![]() |
Quote:
Also I have not stated how I identify as far as "lesbian" goes... I'm not sure what you "do not have any issues with" as far as my identity. ETA: (because I just read your most recent post) I personally in no way got the impression you hate lesbians, (and I'm wondering where that was implied)... and I am truly sorry you're as upset as you are, unfortunately when people have hard discussions it can feel personal... I assure you on my end it's not. |
Quote:
Just sometimes when someone new, or who thinks differently says we are all Lesbians, the responses can sound like being a Lesbian is the most disgusting thing in the world. I understand that to you, this is true and I understand why. I just wish that the general you, not you personally, would maybe use a softer tone when discussing Lesbians. It is just as hurtful to us/them, as it was to you those times when someone told you you were not a good Lesbian. Make sense at all? |
Quote:
Cheers Aj |
I'm going to say this once and then leave the thread, because I've had it trying to say this over and over. NO ONE has said that being a lesbian is a bad thing, NO ONE has implied that lesbians are less than, NO ONE has said anything about lesbians that even in the slightest way puts down lesbians. What has been said is that not ALL homosexual women ARE lesbians. All this getting upset over something not said or implied by those who who have stated they aren't lesbians is foolishness and down right crap. Now have fun tearing folks apart over what hasn't been said. It's starting to sound like a broken record, and isn't community building in the least.
Have a wonderful Holiday! |
Quote:
And since I actually agree with what you said, I somehow felt we had less right to be hurt than Arwen. ugh ugh ugh. My appologies. |
Corkey there are people here who are lesbians who think that derogatory things have been said here- so our opinions don't matter?
Arwen and anyone else, I personally don't care whether anyone identifies as a lesbian or not, but I don't appreciate the stereotypes and the oh ick lesbian sentiments or that we are somehow less evolved- which is all in this thread. |
OH MY GOD...this is just unbelievable!!!
I can't wait to get back in here!!!! LOL! Just because you are a Lesbian, taking offense to others not IDing as a Lesbian, not liking the word Lesbian or not relating to what some may call "Lesbian Sex" is just selfish and ridiculous! YOU are a Lesbian! GREAT! I LOVE Lesbians!!!! We LOVE Lesbians. I do not identify as one! Many of us do not identify as one! SO WHAT! I have noticed a glaze over some posters EYES who don't really act like they really want to understand, and I mean REALLY understand someone different then themselves or maybe it's just emotional or mental blockage. No one is out to make Lesbian extinct...but she sure is changing and evolving! |
I personally haven't seen anyone object to anyone else not identifying as a lesbian. Are we speaking different languages? WTF
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You conclude that we are Changing and Evolving. What exactly do you mean by that? |
Quote:
All I can say to that is please quote where people actually stated they take offense to others not ID'ing as lesbian when you do... the last thing that's needed here is more twisting and misunderstanding of peoples statements just to stir the pot. Not saying that you like to do that... would just like to see people using quotes INSTEAD of restating people comments using entirely different words... hence changing the context... and then arguing the altered context. |
well hi.
sorry it took me so long to get back into the swing of the discussion. i'm not avoiding. some last minute research kept me busy until now. since i seem to be the trouble-starter this week i'd like to begin with an apology to anyone i've offended with my opinions and my lack of understanding, whether real or perceived. for my real lack of understanding, i beg patience. i am not unwilling to be wrong, to admit wrongness, to be taught, to learn and to grow. i welcome the opportunity. for my perceived lack of understanding, i beg tolerance. if i am not being clear it is because i do not know i am being unclear, not because i am obtuse or because i simply refuse to be clear. we use language differently, even if the language is the same one. we use it differently because we are different from one another, even if we are all human. we have different filters, different experiences, different minds and philosophies, and different abilities with regard to critical thinking. i will be the first to admit that i have noticed some cognitive challenges in the last year, mostly having to do with short term memory and with some long term recall. neither of those things hamper my feeling, nor do they hamper my desire to participate positively in conversation, even difficult conversation, and to listen and learn and contribute and be heard. i'd like to clear up any misunderstanding my posts may have created for anyone by saying the following: 1) i have absolutely no issue with the word "lesbian". i have no issue with any word of which i can think. because language and semiotics and marginalization make up the bulk of my work, i find it difficult to take offense with words, symbolism or the life experiences of others, period. 2) i do not identify my self, my life, my core, my being or my experiences as being a "lesbian" self, life, core, being or experiences. if others do, then they do. i dont have any feelings about the identifying words of others except to acknowledge and respect them and to use those words as required by the people who adopt them. i feel nothing but respect for the experiences of others. i have no need or desire (overt or hidden) to feel otherwise. 