Some labels do not include trans in the definition

[adorable]

Originally Posted by Jess

Linus, thank you sincerely for taking the time to look over what transpired. I very much appreciate it.

I think it is an important topic and actually the above interaction only illustrates how much so.

For myself having been a butch lesbian queer dyke my whole life who has questioned almost daily whether or not I was mis-assigned or am "trans" this has been a very hard issue to wrap my head around.

I have gone through every possible scenario in my head of what it would mean for me to transition and it makes my head seriously want to explode. One on hand, having been "me" and been a part of the dyke community all of my life ( saving early childhood), it would feel like I am no longer a part "of" the hugely dysfunctional but familiar "family" I have always known. For me, it is still difficult to understand where "trans" ends and "man" starts in regard to how I would view myself in the queer community.

I view the men I know who were born in the wrong body and transitioned to the "correct" one, very clearly as MEN. I don't even understand the use of "trans" in descriptor unless it is early stage transitioning OR in the more ethereal sense of "transcendent" , meaning they are biologically one but not seeking to physically alter. "Trans" in this latter sense, meaning androgynous.. or having both aspects or neither. Does that make sense?

When I attempt to place myself in the shoes of the men who have transitioned I am awed, humbled, confused and often pained at what they may have had to endure to reach their decision to just "be".

I think it is very difficult for some of us ( self included) to understand where in the b-f dynamic "men" fit. I think sometimes that is why so many of the "gender" arguments come about. For me, I have always defined b-f as butch and femme females. I guess I naively think that once someone transitions to male, they don't really fit "b-f", because.. well... they are a man... This does not exclude them from the LGBT community, but in my tiny little brain, it just doesn't fit butch-femme. It is a different dynamic. It is man-woman or man-man or what have you. Not many men need to be described as butch, I guess.

I don't know if any of that makes any sense, but please know I am attempting to have an authentic heartfelt discussion about this. I don't know how to make all of the choices or preferences make sense. I am just trying.

Thanks again, it IS indeed a very worthy topic.

For me. ME ME ME ME.

As a history major, (who did not concentrate in Women's Studies btw) - in fact there maybe people on here who actually lived it - so please let me know if my reading of the history is inadequate...

The 1940s and 1950s were about clearly defined gender roles. The two genders were male and female. It was in the late 1960s and 1970s that some in the women's movement decided that the butch femme dynamic was oppressive and saw Butch - Femme as attempting to mimic hetro life. As time moves forward, so do social norms, societal preferences and technology. All things that we are exposed to in different ways depending on where we live, who raises us and technological accessibility.

These are also those things that make this dynamic hard to define TODAY. In past decades it has clearly been defined, misunderstood, used for good and to seperate.

To me Male IDs, TGs and FTMS DO belong in the most traditional sense of Butch-Femme, in a way that I do not.

I do belong in the newer updated we are "everything" version of butch-femme.

When the Butch-Femme dynamic became popular during the 40s & 50s, I don't think it was analyzed like this - it was a much simpler time with far less technology. Women dressed up like men, held doors, went to work in factories and had their "wife" at home. So did almost every other 1950s household. It was a reflection of society then.

WE (the all inclusive WE) are the reflection of society now.