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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

[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.

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.

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

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




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. ! ! ! !


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.)


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.


:hangloose:


'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 ! ! ! !



When you stop being confused, be concerned.

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.

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.

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.

Hmm. This kind of reminds me of the right-wing arguments against same-sex marriage. If gays can marry, they say, that changes the definition of marriage and therefore impacts their straight marriages. Same logic going on.

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)

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.

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.

Moderation