those beings should be allowed to declare whatever gender they understand themselves to be at any point in their lives, or not, and that designation may change many times over their lives. Current gender theory holds that it's inherently oppressive to name a baby's gender based on her or his genitalia and chromosomal make-up, and that birth designation should no longer be practiced. There, now. We've eliminated gender.

I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

*Anya*

08-30-2011, 06:53 PM

Cheryl, thank you for brilliantly verbalizing what I have been unable to state, and even if I had attempted; would not have done so articulately and eloquently.

Heart

08-30-2011, 07:45 PM

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

Slater

08-30-2011, 07:58 PM

SA,
I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

Cheryl,

A couple of thoughts. First I would like to point out that it was Chazz and not ScandalAndy who argued that all genders are constructs of the patriarchy, are therefore invalid, and should be eliminated. In your remarks, you seem to be speaking as though this argument came from SA. I apologize if I am misreading you.

I wonder though, why you don't think it would work to talk about sexism in terms of sex instead of gender. In your paragraph about feminism why couldn't 'woman' be replaced with 'female'? What do you think would be lost? Same for your definition of lesbian. I'm not arguing, as Chazz did, that genders are inherently bogus. I'm just curious why you think, in this particular context, making the same points with respect to sex instead of gender does not work.

CherylNYC

08-30-2011, 08:48 PM

Cheryl,

A couple of thoughts. First I would like to point out that it was Chazz and not ScandalAndy who argued that all genders are constructs of the patriarchy, are therefore invalid, and should be eliminated. In your remarks, you seem to be speaking as though this argument came from SA. I apologize if I am misreading you.

I wonder though, why you don't think it would work to talk about sexism in terms of sex instead of gender. In your paragraph about feminism why couldn't 'woman' be replaced with 'female'? What do you think would be lost? Same for your definition of lesbian. I'm not arguing, as Chazz did, that genders are inherently bogus. I'm just curious why you think, in this particular context, making the same points with respect to sex instead of gender does not work.

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Jess

08-30-2011, 08:59 PM

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

*Anya*

08-30-2011, 09:05 PM

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

Slater

08-30-2011, 09:18 PM

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

As for the other part, I misunderstood you. You were addressing SA, but arguing against a position put forth explicitly by Chazz and I simply misunderstood your intent.

ScandalAndy

08-30-2011, 09:23 PM

SA,
It's been my experience that most people who use the term 'cis' are very surprised to learn that someone finds it offensive. Like you, they've learned that it's a way to acknowledge the struggles that trans people face, and the alleged lack of similar struggles that people who have never been trans supposedly get to avoid. We've spent quite a bit of time discussing the real problems such a term brings up, (Heart, will you run for President?), and the way some of us have felt ambushed by the rapid, community-wide adoption of this term that feels quite erasing to us. We didn't get to consent to this. To complete the erasure, many of us who object to the term have been repeatedly silenced by others who tell us that makes us transphobes. No wonder you haven't heard anything about 'cis' being offensive thus far. The power of being labeled a transphobe is so great that it took the establishment of a lesbian zone on a website catering to butch/femme people, the vast majority of whom ID as women who partner with women, for us to feel safe enough to have a discussion about the offensiveness of 'cis'.

Like most of us here, I would like to get back to the important topic of lesbian pride. As it has in many other parts of our community, arguments about trans inclusion have diverted us. We can't seem to keep from letting those arguments divert our attention in this thread any better than we can in the lesbian community at large, or so I perceive it.

You're right, these arguments do keep coming up, and that is worth examining, but I want to get back to lesbian pride too.

Like many, I deeply resent that feminist thought, which I hold as my touchstone, has been dismissed and derided in favour of gender theory in academic circles. That brings me to the second of your statements which I quoted. This is the very crux of the problem I perceive with current gender theory getting in the way of my lesbian pride. I understand that this statement about eliminating gender came up in the context of an acrimonious argument between you and Chazz, but it's telling.

My understanding of gender theory is that it seeks to undermine binary gender by simply declaring that there is no such thing. The world isn't made up of women and men, the world is made up of millions of beings of indeterminate gender. Those beings should be allowed to declare whatever gender they understand themselves to be at any point in their lives, or not, and that designation may change many times over their lives. Current gender theory holds that it's inherently oppressive to name a baby's gender based on her or his genitalia and chromosomal make-up, and that birth designation should no longer be practiced. There, now. We've eliminated gender.

I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

Cheryl: I think some things have gotten jumbled up here and I would like to do my best to handle them as gently and respectfully as I am able.

The second half of my quote was my response to Chazz's suggestion that we eliminate gender altogether. Whether that suggestion was made in jest or not, I am not sure. However, it was an option I did not consider so my comment that it was all i was taking from the conversation was meant to imply that it was the idea I intended to take some time to think about. I apologize for not being clearer about that, I can see how that might have been misinterpreted to mean something else.

I feel the need to point out that gender studies was one of my two minors. I don't know what happened that made you believe it was my field of study, but I'm sure I mentioned it somewhere so I"m sure it was just an honest mistake. No biggie, I spent four years taking the classes and debating with others, writing my papers, being praised, and being criticized just like everyone else in my class. I don't claim to be an expert, just a normal person who learned some stuff that made me think critically about some things.

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

Heart, I'm sorry this conversation is so draining on you. I can sympathize with that feeling, as I'm not feeling particularly buoyant about this exchange, myself. To be quite frank, I'm not here to argue, that's not who I am, and not what I am about. I don't want to be the bad guy here. I feel I have worked very hard to present my points without insult and in a calm manner.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I think I am finally beginning to understand where the disconnect is happening here. You are correct, I did say that trans people experience dysphoria "on top of" the rampant misogyny of a patriarchal society. That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I could see how it can be viewed as erasing language. I did not mean at all to imply that this is the pinnacle of oppression, I just didn't take the time to reinforce all of the things that lesbians and women go through. That was an oversight on my part and you were right to remind me of that. Maybe I've gotten so used to carrying that burden around that I forget to acknowledge that it's there. I will continue to keep this in the back of my mind, but for now I don't think I can say much more that would be coherent as I am still processing it.

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

Again, you have a very valid point here. I have to repeat what I've said before, it is possible that I can't see the forest for the trees. There are many things that are important to me and women's rights is most assuredly one of those things. I got off on a tangent, sure, but I have more than enough passion to fight for more than one thing.

I also hope (as do you and Cheryl) that we can bring this back around to lesbian pride, as that's what I made such a big fuss over in the first place. I was the first to complain about getting off topic, and now I've gone and derailed it myself. For that i apologize not only to you both, but to everyone who came to this thread and was disappointed by what they found. I hope I've responded to your concerns in a way that works for both of us and will help us get back to what we originally came here for.

CherylNYC

08-30-2011, 09:23 PM

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

What I'm missing is why anyone would claim a genderless lesbian ID. I don't get it.

Slater

08-30-2011, 09:24 PM

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

citybutch

08-30-2011, 10:09 PM

Actually it is very different.... One can identify as female and be very proud of that... and not identify as woman. Check the OED... two completely different definitions.

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

*Anya*

08-30-2011, 10:31 PM

Actually it is very different.... One can identify as female and be very proud of that... and not identify as woman. Check the OED... two completely different definitions.

I was not discussing identity. I should have made that clear.

citybutch

08-30-2011, 10:33 PM

Neither am I. I am talking the English language. Woman and female, by definition, are two different things.

I was not discussing identity. I should have made that clear.

CherylNYC

08-30-2011, 10:47 PM

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

Got it. Yes, I understand that a person can ID as butch as a gender. But how does that equate to being a genderless lesbian?

CherylNYC

08-30-2011, 10:52 PM

Neither am I. I am talking the English language. Woman and female, by definition, are two different things.

According to Websters:

Definition of WOMAN
1
a : an adult female person

Definition of FEMALE
1
a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs (2) : pistillate

b (1) : composed of members of the female sex <the female population> (2) : characteristic of girls or women <composed for female voices> <a female name>

imperfect_cupcake

08-31-2011, 01:21 AM

um *hand up*.. I do know people who ID as female but of no particular gender except their own individual thang AND a lesbian. Because they see lesbian as primarily female-female, not woman-woman (but the bulk of which is inclusive of woman-woman).

Jess

08-31-2011, 06:11 AM

Neither am I. I am talking the English language. Woman and female, by definition, are two different things.

Not trying to make a stink here, but what is OED? I am familiar with the definitions Cheryl gave. Please show me what you are talking about.

Heart

08-31-2011, 06:35 AM

If one identifies proudly as female, then what is it about "women" that one is rejecting?

little man

08-31-2011, 06:51 AM

Not trying to make a stink here, but what is OED? I am familiar with the definitions Cheryl gave. Please show me what you are talking about.

the oxford english dictionary.

citybutch

08-31-2011, 08:35 AM

The origin of woman is wif-man in Old English as it states in the Oxford English Dictionary. Wif in Old English meant woman. It also indicated how a female made a living. A fish-wif was a female who sold fish. Wif-man evolved into wife-man and then into woman.

I take language very seriously. I identify strongly as female and not as woman. Now, given, this is directly from the OED and you may find other explanations elsewhere. But I take the OED at it's word and it describes itself as the "definitive record of the English language"

Ever listen to that show A Way With Words? Love it!

According to Websters:

Definition of WOMAN
1
a : an adult female person

Definition of FEMALE
1
a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs (2) : pistillate

b (1) : composed of members of the female sex <the female population> (2) : characteristic of girls or women <composed for female voices> <a female name>

AtLast

08-31-2011, 08:44 AM

If one identifies proudly as female, then what is it about "women" that one is rejecting?

I have great pride in being female, lesbian and a woman as a butch. coalescing as one (growing together with my female masculinity) as defined.

However- many butches do have issues with woman, I think, due to life long battles with the societal definitions (norms) and expectations put upon women within our patriarchal structures. Including all of the oppression and discrimination toward women in US society. But, I can't speak for others on this really.

Heart

08-31-2011, 09:34 AM

many butches do have issues with woman, I think, due to life long battles with the societal definitions (norms) and expectations put upon women within our patriarchal structures. Including all of the oppression and discrimination toward women in US society. But, I can't speak for others on this really.

But it's not just butches that have issues with the definitions and expectations put upon women by patriarchy. It's all sorts of women - queer, straight, trans, butch, femme, andro, etc. One of my main points here is that woman itself is transgressive in the context of patriarchy.

So, feminism sets out to reclaim the meaning of "woman" and empower what it means to be a woman.

Gender theory sets out to deconstruct the concept of binary gender altogether.

Both movements have made contributions and both have blind spots.

It's no secret that I am inclined towards the re-defining/reclaiming camp.
One of the concerns I have with the gender theory camp (I am simplifying for the sake of discussion), is that deconstructing the gender binaries of man/woman has not changed or prevented the over-valuing of male/masculine gender constructs/identities, and the under-valuing of female/feminine ones. Sexism/misogyny is still rampant and unexamined, and the lack of feminist analysis makes that dangerous, (which was one of my main concerns about Butch Voices).

Heart

Jess

08-31-2011, 09:42 AM

Warning this is kind of long, so if you get bored, skip it..LOL...

I had really hoped when I saw this thread appear, it would not become as Kobi stated early on "yet another argument about definitions/ terminology" ( I paraphrased, sorry, not a direct quote). Of course, it did. Of course, just about every discussion on this site ( or other similar sites) will become a breaking down of terms, as our language keeps changing/ evolving/ whatever it is doing, to give a medium to "new" ways of looking at things.

To my understanding, "gender theory" came from the feminist movement to
help folks who weren't clearly and happily 100% feminine or masculine as defined by today's standard dictionaries and societal descriptions. It was a tool to give a voice to folks who were being oppressed by the nature of their differences. It became a commonplace addendum to Women's Studies courses nationwide. I think somehow along the way, it began to usurp women's studies, when it began to redefine "man", "woman" and all of the words that have previously defined "what" as human beings, we are.

Chazz made a list early on that while I think was a pretty good basic list of parts of speech was not exactly clear as to "female/woman":

"
female/woman (noun) = sex/biology
male/man (noun) = sex/biology

lesbian (noun) = a woman of same sex, sexual orientation

feminine/masculine (adj.) = gender

femme (noun) = female lesbian
butch (noun) = female lesbian who expresses female "masculinity"

transgender (verb) = moving along a gender continuum.

transgender person (noun) = a person of either sex, who may be lesbian, gay or straight. "

Now, for ME, the only difference I see is that Man= Adult Male , Woman= Adult Female.

The language of sex/ biology does not change. A Man IS Male. A Woman IS female. They may or may not be masculine or feminine, this part I get and it has been so since time began.

Please bear with me here, as I am trying to just process all of this:

I hate the term CIS. I do not understand the continued use of the term "trans" after a person has transitioned. I don't comprehend how a lesbian is no longer a woman/ female who partners with women/ females. I don't know when transsexual became transgender, but I see it used this way a lot. I don't know why some transgendered folks get mad at that term while others use it freely. I don't know why some folks see the origin and "ownership" of the term butch as now belonging to men, when the only time I have heard men use it in reference to one another is in a descriptive ( and usually objectifying) way "he's so butch". They don't use it like lesbians do, in relation to dynamics or as is often done here, as a gender preference. I have honestly never heard men use "femme/ fem" to describe another man, so I guess that one is safely ours.

This thread/ discussion/ semantics gymnastics has given me a lot to think about and a lot of headaches. I had hoped we would get to the point where we could just be proud of where we are today as lesbians/ dykes. Women who love women. Females who love females. We are butches/femmes/andros/tweeners and feminist based or not. We are not men or male. We are not men haters, we just ain't them.

We got a lot of shit during the "womens movement". They ( hetero women) saw lesbians/ homosexual women as a threat to their validity. B-F lesbians got shit from other dykes who saw the masculine female as a threat to "their" validity, a portrayal of heterosexuals. Gay men, by and large just didn't care one way or another, because women, generally speaking, were not a form to be contended with either as a mate or as competition. Heterosexual men just assume we are in need of the right man or at some point the object their sexual desire or hatred.

So, at least for me, I do have pride today in being a butch lesbian. I have stuck out all of these "wars" and am still here. Still butch/ masculine female/woman. Still a woman loving women. I have allies today. I AM an ally today and it does not threaten me. I do not have to change the English language to make it all make sense to me. It's a simple practice called live and let live.

I have read all of this and this discussion spilled over into other threads: gatekeeping and the redefining queer community threads. I see folks express outrage at the WBW policy of MWMF and I wonder what would it look like if that had become the norm instead of "cis" and "trans".
WBW = women born women
WBM= women born men
MBW= Men born women
MBM= men born men

For me, it would mean that transwomen would be welcome at womens events. Transmen would be welcome at mens events. For me, it's more about who we are than whom we were/are perceived to be.

The enormity of "gender theory" with all of its nuances and ramifications is far too great to take on without the commitment to years of study and discussions like this one. Without the equal footing of a classroom environment, on going education, with each "new" theory being tossed out equally to each participant, I don't see it being given justice in forums like this. That doesn't mean we don't talk about it. It simply means we give one another space and time to process it all while trying to digest how it affects "me" ( each of the "mes" engaging) and how it in turn affects "US". The greater US, the community and then how we affect the world at large whom we are trying to engage with for the ultimate result hopefully being an end to the "oppressions" of sex and gender. Isn't that the goal?

We will never be a united front as long until we clearly define what those oppressions are. We will never define them if we continually change the language. I think that is what Chazz may have meant when she stated that "somewhere the patriarchy is chuckling". Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. It is also, the most effective.

I think this in part is why the reaction to "owning" Lesbian as women who love women is so important. When WE don't know who/ what we are, how can we defend ourselves against our opprsessors who very clearly deny us equality regardless of who/what we are ? We are the big group of "them" in their eyes. Them who keep arguing among themselves and pose no real threat.

I think it important to own who we are and what our needs are. I am a lesbian. I want to be allowed the same rights and privileges as heterosexual people. I am a woman. I want equal pay and equal treatment to men. I wear mens clothes. I want to be able to dress appropriately for any given situation ( ie: sporting events where men wear pants... why should a woman wear a skirt to play the same sport?) I keep my hair short, in a traditionally male hairstyle. Why should that matter? Why should I have to change the language of who I am because of a haircut or clothes or whether I prefer power tools to blowdryers? I want to be able to proudly say, I am a woman, I am a lesbian, I wear these clothes and this hairstyle and like saws. AND I deserve by the very breath I take to be treated equally in the eyes of the laws of this country to a man who is allowed to dress appropriately for his task, to love women ( cause they rock) and to comb his hair any fucking way he wants. I want equal power to fuck whom I want and equal pay for the work I do. That woman over there... she likes hello kitty and stilhettos. SHE deserves equal pay for the work she does and btw, she ALSO gets to choose whom and how she fucks.

This conversation started as soon as women and men could speak to one another. There has always been eniquity. There has always been a "difference". There has always been more power and more space taken by men. Men, afterall, were the "stronger" of the sexes. This however is becoming an increasingly moreso case by case than an overall statement.

Men are now in what was traditionally the gay womens community. (* Which I don't see as a "bad" thing and which is why I do not see this as a lesbian website, sorry, I just disagree with that sentiment. I also still do not approve of men in women only space, however.*) I see this clearly as a Queer community in the very definition of queer. We are an odd bunch. AND, we are an odd bunch who are trying to maintain peace and understanding in a time where even our definitions of ourselves and nomenclature is up for grabs. Of this, I am proud. We will not always see eye to eye, but we will keep trying.

Whew. Deep breath.... In with the love... outtttt with the jive.. I can understand why so many females may not like the Oxford/ Male/ Biblical centric definitions of "woman". I don't like it either. I get it. What I also get, is that without reclaiming power in their words, we can not show them the errors they have made. They will continue to look at us and in a glance sum us up as ... "hmm.. female.. adult... woman.. weaker.. should be in a dress.. barefoot/ pregnant." While we can and will SHOW that we are... "at a glance" ... "female.... adult... grown ass woman... strong.. wearing whatever or nothing at all... teaching children.... building houses... running organizations.... getting elected... a force that is equal..."

A lot has changed since Oxford or the bible defined woman. We are still women even if we aren't wives, so that definition holds no weight any longer. Just like men are still male even in a dress ( until and unless they no longer are). Hell, everyone wore dresses until pants were invented.

I think I am more clear on the arguements regarding masculine and feminine and who these gender qualifiers should and should not be owned by, than the breaking down of Man/Male and Woman/ Female. I see everyone on this planet exhibiting qualities that are traditionally feminine or masculine at some point in time, which to me is PERFECTLY NORMAL.

Being a proud lesbian means being a proud woman/female. A proud woman/female who loves other women/females. For me, it is just that simple. The rest of this, for me, is another conversation. One I have been involved with on different levels and will continue to be involved with. I have no investment personally in how an individual defines or labels themselves unless they fall into the three F rule. ( Feeding me, Fucking me or Financing me). I will continue to support my allies in whatever aspect of oppression they are facing. I will not however, change the definition of lesbian to include women/ females who love men. I am sorry, that is a leap this old dyke just ain't ready to take.

I am hoping this came across without being judgeymental because I'm really not. I am just trying to get it.

Peace.

Jess

08-31-2011, 09:44 AM

The origin of woman is wif-man in Old English as it states in the Oxford English Dictionary. Wif in Old English meant woman. It also indicated how a female made a living. A fish-wif was a female who sold fish. Wif-man evolved into wife-man and then into woman.

I take language very seriously. I identify strongly as female and not as woman. Now, given, this is directly from the OED and you may find other explanations elsewhere. But I take the OED at it's word and it describes itself as the "definitive record of the English language"

Ever listen to that show A Way With Words? Love it!

Without having a subscription to the OED and not owning a copy, what is the current definition of "woman". I am aware that the OED gives probably the most accurate origins of words and you have given a good historical definition/ origin. I am curious and perhaps you could help me, with what they use as the current definition.

Thanks.

ScandalAndy

08-31-2011, 10:25 AM

Slater

08-31-2011, 11:02 AM

I may try to circle back later to talk more about language because I find it interesting. But for the moment I want to say that ScandalAndy's question is one that has been bouncing around boards like these, either spoken or unspoken, for many years.

I understand the desire for clear-cut, absolute, entirely predictable definitions but I think we you are talking about things as decidedly non clear-cut, absolute and predictable as identity and sexuality you have to allow for some wiggle room. I have seen femmes who choose to identify as queer rather than lesbian because they date transmen and I've seen femmes who continue to identify as lesbian because it is part of them. I think both make sense and it comes down to a matter of how the individual femme relates to her own identity.

I don't see that it hurts our community identity or our struggle for equal rights to allow for this wiggle room.

CherylNYC

08-31-2011, 11:09 AM

Heart

08-31-2011, 11:24 AM

I am a woman who loves with transmen, genderqueers and butch lesbians and still identifies as a lesbian. Do I belong here? I don't know, and there seems to be a lot of emotion and opinion surrounding it. I thought I did, but from this thread and other conversations I've had, I'm starting to get the impression that I do not. Am I welcome here?

I want to be a proud lesbian, so who do I ask for permission?

You know.... maybe it's valid to ask oneself if one is appropriating or co-opting an identity.

But what is it in the discussion that leads you to think you're not "allowed" to identify however you choose? How are you being "unwelcomed" here? You seem miffed. Why? Because the discussion challenges constructs that are important to you? Your post sounds accusatory, like someone here is oppressing you. Is someone actually doing that? How is it about you personally, or about who you love or sleep with?

I know dykes who have sex with men. They're still dykes. I'm so over terminology gymnastics. What I'm interested in is that women, which more than half the world still identify as, (or are identified as), get a fair shake at life and liberty and aren't so easily and routinely subjected to systemic control. I'm talking about all women, regardless of orientation, looks, role, race, class, size, age, status, etc.

As Chazz, Cheryl, Jess, and others have pointed out, one of the consequences of the ascent of gender theory, (which yes, does emerge from women's studies), is a loss of focus on the actual needs of women as an oppressed class of people. In the sphere of gender theory, woman becomes an out-dated identity. That further erodes needed action as feminism, the movement that address these needs, is considered passe.

Brings me back to that old saying: I'll be post-feminist (and post-woman) in the post-patriarchy. This is the crux of the matter to me. I'm less concerned really with pride, labels, dictionary definitions, theories, etc than I am with action. Action does have to grounded in an analysis, but you don't have to be a woman or identify as a woman to identify and stand with women. That's something I think we've lost sight of.

Heart

ScandalAndy

08-31-2011, 11:34 AM

You get to ID however you choose and however you define it. We all do. Do you really need me or anyone else to give you permission? I hope you're being sarcastic.

The classic definition of lesbian is a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females. As usual, not everyone agrees, of course. If you need to give yourself permission, ask yourself where you fit into that definition.

My question wasn't even close to sarcastic and that's the sad part.

I took a whole bunch of crap for how I choose the words I use to define myself. To some people, according to their definitions, I don't have any right to be here. So what do we do? Do we look at each other across the table? Do we pretend the other isn't there? To some people, according to their definitions, I'm just as much a lesbian as anyone else here.

I don't fit the classic definition of a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females 100% of the time. So what does that mean for how welcome I am in the community and how much weight my thoughts and opinions are given?

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

No, I am not a white woman claiming to be a POC, but I am a queer who is claiming to be a lesbian. Now that we've got the example that has been tossed around in conversation standing right in front of us, how are we going to handle it?

These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about.

Heart

08-31-2011, 12:02 PM

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

Good grief - I didn't say you were doing that, I said it was a valid question that one might ask oneself, meaning over the course of their life journey. Identities aren't fixed, they do evolve. I still don't get why you are personalizing this. Cheryl offered a "classic" or mainstream definition, I didn't see her suggest that you aren't allowed to id as a lesbian.

I also edited my last post for clarity in terms of what I feel is important in this discussion and I mentioned that I know dykes who sleep with men. But how we each arrive at our own personal labels and who agrees with our labels and who doesn't, is actually not what's important to me in this discussion.

But maybe I'm talking to myself. It's been known to happen.

Heart

ScandalAndy

08-31-2011, 12:11 PM

Good grief - I didn't say you were doing that, I said it was a valid question that one might ask oneself, meaning over the course of their life journey. Identities aren't fixed, they do evolve. I still don't get why you are personalizing this. Cheryl offered a "classic" or mainstream definition, I didn't see her suggest that you aren't allowed to id as a lesbian.

I also edited my last post for clarity in terms of what I feel is important in this discussion and I mentioned that I know dykes who sleep with men. But how we each arrive at our own personal labels and who agrees with our labels and who doesn't, is actually not what's important to me in this discussion.

But maybe I'm talking to myself. It's been known to happen.

Heart

My question wasn't "can I ID this way", my question is "if I choose to ID this way, will it be accepted".

I took your suggestion that one could ask oneself that question, and applied it to myself. Am i co-opting or appropriating the identity? I don't believe I am, but how do I know for sure since I don't adhere to the classical definition?

Is my adherence to that definition of lesbian necessary for inclusion in this thread? Now we are stuck with the exact sticky situation of language that we've all been dancing around.

If the answer is yes, then that is perfectly fine with me. I will politely relinquish that right in this thread only, and be a very supportive ally on the sidelines. Just because this isn't my space doesn't mean I won't be supportive.

If the answer is no, then I am happy to know that, as a community, our definition of lesbian is flexible enough for me to participate. I will be a supportive and active participant.

These are open questions, I am not directing them solely at you.

AtLast

08-31-2011, 12:50 PM

But it's not just butches that have issues with the definitions and expectations put upon women by patriarchy. It's all sorts of women - queer, straight, trans, butch, femme, andro, etc. One of my main points here is that woman itself is transgressive in the context of patriarchy.

So, feminism sets out to reclaim the meaning of "woman" and empower what it means to be a woman.

Gender theory sets out to deconstruct the concept of binary gender altogether.

Both movements have made contributions and both have blind spots.

It's no secret that I am inclined towards the re-defining/reclaiming camp.
One of the concerns I have with the gender theory camp (I am simplifying for the sake of discussion), is that deconstructing the gender binaries of man/woman has not changed or prevented the over-valuing of male/masculine gender constructs/identities, and the under-valuing of female/feminine ones. Sexism/misogyny is still rampant and unexamined, and the lack of feminist analysis makes that dangerous, (which was one of my main concerns about Butch Voices).

Heart

No, not just butches have issues with the definitions and expectations put upon women by patriarchy- I was implying that at all. I was simply responding as a butch that embraces both female and woman.

We both have some of the same problems with gender theory and binary deconstruction (which I don't see as really happening at all) as changing much in terms of the over-valuing of male/masculine gender constructs/identities, and the under-valuing of female/feminine ones.

In fact, I see the danger you point to as ever rising with a wall of denial never seen before within the queer communities and literature. I don't feel that we are "seeing the forest for the trees" to put it simply. I have also felt a need to distance personally with much of the B-F/Trans, etc. communities I have had years of association with.

Dominique

08-31-2011, 01:15 PM

I'm not diluting anything that has been written here. If,nothing else, these
deep and evolving conversations have been an excellent teaching tool for those who may have never been exposed, and also given opportunity to think differently. I know I, have given tremendous thought to many segues. I love learning, and I love those who teach!:rrose:

CherylNYC

08-31-2011, 01:17 PM

My question wasn't even close to sarcastic and that's the sad part.

I took a whole bunch of crap for how I choose the words I use to define myself. To some people, according to their definitions, I don't have any right to be here. So what do we do? Do we look at each other across the table? Do we pretend the other isn't there? To some people, according to their definitions, I'm just as much a lesbian as anyone else here.

I don't fit the classic definition of a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females 100% of the time. So what does that mean for how welcome I am in the community and how much weight my thoughts and opinions are given?

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

No, I am not a white woman claiming to be a POC, but I am a queer who is claiming to be a lesbian. Now that we've got the example that has been tossed around in conversation standing right in front of us, how are we going to handle it?

These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about.

OK, you want permission to be here. Who, exactly do you think is going to grant or rescind that permission? Last I checked, we're all humans of equal rank sitting at computers, typing words. Are you taking a poll? If there are 50 participants how many of them have to welcome you here? 30 out of 50? 45? Do you need all 50 to welcome you into the lesbian sisterhood? Is that how you want us to "handle it"? While I sometimes think it might make negotiating this site a bit easier, we haven't elected an Amazon Queen or King who gets to make these decisions in the absence of a democratic vote, so you'll get none of the above.

Am I cranky? Why, yes I am. Why? Because the topic of the thread is Lesbian Pride. The OP stated from the start that she hoped the thread wouldn't get mired in endless discussions about terms and definitions. We've also already spent quite a bit of energy on trans inclusion. Many of us, including you, agree that we would like to refocus on lesbian pride. At which point you wrote yet another post about terms and definitions based on trans inclusion and identity.

"These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about."

If you aren't really looking for an answer, why do you continue to drag the conversation towards definitions and trans issues?

Heart

08-31-2011, 01:39 PM

[QUOTE=ScandalAndy;409393]My question wasn't "can I ID this way", my question is "if I choose to ID this way, will it be accepted".

Accepted where? In this thread? By other individuals? By a lesbian separatist community? What's your standard for "acceptance?" I am sure there are those who agree with and accept your definition and those who don't. So what? There are people that don't accept me as a Jew because I'm not observant. There are people that don't accept me as a lesbian because I was married to a man for a decade. There are people that don't accept me because they don't like me. None of that is really my business and I can't possibly establish my sense of self based upon others' decisions to accept me or not. I go where its warm.

I took your suggestion that one could ask oneself that question, and applied it to myself. Am i co-opting or appropriating the identity? I don't believe I am, but how do I know for sure since I don't adhere to the classical definition?

I don't adhere to the classical definition of a lesbian either, or a Jew, for that matter, yet I am both.

Is my adherence to that definition of lesbian necessary for inclusion in this thread? Now we are stuck with the exact sticky situation of language that we've all been dancing around.

Obviously the answer to this question is "no," since you are here in this thread. And so am I. What are we dancing around? -- it does feel like you're trying to set some kind of trap by accusing others in this thread that they are excluding you. Or are you really looking for reassurance that you are accepted?

If the answer is yes, then that is perfectly fine with me. I will politely relinquish that right in this thread only, and be a very supportive ally on the sidelines. Just because this isn't my space doesn't mean I won't be supportive.

That's nice and I completely agree that being an ally is important.

If the answer is no, then I am happy to know that, as a community, our definition of lesbian is flexible enough for me to participate. I will be a supportive and active participant.

That's nice too.

I still am not getting who it is you think should be answering your question about whether you are accepted here or not. Personally, I accept you as a lesbian and welcome your inclusion in this discussion.

I'd rather get back though to talking about the relative benefits, obstacles, and challenges in gender vs feminist theory as it relates to multiple identities in the context of patriarchy. I admit that the topic of lesbian pride per se is sorta narrow for me.

ScandalAndy

08-31-2011, 01:41 PM

OK, you want permission to be here. Who, exactly do you think is going to grant or rescind that permission? Last I checked, we're all humans of equal rank sitting at computers, typing words. Are you taking a poll? If there are 50 participants how many of them have to welcome you here? 30 out of 50? 45? Do you need all 50 to welcome you into the lesbian sisterhood? Is that how you want us to "handle it"? While I sometimes think it might make negotiating this site a bit easier, we haven't elected an Amazon Queen or King who gets to make these decisions in the absence of a democratic vote, so you'll get none of the above.

Am I cranky? Why, yes I am. Why? Because the topic of the thread is Lesbian Pride. The OP stated from the start that she hoped the thread wouldn't get mired in endless discussions about terms and definitions. We've also already spent quite a bit of energy on trans inclusion. Many of us, including you, agree that we would like to refocus on lesbian pride. At which point you wrote yet another post about terms and definitions based on trans inclusion and identity.

