Timed Out
How Do You Identify?: Seerauber, Centaurita Bonita, QoQonut, Volupté Suprême
Preferred Pronoun?: Lux, Ms. Lisbon if you're nasty.
Relationship Status: Left of Centaur and blissfully betrothed.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Happily swooning by the big, blue sea.
Posts: 171
Thanks: 50
Thanked 375 Times in 63 Posts
Rep Power: 0
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemme
QoQ, I value your thoughts very much and, while I'm sure Blue will get back with you (since it was directed towards Blue), I'd like to address a couple of things, if you don't mind.
Of course not Gemme. 
My answers below in my beloved Courier.
Why is someone saying they are not something suddenly derogatory? I am not Native American but that does not mean that I am being derogatory towards those who are by saying that I am simply not. When did 'not' become a dirty word? If someone says that they are not Queer, I do not take offense to that. They are defining their own personal self; something I cannot do. I cannot tell them they are right or wrong. That's their determination to make, yes?
Maybe I am missing something but I just don't see it
The answer here lies within the question you asked. You are not Native American, nor am I, but would you at any time feel the need to qualify your identity as an American citizen by exclaiming that fact? Furthermore, do you make it a habit to describe yourself to people based upon all the things you aren't?
Normally, I'll say something like "I'm a Femme dyke" or "I'm gay" or "I'm Cuban", in order to give folks an idea about my identity if the subject comes up (which it does rarely and briefly offline). I never say "I'm not a gay man" or "I'm not a transensual femme" or "I'm Caribbean, but I'm certainly not Puerto Rican". To me, this seems rather nihilistic and divisive.
Not, isn't a dirty word, in and of itself. Everyone certainly has the right to make distinctions when false assumptions are made about who they are. The offense for me lies when that distinction is made with pejorative or rude language, or when it is expressed without sensitivity for those present.
I wouldn't say "I am NOT heterosexual because to me it squicks me out" around my straight friends as if being hetero was anathema. To me, it just isn't a kind way of expressing who I am.
I like the way you've worded these questions. It's easier to fit my thoughts around. I have some questions that have come from yours.
If I don't choose to embrace something, does that automatically mean I am rejecting it? Really? Have we and this world been reduced to black and white thinking? It must be this or that, with no in between or thinking outside of the box?
To your first question the answer is absolutely yes. If you make a statement denying that you are lesbian, then you are by definition rejecting that identity for yourself. As to your second question, I'm not a proponent of polarized thought at all. To me fluidity means just that, allowing oneself to embrace and travel among, many identities at once. Logically that allows little room for rejection. I have never said that a person couldn't be both lesbian and ____ and ____. But those of you who have rejected lesbian identity, seem to have assigned it a very narrow definition, and therefore, by shutting it out from the realm of possibility, in my opinion, are much nearer to black and white thinking than you believe yourself to be.
True fluidity needs to neither embrace nor reject any identity because it is capable of mercurial movement among all or none of them AND contrary to popular belief, fluidity and taxonomy can coexist peacefully.
And does a female bodied person partnering with a female bodied but MALE or MASCULINE brained partner still fall under these parameters?
Does partnering with someone who is not female brained mean that I am somehow uneasy with homosexuality within myself? Does that mean that, if I were to identify as a lesbian, that I could ONLY partner with female bodied and female brained partners?
These are questions that only you can answer for yourself. I could never, nor would I ever want to, make those determinations for someone.
If you're implying that my questions were somehow a veiled accusation, or an implication of having to choose "one or the other", I can assure you that they were not.
I can tell you that I fully embrace being a homosexual woman with all that entails. Because of that, I embrace all attendant terminology, as an act of both pride and defiance. When I was with a man, I still thought of myself as a dyke, largely because that is my authentic self. To me, identity is not determined by who we partner with, nor was I trying to imply that it is for those who do not claim "lesbian".
I asked several questions in this paragraph, some related to how we express our sexuality with another person, and some related to our own personal journeys to self actualization. For me, embracing the fact that I'm a lesbian, was a part of that journey. I just wonder how those who claim female homosexuality, while pairing that claim with the contradiction of rejecting the term lesbian, achieve peace. I was really being sincere, I'm trying to figure out how y'all come to terms with your homosexuality, since our paths to it are obviously very different.
Again, why must it be embrace or reject? Why can't something simply not apply to us?
We absolutely can proceed from a place of neutrality with regard to what doesn't apply to us. However, what I have witnessed here and elsewhere with regard to this admittedly sensitive topic, hardly passes as neutral from where I stand. If you (the general you) have no attachment to the lesbian id, then why qualify your identity by denying it?
Thanks for your thoughtful questions. My questions in response to yours are not in anger or frustration but I am genuinely confused.
Thank you too for engaging with me in a very thoughtful manner. I love and appreciate these types of discussions. For reals. 
|
Anyway, I hope this clears up some of your confusion 'cause I'm kinda tired an' shit.
ETA: If one is pan- or omnisexual, that terminology is inclusive of all forms of hetero and homo sexuality. If one embraces pan- or omnisexuality as their identity, there is no logical reason to reject ANY sexual identity.
Last edited by QueenofQueens; 12-24-2009 at 01:52 AM.
|