"Butch" and "Femme" - Truly Antiquated Terms or More Marginalization?

[dreadgeek]

As another trouble-maker on this thread, I wanted to explain why I think that the meanings of words matter. Now, because I'm going to use examples using race I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think anyone on this thread is racist, has said anything racist, or would ever say anything racist. It is just that the examples I have at hand use race.

If words evolve and have no flexible meaning then it would require me to take a face value the following statement: "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friend's are black. I just don't know what you people are calling yourself this decade so I just use the n-word." Or, one my favorites..."I'm not a racist. I just think that there's the 'good blacks', like you, and the n-word blacks, like the rest of them". Now, does the disclaimer "I'm not a racist" mean that the person is not expressing racist sentiment? Does the word racist have a meaning that is commonly agreed upon and, more or less, fixed or is it fluid such that someone could make statements like the two above (both of which I have heard, in some variation, multiple times in my 42 years) and by merely invoking the phrase "I'm not a racist..." means that whatever racist might mean, it cannot mean them.

I live by the idea that racist (like other words) have a more-or-less fixed meaning and that merely saying "I'm not a racist but..." does not confer some magical, water-to-wine fairy dust on the words that immediately follow such that no matter how racist they might SOUND they are not, actually, racist because the person has just proclaimed that they are not racist.

I use this as an example and I'll admit it is an extreme, in your face, example because I want to make it clear WHY I think that language matters in the way that I do.

I am perfectly willing to admit that my view may be hopelessly antiquarian and, if I dare say so, 20th century. It probably is. I am a product of my time.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

well hi.

sorry it took me so long to get back into the swing of the discussion. i'm not avoiding. some last minute research kept me busy until now.

since i seem to be the trouble-starter this week i'd like to begin with an apology to anyone i've offended with my opinions and my lack of understanding, whether real or perceived.

for my real lack of understanding, i beg patience. i am not unwilling to be wrong, to admit wrongness, to be taught, to learn and to grow. i welcome the opportunity.

for my perceived lack of understanding, i beg tolerance. if i am not being clear it is because i do not know i am being unclear, not because i am obtuse or because i simply refuse to be clear. we use language differently, even if the language is the same one. we use it differently because we are different from one another, even if we are all human. we have different filters, different experiences, different minds and philosophies, and different abilities with regard to critical thinking. i will be the first to admit that i have noticed some cognitive challenges in the last year, mostly having to do with short term memory and with some long term recall. neither of those things hamper my feeling, nor do they hamper my desire to participate positively in conversation, even difficult conversation, and to listen and learn and contribute and be heard.

i'd like to clear up any misunderstanding my posts may have created for anyone by saying the following:

1) i have absolutely no issue with the word "lesbian". i have no issue with any word of which i can think. because language and semiotics and marginalization make up the bulk of my work, i find it difficult to take offense with words, symbolism or the life experiences of others, period.

2) i do not identify my self, my life, my core, my being or my experiences as being a "lesbian" self, life, core, being or experiences. if others do, then they do. i dont have any feelings about the identifying words of others except to acknowledge and respect them and to use those words as required by the people who adopt them. i feel nothing but respect for the experiences of others. i have no need or desire (overt or hidden) to feel otherwise.

3) i have no issue with a dictionary definition of any word. limitations in print demand that many definitions be curtailed. dictionaries change every year. words are added and eliminated. there are dictionaries for "archaic" language and urban dictionaries and culturally relevant dictionaries and so on ad nauseum. none of them are "wrong" or "right" so much as they just "are". they account for the averaging of a particular language as well as a collective human understanding of concepts and ideas. they do not, however, encompass all that "is". there exists too much of everything for that.

4) if one person feels complete and satisfied with the definition of the word "Dog" as one that encompasses all domestic canines, i am not offended. if another person feels the same definition is limiting of specifics and variation and nuances and so on, i am not offended. if someone does not feel the word "Dog" encompasses all that some dogs are, i am not offended. i understand that my analogy is silly...but it serves my point somewhat. if a person says X is the word i use to identify myself with then i too refer to them as X. if someone says i do not use the word X...i use the word Y...then i also use the word Y to refer to them. my opinion and my language do not matter. Y is the word i use, out of respect primarily. my understanding expands to encompass the word Y as something new in my paradigm. that is evolution on the individual level. many individuals, all expanding their paradigm, leads to evolution on a more global level. it is critical thinking and philosophical growth at its best.

5) i am neither a "lesbian" by the dictionary definition nor by a personal one. i do not partner with people who identify themselves as women. i partner with transguys and/or male ID'd butches. the words i use are not "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" because i do not feel they are right for me. i do not have a single solitary issue with any of those words or anyone who uses them to define themselves. they are simply not my words. i do not speak for anyone except myself unless i am relating the stories and experiences i've been privy to and am free to relate and then, i am not doing so to represent anyone, i am simply relating a story. i do not speak FOR anyone except myself. any belief to the contrary is mistaken.