"These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about."

If you aren't really looking for an answer, why do you continue to drag the conversation towards definitions and trans issues?

I wrote a post about terms and definitions in relation to a lesbian: me, not a post about trans inclusion, actually. I wrote a post based on my own life. My own experiences. The reality of what someone who IDs as a lesbian might look like, and the questions that I am asking myself and maybe others are asking themselves, or should be. I didn't come here to be patronized by anyone.

It isn't so very easy to take these things we've been talking about and apply them to a real, flesh and blood human being, and then stand behind our convictions. I put myself on the chopping block to see what we all would do when this becomes reality instead of a discussion about words. I want to be proud to be a lesbian, pure and simple. If i'm going to get judged for that, I'll go elsewhere.

I won't take 100% of the blame for the discussion of terminology here, and I won't accept your insinuation that I am dragging anything anywhere by asking the things that I am in the manner in which I presented them. I'm not asking about trans issues, i'm asking about my own life.

Respectfully, Cheryl, get off my ass. You want me to leave because you don't think I'm a dyke? I will. You want me to leave because you think I'm annoying? Too bad.

I wanted an answer to a question posed, respectfully, to a community because, let's face it: I can identify as a lesbian all I want, but if I'm the only one who accepts it, it's pretty much useless and a community of one is powerless.

Actually, I'm so frustrated with this whole thing that I concede. You're right, I constantly derail the thread with my constant carrying on about terminology, gender, and trans rights. Sorry for ruining your constructive conversation and the headway being made about the patriarchy. It won't happen again.

Heart

08-31-2011, 01:59 PM

Okay, maybe this is really between Cheryl and SA and I should butt-out, but... I get suspicious when a conceptual discussion turns towards "this is my life, my truth, my experience" because it's apt to be a red herring.

That's not to dismiss your personal experiences SA, but if we want to go that route, I'm sure each and every one of us here has a story to tell. There are as many stories as there are raindrops and individually they will tell us very little. You gotta look for the patterns, the larger themes.

I'll wager that if we do that, there's a damn good chance that you and I and Cheryl and City and Jess and Chazz and Kobi and Slater and dreadgeek, etc would find enough commonalities that we would be able to stand with each other in solidarity as queers, as women, as lesbians, as gender transgressors, as feminists, as concerned citizens, as warriors. Would we each call ourselves a lesbian? I don't know. Would we each define the other as a lesbian? As long as you're standing with me, I could give a rats ass.

Again, what I'm saying is that the individual identity, including that of "lesbian," does not concern me as much as the broader issues of what happens to those of us that the patriarchal world sees as lesbians or even more broadly, as women. The heart and pride of my activist community comes from those shared concerns, not from our very individual identities, journies, and labels.

Heart

Chazz

08-31-2011, 03:00 PM

De-obfuscation 101

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

SEXISM = discrimination based on sex

GENDER BIAS = discrimination based on sex-typed social construction; stereotyping based on sex

GENDERISM = a neologism used to illustrate a myth, and/or reinforce it, as the case may be.

GENDER INCONGRUENCY = not complying with sex-typed, constructed gender roles

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same.

This is completely inaccurate.... Just because people sometimes wrongly conflate gender with sex doesn't make it ontologically accurate. Conflating the two and knowing better, is a deliberate attempt to confuse people and issues. It happens all the time

I write and edit professional stuff for a living, I assure everyone that sex and gender have never been used interchangeably in literate, literary or scientific circles. It is an ontological error to do so.

Conflating sex with gender is a recent phenomena owing, in large part, to gender theory. It is being vigorously addressed, and excised, in scholarly and scientific journals. There is no place for I-politics, of any kind, in scientific research.

This conflation IS NOT BENIGN. It's taken a generation-plus for Feminist scholars to expose/critique/exorcise, if only just barely, sexist bias from science and literature. Now, that work is being undone by subjective relativists. This is devastating for precisely the reasons Cheryl stated: "Gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny...." I would have excluded the word "seems" because the facts are before us. ....Butches as "masculine of center", etc., etc. ! ! ! !

But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

HOLY COW ! ! ! ! In one swipe of lexical incohesion, I lost my butch womanhood.

Gender is NOT biology. Adult females ARE woman. Gender presentation does NOT change ones sex. Why do these simple, observable facts have to be argued over and over again? HMMMM ? ? ? ?

Gender theory DOES promote a binary system. It "sanctions" going from point A on a binary scale to point Z. Everything in between is a matter of gender constructed degree.

No, Slater.... Adult females will always be women.

It doesn't matter if a gender system is binary or not. Gender mythology is the issue. Having 10,000 variations of a myth doesn't change the fact that it's a myth, especially when it comes to patriarchy. (Patriarchy is very adaptable.)

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

Tightly "interwoven" by patriarchy - not women or lesbians.... Feminists have been trying to strip gender constructs from sex long before gender theory became the cause célèbre of the day. It's tough, arduous work, but women have been doing it, and doing it well. Women's lives depend on that being successful. (So do trans and intersexed people's lives.)

To the extent that gender theorists get in the way of that work by continuing to conflate sex with gender, it's anti-woman/lesbian/Feminist, and anti-gender incongruent people of all stripes - including trans and intersexed people.

....As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

:hangloose:

Why should I have to change the language of who I am because of a haircut or clothes or whether I prefer power tools to blowdryers? I want to be able to proudly say, I am a woman, I am a lesbian, I wear these clothes and this hairstyle and like saws.

'Cause according to many genderists, Jess, that's guy stuff. ....Hence, women/lesbian/butches/anti-gender incongruent people stay endlessly trapped in gender constructed mythology.

Aint' subjective relativism grand ! ! ! !

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

When you stop being confused, be concerned.

Cin

08-31-2011, 05:17 PM

I remember a thread on another forum about if a man has the right to identify as a lesbian, a male lesbian. I believe I posted something or other about how I believe everyone has a right to identify however they chose.

If someone, who looks like just some guy to me, says he identifies as reptilian and believes he is a python then I guess I will try to honor that, although I won’t understand it since he doesn’t appear to me to be a snake at all.

But I think when people embrace an identity, yet do not fit the definition of that identity, then it is okay to ask them why they believe that identity is valid for them. When a group of people assign an identity to another different group and the definition of the assigned identity clearly doesn’t ring true to the defined group then I think it is okay to ask questions.

My experience has been that people don’t really care for that. It feels intrusive I guess. But adopting an identity that isn’t a traditional fit can feel invasive to some who share that identity. Just like insisting on giving others, despite their protests, an identity that doesn’t work feels, at the very least, dismissive. I don’t think an explanation is too much to ask. I think it is okay to wonder and to ask why someone feels a particular identity encompasses them when they do not fit the traditional definition as with lesbian. I think it is logical to ask why someone will insist on defining you using an identity that does not work for you as with cis-gendered. And clearly insisting that Adult females ARE woman erases and discounts the identities of those who FEEL differently.

I think lesbian for someone who sleeps with women as well as men fits better than cis-gendered fits for someone like me. At least they encompass part of the definition of lesbian. I have no clue what it would be like to live in a place where my gender is remotely similar to, or congruent with, society’s definition.

I really don’t believe anyone can or should try to define someone else. But it happens. However, I think if we chose an identity for ourselves or for others (as in the case of cis) that doesn’t really fit the widely accepted definition and/or upsets the other you are naming then we should take responsibility for explaining our choices. We should also be willing to listen to what the other has to say about how your decision effects them.

It seems that people often feel it is an imposition to explain themselves. Some feel they have a right to never be challenged. When asked why, I notice people often give some version of “because” for an answer. The version of “because” people most often use is “it’s my opinion”. People seem extremely adverse to explanations, especially ones that are, at least partially, rooted in fact or reality. And it is even worse when the challenging questions are directed at an oppressed group or a member of an oppressed group. If one chooses to go there, one risks the likelihood that one will be accused of being some sort of -phobe or bigot.

To me reality does matter and facts are important. A common language and a shared understanding of what a word means is necessary for communication. If we want to change that, such as claim for ourselves a not so traditional definition for lesbian, define an entire group of people as cis and paint them with the same brush, decide we are female but not woman, or appropriate an identity such as reptilian, then we are responsible for explaining our choices. Conversations may seem endless but dialogue in cases such as these are invaluable. Words are all we have to make our actions and beliefs comprehensible to others. To stop talking, to cease explaining ourselves, our reasons, our feelings, is to close the door on understanding.

I also think that explaining things brings a degree of clarity to the person doing the explaining as well. It’s a form of self-exploration I think. Unfortunately people are not always interested in engaging in that way. They may feel they have done it enough already or just don’t trust the process or, and perhaps especially, the person questioning them. Or maybe they don’t even trust the question. Sometimes they think there is no answer it just is what it is. I encountered this quite a bit when I try to engage people who identify as female but not as women. I want to understand what it is about woman that is so different from female. What is it about female that is more acceptable, more palatable? Is it society’s definition of woman that makes it so hard to own? Or is it something else?

Attempting to understand others’ reasons for how they feel about an identity, whether it ends in clarity or not, shouldn’t negate anyone’s right to identify how they chose or to define an identity to their own personal satisfaction. Attempting to understand others is always priceless no matter the result. I think of attempting to understand others or putting oneself in someone else’s place and imagining how it feels, to be the sort of thing that one gets better at with practice. I think of understanding and empathy as muscles that are directly connected to our ears and indirectly to our hearts and like most muscles grow proportionally to the exercise they receive.

Slater

08-31-2011, 07:14 PM

HOLY COW ! ! ! ! In one swipe of lexical incohesion, I lost my butch womanhood.

Ummm, no. Nowhere did I say that the identity of butch woman was not also valid. This One True Way thing is your mindset not mine.

No, Slater.... Adult females will always be women.

If all the word "woman" means is adult female, then yes an adult female is always a woman. But the word woman is used to describe a gender/gender role. For instance, why would Cheryl and Heart have been concerned earlier in this very thread that the elimination of genders would eliminate the category of women entirely.

I would argue that the what makes it seem like adult female = woman is that gender roles were so strictly and inexorably tied to sex that they were regarded as equivalent. The words sex and gender are used interchangably in society as though they are the same. How many forms ask for gender when really what they are asking for is sex? I can not even begin to imagine how you can suggest that the conflation of sex and gender is a recent development.

Your worldview is as nonsensical and unpersuasive to me as mine is to you. Neither of those seems likely to change.

Kobi

08-31-2011, 07:45 PM

The individualization of identity is a very complex thing. Yet, it has an impact on a broader scale. That concerns me greatly because the potential political ramifications are frightening.

I am a lesbian i.e. a female homosexual. I dont think even OED has changed that definition. If people who do not fit "female homosexual" start claiming lesbian, it impacts my personal identity as well as lesbians in general. It renders lesbian to mean essentially nothing.

And that is supposed to be ok with me? I dont care who anyone sleeps with but when what it is called impacts me, I care a lot.

Part of why this bothers me is, it is someone else's circumstances that have changed not mine. But, there is the presumption that I have to make adjustments to accomodate their changing circumstances. In essence, to me, it is someone else deciding they have the right to change things to suit themselves without regard as to how it affects others. I have a real problem with this kind of thinking.

On a larger scale, gay rights, in part, has used the paradigm that our gayness is an inherent part of who we are. Our minority status is from our gayness being something we have no control over. It is not a choice per se, it just is.

Now we are muddying the waters by saying we are lesbians who sleep with men? Either we have control and make a conscious decision or we dont. And there is no political implications to this?

Another part of gayness being something we have no control over is the fight we have with religious fruitcakes ( ok bad choice of words) who say we can change our behavior and become unsinners. They can deprogram us. Well, lesbians sleeping with men gives them a wee bit of ammunition on that one.

Someone posted somewhere that in Iran or Iraq, they would rather perform sexual reassignment surgery than have homosexuals in their midst. Do you really think this doesnt matter?

Feminism is predicated at its simplest level on a male versus female paradigm. Gender theory, at its simplest level is masculine versus feminine. Wow, that blows the binary to pieces eh? There are very real, very everyday implications inherent in this for every single female and women. And our response to this is to argue about the definition of woman? Does that strike anyone as odd?

Sometimes I read this thread and I dont know which is worse...the flashbacks to Anita Bryant's antigay stuff or the ones of Phyllis Schafly arguing against the ERA.

CherylNYC

08-31-2011, 07:57 PM

atomiczombie

08-31-2011, 08:02 PM

Chazz

08-31-2011, 08:07 PM

Ummm, no. Nowhere did I say that the identity of butch woman was not also valid. This One True Way thing is your mindset not mine.

If all the word "woman" means is adult female, then yes an adult female is always a woman. But the word woman is used to describe a gender/gender role. For instance, why would Cheryl and Heart have been concerned earlier in this very thread that the elimination of genders would eliminate the category of women entirely.

I would argue that the what makes it seem like adult female = woman is that gender roles were so strictly and inexorably tied to sex that they were regarded as equivalent. The words sex and gender are used interchangably in society as though they are the same. How many forms ask for gender when really what they are asking for is sex? I can not even begin to imagine how you can suggest that the conflation of sex and gender is a recent development.

Your worldview is as nonsensical and unpersuasive to me as mine is to you. Neither of those seems likely to change.

And your use of the English language.....well, never mind.

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

Jess

08-31-2011, 08:11 PM

Heart

08-31-2011, 08:18 PM

Kobi - I'm a lesbian because I sleep with women, but I have also had erotic and sexual relationships with men. So, as I've been told, I'm not a "goldstar" lesbian. In your view, in order to be able to identify as a lesbian without somehow muddying the waters or detracting from your lesbianism, or threatening gay rights, does one have to be "goldstar?"

Also, I don't happen to be one of those that essentializes my lesbian identity. Meaning, its not as simple as "I was born this way." I think I was actually born with the capacity for a fluid orientation and I have landed on lesbian at this point in my life for a whole host of reasons. (And I don't happen to think that it not being a choice will in any way protect us from religious fanatics or anti-gay zealots). So, in order to support your status and rights as a lesbian, does one have to believe that it's not a choice?

I see that I am now basically asking the very same question that SA asked. "Am I lesbian enough for you?" Ironic.

Thinker

08-31-2011, 08:30 PM

And your use of the English language.....well, never mind.

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

Chazz,

We have received yet another report of one of your posts for what is deemed intentional rudeness. There really isn't a good reason why you can't engage with other members here, even ones with whom you disagree, in a more respectful manner.

You're obviously intelligent. It's not necessary to put others down in order to prove that, so refrain from doing so.

Consider this a warning. If you continue to make it a point to demean others, you will be put on a timeout.

If you have any questions, you may contact me, the Admin, or any other moderator in private.

Thinker (moderator)

Martina

08-31-2011, 08:30 PM

Lots of lesbians have slept with men -- by choice -- pretty much as long as we've been free to live as lesbians.

Sexuality is like that. People do the unexpected where sex is concerned. Trying to argue about who people will fuck and what that means is not going to get us far.

citybutch

08-31-2011, 08:33 PM

*sigh*

I am going to post this one more time and then I give up... LOL... Been making the same point for oh so many years and it just gets lost...

Anyhoo:

"Woman
From the Old English "Wyfmon," meaning, "wife.""

http://www.westegg.com/etymology/

I dunno ... the roots of words matter to me... It's why in so many ways I love to reclaim the words like Crone... which they believe comes from early dutch for "old ewe"... To Crone means to "pick out and reject the old ewes from a flock" according to the OED. Subsequently applied in a derogatory sense to old females (and in the patriarchal way.. old women). To ME this is a reclaimable word.... or Hag (oh, Hag is MARVELOUS!), "1....an evil spirit, demon, or infernal being in female form; applied in early use to the Furies, Harpies, etc.... 2.... a witch.." OED. There are so many entries on Hag!

My friend Mary was so into reclaiming these words... and made magic out of them. They came alive with her....

