Originally Posted by Martina (Post 394536)

i have seen that too. Or about any issue around women. It was not my intent to shut down discussion of lesbian identity or to divert it to a discussion of transphobia. i probably could have made all my points without saying that. i am sure it is part of the mix of motivations for some folks who use this rhetoric because it is explicitly said. Not here. i agree with you.

i am not saying that there aren't many other reasons to experience lesbian ID as challenged. i hate defending myself, but on the dash site, i spent a lot of time and energy trying to end the lesbian bashing that was tolerated for so long there.

In any case, i agree with the moderators that parsing this out is probably the work of another thread.

Re the assumption of lesbian = woman loving woman, i gotta say that on this site, that IS excluding folk. i guess we know that.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek (Post 394693)

I don't think anyone here fits any particular stereotype nor do I think one needs to fit them in order to have a place within a community. I don't fit the stereotype of either a lesbian or a black lesbian. Yet, I claim lesbian as part of my identity. This discussion illustrates the problem with identity politics. In fact, it illustrates both problems with IdPol and why I would love to see the queer community abandon it. the first problem is that identity politics, whatever utility it might have, is an invitation to a kind of hair-splitting, micro-parsing of language that obfuscates more than it illuminates. What I'm seeing happen now is that *because* identity has been used to exclude, we've decided that now identity (labels) are the problem. The issue, of course, is that we don't really abandon labels or qualifying our views based upon this or that sociological category. So in pursuit of not being boxed in by labels we've gone the other direction. It's not just 'lesbian doesn't encompass me' (if that is the stance one is taking) but "as a fat-positive, female-identified, black, butch geekgirl, I find labels restricting so I reject <insert label I've decided I don't want applied to me here>." The problem with this is that it is incoherent as I've tried to point out. If our identities are so fluid that anyone can assert any identity they wish and everyone else is obliged to simply go with it out of a misguided sense of 'respect' then we have no basis for claiming that Rush Limbaugh has no business critiquing this or that aspect of black American life--unless we're going to just drop all pretense to fairness and admit that identity is fluid and self-claiming unless, of course, the person claiming an identity is someone we dislike or disagree with or otherwise find disagreeable. If we're going to do that--and to take the strong form of 'your identity is what you say it is' you pretty much have to--then we should at least be willing to be honest that our position is just as bigoted as that which we rail against with all justification. Anything else pretty much falls apart of its own weight.

The second problem with identity politics is that it invites us to engage in oppression Olympics. By that I mean that if Heart and I disagree whichever one of us hits the "you're being oppressive" button fastest wins the argument. For not-entirely-bad reasons, four or five decades ago, the idea was put forth that if a white man and a black man were talking about race in America, fair-minded listeners could prove their fair-mindedness by giving more weight to the black man than the white man. The downside--the unintended consequence--is that now whichever speaker gets to "you're the oppressor" first wins the argument. It doesn't matter if their actual argument is so full of holes that Swiss cheese looks like a block of granite in comparison, if I get there first then you lose. So even in this discussion, we see a jockeying to determine which group is being oppressed. We are all so concerned about being labeled the oppressor that we--as a community--have avoided conversations that, quite honestly, have needed to be brought out into the open for the better part of a decade.

A number of lesbians--on a site named Butch Femme Planet, mind you--have expressed feeling like outsiders or strangers in their own community. When a butch lesbian, on a site ostensibly about building community around butch and femme identity--feels like an outsider or a stranger in her own land, then we should all probably stop and take notice. It means that somehow, in some way, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. Like some other women-identified butches have expressed, I feel like a stranger in my own land. As I've put it to my wife on a number of occasions, I feel like woman-identified butches are viewed as children of a lesser goddess. Yet to say so is to invite accusations of transphobia--even though such an accusation would be, in my case, patently ludicrous.

I do not have a solution for this, I'm simply trying to point out the uncomfortable dynamics at work.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by CherylNYC (Post 394696)

There are stereotypes about every ethnic, racial, cultural and sexual ID. Most are untrue, and some of those stereotypes exist in opposition to other, equally well known stereotypes. For instance, Jewish people have often been stereotyped as cheap skinflints. Conversely, Jewish people are also stereotyped as giving large sums of money to causes important to them. Are either or neither of these things true? Are either of these stereotypes more true of Jews than of any other minority? Most importantly, do Jews regularly disavow their heritage if they don't fit into known stereotypes?

Why is it so easy for us to say, 'Well I/she/they can't be lesbian because I/she/they don't wear flannel and Birkenstocks/hate men/ride a motorcycle to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, etc.? (Full disclosure- I've never owned Birkenstocks, but I have once ridden my motorcycle to Mich-fest. It was the year that the Seps tried to oust the Leatherdykes, but that's another post.) Why do we allow others to define this essential part of who we are based on a collection of stereotypes which may or may not be outdated and irrelevant? Is there some perfect andro-lesbian with an, ummm, magic wand, running around conferring twoo lesbian status on the anointed few who fit every stereotype?

Of the lesbians in my circles who are not b-f or leatherdykes, each and every one of them still fail to conform to the perfect lesbian stereotype in at least one way. Do they also have to question whether they're a twoo lesbian? And why do we care whether or not another lesbian thinks we're lesbian enough anyway?

Why are we, seemingly alone amongst all the other minorities, so ready to throw each other and ourselves out of the lesbian club? These questions have been bothering me for the 28 or more years that I've been an out lesbian.

