ID's and their meanings change over time. Yes, ID's must have some meaning, and in order to mean anything, they must exclude some possibilities -- Kobi's cat, straight cis men -- but they must not be cohesive and water-tight. I learned that from reading Judith Butler. There is no need for them to be cohesive and water-tight. We as a culture and sub-culture have a working understanding of what an ID means, an understanding which is being negotiated all the time. That's just the way it works. We don't all vote on some definition, write it somewhere, and then give out cards to those who qualify.
Currently, we are trying to change who gets included, for example transwomen. Also, culture workers and activists, as well as allies, are having a conversation with the dominant culture about what it means to be a lesbian. In general, we are trying to remove pejorative associations from the ID. We also struggle not to make the ID seem all white, all middle class, etc. An effort to codify an ID is usually just a way for people who are defending the status quo to exclude others who are challenging their power within a community -- meaning white, privileged, and cis lesbians.
|