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

Chazz

08-31-2011, 08:35 PM

atomiczombie

08-31-2011, 08:35 PM

How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

Jettisoning the concept of gender because you think it's all a product of patriarchy? Wow. My gender ID is transguy. If you want to give up the concept of gender, then you are saying this part of who I am, which is important to me, is something produced by patriarchy and therefore not real or valid. I am not saying that being a transguy is the only or most important thing about me, but it is an important thing, to me. It isn't something that years of being raised and socialized as a girl could make go away. It isn't something that I decided I wanted so that I could gain privilege that I haven't had while living as a woman (even after hormones and top surgery I still don't have any more privilege). I can assure you I am not a woman who just isn't satisfied with any conventional definition of "woman". I don't strictly ID as a man, because my being trans is an important part of who I am. I do have a herstory, as someone else on this site pointed out to me. I don't deny or reject all the years that I lived as a girl/woman. Those years are part of who I am today. But I'm not a woman, and I knew I wasn't when I was 6 years old. My gender is not some cultural construct. There is something hard-wired about it. It is part of who I am, inside.

So, tell me Chazz: do you think my gender identity is something meaningless, or just a product of patriarchy?

Heart

08-31-2011, 08:36 PM

I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

This makes sense to me. I get it. I honor it. I respect it.

What is beginning to bother me a great deal, is that all of the sudden I feel like being bisexual is bad. Or being queer is bad or pansexual. Why not use the words already there? What is wrong with being bisexual?

I don't have issue with how anyone else decides to id themselves. I ain't sleepin with ya, so why should I care? Except, in the realm of issues Kobi mentioned above. On a personal level, call yourself avacado if you so desire, but on a political level, can we please decide on which version of the English language we are going to use? It would just help in the long run.

Heh. I've called myself everything. When I was sleeping with gay men, I called myself a fag hag. When I was sleeping with straight girls and guys, I called myself bi, when I was married, I called myself straight, now I sleep with butch women so I'm a dyke and a femme. What do I call myself when I'm not sleeping with anyone? A celibate?

I do not get why any of these labels, based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism. In fact, my id as a lesbian is in part, a political choice, an assertion of my political alliances, as much as who I fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate in my post #430.

Heart

Chazz

08-31-2011, 08:41 PM

Jettisoning the concept of gender because you think it's all a product of patriarchy? Wow. My gender ID is transguy. If you want to give up the concept of gender, then you are saying this part of who I am, which is important to me, is something produced by patriarchy and therefore not real or valid. I am not saying that being a transguy is the only or most important thing about me, but it is an important thing, to me. It isn't something that years of being raised and socialized as a girl could make go away. It isn't something that I decided I wanted so that I could gain privilege that I haven't had while living as a woman (even after hormones and top surgery I still don't have any more privilege). I can assure you I am not a woman who just isn't satisfied with any conventional definition of "woman". I don't strictly ID as a man, because my being trans is an important part of who I am. I do have a herstory, as someone else on this site pointed out to me. I don't deny or reject all the years that I lived as a girl/woman. Those years are part of who I am today. But I'm not a woman, and I knew I wasn't when I was 6 years old. My gender is not some cultural construct. There is something hard-wired about it. It is part of who I am, inside.

So, tell me Chazz: do you think my gender identity is something meaningless, or just a product of patriarchy?

I can't say.......

Jess

08-31-2011, 08:48 PM

Heh. I've called myself everything. When I was sleeping with gay men, I called myself a fag hag. When I was sleeping with straight girls and guys, I called myself bi, when I was married, I called myself straight, now I sleep with butch women so I'm a dyke and a femme. What do I call myself when I'm not sleeping with anyone? A celibate?

I do not get why any of these labels, based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism. In fact, my id as a lesbian is in part, a political choice, an assertion of my political alliances, as much as who I fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate in my post #430.

Heart

K... Got it. You changed how you ID based upon what your ( then ) present situation reflected. I get that. I am way cool with that. I am also cool with and comprehend that our life circumstances do change and most of us adopt whatever new term most closely defines whom we are then.

The part I highlighted in red, I don't quite understand. If one one hand whom we sleep with should have no bearing on politics ( which I disagree with 1000% see christian right wings who hate homo-SEXuals), then why would you align yourself sexually for a political reason?

Just trying to follow. Thanks!

citybutch

08-31-2011, 08:48 PM

Hey Jess,

The dictionary goes through a lengthy entry on the etymology of the word. The definition itself is more than 4 pages of the OED... so really extensive. I am not an online subscriber but own a hard copy of it... so I cannot cut and paste.

THAT being said, I can say that one of the definitions IS " an adult female human being". However, it goes on to say that it is always JUXTAPOSED against a male or man... OR "to make like a woman in weakness or subservience".

Female on the other hand is defined as "belonging to the sex which bears offspring". It seems to come from popular Latin, femella, which includes all "lower animals"... masculus being the male version of this.

*sigh*... maybe it is just me :)

Without having a subscription to the OED and not owning a copy, what is the current definition of "woman". I am aware that the OED gives probably the most accurate origins of words and you have given a good historical definition/ origin. I am curious and perhaps you could help me, with what they use as the current definition.

Thanks.

Cin

08-31-2011, 08:51 PM

A man who IDs as a snake is never going to be allowed to live in the reptile enclosure at the zoo. No, I don't feel compelled out of politeness to humour that man, or the man who IDs as a lesbian. Why would I? Why should I?

As Kobi explained above, there are real repercussions to us, (lesbians), when we allow the word that describes us to become meaningless. Go ahead and call me a bigot.

Call you a bigot, nah. Maybe you’re an ophidiophobe. Maybe you're Indiana Jones for all I know.

Seriously though I just find it impossible to tell someone they can’t be who they feel they are. It makes me feel bad. That’s all I meant. And that’s just me. Nobody else needs to feel that way.

I don't think a word always becomes meaningless when it is stretched a tad. Maybe it's just me, but my identity as a lesbian has more meaning for me than just who I sleep with. It is not just a sexual identity. It has political connotations and deep herstory. At least for me.

Kobi

08-31-2011, 08:54 PM

Jess

08-31-2011, 08:55 PM

*sigh*

I am going to post this one more time and then I give up... LOL... Been making the same point for oh so many years and it just gets lost...

Anyhoo:

"Woman
From the Old English "Wyfmon," meaning, "wife.""

http://www.westegg.com/etymology/

I dunno ... the roots of words matter to me... It's why in so many ways I love to reclaim the words like Crone... which they believe comes from early dutch for "old ewe"... To Crone means to "pick out and reject the old ewes from a flock" according to the OED. Subsequently applied in a derogatory sense to old females (and in the patriarchal way.. old women). To ME this is a reclaimable word.... or Hag (oh, Hag is MARVELOUS!), "1....an evil spirit, demon, or infernal being in female form; applied in early use to the Furies, Harpies, etc.... 2.... a witch.." OED. There are so many entries on Hag!

My friend Mary was so into reclaiming these words... and made magic out of them. They came alive with her....

While I totally understand your disdain for the origins of the word "woman", I still can not find the OED current definition of "woman", so I do not understand why it is so offensive today.

Much of the discord in this thread has been about the "traditional" definition of "lesbian". I would assert then, that perhaps we should also toss out female, because it is offensive to me to be just a being that produces eggs.

ETA: I just saw that you had responded to my question. Thank you. I am growing weary of this conversation. It will just continue to go in circles. It is not binary. ;)

citybutch

08-31-2011, 08:58 PM

*sigh*... this is why I like conversations better face to face... We could have a lot of fun discussing this... I can see where my next response would be misinterpreted and so I will step aside. :)

Maybe someday we can have the conversation in person, Jess... :)

While I totally understand your disdain for the origins of the word "woman", I still can not find the OED current definition of "woman", so I do not understand why it is so offensive today.

Much of the discord in this thread has been about the "traditional" definition of "lesbian". I would assert then, that perhaps we should also toss out female, because it is offensive to me to be just a being that produces eggs.

Jess

08-31-2011, 09:07 PM

*sigh*... this is why I like conversations better face to face... We could have a lot of fun discussing this... I can see where my next response would be misinterpreted and so I will step aside. :)

Maybe someday we can have the conversation in person, Jess... :)

Always down for that! I agree, sometimes it is only through face to face that we can begin to lower our defenses enough to truly "hear" one another. Because, believe me, I am laughing at a lot of this.. LOL... Mostly, the faces I feel cross my face when I just go " huh?"

Thanks again!

Heart

08-31-2011, 09:14 PM

Kobi, I think I'm pretty clear about what I stand for. I guess I just don't have a very either/or sensibility. It's more of a both/and sensibility. If that feels like flip flopping to you, so be it. I notice you didn't engage with any of my questions.

Jess, what I was trying to express was something that I was saying when SA was feeling that her identity as a lesbian was being challenged in this thread: That our individual twists and turns, (including who we are sleeping with at any given moment), tells us very little. This goes back to one of my original arguments (just to be consistent Kobi), about how circling around and around identity (labels, roles, who one sleeps with, etc), is politically unproductive. What concerns me are the broader issues of what happens to those of us that the patriarchal world sees as lesbians, and more broadly, as women.

I hope that's clearer.

ETA: Also, when I said this: I do not get why any of these labels based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism," I was responding to what I felt was implied in Kobi's prior post, that if one has slept with men, one might be politically suspect. Of course, I am aware that this is a common perception in separatist communities, and actually I understand where it comes from -- the reality of patriarchy means women will be suspicious of other women who have consorted with men.

Heart

atomiczombie

08-31-2011, 09:16 PM

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Kobi

08-31-2011, 09:20 PM

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Well lets see. I said:

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

I dont see any mention of sleep partner.

atomiczombie

08-31-2011, 09:23 PM

Well lets see. I said:

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

I dont see any mention of sleep partner.

Mkay, so may I ask what you specifically mean by her flip-flopping?

Heart

08-31-2011, 09:47 PM

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Yes, I do wonder what it is that Kobi sees as flip-flopping. I actually have no problem with people re-inscribing their identities any number of times in any number of ways. I never said I did. In fact, I asserted in this thread that I think people can and should self-identify, and I accepted SA's self identifying as a lesbian regardless of who she was sleeping with (transmen, etc). So I don't see where I flip-flopped. I think Kobi must have had some expectation or assumption about my lesbian identity that I did not fulfill. But that's not my problem.

There is one thing though that I will cop to just to be very clear about where my focus lies. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit for Kobi: What agitates me is not whether a lesbian sleeps with a man. What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.

So, having said that as clearly as I can, I realize that its not about the thread topic of "lesbian pride," and I will bow out so as not to derail further.

Maybe I'll start a thread.

Peace,
Heart

betenoire

08-31-2011, 10:29 PM

I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

I hope it's okay that I post here for a moment.

I really think it's more complicated than "actively have sex with other women". I mean, honestly, if that were all it took then I would be a Lesbian. I mean, maybe functionally I am - but functionality doesn't count for shit with me.

I have been sleeping with, and exclusively with, my lawfully wedded wedded person (who, incidentally, is a woman) for I think 6 years now. Historically, prior to getting together with my spouse, I slept with both men and women. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that I will ever sleep with a man again (presuming that my current relationship lasts the rest of my life). However, I am still not a Lesbian. I have slept with far more women than I have men, but I'm still not a Lesbian.

It's got to be about more than just fucking. It's got to be about intent, and political alignment, and intentional political alignment. Do you feel me?

(Also - big ups to Heart. I liked where she asked (to paraphrase) "If I'm not sleeping with ANYBODY - what am I?")

Sorry for crashing in on your party, peoples. I do that on occasion.

Cin

09-01-2011, 05:53 AM

Kobi

09-01-2011, 07:32 AM

I don’t know if I ever stopped laying claim to lesbian pride. I don’t think so. Although I did at times feel like lesbian pride needed to reclaim me.

For me, being a lesbian and a feminist are inexorably linked and I am proud to label myself a lesbian feminist. When I examine my ideas about what is a lesbian and what is a feminist I find myself thinking about them in the ideological sense, although, hopefully, I am also a lesbian feminist in the practical sense as well. But I can see a place for ideological lesbian feminists. Although I suppose defining them as allies could work almost as well.

I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives.

Of course there is oppression enough to go around and while an understanding of sexism, misogyny and the patriarchy is extremely useful (I would say necessary), the focus of everyone’s work is not going to be on that particular form of oppression. And just as an understanding of sexism and misogyny is invaluable for all those who battle oppression in any form, it is also useful for lesbian feminists to understand, in depth, other forms of oppression as well.

There is always softness at the borders. Where things intersect slippage often occurs. The edges of things often feel dangerous because of this natural fluidity. Yet, understandably, it is also the place where perception is heightened. I suppose it is only natural that people feel the need to patrol borders. Nobody wants to be taken over or erased. But I think it is much much more difficult than we could even imagine to eliminate or erase things. Change though I suppose is inevitable.

This makes sense to me.

I am feeling pretty confident that the patriarchy is the grand pooh-bah of oppression, the prototype which all other forms of oppression emulate.

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

Cin

09-01-2011, 10:46 AM

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

I believe internalized misogyny is certainly an effective method of control and keeps us separate. But I don’t think it is the most effective control mechanism. I think misogyny of any stripe cuts across generations, race, class etc. And it is no more recognizable than the internalized version. Even the blatant, violent, horrific encouraged by society and sanctioned by a government misogyny on display all over the world is not recognized for what for what it is – organized and supported hatred of women. Instead we tend to say, with a measure of sadness and even a little disgust in our voices, that women are still oppressed in some countries. Hell, well, ya, I guess. But divide and conquer is quite a successful ploy and is used to keep all oppressed people separate from each other. We are taught to separate by race, class, sex, gender, sexual preference, religious beliefs, government ideology etc… We are also taught not to show each other mercy but instead to hold each other suspect.

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

I agree that we do not live in a perfect world. And I certainly can attest that words and actions very often do not match. But I think individuals should be held accountable for their actions, not groups of people that these individuals identify with. I certainly wouldn’t want any incongruency on my part attributed to butches who identify as women and are lesbian feminists. But perhaps you mean there is an actual organized attempt at infiltration by groups of people with a particular ideological agenda. I have trouble believing I can be threatened sufficiently to call in the troops by an ideology. I know I’m probably alone in this, but I’ve always been suspicious of simply an ideology as a weapon of mass destruction. In my experience it has often been the desire to destroy an ideology that has caused the mass destruction.

What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.
Heart

I also see the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism. It makes me sad and angry. I don’t know how to combat it. I just don’t see any change coming. All I can do is to continue to speak out. To explain how I see misogyny and the patriarchy as the real root of all evil whenever the opportunity presents itself and sometimes even when the opportunity doesn’t present itself but instead hides in some deep dark hole.

But I don't really get how people identifying as trans/gender-queer or whatever translates as a loss for the identity of women. I don't think it's an either/or kind of thing. I doubt anyone is thinking, Oh I was going to identify as a butch woman but now I'm going in this direction. I think it just fits for them. And I don't think anyone is going to be choosing one identity over another for any other reason than that is how they feel, that is who they believe they are. And it's not like we win something if we have more people on our side. I do however think we win if we have more people with an understanding of sexism, misogyny, male privilege and the patriarchy.

One thing I believe very strongly is that no one can take my identity away. Or make me identify differently from how I feel. And I don’t believe I have the power to do that to anyone else. Even if I wanted to. Which I surely don’t. So I don’t see any reason to worry about losing anything or having my identity erased or its border destroyed. How could that happen? Would I be assimilated into another identity? Without my believing I am that how could it happen? I guess I get confused by ideas of vigorous border patrolling. How can one identity be in danger from another? I mean you can’t take anyone’s identity away can you? I get that you can dismiss people, set up hierarchies, undervalue female identities, but how is that different from what has always been true? No one can make me believe that I am less than. But it is frustrating to know so many turn a blind eye and really and truly have no idea whatsoever the depth and breadth of pain and hurt that misogyny causes us all. But I don’t really understand how that translates to danger to my identity. I don’t see any threat to how I identify in any real, this is war the enemy is at the gate, kind of way.

Chazz

09-01-2011, 11:06 AM

....What agitates me is not whether a lesbian sleeps with a man. What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.