Originally Posted by apocalipstic (Post 394702)

Thank you for answering. I get what you are saying.

Maybe having these discussions makes us feel left out. For myself, maybe I am a bit bitter from all the discussions and expectations over the years.

My question here is....why are we only upset that Butch Lesbians don't feel accepted of like they have a place? I agree 100% its been a problem for a long time (maybe always) and I am not trying to play Opression Olympics.

I want to feel proud.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek (Post 394706)

I don't think we're only upset about it when butch lesbians don't feel accepted or have a place. I think that it is a point of discussion *here* because I think that butch lesbians are the canaries in the lesbian coalmine. The issue is focusing on lesbians and lesbian identity because one would think that on a butch-femme site lesbians would at least feel welcome and not feel like interlopers.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by BullDog (Post 394707)

One other quick thought on the issue of appropriation. I think lesbian is still often quite the dirty word in BF circles so I don't see those who don't really identify as one wanting to appropriate it. I don't see that as a real problem. Maybe I am missing something.

Originally Posted by BullDog (Post 394707)

One other quick thought on the issue of appropriation. I think lesbian is still often quite the dirty word in BF circles so I don't see those who don't really identify as one wanting to appropriate it. I don't see that as a real problem. Maybe I am missing something.

Originally Posted by apocalipstic (Post 394686)

Any suggestions on how those of us who are older and have never been accepted by the Lesbian community (though we definitely qualify, but don't look like we do) can find community and regain our sense of Pride?

Originally Posted by DapperButch (Post 389514)

Some people regard the term female = sex and woman = gender.

There are definitely butches who define as female, but not as women. I defined that way for many years and know quite a many butch who still does. Here the term woman is seen as being connected to a social construct, rather than it being connected to one's biology.

(Hope you were actually asking the question?)

Originally Posted by OS Butch (Post 394794)

LOL! I looked at what I said that someone thanked me..... I suppose I should have written I am all 3, Female, Woman and Butch to boot! What a deal I am!
Seems I left something else out, I am a Lesbian too!

Originally Posted by nycfembbw (Post 394796)

Originally Posted by Kobi (Post 394660)

Originally Posted by Heart (Post 394741)

I'm older and other than a few dopes, I have never felt unaccepted by the lesbian community at large. Granted, I was not out as a femme until 2000, and I'm in NY, a pretty diverse queer community.

I don't experience some big monolithic lesbian community from which I am excluded, nor do I have expectations about how I should be embraced. Apoc - you asked how those who do not "fit the stereotype" can be accepted... but perhaps your belief in a lesbian stereotype is part of the problem... are you excluding yourself? Are you allowing the dictates of a few to determine your space? Or your pride?

But if we want to play this out -- what I see as the stumbling block in the decades-long struggles within lesbian/queer women's communities about who belongs/who doesn't, what the criteria is, who get's marginalized, etc is... (I bet you can guess what I'm going to say)... the reality of institutionalized patriarchy and the internalized sexism and misogyny that results among women. Lesbians, as women who were visibly violating the patriarchy were marginalized. They banded together, closing ranks against patriarchal (read male) influence and control. That was a necessary reaction to patriarchy - being outlaws means being clear about who is safe and who isn't. The internalized part is where those lesbians were suspicious of other lesbians who appeared to embody anything they deemed patriarchal - like any amount of femininity, or too much masculinity, or penetrative sex, for example.

We've come quite a distance from some of these limitations, but it's like a rubber-band -- it stretches, then snaps back, then stretches again. The thing that concerns me is when we fight each other at the expense of fighting patriarchy, sexism, misogyny, racism, classism, etc. This brings us full circle to the issue of diversity, solidarity, allyship, building bridges, and inclusivity. My biggest concern about what happened in the BV organization is that they deleted "feminism" from their mission statement. In no way can any queer organization speak for lesbians, butch women, women of color, transwomen or any women if they are not clear about their feminist principles.

I'm rambling... and I realize I'm off the topic of lesbian pride...

Heart

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy (Post 395029)

Thank you for your insightful response, Kobi.

I have some thoughts about this which I want to stew on a bit more before I let out, but one in particular is overwhelming me.


Pride. I've noticed in my own circles that it has become particularly passe to stand up to people. If someone says something you don't agree with you just respond with "ok whatever" and go on your merry way. I have rarely seen someone stand up and say "no, I am proud to be who i am, and this is why". There is quite a bit of fear surrounding acceptance and I think individuals are less likely to express pride in something if they feel it will alienate them from their chosen support group or social circle. This may be yet another folly of youth, which I am unfortunately subject to all too frequently, but the revelation is stunning to me this morning. This is something I will keep in the back of my mind and tumble around until it is a smooth, shiny concept. I do not want to be a "go with the flow" girl at the expense of my beliefs, no matter how many "friends" I lose.

Do you think it's an affliction of the younger generations to detest conflict so much that they avoid defending their beliefs? To me this seems VERY different from the approach taken by community members who are older than myself. Am I mistaken in this?

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy (Post 395029)

Do you think it's an affliction of the younger generations to detest conflict so much that they avoid defending their beliefs? To me this seems VERY different from the approach taken by community members who are older than myself. Am I mistaken in this?

Originally Posted by apocalipstic (Post 395104)

20 years ago I wanted to be a lesbian Separatist (until I was told no blowdryers and tweezers were allowed :|) and now I am having to dig deep to say I am proud of even being a Lesbian.