6) if someone tells me they are X...because they've been told they are X or the dictionary defines them as X...i worry, but i accept their decision. if the same person tells me they are X...because they feel X and they know they are X then i accept them as X and do not worry. i expect the same in return. as an example, if a person tells me they are a butch, female identified lesbian then i go forward using those words for that friend. if someone tells me they are a male identified butch, a genderqueer person, a lesbian, a transguy, a man, intersexed or that they use specific pronouns (hy, hir, ze, she, he and so on) i assimilate those words for that friend. it is not confusing to me and it does not bother me. i wouldnt presume to be bothered by the words anyone else uses for themselves.

7) i expect to be treated with the same consideration i extend. when i am not, i remove myself from the situation. if i am considered unacceptable it does not bother me. i am comfortable being unacceptable. moreso than i would be conforming to an identity that is not mine.

i am a queer transsensual femme. as with all people, my understanding of myself continues to evolve as my mind evolves in its role as part of cultural and global evolution. when someone calls me a lesbian i am going to engage in conversation with them and give them different words for me. i am going to do that because i respect myself and because i respect them enough to share myself with them on a personal level. i grew up in a world where lesbian was the ONLY word to use. as the world and my understanding changed i realized i was using a word that did not belong to me. it is not only out of respect for myself that i now use different words, but because i see some of the nuances of words that makes me feel as though i am being moe respectful of others when i DONT use the word for myself. that may be an odd-Kathlene-only phenomenon, but it is how i feel nonetheless.

words dont offend me. they are tools. mistakes dont offend me. they are also tools. intent and intention are the things that can carry the weight of offense in my world. regardless of my feelings, in the moment or long term, i also choose to believe that things are not solely as i see them...because it is impossible for me to see everything. i will be honest about my own feelings. that's the point of this long-winded and slightly pedantic post. in the same long breath, i refuse to presume that anyone here has either intent or intention to harm/offend/marginalize me.

thanx for playing.




~ ~ ~ ~

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

As another trouble-maker on this thread, I wanted to explain why I think that the meanings of words matter. Now, because I'm going to use examples using race I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think anyone on this thread is racist, has said anything racist, or would ever say anything racist. It is just that the examples I have at hand use race.

If words evolve and have no flexible meaning then it would require me to take a face value the following statement: "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friend's are black. I just don't know what you people are calling yourself this decade so I just use the n-word." Or, one my favorites..."I'm not a racist. I just think that there's the 'good blacks', like you, and the n-word blacks, like the rest of them". Now, does the disclaimer "I'm not a racist" mean that the person is not expressing racist sentiment? Does the word racist have a meaning that is commonly agreed upon and, more or less, fixed or is it fluid such that someone could make statements like the two above (both of which I have heard, in some variation, multiple times in my 42 years) and by merely invoking the phrase "I'm not a racist..." means that whatever racist might mean, it cannot mean them.

I live by the idea that racist (like other words) have a more-or-less fixed meaning and that merely saying "I'm not a racist but..." does not confer some magical, water-to-wine fairy dust on the words that immediately follow such that no matter how racist they might SOUND they are not, actually, racist because the person has just proclaimed that they are not racist.

I use this as an example and I'll admit it is an extreme, in your face, example because I want to make it clear WHY I think that language matters in the way that I do.

I am perfectly willing to admit that my view may be hopelessly antiquarian and, if I dare say so, 20th century. It probably is. I am a product of my time.

Cheers
Aj

i agree. language does matter. it simply has huge variation in its meaning (which we're proving right now). this isnt a discussion about the meaning of the word "lesbian" anymore. it's a discussion about the ways in which we can each see a word or a sentence or an idea as meaning something very different than it was intended.

i do not dislike the word lesbian. i dont dislike lesbians. i dont dislike female identified lesbians. and yet, that's how i came across to some people. i wanted to discuss the obvious (to me only) expansion of language that happens to some people when they exit one definition and enter another and so i joined the conversation. i expressed an opinion based on a common idea for many BFP members. i didnt do it in a way that was clear. it also, as has been stated, wasnt asked for or invited. but...sigh...i did it.

my example is less obvious than your very good one: i dont use the word lesbian to describe myself and then require that my attraction to and/or behavior with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man be included in the definition of the word.

clear as muddy muddy mud?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

i agree. language does matter. it simply has huge variation in its meaning (which we're proving right now). this isnt a discussion about the meaning of the word "lesbian" anymore. it's a discussion about the ways in which we can each see a word or a sentence or an idea as meaning something very different than it was intended.

i do not dislike the word lesbian. i dont dislike lesbians. i dont dislike female identified lesbians. and yet, that's how i came across to some people. i wanted to discuss the obvious (to me only) expansion of language that happens to some people when they exit one definition and enter another and so i joined the conversation. i expressed an opinion based on a common idea for many BFP members. i didnt do it in a way that was clear. it also, as has been stated, wasnt asked for or invited. but...sigh...i did it.

my example is less obvious than your very good one: i dont use the word lesbian to describe myself and then require that my attraction to and/or behavior with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man be included in the definition of the word.

clear as muddy muddy mud?