So, having said that as clearly as I can, I realize that its not about the thread topic of "lesbian pride," and I will bow out so as not to derail further.

Maybe I'll start a thread.

Peace,
Heart

I don't feel alone. I'm blessed to have a strong Feminist and lesbian IDed women's community online and off. Truly blessed.

As to the "Reclaiming of Lesbian Pride".... I've come to realizations about that based on this thread and discussions with friends about it.

The Lesbian Pride I remember was a collective, mutually empowering celebration of female commonality and lived experience as lesbian women. One's social strata, race, background didn't matter. We held certain basic tenets in common: We were woman-centric, and personally/politically mobilized to fight against women's oppression and homophobia.

This mobilization and activism did NOT come at small cost. Patriarchy was not as accepting of uppity women or uncloseted lesbians in those days. Many of us were struggling to feed our children, ourselves, find and keep jobs, keep life and limb together, deal with homophobic families and friends - AND - exorcise our internalized sex-based gender mandates, patriarchal values and internalized homophobia. Things that don't seem to matter much anymore.

Yes, we looked forward to celebrating Lesbian Pride - formerly and informally. Those celebrations were the rare occasions when we could come together in our lesbian womanhood unsupervised, or penalized. It was powerful and empowering - heady stuff, indeed.

The days of Lesbian Pride based in shared, lived experience and commonality of purpose are, I suspect, over for good.... People can't even agree on what "female" or "lesbian" means, anymore.

How then, do woman IDed lesbians celebrate pride in our shared identity or lesbian HERitage? ....I suppose "we" could do a performance-based exercise in Lesbian Pride. Or, we could attend the Butch Voices conference and hope for a workshop or two that speaks to "our" lives.... Or, "we" could turn on the LOGO channel and hope for a show on woman IDed lesbians. They are few and far between these days, almost non-existent. It's pretty much trans everything, all the time, even there.... All of that is a poor substitute for the Lesbian Pride I remember.

Yep, we're pretty much marginalized these days - yesterday's news. Dinosaurs even. But dang, I'm not old yet and I remember the power and the passion, and the pride. I even remember how easy it was to meet a perspective partner who shared my Feminist sensibilities. Now, we're all sequestered in solitude, or endogenous communities, perusing online dating sites.

Yep, things sure have changed.... I understand that there are now infinite possible combinations of genitalia, clothing, mannerisms, sexuality, labels and roles within the neoLGBTQ "community". I understand that. Don't care much about it either way, really....

What I do care about is that I now have to put quotation marks around my identity - lesbian.... I care about the marginalizing/invisiblizing/censoring of lesbian women and Feminists.... I care about the appropriation and the presumption to naming others (including butch me) that is tolerated, even justified by many.... I care about the "good-girlism going on the LGBTQ community. The care-taking by "lesbians" of everybody but lesbians.... I care that all of this is being done in the name of "ally-ship".... This is not a politic I take pride in.

"We may recall some of the message of Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology (1984). A great deal of the machinery of men’s oppression and exploitation of women is mechanism by which women’s own energies and resources are turned against us [and one another], to suppress our spirits, cloud our judgment and consume us. And one of the most effective devices for this is the construction and manipulation of good and evil. It is a complex strategy. One part is the identification of certain things as good and others as evil-the naming of vices and virtues, and of sins. These are falsely and deceptively named. Almost anything that would strengthen or empower us or inspire us with the spirit of rebellion will be named “evil” or “sinful.” - Marilyn Frye

For me, Lesbian Pride is in large part about rebellion. It's not about exchanging one dogma for another, or embracing unfathomable theories authored by academics chasing tenure who are, admittedly or not, male-values-centric. Especially, not when said theory in NO tangible way addresses women's oppression. There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

Heart

09-01-2011, 11:25 AM

Miss Tick - I basically agree that misogyny is a scourge that is under-estimated and under-examined, and I agree that it is the root of homophobia, however I am not prepared to say that it is the root of racism or classim, nor am I prepared to create any kind of ranking about which of those are worse or greater or lesser. Suffice to say they are all linked.

I also agree that identity is personal, but I see a definite relationship between misogyny and the undervaluing of woman in terms of social, systemic, and academic trends related to identity. Plus I have a personal reaction to what I have seen in my own communities about people's decisions to jettison their identities as women, and I shared that.

No one makes choices about their identity as a woman/not-a-women free of the impact of misogyny because we are all swimming in it everyday. It's inescapable, as you yourself point out, so I don't really understand how you can say that they have zero relationship.

But whatever. I'm sick of this thread now, frankly.

I experienced something here that was pretty eye-opening: Treated as suspect, termed a flip-flopper, a political liability even, because I don't conform to someone's very rigid and policed notions of lesbian identity. In my years as an active member of political lesbian communities, that hasn't happened before. And then guess what? A transman stood up for me and a non-lesbian identified femme repped me. Huh.

I'm not granting it more power than it deserves, (though I'll admit my feelings were hurt), but it certainly gives me pause in terms of what some queers/lesbians/femmes/etc are talking about when they rant about the closed ranks of old-school lesbian-feminists.

I'll reiterate something I said in a prior post -- that I get it, that it's actually patriarchy that creates this suspicion and policing. But while I get it, I don't like it, and I will also say that it's a decidedly un-feminist way of engaging, as it divides women from each other in ways that reduce our collective power. If women don't organize across race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, etc - we have no hope of fighting patriarchy.

Heart

Heart

09-01-2011, 11:31 AM

There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

Chazz - you ain't startin' it -- cause there's women globally, lesbian and otherwise, who are doin' it -- adressing women's oppression that is.

All of this feels like it's gotten a bit grandiose at this point. If you're isolated, maybe that's on you.

I'm out.

Heart

Cin

09-01-2011, 11:45 AM

How then, do woman IDed lesbians celebrate pride in our shared identity or lesbian HERitage? ....I suppose "we" could do a performance-based exercise in Lesbian Pride. Or, we could attend the Butch Voices conference and hope for a workshop or two that speaks to "our" lives.... Or, "we" could turn on the LOGO channel and hope for a show on woman IDed lesbians. They are few and far between these days, almost non-existent. It's pretty much trans everything, all the time, even there.... All of that is a poor substitute for the Lesbian Pride I remember.

Yep, we're pretty much marginalized these days - yesterday's news. Dinosaurs even. But dang, I'm not old yet and I remember the power and the passion, and the pride. I even remember how easy it was to meet a perspective partner who shared my Feminist sensibilities. Now, we're all sequestered in solitude, or endogenous communities, perusing online dating sites.

Yep, things sure have changed.... I understand that there are now infinite possible combinations of genitalia, clothing, mannerisms, sexuality, labels and roles within the neoLGBTQ "community". I understand that. Don't care much about it either way, really....

What I do care about is that I now have to put quotation marks around my identity - lesbian.... I care about the marginalizing/invisiblizing/censoring of lesbian women and Feminists.... I care about the appropriation and the presumption to naming others (including butch me) that is tolerated, even justified by many.... I care about the "good-girlism going on the LGBTQ community. The care-taking by "lesbians" of everybody but lesbians.... I care that all of this is being done in the name of "ally-ship".... This is not a politic I take pride in.

For me, Lesbian Pride is in large part about rebellion. It's not about exchanging one dogma for another, or embracing unfathomable theories authored by academics chasing tenure who are, admittedly or not, male-values-centric. Especially, not when said theory in NO tangible way addresses women's oppression. There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

I’m struggling to figure what is actually being said here. Is it that if there weren’t so such acceptance of trans people there would be more lesbians? Or is it that there are less women loving women to give their attention to other women and issues of misogyny and patriarchy? Is it the plethora of male identified people that is the issue or those who love them?

I guess I don’t understand. Is there something that leads one to believe that there could be less trans people and less women to love them if we would just expend our energy only on other women like 2nd wave feminists believed? Suppose trans people and those who love them don’t want to do that? It certainly doesn’t seem all that fair to me. Isn’t the issue more about getting others to recognize misogyny, sexism and the oppression of women and to fight against it. To get men and male identified people to recognize how male privilege works in their life. I get that like the politics of 2nd wave feminists trans politics are rather myopic. It’s kind of new for everyone. Hopefully things will become more balanced. Third wave feminism is much different from 2nd wave.

Cin

09-01-2011, 12:03 PM

Miss Tick - I basically agree that misogyny is a scourge that is under-estimated and under-examined, and I agree that it is the root of homophobia, however I am not prepared to say that it is the root of racism or classim, nor am I prepared to create any kind of ranking about which of those are worse or greater or lesser. Suffice to say they are all linked.

I did not mean to rank oppression. I was trying to say it is the meeting point of all oppression, it is where oppression intersects, not that it surpasses every other oppression in severity or is the root of all oppression. My statement was
"I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives."

When i said misogyny was the patriarchy's most effective tool I meant it intersected with more oppressions than for example classism or racism does. That is what makes it so effective. Not that it is inherently worse.
And when I said it "transcends all the isms" I was using the definition of transcends that means to pass beyond the limits of. Meaning it is not limited by race or class. Not that it is the worse form of oppression.

No one makes choices about their identity as a woman/not-a-women free of the impact of misogyny because we are all swimming in it everyday. It's inescapable, as you yourself point out, so I don't really understand how you can say that they have zero relationship.

You're absolutely right. I don't how I could have missed that. It's not possible to make a decision about identity in a vacuum. Absolutely. I don't know what I was thinking.

I think I got here late to the party and feelings are running awfully high. I don't have that much emotion invested yet and I guess I should just back out quietly.

dreadgeek

09-01-2011, 12:40 PM

I’m struggling to figure what is actually being said here. Is it that if there weren’t so such acceptance of trans people there would be more lesbians? Or is it that there are less women loving women to give their attention to other women and issues of misogyny and patriarchy? Is it the plethora of male identified people that is the issue or those who love them?

I'm trying to read this thread 'as if' what was being said isn't the above because I'm trying to walk my talk about giving one another the benefit of the doubt and not assuming, as a starting point, the *worst* possible motives on the part of others. I fear, though, that what is being expounded IS, in fact, that trans people are 'the Problem' and that if it weren't for 'them' then the larger 'we' of the lesbian community would be a more vibrant place.

cheers
Aj

AtLast

09-01-2011, 02:46 PM

I'm trying to read this thread 'as if' what was being said isn't the above because I'm trying to walk my talk about giving one another the benefit of the doubt and not assuming, as a starting point, the *worst* possible motives on the part of others. I fear, though, that what is being expounded IS, in fact, that trans people are 'the Problem' and that if it weren't for 'them' then the larger 'we' of the lesbian community would be a more vibrant place.

cheers
Aj

And this just plain sux! When are we going to stop this BS? Until or unless we can look to our common (and there are plenty) struggles as an entire group and educate ourselves more fully about all of our identities and issues we deal with across the queer spectrum, we are never going to have a thing to feel prideful about.

dreadgeek

09-01-2011, 03:10 PM

And this just plain sux! When are we going to stop this BS? Until or unless we can look to our common (and there are plenty) struggles as an entire group and educate ourselves more fully about all of our identities and issues we deal with across the queer spectrum, we are never going to have a thing to feel prideful about.

ALH:

I've become convinced that until we get over identity politics, this kind of discussion will continue to dog us. However good the intentions might have been, identity politics has been a bog we have gotten sucked into. Now we're lost in it and all we can manage to do is come up with ever ramifying identity labels as if the fact that we did not know we were X was the actual problem facing us. I've grown weary of it.

I don't see how educating ourselves about our identities will actually help us because that won't get us past two *really* dysfunctional things we do: the first is that we assume the worst. It's not that white women in the community might not have thought about black women or what-have-you. No, in OUR community it is that white lesbians are irredeemably racist and, given half a chance, would love to see black women destroyed. That's the *first* interpretation. And we tell ourselves that we are doing this in the name of liberation. Poppycock! We're doing it because it is easier to take the worst interpretation than it is to step back and reflect on other possible causes. The other thing we do is that every time a new identity pops into existence, we have to go through vocabulary angst. First we define the new identity. Then we decide that since this identity name points out the difference between that group and all the other human beings who are *NOT* part of that group we have to come up with a term that describes everyone else.

The most obvious example is cisgendered. It is an entirely pointless word. It really is. It was created as a way of 'evening the playing field' with transgendered people. This was nominally necessary because talking about transwomen or transmen was somehow not empowering because it assumed that men and women who were *not* transgendered were the default. So now we have this term cisgendered so that transpeople can be empowered to live our lives. Except it does no such thing. The thing is these linguistic Rube Goldberg devices are moving targets anyway. So, transwoman or transman is supposed to be a sign that someone doesn't think of transgendered people as 'real' men or 'real' women so we come up with a neologism because THAT will change things. Except that once everyone adopts whatever term then THAT becomes the descriptor that is responsible for our oppression so we have to come up with another term and so on.

It's like the deckchair feng shui that the black community goes through about once a generation. My grandmother was colored. My parents were negroes. I was black. My son was African American. My granddaughter is a person of color (i.e. colored). Yay! We've come full circle. Does anyone here believe that the *reason* Barack Obama was elected President was because he was African American and not a negro? Anyone?

This subject has me really exercised so I'm going to sign off but I want to leave you with this thought:

"Equality in spite of evident nonidentity is a somewhat sophisticated concept and requires a moral stature of which many individuals seem to be incapable. They rather deny human variability and equate equality with identity. Or they claim that the human species is exceptional in the organic world in that only morphological characters are controlled by genes and all other traits of the mind or character are due to “conditioning” or other nongenetic factors. Such authors conveniently ignore the results of twin studies and of the genetic analysis of nonmorphological traits in animals. An ideology based on such obviously wrong premises can only lead to disaster. Its championship of human equality is based on a claim of identity. As soon as it is proved that the latter does not exist, the support of equality is likewise lost." (Steven Pinker quoting W.D. Hamilton in The Blank Slate)

The evil I see is not that as a black lesbian I have rights that derive BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian and I am denied those rights. Rather, I see it that as a member of Homo sapiens I have certain rights which I am denied BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian. My rights should not hinge upon this or that identity. I have no rights that should be granted because of my identity and *all* my rights are such that I should not be denied ANY of them because of my identity. To the degree that I am treated accordingly, I experience that as justice.

Cheers
Aj

The_Lady_Snow

09-01-2011, 03:24 PM

THANK YOU!!!!!

ALH:

I've become convinced that until we get over identity politics, this kind of discussion will continue to dog us. However good the intentions might have been, identity politics has been a bog we have gotten sucked into. Now we're lost in it and all we can manage to do is come up with ever ramifying identity labels as if the fact that we did not know we were X was the actual problem facing us. I've grown weary of it.

I don't see how educating ourselves about our identities will actually help us because that won't get us past two *really* dysfunctional things we do: the first is that we assume the worst. It's not that white women in the community might not have thought about black women or what-have-you. No, in OUR community it is that white lesbians are irredeemably racist and, given half a chance, would love to see black women destroyed. That's the *first* interpretation. And we tell ourselves that we are doing this in the name of liberation. Poppycock! We're doing it because it is easier to take the worst interpretation than it is to step back and reflect on other possible causes. The other thing we do is that every time a new identity pops into existence, we have to go through vocabulary angst. First we define the new identity. Then we decide that since this identity name points out the difference between that group and all the other human beings who are *NOT* part of that group we have to come up with a term that describes everyone else.

The most obvious example is cisgendered. It is an entirely pointless word. It really is. It was created as a way of 'evening the playing field' with transgendered people. This was nominally necessary because talking about transwomen or transmen was somehow not empowering because it assumed that men and women who were *not* transgendered were the default. So now we have this term cisgendered so that transpeople can be empowered to live our lives. Except it does no such thing. The thing is these linguistic Rube Goldberg devices are moving targets anyway. So, transwoman or transman is supposed to be a sign that someone doesn't think of transgendered people as 'real' men or 'real' women so we come up with a neologism because THAT will change things. Except that once everyone adopts whatever term then THAT becomes the descriptor that is responsible for our oppression so we have to come up with another term and so on.

