View Single Post
Old 12-27-2013, 07:17 PM   #256
Paradox
Junior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Constant Outsider - Humanist
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Single
 

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Toronto - Canada
Posts: 59
Thanks: 57
Thanked 191 Times in 49 Posts
Rep Power: 1217577
Paradox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST ReputationParadox Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaMa'am View Post
Hi Paradox,

This made me wonder: is Toronto perhaps not the mecca of gayville, but only the mecca of a certain subgroup of gayville?

I'm familiar with the idea of Toronto as a gay mecca, although my perception was that it was more of a mecca for gay men. I'm not sure where I got that idea, and it could simply be another case of "women are often ignored in the media."

Could it be that the OS b/f mecca is located elsewhere? I think in the Atlanta/Decatur, Georgia area we still have quite a lot. There are certainly lots of queer people who identify in other ways, and maybe it's because I've lived here for 27 of my 48 years, but I see butches and femmes all the time who are people I don't know and don't recall ever having seen before. Of course, I'm the one identifying them as what I would call "butch" and "femme", and I don't ask them how they self-identify. (Do work pants and a tool belt make a butch? . . . gosh, I hope so.)

I'm not claiming the b/f capitol for our own, but I'm wondering what others think? (I'll need to start thinking of retirement communities fairly soon, and I don't think Scottsdale, Arizona would suit me.)
Yes I would agree that the Toronto LGBT 'scene' is more applicable and tailored towards subgroup (gay men). Not a very strong representation of queer women. No surprise really.
From your reply it brings a thought.
Are we not 'seeing' the b/f because we have a preconceived visual cues of what we believe b/f is?
Maybe they are out there but the image is far more different than before. From your example; Work pants and tool belt was (may still for some) be an automatic definer for a butch. Heels, purse and make up for a femme. Like wearing a uniform you knew what team they played for and what position (in theory). Now perhaps with the uniforms removed our prejudgements are kept at bay. (This sentence can be read in such a different way - )

Is this a good thing? In some ways definitely. It's the whole 'don't judge the book by it's cover' sort of thing.
The Flip side? It can make it harder to figure out a person.

So maybe there are more b/f and perhaps more femme that like butches/andro than I have noticed. Have to enhance my scanning skills.
Paradox is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Paradox For This Useful Post: