[ardentfemme]

Esme, love the science tidbits! Can't wait to read the other post you mentioned.

So, I just had this interaction and I have to share it...

person: Why do some lesbians pretend to be men? I hate that. Like… you have a who-hah. Act like it!

my pedantic ass: Actually, they’re not pretending to be men. Gender is much more complex than that. The thing is, one’s gender isn’t tied to one’s biological sex. That view is called biological determinism and has been definitively debunked. This perspective gave rise to the gender binary that we have today, which posits that Man and Woman are the only discrete genders in existence. Unfortunately, this binary, which is enforced culturally, politically, and economically, leaves out many people.

The truth is, gender is a social construct. “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman,” wrote Simone de Beauvoir in the seminal feminist text, The Second Sex. Or, as Judith Butler argues, one doesn’t merely have a gender; one does gender – a person’s gender is a result of the interaction between repeated expression and feedback from society. Moreover, an individual is judged in terms of their failure or success to meet gendered societal expectations. Using the traditional Hegelian dialectic as a guide, we find that to have one gender presupposes the existence of the other; that is, the category of Man is contrasted with that of Woman. Each is separate from the other, but simultaneously inseparable. To have one is to have the other. This “unity of opposites” has been used by many materialists to describe contradictory relationships such as worker and capitalist. The terms “worker” and “boss” have no meaning without the other’s existence. Form and content are inseparable. Historically, Woman has been defined against Man, which is symptomatic of deep-seated androcentrism. But that’s a story for another day.

All this doesn’t mean that gender is fake – on the contrary, gender has very real implications. Just like money. Humans have attributed certain values to little slips of paper and we have collectively agreed to uphold this man-made value of the paper and the distinctions between denominations, for example. Again, this analogy does not mean that one’s gender is false, pretend, or insignificant. Rather, it offers the liberating possibility of gender diversity – each individual expressing and engaging with their gender on their own terms.

However, some people, principally second wave radical feminists, want to abolish gender altogether, claiming that it is merely a political tool of oppression. Personally, I’m of the opinion that it is patriarchy, not gender that’s the culprit. Instead of abolishing gender outright, I envision a future in which all people within and outside the gender spectrum can be themselves – trans, two spirit, agender, and gender non-conforming folks across the board. This goes back to the idea of engaging with gender in a meaningful and affirming way. For example, I am deeply connected to my femininity, but I feel unsafe on a day-to-day basis as a stereotypically feminine woman presenting as such, since we live in a profoundly misogynistic, heteropatriarchal society. That means that when I’m groped on the bus, I’m asked why I was wearing a skirt and if I wasn’t inviting sexual attention with my clothing choice, instead of asking why a man felt entitled to access my body without my consent. In an ideal world, I could present the way I wanted and enjoy inhabiting my gender without threats to my physical safety.

As to your question about “lesbians pretending to be men,” now that the concept of gender has been pretty well delineated, we can delve into this particular caveat. I believe you are referring to butches (or perhaps masculine-of-center/gender non-conforming folks more broadly). While gender non-conforming people have existed since the dawn of time, the term “butch” originated in 1940s/1950s bar culture in primarily working-class areas of American cities. To put it simply, butches were more stereotypically masculine-presenting women and fems were stereotypically feminine-presenting. Fems subverted this femininity by performing it/engaging with it explicitly for other women, not for the purpose of catering to the male gaze. There’s a ton of nuance and historical details that I’m leaving out here, but butch and fem identities essentially lent themselves directly to courtship rituals – thereby facilitating romantic relationships.

Furthermore, butches and fems have a long history of resistance and resilience. In the pre-Stonewall days, they fought alongside drag queens, trans folk, and other gender outlaws against violent homophobes and during police raids. They fought for their space at the bar, for their lovers, and for their lives. Then, they stood their ground during the Stonewall uprising. In fact, some claim that a proud butch performer and activist, Stormé DeLarverie, even threw the first punch on that momentous occasion (and a trans woman of color, Marsha P. Johnson, the first brick), thereby paving the way for the LGBT rights movement in the United States.

The terms “butch” and “fem” are historically rooted, and, as such, some people today claim that they are archaic or that they ape heterosexual roles. These people want to move beyond labels altogether. Personally, I find (re)claiming “butch” and “fem” extremely powerful. The word “fem” (alternatively spelled “femme”) best resonates with my gender and sexual identity. Moreover, the claim that butches and fems are mimicking straight people or perpetuating heteronormative roles is untenable because gendered activities become depoliticized in the context of a relationship between two women. However, on another note, there are plenty of lesbians who don’t identify with either “butch” or “fem” and they are just as valid and worthy of support.

So what I’m saying is “butch” is a completely authentic and distinct gender. To suggest any less would be ahistorical and would reflect a misinterpretation or lack of understanding of gender.

person: Wait a minute… You’re a… dyke?!?