It's like the deckchair feng shui that the black community goes through about once a generation. My grandmother was colored. My parents were negroes. I was black. My son was African American. My granddaughter is a person of color (i.e. colored). Yay! We've come full circle. Does anyone here believe that the *reason* Barack Obama was elected President was because he was African American and not a negro? Anyone?

This subject has me really exercised so I'm going to sign off but I want to leave you with this thought:

"Equality in spite of evident nonidentity is a somewhat sophisticated concept and requires a moral stature of which many individuals seem to be incapable. They rather deny human variability and equate equality with identity. Or they claim that the human species is exceptional in the organic world in that only morphological characters are controlled by genes and all other traits of the mind or character are due to “conditioning” or other nongenetic factors. Such authors conveniently ignore the results of twin studies and of the genetic analysis of nonmorphological traits in animals. An ideology based on such obviously wrong premises can only lead to disaster. Its championship of human equality is based on a claim of identity. As soon as it is proved that the latter does not exist, the support of equality is likewise lost." (Steven Pinker quoting W.D. Hamilton in The Blank Slate)

The evil I see is not that as a black lesbian I have rights that derive BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian and I am denied those rights. Rather, I see it that as a member of Homo sapiens I have certain rights which I am denied BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian. My rights should not hinge upon this or that identity. I have no rights that should be granted because of my identity and *all* my rights are such that I should not be denied ANY of them because of my identity. To the degree that I am treated accordingly, I experience that as justice.

Cheers
Aj

citybutch

09-01-2011, 03:31 PM

Hey Chazz.... I totally get what you are saying here... and really appreciate it!

One thing I just want to note ( and a small note at that), Mary Daly really didn't put a lot of emphasis on lesbianism, hers or others. That was rather immaterial to her. She cared about women... plain and simple. The connections she felt were the woman connections steeped in Background and Leaping Connections.

"lesbian schmesbian" as she would say....

I don't feel alone. I'm blessed to have a strong Feminist and lesbian IDed women's community online and off. Truly blessed.

As to the "Reclaiming of Lesbian Pride".... I've come to realizations about that based on this thread and discussions with friends about it.

The Lesbian Pride I remember was a collective, mutually empowering celebration of female commonality and lived experience as lesbian women. One's social strata, race, background didn't matter. We held certain basic tenets in common: We were woman-centric, and personally/politically mobilized to fight against women's oppression and homophobia.

This mobilization and activism did NOT come at small cost. Patriarchy was not as accepting of uppity women or uncloseted lesbians in those days. Many of us were struggling to feed our children, ourselves, find and keep jobs, keep life and limb together, deal with homophobic families and friends - AND - exorcise our internalized sex-based gender mandates, patriarchal values and internalized homophobia. Things that don't seem to matter much anymore.

Yes, we looked forward to celebrating Lesbian Pride - formerly and informally. Those celebrations were the rare occasions when we could come together in our lesbian womanhood unsupervised, or penalized. It was powerful and empowering - heady stuff, indeed.

The days of Lesbian Pride based in shared, lived experience and commonality of purpose are, I suspect, over for good.... People can't even agree on what "female" or "lesbian" means, anymore.

How then, do woman IDed lesbians celebrate pride in our shared identity or lesbian HERitage? ....I suppose "we" could do a performance-based exercise in Lesbian Pride. Or, we could attend the Butch Voices conference and hope for a workshop or two that speaks to "our" lives.... Or, "we" could turn on the LOGO channel and hope for a show on woman IDed lesbians. They are few and far between these days, almost non-existent. It's pretty much trans everything, all the time, even there.... All of that is a poor substitute for the Lesbian Pride I remember.

Yep, we're pretty much marginalized these days - yesterday's news. Dinosaurs even. But dang, I'm not old yet and I remember the power and the passion, and the pride. I even remember how easy it was to meet a perspective partner who shared my Feminist sensibilities. Now, we're all sequestered in solitude, or endogenous communities, perusing online dating sites.

Yep, things sure have changed.... I understand that there are now infinite possible combinations of genitalia, clothing, mannerisms, sexuality, labels and roles within the neoLGBTQ "community". I understand that. Don't care much about it either way, really....

What I do care about is that I now have to put quotation marks around my identity - lesbian.... I care about the marginalizing/invisiblizing/censoring of lesbian women and Feminists.... I care about the appropriation and the presumption to naming others (including butch me) that is tolerated, even justified by many.... I care about the "good-girlism going on the LGBTQ community. The care-taking by "lesbians" of everybody but lesbians.... I care that all of this is being done in the name of "ally-ship".... This is not a politic I take pride in.

"We may recall some of the message of Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology (1984). A great deal of the machinery of men’s oppression and exploitation of women is mechanism by which women’s own energies and resources are turned against us [and one another], to suppress our spirits, cloud our judgment and consume us. And one of the most effective devices for this is the construction and manipulation of good and evil. It is a complex strategy. One part is the identification of certain things as good and others as evil-the naming of vices and virtues, and of sins. These are falsely and deceptively named. Almost anything that would strengthen or empower us or inspire us with the spirit of rebellion will be named “evil” or “sinful.” - Marilyn Frye

For me, Lesbian Pride is in large part about rebellion. It's not about exchanging one dogma for another, or embracing unfathomable theories authored by academics chasing tenure who are, admittedly or not, male-values-centric. Especially, not when said theory in NO tangible way addresses women's oppression. There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

AtLast

09-01-2011, 03:48 PM

ALH:

I've become convinced that until we get over identity politics, this kind of discussion will continue to dog us. However good the intentions might have been, identity politics has been a bog we have gotten sucked into. Now we're lost in it and all we can manage to do is come up with ever ramifying identity labels as if the fact that we did not know we were X was the actual problem facing us. I've grown weary of it.

I don't see how educating ourselves about our identities will actually help us because that won't get us past two *really* dysfunctional things we do: the first is that we assume the worst. It's not that white women in the community might not have thought about black women or what-have-you. No, in OUR community it is that white lesbians are irredeemably racist and, given half a chance, would love to see black women destroyed. That's the *first* interpretation. And we tell ourselves that we are doing this in the name of liberation. Poppycock! We're doing it because it is easier to take the worst interpretation than it is to step back and reflect on other possible causes. The other thing we do is that every time a new identity pops into existence, we have to go through vocabulary angst. First we define the new identity. Then we decide that since this identity name points out the difference between that group and all the other human beings who are *NOT* part of that group we have to come up with a term that describes everyone else.

The most obvious example is cisgendered. It is an entirely pointless word. It really is. It was created as a way of 'evening the playing field' with transgendered people. This was nominally necessary because talking about transwomen or transmen was somehow not empowering because it assumed that men and women who were *not* transgendered were the default. So now we have this term cisgendered so that transpeople can be empowered to live our lives. Except it does no such thing. The thing is these linguistic Rube Goldberg devices are moving targets anyway. So, transwoman or transman is supposed to be a sign that someone doesn't think of transgendered people as 'real' men or 'real' women so we come up with a neologism because THAT will change things. Except that once everyone adopts whatever term then THAT becomes the descriptor that is responsible for our oppression so we have to come up with another term and so on.

It's like the deckchair feng shui that the black community goes through about once a generation. My grandmother was colored. My parents were negroes. I was black. My son was African American. My granddaughter is a person of color (i.e. colored). Yay! We've come full circle. Does anyone here believe that the *reason* Barack Obama was elected President was because he was African American and not a negro? Anyone?

This subject has me really exercised so I'm going to sign off but I want to leave you with this thought:

"Equality in spite of evident nonidentity is a somewhat sophisticated concept and requires a moral stature of which many individuals seem to be incapable. They rather deny human variability and equate equality with identity. Or they claim that the human species is exceptional in the organic world in that only morphological characters are controlled by genes and all other traits of the mind or character are due to “conditioning” or other nongenetic factors. Such authors conveniently ignore the results of twin studies and of the genetic analysis of nonmorphological traits in animals. An ideology based on such obviously wrong premises can only lead to disaster. Its championship of human equality is based on a claim of identity. As soon as it is proved that the latter does not exist, the support of equality is likewise lost." (Steven Pinker quoting W.D. Hamilton in The Blank Slate)

The evil I see is not that as a black lesbian I have rights that derive BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian and I am denied those rights. Rather, I see it that as a member of Homo sapiens I have certain rights which I am denied BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian. My rights should not hinge upon this or that identity. I have no rights that should be granted because of my identity and *all* my rights are such that I should not be denied ANY of them because of my identity. To the degree that I am treated accordingly, I experience that as justice.

Cheers
Aj

I am weary, too and a shift from identity politics could serve us well if we will just see how it is getting us nowhere. What you state here hits so many nails on the head that I so wish we could move on to that could get us out of the non-productive wheel-spinning we do.

My education comment had more to do with how often I see that many don't even do cursory investigations of literature that is readily available to all of us and a means to better understand who we all are. And that said- how are the publishing possibilities going for you? You have to get your work out there!1

Kobi

09-01-2011, 03:52 PM

dreadgeek

09-01-2011, 04:01 PM

Kobi:

I was simply using cisgendered as an example of something we do in the community that, in fact, divert us from more useful ends. I was not trying to derail the thread into trans territory again. No purpose is served by that. I would've liked to have seen this thread be a thread about how we, as lesbians, can keep lesbian culture alive. Lesbian culture made me the woman I am today and I think that if we let it die, then we will have a poorer world for it! That is what I was hoping this thread would be about.

I think that thread would be useful. I think that topic can be discussed without even ONCE having to divert into all of this other stuff that is not, in fact, about preserving lesbian culture so that if my granddaughter should happen to grow up and be a woman-loving-woman her generation won't have to feel like they are reinventing the wheel. That, to me, is a conversation worth having. I am, for the purposes of that conversation, willing to show up and do my part presuming that 'woman' is large enough to include a woman like me which is how I initially entered into this conversation.

Cheers
Aj

This thread keeps going round and round in not very productive ways.

I will say again its intent was for lesbians who are females who partner with other females to have a place to discuss stuff related to our lives, experiences, concerns. That includes feminism and all it encompasses.

In a mixed community I expected there would be some flack, some obstruction, and derailing. It is not comfortable to discuss womens issues these days. Funky defensive stuff is the natural result of trying to do so.

My issue here is, as a female, lesbian who sleeps with other women, we should have a place to go and talk without it being continuous derailed, obstructed, or turned in various discussions of interest to other groups in the queer community. How many times have I said this now? How many more times do I have to?

If I went into the trans threads and injected my lesbian way into every conversation, or the femme threads and interjected my butch point of view repeatedly, I would be handed my head. It would be rude, disrespectful, and just a tad annoying. But, it's ok to do it here?

It is ok for everyone else to trot in here and shove their concept of what my reality is supposed to be in my face? Do you think you might learn something if you actually LISTENED to my reality before refuting it in favor of your own?

This type of interference behavior is a defensive posture. Lesbians like me, wanting space, is very threatening to others. Has to be or we wouldn't keep ending up in the same freakin place everytime. The object of the behavior is to stop whatever is being discussed because it is too threatening. Dont take my word for it, look back your self.

It is easier for us to get caught up in terminology and id's than it is to discuss the trials and tribulation of being a woman and a lesbian these days. It is an avoidance tactic. We cant discuss anything of importance as long as we are fighting about the definition of lesbian ad infinitum.

This thread is not about trans issues but trans issues seem to become the prevailing focus. Check back. A little head of steam about woman focused stuff gets started and wham! someone changes it to a trans focus. It is a pattern. It repeats over and over.

It seems it is safer for some to talk from what appears to be a heteronormative perspective than it is to talk from a woman focused, homosexual, womans space perspective. It's a throw back to the early days of feminism, you know when lesbians were a danger.

It is easier, it seems, to change the focus to trans issues than it is to deal with misogyny in our community or the many ways in which women screw over other women. It is much either to deal with trans issues than it is to deal with pro women issues.

These are the same tactics I saw used back in the 60's and 70's by women against other women. Women frightened to look at their lives. Women afraid of many things. It is sad to see the same tactics used decades later. Maybe we havent come such a long way baby. Always hated that commercial.

And Heart, for the last time, my perception of your flip flopping has nothing to do with your self identity. It has to do with the topic being about the color blue and you injecting one on yellow. Head in the direction of yellow and you change it to orange. Go with orange and you change it to silver.

In the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you were trying to sort out things like the rest of us, or were trying to be diplomatic or were more comfortable straddling the fence.

But, last night, when you did it, it made me think that you were making John Kerry look decisive. Hence the flip flop comment. For the last time, there is nothing there about who you sleep with or your definition of lesbian - except as it is of your own making.

Aj, again, this is not a tread about trans anything. It is about pro woman. But being pro women is automatically equated with being anti trans. Same dynamics from decades ago when feminism was seen as anti men not pro women. It is very hard to talk about pro women without looking at the many ways women are oppressed by men.

atomiczombie

09-01-2011, 05:06 PM

This thread keeps going round and round in not very productive ways.

I will say again its intent was for lesbians who are females who partner with other females to have a place to discuss stuff related to our lives, experiences, concerns. That includes feminism and all it encompasses.

In a mixed community I expected there would be some flack, some obstruction, and derailing. It is not comfortable to discuss womens issues these days. Funky defensive stuff is the natural result of trying to do so.

My issue here is, as a female, lesbian who sleeps with other women, we should have a place to go and talk without it being continuous derailed, obstructed, or turned in various discussions of interest to other groups in the queer community. How many times have I said this now? How many more times do I have to?

If I went into the trans threads and injected my lesbian way into every conversation, or the femme threads and interjected my butch point of view repeatedly, I would be handed my head. It would be rude, disrespectful, and just a tad annoying. But, it's ok to do it here?

It is ok for everyone else to trot in here and shove their concept of what my reality is supposed to be in my face? Do you think you might learn something if you actually LISTENED to my reality before refuting it in favor of your own?

This type of interference behavior is a defensive posture. Lesbians like me, wanting space, is very threatening to others. Has to be or we wouldn't keep ending up in the same freakin place everytime. The object of the behavior is to stop whatever is being discussed because it is too threatening. Dont take my word for it, look back your self.

It is easier for us to get caught up in terminology and id's than it is to discuss the trials and tribulation of being a woman and a lesbian these days. It is an avoidance tactic. We cant discuss anything of importance as long as we are fighting about the definition of lesbian ad infinitum.

This thread is not about trans issues but trans issues seem to become the prevailing focus. Check back. A little head of steam about woman focused stuff gets started and wham! someone changes it to a trans focus. It is a pattern. It repeats over and over.

It seems it is safer for some to talk from what appears to be a heteronormative perspective than it is to talk from a woman focused, homosexual, womans space perspective. It's a throw back to the early days of feminism, you know when lesbians were a danger.

It is easier, it seems, to change the focus to trans issues than it is to deal with misogyny in our community or the many ways in which women screw over other women. It is much either to deal with trans issues than it is to deal with pro women issues.

These are the same tactics I saw used back in the 60's and 70's by women against other women. Women frightened to look at their lives. Women afraid of many things. It is sad to see the same tactics used decades later. Maybe we havent come such a long way baby. Always hated that commercial.

And Heart, for the last time, my perception of your flip flopping has nothing to do with your self identity. It has to do with the topic being about the color blue and you injecting one on yellow. Head in the direction of yellow and you change it to orange. Go with orange and you change it to silver.

In the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you were trying to sort out things like the rest of us, or were trying to be diplomatic or were more comfortable straddling the fence.

But, last night, when you did it, it made me think that you were making John Kerry look decisive. Hence the flip flop comment. For the last time, there is nothing there about who you sleep with or your definition of lesbian - except as it is of your own making.

Aj, again, this is not a tread about trans anything. It is about pro woman. But being pro women is automatically equated with being anti trans. Same dynamics from decades ago when feminism was seen as anti men not pro women. It is very hard to talk about pro women without looking at the many ways women are oppressed by men.