3) i have no issue with a dictionary definition of any word. limitations in print demand that many definitions be curtailed. dictionaries change every year. words are added and eliminated. there are dictionaries for "archaic" language and urban dictionaries and culturally relevant dictionaries and so on ad nauseum. none of them are "wrong" or "right" so much as they just "are". they account for the averaging of a particular language as well as a collective human understanding of concepts and ideas. they do not, however, encompass all that "is". there exists too much of everything for that. 4) if one person feels complete and satisfied with the definition of the word "Dog" as one that encompasses all domestic canines, i am not offended. if another person feels the same definition is limiting of specifics and variation and nuances and so on, i am not offended. if someone does not feel the word "Dog" encompasses all that some dogs are, i am not offended. i understand that my analogy is silly...but it serves my point somewhat. if a person says X is the word i use to identify myself with then i too refer to them as X. if someone says i do not use the word X...i use the word Y...then i also use the word Y to refer to them. my opinion and my language do not matter. Y is the word i use, out of respect primarily. my understanding expands to encompass the word Y as something new in my paradigm. that is evolution on the individual level. many individuals, all expanding their paradigm, leads to evolution on a more global level. it is critical thinking and philosophical growth at its best. 5) i am neither a "lesbian" by the dictionary definition nor by a personal one. i do not partner with people who identify themselves as women. i partner with transguys and/or male ID'd butches. the words i use are not "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" because i do not feel they are right for me. i do not have a single solitary issue with any of those words or anyone who uses them to define themselves. they are simply not my words. i do not speak for anyone except myself unless i am relating the stories and experiences i've been privy to and am free to relate and then, i am not doing so to represent anyone, i am simply relating a story. i do not speak FOR anyone except myself. any belief to the contrary is mistaken. 6) if someone tells me they are X...because they've been told they are X or the dictionary defines them as X...i worry, but i accept their decision. if the same person tells me they are X...because they feel X and they know they are X then i accept them as X and do not worry. i expect the same in return. as an example, if a person tells me they are a butch, female identified lesbian then i go forward using those words for that friend. if someone tells me they are a male identified butch, a genderqueer person, a lesbian, a transguy, a man, intersexed or that they use specific pronouns (hy, hir, ze, she, he and so on) i assimilate those words for that friend. it is not confusing to me and it does not bother me. i wouldnt presume to be bothered by the words anyone else uses for themselves. 7) i expect to be treated with the same consideration i extend. when i am not, i remove myself from the situation. if i am considered unacceptable it does not bother me. i am comfortable being unacceptable. moreso than i would be conforming to an identity that is not mine. i am a queer transsensual femme. as with all people, my understanding of myself continues to evolve as my mind evolves in its role as part of cultural and global evolution. when someone calls me a lesbian i am going to engage in conversation with them and give them different words for me. i am going to do that because i respect myself and because i respect them enough to share myself with them on a personal level. i grew up in a world where lesbian was the ONLY word to use. as the world and my understanding changed i realized i was using a word that did not belong to me. it is not only out of respect for myself that i now use different words, but because i see some of the nuances of words that makes me feel as though i am being moe respectful of others when i DONT use the word for myself. that may be an odd-Kathlene-only phenomenon, but it is how i feel nonetheless. words dont offend me. they are tools. mistakes dont offend me. they are also tools. intent and intention are the things that can carry the weight of offense in my world. regardless of my feelings, in the moment or long term, i also choose to believe that things are not solely as i see them...because it is impossible for me to see everything. i will be honest about my own feelings. that's the point of this long-winded and slightly pedantic post. in the same long breath, i refuse to presume that anyone here has either intent or intention to harm/offend/marginalize me. thanx for playing. :hippie: ~ ~ ~ ~ |
Quote:
Think of it in the ways that computers evolve and change. For example, my first computer, which I bought back in the early 90's, was a 486/SX with (get ready for it) 16mb of RAM and a 126mb hard drive! Now, if I still had that machine I'm sure it would probably boot up but it wouldn't really be useful and no sane person would want one other than as a museum piece. There's nothing *wrong* with the 486/SX. It had its time and is an interesting piece of history but anyone who thinks it is still a truly useful piece of technology is hopelessly antiquarian and perhaps should be put out to technological pasture lest they mess things up for the rest of us. If one is still using a 486/SX one should, at minimum, have the common decency to be embarrassed about it. My 18 month old Macbook Pro, on the other hand, has 4GB of RAM and 320GB hard drive. It is shiny and new. Hell the *video card* has 512mb of ram on it! It is useful, cool, and oh-so-very-sexy, if I do say so myself. Anyone should be happy and proud to have one. It has evolved. Now, of course, there's nothing WRONG with the person using a 19 year old computer---I mean some of my best friend's and all that. But really, my first machine could run one program at a time. If I was using Word Perfect, I couldn't play Sim City. My MBP has, as I write this, 15 programs running including iTunes with a 40GB music library. I still have another gig and a half to spare and I have not, in the nearly two years I've had it, managed to get my available memory down below a GB and trust me I have tried! Modern, sleek, useful. It's sort of like that. Lesbians are 486/SX's, post-lesbians are Macbook Pros. </tongue> Cheers Aj |