Kobi,

I respect your wanting to have a place to discuss Lesbian pride and Lesbian culture. And when the topics have stuck to those things, I have stayed out of the thread. However, that has not been the only topic discussed here, and some things have been said that I consider VERY relevant to trans people and how they fit into the queer community. I will give you some specific examples to back up this claim:

Chazz said:

How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

And:

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

And,

Gender theory DOES promote a binary system. It "sanctions" going from point A on a binary scale to point Z. Everything in between is a matter of gender constructed degree.

No, Slater.... Adult females will always be women.

It doesn't matter if a gender system is binary or not. Gender mythology is the issue. Having 10,000 variations of a myth doesn't change the fact that it's a myth, especially when it comes to patriarchy. (Patriarchy is very adaptable.)

Slater said:

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

And Heart said:

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

And she said this:

I also agree that identity is personal, but I see a definite relationship between misogyny and the undervaluing of woman in terms of social, systemic, and academic trends related to identity. Plus I have a personal reaction to what I have seen in my own communities about people's decisions to jettison their identities as women, and I shared that.

And this:

What agitates me is not whether a lesbian sleeps with a man. What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.

Now do I feel threatened when lesbians talk about lesbian pride and lesbian culture? Not even a little. I think lesbians are great. (I even used to ID that way before I got a better understanding of myself. I didn't transition because I hated lesbians. I don't. I transitioned because of who I am, not who I don't want to be.) But the things I quoted above are not about lesbian pride or lesbian culture. They are talking about gender and ID politics. These are things written by, according to my understanding, people who identify as lesbians. And they are talking about things that directly relate to trans identities. As a transguy, I have something to say about them because they are, in part, about people like me. If you folks talk about things that directly relate to trans identities, do I not, as a transguy, have a right to respond?

And, I have seen some nasty comments made and I decided to speak up about it. I was not responding as a transguy when I spoke up, I was speaking as a member of the human race.

Medusa

09-01-2011, 06:00 PM

This is something I'd also like for you to consider, Kobi:

This conversation has not been solely about Lesbian pride or the politics of women. Many weavings have interlaced back to the (same) gender conversation we are having now and have had now for 10+years on these B/F sites.

I want to address what you said about "If I took my Lesbian identity to a Trans thread...". That is not what is happening here. Transmen and Male-identified Butches have not infiltrated this conversation to start preaching their identity politics. From my perspective, people have mostly respectfully read along and interjected when something pertains to them...and this conversation has circled Trans issues almost constantly.

The reason I bring this up is because (and I'll reiterate this), a "safe" zone for Lesbians on a site that has a large population of many different Queer identities does not mean that anyone who identifies as a Lesbian gets to have a private (but public) thread to tease apart Trans or any other identity while all of the Trans or any other identity are expected to sit back and watch with tape over their mouths. Especially given some of the dialog here that has attempted (whether intentionally or ignorantly) to paint Trans women as "not real".

And I would offer that you would probably be pretty uncomfortable if Trans men made a thread entitled "Reclaiming Trans Pride" that went almost 500 posts deep where Trans folks wanted to talk about how Lesbians had victimized them or acted badly once at MWMF or had made them feel unsafe or how their gender construct was invalid for whatever reason.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying that I don't want these conversations to happen. I think we need to talk about what it is that makes people so fearful of one another that we keep clinging to stereotypes or unilateral thinking that results in "Im a victim, You're the oppressor" or "In order for me to be safe/heard/visible/valid, someone else needs to be excluded from the conversation."
(and theses aren't meant as absolutes, I'm thinking as I type)

Perhaps I'm feeling raw from having visited another forum specifically and explicitly for Lesbians and seeing the entire front page of one of their forums with 50% of the threads devoted to Trans identities and various ways that they are wrong/unsafe/intrusive/etc. etc. etc.

Because in my world, pride in our shared history means we aren't "foxhole bonding" over who we perceive to be a common enemy. This isn't to say we shouldn't discuss oppression, because that is certainly part of our history, but our history is not our oppression. Our history is also the things we have accomplished, the ways we have empowered and uplifted one another, and the celebration of each other as women.

Toughy

09-01-2011, 06:01 PM

I am a butch female woman kind of lesbian, dyke, female homosexual. I have also had (GASP) good sex with biomen. Sex is sex and pair bonding is pair bonding. Both are fluid things in my almost 60 years on the planet. Granted in the last 30 years my sexual and pair bonding has been exclusively with femmes.

Like Heart I sometimes really do believe it was a choice to have sex and pair bond with women (as adult females) and femmes. Had I chosen to pair bond with men I would be a women's basketball coach at the college or professional level. I chose differently and I am happy with my choice. I have made a huge difference in the world in a different way than as a women's basketball coach.

Fuck the gold star toaster oven test.........please take your stuff and put it with Michelle Bachman and the rest of the fundamentalist monotheist patriarchal folks.

I am proud to be a big ole fucking dyke.............lesbian as this thread defines it. I have no use for anyone who tells me I can not be a lesbian who has pride just because I liked sex and almost married a bioman once upon a time.

Kobi.........this thread keeps going round and round because many of us here don't fit or agree with your definition of what lesbian and lesbian pride means. You can have your reality of lesbian and lesbian pride......guess what I get mine also and they are not the same at all in any way. I defended you once when you first came here. I hoped your learning curve would catch up.........in my mind it has not.

I want and need lesbian space, women space. My version is inclusive and yours is exclusive..........yours is a tiny world that has no room for growth and inclusion of the next generation(s). It is no wonder the younger folks and many of us in your generation don't want shit to do with your version of lesbian pride and feminism. I like blue and yellow and find room for both in my identity as a lesbian.

And just for the record...........your dismissing Heart is no different than any other masculine being dismissing a feminine being.......it's the patriarchy at work.

Kobi

09-01-2011, 06:22 PM

Aj,

As always I have a great deal of respect for you and the risks you have taken here. We have discussed it before and my respect has not changed.

Lesbians do have a herstory and it would be nice for that to be perserved, to be respected, to be perpetuated for our children, grandchildren, and all future generations.

People are people. We have discussed ideal based approaches versus reality based approaches. In ideal realms we can deny, ignore, and/or dictate a utopia. In reality issues will arise. Changing hearts and minds is best done by example and by talking. A 2x4 upside the head accomplishes nothing but fueling more hatred.

You have endured some harsh realities in life. I have endured some harsh realities. But, we are both fighting for the same things. I am proud to stand beside you and call you a sister. There will be issues. I dont think they are insurmountable.

June,

Again, what you are hearing is being filtered thru something which is not my intent. I can attempt to discuss it with you. It seems very clear to me that you have formed opinions and anything I say will be seen within those opinions. Thus, I dont feel heard. I feel I have to defend and I am tired of defending the right to be heard.

Again, if Aj came in here and said I have an issue....you would be knocking heads. If a transman came in and said I have issues....you would be knocking heads. I come in as a woman and a lesbian and your behavior is to knock me. Thats a funky standard that seems to be a manifestation of internalized misogyny.

Of course say that leaves me wide open to the usual and customary tirade. Been there, heard that, cutting and pasting will save time. Wont increase communication tho.

Atomic,

It is hard to answer you without expending a great deal of energy and time. The short version is women and lesbians, lesbians like me, have things to discuss that affect us as women and lesbians like me.

We are perfectly capable of handing the process ourselves. It is our experience. Our experience includes issues related to women and lesbians being oppressed groups in a patriarchy.

Much of the rationale you have listed in your post for your need to been involved here is almost word for word the same rational I have heard for decades. It is men need to be an integral part of defining the female experience. Not being a part is very threatening. There is just no nice way to say that.

The rational that you are not speaking as a transman but as a human being denies that there are differences between the sexes. Heard that many times before too. When the oppression of women is eliminated, seeing everyone as human rather than a sex or gender is possible. In the current reality, it is just a rationalization or excuse to stop women from speaking of their reality.

It is my reality. Not your interpretation of my reality. And I am quite capable of speaking to it.

And, in closing, yesterday this thread was very female, woman oriented. Today it is once again trans oriented. Funny how that keeps happening.

The divesity of sameness.

Heart

09-01-2011, 06:45 PM

One thing I just want to note ( and a small note at that), Mary Daly really didn't put a lot of emphasis on lesbianism, hers or others. That was rather immaterial to her. She cared about women... plain and simple. The connections she felt were the woman connections steeped in Background and Leaping Connections.

"lesbian schmesbian" as she would say....

All hail Mary Daly!

Toughy

09-01-2011, 06:46 PM

by Kobi
And, in closing, yesterday this thread was very female, woman oriented. Today it is once again trans oriented. Funny how that keeps happening.

and I call bullshit when I see it...............

Glenn

09-01-2011, 07:10 PM

I'm gonna get some more popcorn for this! *runs out the courtroom*

Heart

09-01-2011, 07:11 PM

I will say again its intent was for lesbians who are females who partner with other females to have a place to discuss stuff related to our lives, experiences, concerns. That includes feminism and all it encompasses.

And that describes ME. So, I get to talk about stuff related to my life including my thoughts/ideas about trans, cis, feminism, sleeping with men, etc. Unless of course you have a particular set of topics for us lesbian females to discuss that meet with your approval.

It is easier, it seems, to change the focus to trans issues than it is to deal with misogyny in our community or the many ways in which women screw over other women. It is much either to deal with trans issues than it is to deal with pro women issues.

I have probably talked about misogyny more times in these threads than any other poster, and have put myself on the firing line time and time again on these boards. I don't have to prove myself to you Kobi, but what really irks me, is the lack of respect you are showing for other posters here, including the very lesbians you claim to want to give space to.

And Heart, for the last time, my perception of your flip flopping has nothing to do with your self identity. It has to do with the topic being about the color blue and you injecting one on yellow. Head in the direction of yellow and you change it to orange. Go with orange and you change it to silver.
In the beginning I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Excuse me? I don't need your benefit of the doubt Kobi. Bring it. Your vague disparaging of my intent and character started when I mentioned sleeping with men. You launched into your tirade about what the true definition of a lesbian is. So, no mystery Kobi - you are being perfectly well understood.

Perhaps you were trying to sort out things like the rest of us, or were trying to be diplomatic or were more comfortable straddling the fence.

Oh no Kobi -- I'm more comfortable kicking the fence over -- so let me make it clear to you one more time: I'm a lesbian, a dyke, a woman who fucks women. I have also fucked men -- and been raped by one too. I'm the mother of a son and I would never live on any "safe land" that rejected him due to his gender. I am fiercely feminist and my work and life are about empowering women and girls whether they are straight, lesbian, bi, trans, or unaffiliated. Oh, and I welcome trans women into MY lesbian/female spaces, and their issues are mine. So check it out Kobi -- THIS is what a lesbian feminist looks like.

I'm in this color - and I am PISSED.

Heart

Toughy

09-01-2011, 07:32 PM

Kobi...........damn this is getting old

you just dismissed another lesbian, only it's a lesbian of the butch persuasion....only this time it has a transphobic nature to it...........I rarely ever call transphobia............but it's abundantly clear to me now you are of that persuasion.........

get a fucking grip dude.....I am sorry I ever defended you...........you obviously have not learned a damn thing in your time here........

free your mind.....

Toughy

09-01-2011, 07:36 PM

and just cuz I am in a piling mood........

funny you ignore me........what is it????.......... you can't fathom or respond to a butch who fucked men and liked it and claims lesbian???????????????

atomiczombie

09-01-2011, 07:43 PM

I am in red:

Atomic,

It is hard to answer you without expending a great deal of energy and time. The short version is women and lesbians, lesbians like me, have things to discuss that affect us as women and lesbians like me.

[COLOR="Red"]Ok.

We are perfectly capable of handing the process ourselves. It is our experience. Our experience includes issues related to women and lesbians being oppressed groups in a patriarchy.

No arguments here.

Much of the rationale you have listed in your post for your need to been involved here is almost word for word the same rational I have heard for decades. It is men need to be an integral part of defining the female experience. Not being a part is very threatening. There is just no nice way to say that.

Hmm, so when lesbians talk about gender and ID politics, they are not sometimes also defining the trans experience? I don't feel threatened. I feel frustrated when the people I quoted say the things they said in those quotes and then some pretend they are saying things that have nothing to do with trans people. Or, they blatantly say things about trans people, and yet I am told that I have no right to respond because it's a lesbian thread. When Chazz said that the concept of gender is a construct of patriarchy, that erases me and my gender. And yes, I was responding as a trans guy.

The rational that you are not speaking as a transman but as a human being denies that there are differences between the sexes. Heard that many times before too. When the oppression of women is eliminated, seeing everyone as human rather than a sex or gender is possible. In the current reality, it is just a rationalization or excuse to stop women from speaking of their reality.

I was talking as a human being when I asked you if you were really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with.

It is my reality. Not your interpretation of my reality. And I am quite capable of speaking to it.

I never spoke for you or tried to interpret your reality. Where are you getting that?

And, in closing, yesterday this thread was very female, woman oriented. Today it is once again trans oriented. Funny how that keeps happening.

The divesity of sameness.

How has this thread become trans oriented? The topics have been all over the place - misogyny, patriarchy, the definition of lesbian, who qualifies, etc. Not just about gender ID politics and trans issues, although they have frequently come up.

Kobi

09-01-2011, 07:59 PM

Toughy

09-01-2011, 08:14 PM

I read my last post. I read the responses.

Thank you all for so poignantly illustrating everything I said. I couldnt have asked for a more illuminating display of the truth.

I will leave you now so you can continue to prove my observations as correct.

Have a good evening :)

reading and understanding are not the same thing....................obviously

truth is fleeting
understanding is growth

Toughy

09-01-2011, 08:59 PM

I read my last post. I read the responses.

Thank you all for so poignantly illustrating everything I said. I couldnt have asked for a more illuminating display of the truth.

I will leave you now so you can continue to prove my observations as correct.

Have a good evening :)

oh goody............take your toys and go home...because no one wanted to play by your rules.....

this crap is not even worthy of 'popcorn'.,.............

Softhearted

09-01-2011, 09:01 PM

I feel like doing a "post-by"... This thread is getting more confusing...

Chazz

09-02-2011, 09:52 AM

Chazz - you ain't startin' it -- cause there's women globally, lesbian and otherwise, who are doin' it -- adressing women's oppression that is.

All of this feels like it's gotten a bit grandiose at this point. If you're isolated, maybe that's on you.

I'm out.

Heart

Heart, you misread.

I'm not isolated, I have a strong lesbian/Feminist community online and off. I though I was clear about that in my last post????

As to grandiosity, well you're entitled to your opinions, but no, not really. Perhaps you're mistaking a sense of empowerment and incentive with grandiosity, or perhaps, you're administering a slap down. Either way, it's okay.....

But to be clear about the empowerment and incentive.... I think it's time for woman IDed lesbians to get back to basics, to refocus our energies on ourselves, one another and the forces that continue to oppress women. No, that's not separatism, it's self-care. The fact that a statement like that sounds like separatism (albeit a misapprehended, extreme version of separatism) to some (you?), is the problem manifest.

You have used the term "separatism" in my direction before. The inherent put-down down did not go unnoticed. Of more importance, the implied vilification of self-focusing lesbians did not go unnoticed, either. I'm good with the former, the latter not so much.

To be clear Vol. 2.....

I live in the world. I work, socialize, friend with, co-parent, professionally counsel, and LOVE some males. One of my best friends on the planet is a straight, biker dude.... I prefer some men's company to some women's company. So no, this is not about "separatism", wanting to sequester myself away from men, trans people, queers, or anyone.... It's about getting back to Lesbian Feminist basics - a certain kind of "politik". It's conversation like this one that have convinced me of the urgency of that....

My basics don't have to be yours (or, do they?). I'm not male-phobic, trans-phobic, mollusk-phobic or any other presumed insult or epithet anyone may subtly or overtly lob at me.... I'm lesbian/woman-centric. That may be heresy to admit these days, but there you have it.

Lesbian Separatism, partially or wholly, is: "The separation of various sorts or modes from men [sexually, for instance] and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, [male-value inculcated] and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege—this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women." [Oh no, willfull women ! ! ! !] - Marilyn Frye

Chazz

09-02-2011, 10:05 AM

Chazz --

....I still don't understand the fear, even after all these pages. I still don't understand the quest for space that seems readily available for those who seek and desire it. At any given time, I can invite ONLY Lesbians to my house for game night if I choose. Sometimes that happens, but only if my other friends, who I value just as highly can't make it.

Thoughtfully,

June

I don't understand the "fear", either. But then, I'm not given to "fear".

Chazz

09-02-2011, 11:26 AM

A man who IDs as a snake is never going to be allowed to live in the reptile enclosure at the zoo. No, I don't feel compelled out of politeness to humour that man, or the man who IDs as a lesbian. Why would I? Why should I?

Good point; it's something I think about a lot. Who's perceptions, intuitions, reality is allowed to prevail in an interaction? Mine, or another person's?

Humoring people is the politically correct thing to do these days. When you don't perform the mandated "politeness", or when you step on someone's theology/theory/beliefs, you run the risk of getting bashed, labeled and/or censored. It's anti-liberation, for some, but not all.

This is an essential issue for women because we have been forced/coerced into adopting other people's "ethic(s)" against our best interests since, well, since forever.

What are the contemporary, overt/covert ethical mandates in the culture, and the "community"? Do the mandates of the culture and the "community" differ, really, really? ....Are the community's mandates biased in favor of gender theory over Lesbian Feminism? ....Are the community mandates coercive? Do they force (some) lesbian women to self-censor, walk on eggshells, relinquish personal agency, shut-up and go away? Who's perceptions, intuitions, and reality are lesbian women suppose to embrace? Theirs or other people's? What are they to do when their's don't comport with the PC mandates? (Become "separatists", I suppose.)

These are not small issues. They're core Feminist issues.... There can be no Lesbian Pride without excavating them.

I just read a really interesting article about patriarchy's ever evolving mandates for "good girlism". It was illuminating.

"[W]hat I understand of the history of ethics in the modern period seems to fit with this [imposed standard for "good" and "evil"]. It [the cultural standard] was evolved by male citizen-administrators, working in a deep historical context of patriarchy, to enable their governing. It all makes me wonder if instead of seeking to create a Lesbian Ethics, we might consider learning to do without ethics entirely.

And I think that it may turn out that this is what Sarah’s [Sarah Lucia Hoagland's] book [Lesbian Ethics: Toward New Value] will help us accomplish. [Sought to accomplish, anyway.]

She is shifting from the language of the modem tradition of ethics: from knowing what is right to deciding what to pay attention to. And her last section is about meaning, the creation of meaning, not about “ethics.” - Marilyn Frye

As Kobi explained above, there are real repercussions to us, (lesbians), when we allow the word that describes us to become meaningless. Go ahead and call me a bigot.

Nah..... I'll call you smart and incisive. You're just not being a "good girl".

For the life of me, I don't know why people get so testy when issues like "good-girlism" are brought up. For real, I really don't.... I, for one, am really committed to excavating the remnants of whatever patriarchal "good girlism" continue to reside in me. SHRUG

Random

09-02-2011, 11:42 AM

I have a question?

What does being a feminist have anything to do with being a lesbian?

I've stayed out of this thread because I'm not a lesbian... Nothing about that word resounds with me... When I was a baby dyke/bi-girl/fag hag trying to figure out who I was, the lesbian community had no use for me, didn't take me seriously, dismissed me as a curious straight girl. I had NO clue about butches and why I was only attracted to such a small percent of women. If I had found acceptance within the lesbian community, If I had known about butchs then maybe I wouldn't have spent all those years thinking I was 90% straight and 10 percent gay....Maybe I wouldn't have married my ex husband and then put us both through hell trying to figure out why I couldn't emotionally connect with him...

I found acceptance and my *place*in the gay community with feminine gay men... These men were my *sisters* when women who should have been wanted nothing to do with me because I wore full face make up, curled my hair and wouldn't think to go out for the night unless I dress to the 9's..

I'm also not a feminist... I'm an egalitarian... I believe that if we stopped having so many different factions and all worked for a comon cause of equal rights for everyone, we might be further along...

People are the same... There is good and bad in every faction...(yes. I'm aware of the contradiction with my reasons why the word lesbian doesn't resound with me... My reasoning is.. I don't believe all lesbians communities were like the one in Colo Springs when I was a youngster...Let's just say I emprinted on Gay...) Women, Men, Black, White, POC, Gay/Trans/Straight... the list goes on... We are all the same, no one faction is better or worse...

I don't believe that all men are evil because one raped me..
I don't believe that all women are evil because one emotionally abused me..

Everyone is an individual, and while labels are useful to narrow down what you might have in common, they are not the be all and end all... When it boils down, every person is a individual with their own belief system.. ie.. June the lesbian and Kobi the lesbian...

Damn it.. I got preachy again didn't I?

Heart

09-02-2011, 12:21 PM

Chazz - Yes, you're right, I did misread. I see that you very clearly state that you don't feel alone or isolated. I was also reacting to the implication that anyone who doesn't fall in line with a particular version of lesbian empowerment is somehow not working against the oppression of women, or is suspect as a feminist. It's highly possible that at this point, I'm reading in. I don't recall using separatist in your direction, but perhaps I did. I'm too tired to go back and look.

Even in the quote below Chazz, you imply that lesbians should "focus on themselves and the forces that oppress women." Well... do you mean women, or do you mean lesbians?

It's interesting, looking back on my own lesbian feminist politics and activism... many of the lesbians I worked with side-by-side in the shelter movement were working for the benefit of all women, in fact mostly straight women, (being that there was less awareness at that time, of the amount of domestic violence in lesbian relationships). I have always defined my feminism as being on behalf of women, including lesbians, but not just lesbians. So I find this term: lesbian/woman-centric, confusing. Is it lesbian centric or women centric?

I've been called a separatist many times - often by other queers, usually when I was talking about the need for women's space, usually in the context of trans inclusion/exclusion. But I remember a young straight woman accused me of separatism based upon my anti-violence-against-women work. (She claimed, erroneously, that men were "as likely" to be abused as women.) I gave her a lesson in statistics and then said something along the lines of: As long as patriarchy and gender-genocide separate women out to be objectified, violated, oppressed, and murdered based upon being female -- go ahead and call me a separatist. I'll wear it proudly.

When I said all women, I meant lesbians. I also meant married women in Appalachia, young girls in Nepal, old women in China, and trans women in Philli.

This makes me recall a trans person I knew about 10 years ago, (we've lost touch), who took T, had facial hair, could pass as male, used a gender neutral name, and insisted on female pronouns. Why? Because she wanted to express her solidarity with women, even as she shifted her own gender life. And not just queer women, all women. It was a very interesting political decision using her own personal identity as the landscape. It's something, actually, that butch women do by virtue of their very existence -- which is why the pronoun thing (using he, hy, hie, zie, etc), sometimes leaves me feeling a sense of loss.

I have realized in the course of this discussion that I am woman-centric. I always have been. Even when I was a straight, married mom. Perhaps I confused that with being a "goldstar" lesbian, which obviously I'm not, but this thread has helped me to clarify my own focus - so for that, I am grateful.

Heart

Heart, you misread.

I'm not isolated, I have a strong lesbian/Feminist community online and off. I though I was clear about that in my last post????

As to grandiosity, well you're entitled to your opinions, but no, not really. Perhaps you're mistaking a sense of empowerment and incentive with grandiosity, or perhaps, you're administering a slap down. Either way, it's okay.....

But to be clear about the empowerment and incentive.... I think it's time for woman IDed lesbians to get back to basics, to refocus our energies on ourselves, one another and the forces that continue to oppress women. No, that's not separatism, it's self-care. The fact that a statement like that sounds like separatism (albeit a misapprehended, extreme version of separatism) to some (you?), is the problem manifest.

You have used the term "separatism" in my direction before. The inherent put-down down did not go unnoticed. Of more importance, the implied vilification of self-focusing lesbians did not go unnoticed, either. I'm good with the former, the latter not so much.

To be clear Vol. 2.....

I live in the world. I work, socialize, friend with, co-parent, professionally counsel, and LOVE some males. One of my best friends on the planet is a straight, biker dude.... I prefer some men's company to some women's company. So no, this is not about "separatism", wanting to sequester myself away from men, trans people, queers, or anyone.... It's about getting back to Lesbian Feminist basics - a certain kind of "politik". It's conversation like this one that have convinced me of the urgency of that....

My basics don't have to be yours (or, do they?). I'm not male-phobic, trans-phobic, mollusk-phobic or any other presumed insult or epithet anyone may subtly or overtly lob at me.... I'm lesbian/woman-centric. That may be heresy to admit these days, but there you have it.

Lesbian Separatism, partially or wholly, is: "The separation of various sorts or modes from men [sexually, for instance] and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, [male-value inculcated] and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege—this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women." [Oh no, willfull women ! ! ! !] - Marilyn Frye

Cin

09-02-2011, 06:10 PM

AtLast

09-03-2011, 12:11 PM

Until recently I held male as problematic, masculinity as suspect. It’s impossible to ignore all the violence and horror that men all over the world perpetrate daily against women. I was unable to separate masculinity from male, male from men and men from patriarchy. I held my own masculinity suspect and found it hard to own it. Slowly, over time, I have been able to see things a bit differently

While feminism is certainly about women it is a movement to end sexism, sexual exploitation and oppression. I don’t think we can do this without men. Women have for years re-examined and redefined femininity and what it means to be female in this sexist society. I think men need to do this as well. Men need to be responsible for examining and redefining masculinity in a different way, separate from the patriarchal model. The patriarchy really isn’t good for anyone (except, of course, those with power and money). Men are fairly screwed with this masculine ideal thing as well. Society’s definition of masculinity is so limited and limiting.

I read somewhere about defining the version of male that is about having the right to be superior, to dominate women and any group deemed weaker as patriarchal masculinity. I think it is an important term for me to get in the habit of using. I think it is an act of feminism to work on separating maleness and masculinity from this patriarchal version. I think it is intelligently feminist to understand that we also need men and masculine people to challenge patriarchy

I totally get women’s space and I do prefer to devote my energy to women. I just think it is prudent to remember that in order to end sexism, exploitation and oppression, to defeat patriarchy we will need our brothers. I don’t think it is an achievable goal without men, male identified and masculine people on our side.

Probably this is nothing new to anyone, but it is actually revolutionary thought for me.

Feminism has always included men- it is defined as equality of both sexes. Yes, there exist feminist separatists (just as there are those that base the world's worth upon that which is male)- but they are not and never have been the bulk of the various feminist movements.

Many of us have and have raised male children and as parents realized that a sexist society is not good for either females or males- society at large. However, women have traditionally received the shit end of the stick. That does not mean, however, that men, male, masculine is viewed as negative. The institutions of patriarchy are the problem, not individual men.

AtLast

09-03-2011, 12:19 PM

Chazz

09-04-2011, 12:39 PM

Chazz - Yes, you're right, I did misread. I see that you very clearly state that you don't feel alone or isolated. I was also reacting to the implication that anyone who doesn't fall in line with a particular version of lesbian empowerment is somehow not working against the oppression of women, or is suspect as a feminist. It's highly possible that at this point, I'm reading in. I don't recall using separatist in your direction, but perhaps I did. I'm too tired to go back and look.

I think "reading-in" is part and parcel to the medium.... But yes, the separatism-in-my-direction did happen. It's okay.

I have become somewhat separatist on a number of so-called "women's issues". Reproductive rights is one of them. I use to be hugely invested in that issue, but I came to see that that this was an issue that potentially reproductive women needed to take the lead on. My reasons for that are complex, idiosyncratic and include the fact that I was spreading myself thin on issues that did not directly speak to my life circumstances, barring rape.

Even in the quote below Chazz, you imply that lesbians should "focus on themselves and the forces that oppress women." Well... do you mean women, or do you mean lesbians?

I mean lesbian women.

It's interesting, looking back on my own lesbian feminist politics and activism... many of the lesbians I worked with side-by-side in the shelter movement were working for the benefit of all women, in fact mostly straight women, (being that there was less awareness at that time, of the amount of domestic violence in lesbian relationships). I have always defined my feminism as being on behalf of women, including lesbians, but not just lesbians. So I find this term: lesbian/woman-centric, confusing. Is it lesbian centric or women centric?

I was also very invested personally and professionally in the shelter movement, at one time. Now, I've opened my home to shelter women. I've had four women and several children stay at my home over the past two + years for, anywhere, from several weeks to six months.

I've been called a separatist many times - often by other queers, usually when I was talking about the need for women's space, usually in the context of trans inclusion/exclusion. But I remember a young straight woman accused me of separatism based upon my anti-violence-against-women work. (She claimed, erroneously, that men were "as likely" to be abused as women.) I gave her a lesson in statistics and then said something along the lines of: As long as patriarchy and gender-genocide separate women out to be objectified, violated, oppressed, and murdered based upon being female -- go ahead and call me a separatist. I'll wear it proudly.

Yeah, I'm good with being called a separatist, too. Even proud of it, though it's only provisionally true. I don't mind being called anything for that matter. I know who, and what, I am.

Yes, the amount of misinformation, herstoric ignorance and just plain fact spinning is amazing. Clarification on that matters to me in conversations like this one because so many people, even within the LGBTQ "community", mistakenly think of separatism as anti-male. It's not; it's woman-centricism.

When I said all women, I meant lesbians. I also meant married women in Appalachia, young girls in Nepal, old women in China, and trans women in Philli.

Some of the issues in which I'm invested include the same constituency.

This makes me recall a trans person I knew about 10 years ago, (we've lost touch), who took T, had facial hair, could pass as male, used a gender neutral name, and insisted on female pronouns. Why? Because she wanted to express her solidarity with women, even as she shifted her own gender life. And not just queer women, all women. It was a very interesting political decision using her own personal identity as the landscape. It's something, actually, that butch women do by virtue of their very existence -- which is why the pronoun thing (using he, hy, hie, zie, etc), sometimes leaves me feeling a sense of loss.

I remember a period when many "straight women" identified as lesbian as a political statement. It was a lovely gesture but not problem free because, of course, they weren't lesbians, or were only provisionally so at best. For one thing, it created the impression that lesbian was an unstable identity. This reinforces ideas about curing gayness.... It also created the superficial and false impression that women had already overcome the distortions patriarchy creates in female-on-female relationships. (The issue of female relationships is an unfinished constructive effort which I would like to see become a priority).

"Straight women" identifying as lesbians, did nothing to address the fact that many of those straight women were hetero-male-relational caretakers. Lesbians are gyna-relational caretakers. That's a huge difference, especially under patriarchy..... Patriarchy takes care of men. It only takes care of women who take care of men. That leaves gyna-relational lesbians to fend for themselves, and one another.

"[Male] comradeship/fraternity survives by draining women of their energy, female friendship is a bonding which is energizing/gynergizing. Female bonding is threatening to comradeship, because it is a relationship which ignores the brotherhood and exposes its relationships with women as property arrangements." - Nancy B. Howell (Nobody has to believe this, it's enough that I do.)

The movement-of-women is still blocked by patriarchy. It's all I can do to take care of myself and other gyna-relational lesbians. Even that can be a tremendous strain, as in when I was fighting a hetero-male-centric family court system with limited financial resources and emotional support.

I, and the lesbians I politik with, are seeking an ontological metamorphosis. That being, that women become the final cause of women under patriarchy. It's the only way I see to chip away AT patriarchy. It's become less and less a priority under post-modernist theories. Do I know that what I am saying is not popular in some circles- you betcha.

I have realized in the course of this discussion that I am woman-centric. I always have been. Even when I was a straight, married mom. Perhaps I confused that with being a "goldstar" lesbian, which obviously I'm not, but this thread has helped me to clarify my own focus - so for that, I am grateful.- Heart

I don't know what a "goldstar" lesbian is, perhaps because I've never met one. Don't expect to, either. That's okay, too.