Quote:
i wanted to take time to comment on your very honest and feeling post because i am the trouble maker in this conversation. thank you for putting words to your feelings. i appreciate hearing them very sincerely. i do not find it necessary, satisfying, relevant, desirable or appropriate to "ridicule" or "minimize" anyone...not women, not lesbians, not butches, not femmes, not transpersons, not genderqueers, not anyone. even Hitler gets 1 point on the scoreboard from me (he was a good artist). i do not think the terms lesbian and woman are antiquated. i do not think they are irrelevant. if i have not made myself clear, i apologize. i see nothing wrong with any word i can think of. i wouldnt presume to find language offensive. i find it limiting at times, and i like watching its expansion, but i do not think it is wrong or right or any of those qualifying words. language just is. i will make my point with something you said that proves the ways in which people using the same language can hear or understand 2 vastly different things. you said: p.s. Cyclopea I saw absolutely nothing hostile in your tone. I thought you were being very matter of fact. I believe what some are saying is that female homosexual has more than one meaning. i thought that Cyclopea was saying exactly the opposite. thank you again for your honesty. :hippie: |
Quote:
Now, does the Macbook Pro Lesbian eat p*ssy? :jester: |
Quote:
Pardon the derail, but I think you used this analogy just to show off your computer. pfftt. lol. |
Quote:
Cheers Aj |
SNIP ===>
Quote:
the only reason i wondered if the concepts of "lesbian = female homosexual = a woman who has sex with women" is because that seems to limit the definition of a person to whomever they have sex with. :hippie: |
Quote:
this is such a good question. and i think the answer is both "yes and no". we're speaking exactly the same language. but our angst proves that the dictionary definition of words isnt the only way in which we understand words! you understand one thing and i understand another. it doesnt make either of us wrong, it simply means there's a learning curve to understanding one another's filters and perspectives with regard to language. Cyclopea asked relevant questions and so did i. neither of us did the best job answering the other. i left the conversation feeling like i was being invalidated and definitely like the enemy. today, i still feel like the enemy. no one called me the enemy but it does not prevent me from feeling that way. i dont blame anyone for the way i feel. but that i was regarded as the enemy was made clear in more than one mind based on the PMs i've gotten. it wouldn surprise me to discover that those on the opposite side of the discussion feel invalidated as well. one of the reasons people react so strongly is because they feel threatened. fortunately, here, we share the one thing that makes conversations like this possible: we all believe it's important is to remind one another that individual opinions dont necessarily mean that we think the other is wrong. it only means that we dont understand one another yet. |
As another trouble-maker on this thread, I wanted to explain why I think that the meanings of words matter. Now, because I'm going to use examples using race I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think anyone on this thread is racist, has said anything racist, or would ever say anything racist. It is just that the examples I have at hand use race.
If words evolve and have no flexible meaning then it would require me to take a face value the following statement: "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friend's are black. I just don't know what you people are calling yourself this decade so I just use the n-word." Or, one my favorites..."I'm not a racist. I just think that there's the 'good blacks', like you, and the n-word blacks, like the rest of them". Now, does the disclaimer "I'm not a racist" mean that the person is not expressing racist sentiment? Does the word racist have a meaning that is commonly agreed upon and, more or less, fixed or is it fluid such that someone could make statements like the two above (both of which I have heard, in some variation, multiple times in my 42 years) and by merely invoking the phrase "I'm not a racist..." means that whatever racist might mean, it cannot mean them. I live by the idea that racist (like other words) have a more-or-less fixed meaning and that merely saying "I'm not a racist but..." does not confer some magical, water-to-wine fairy dust on the words that immediately follow such that no matter how racist they might SOUND they are not, actually, racist because the person has just proclaimed that they are not racist. I use this as an example and I'll admit it is an extreme, in your face, example because I want to make it clear WHY I think that language matters in the way that I do. I am perfectly willing to admit that my view may be hopelessly antiquarian and, if I dare say so, 20th century. It probably is. I am a product of my time. Cheers Aj Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:31 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018