Actually, that is very clear and a point I would absolutely agree with. If you are with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man (whatever their chromosomal pattern is) then I would wholeheartedly agree that to say that this met the definition of 'lesbian' would be to stretch the word beyond recognition. I can certainly see how one would NOT use the term 'lesbian' in that case. My wife doesn't use the term 'lesbian' because she identifies as a bisexual-dyke (which, as I understand it to mean) that she is affectionately attracted to women but if I were to disappear out of her life and it was a lonely Saturday night and she needed a little 'sumthin-sumthin' and the right guy was around she would have sex with him. But if she were looking for another serious relationship it would be with another butch woman (or possibly transman).

So that makes perfect sense to me. I'm curious, would you then say that you are homosexual or bisexual?

And thank you for your patience, semiotics is completely out of my academic venue (which is computational biology/biomedical informatics) so I may be completely oversimplifying language.

Cheers
Aj

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, that is very clear and a point I would absolutely agree with. If you are with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man (whatever their chromosomal pattern is) then I would wholeheartedly agree that to say that this met the definition of 'lesbian' would be to stretch the word beyond recognition. I can certainly see how one would NOT use the term 'lesbian' in that case. My wife doesn't use the term 'lesbian' because she identifies as a bisexual-dyke (which, as I understand it to mean) that she is affectionately attracted to women but if I were to disappear out of her life and it was a lonely Saturday night and she needed a little 'sumthin-sumthin' and the right guy was around she would have sex with him. But if she were looking for another serious relationship it would be with another butch woman (or possibly transman).

So that makes perfect sense to me. I'm curious, would you then say that you are homosexual or bisexual?

And thank you for your patience, semiotics is completely out of my academic venue (which is computational biology/biomedical informatics) so I may be completely oversimplifying language.

Cheers
Aj

THANKYOU!!!

i've been holding my breath! i'm really tiptoeing around right now feeling like a bad academic and a bad femme and a bad person and boo-hoo-hoo-poor Kathlene-boo-hoo-hoo (PLEASE read that last bit as sarcastic!)

[hippieflowergirl]

from last year's Urban Dictionary

lesbian

n.) A gender identity in which an individual defines themselves as female (woman) and actively embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic and sexual energies geared toward another person who also defines themselves as female (woman).

transgendered

n.) A gender identity in which an individual defines his/her self by a sex and/or gender other than the physical determination given at birth. Transgendered identity presentation does not presume a/any specific sexual orientation/identity (homo, hetero, pan or asexual -- lesbian, gay, butch, femme, queer, etc.)

femme:

n.) Gender identity in which an individual (female, male or other) has an awareness of cultural standards of femininity and actively embodies a feminine appearance, role, or archetype, usually--but not always--associated with a gay or queer sexual identity/sexuality; more accentuated and intentional than a straight female gender identity or gender presentation and distinctly challenges standards of femininity through purposeful transgression against binary gender paradigms.

n.) Person (male, female or other) who identifies and/or presents an overtly feminine or feminine acting gender identity and sometimes--but not necessarily-- embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic and sexual energies geared toward an opposite gender presentation. Occasionally used to denote an individual, or the submissive role in a relationship.

v.) To actively embody a feminine identity or gender presentation.

adj.) Feminine in a quasi-traditional and/or non-traditional way--or referring to something/one (male or non-female) that/whom is related to or embodies a conscious femininity.

butch:

n.) Gender identity in which someone (female, male or other) has an awareness of cultural standards of masculinity and actively embodies a masculine appearance, role, or archetype, usually--but not always--associated with a gay or queer sexual identity/sexuality; more accentuated and intentional than straight male gender identity or gender presentation and distinctly challenges standards of masculinity through purposeful transgression against binary gender paradigms.

n.) Person (male, female or other) who identifies and/or presents an overtly masculine or masculine-acting gender identity and sometimes--but not necessarily-- embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic, and sexual energies geared toward an opposite gender presentation. Occasionally used to denote an individual, or the dominant role in a relationship.

v.) To actively embody a butch identity or gender presentation.

adj.) Masculine in a quasi-traditional and/or non-traditional way--or referring to something/one (female or non-male) that/whom is related to or embodies a conscious masculinity.

[Gemme]

Isn't it interesting how things evolve? I'll take my part of the trouble-making pie and sit down with it for a while.

For me, this conversation began because ONE LINE out of a fairly long post I made stood out to Cyclopea. As time went on, I realized I had written it backwards, so I definitely understood some of the confusion as to what I was saying. I take responsibility for not wording my thoughts exactly as I meant them.

I would never invalidate another's identity or self-image knowingly or willingly, although...through the night...I felt just that way from Cyclopea and AJ. Arwen and hippie have said the same thing at varying points. Like both of them, I had to step away from this thread. I needed to try to regain some perspective and get in touch with myself and find out what kind of place I was coming from exactly.

Now, I come back in, refreshed and hopeful and I see that hippie (Kathlene, if I may?) has done a wonderful job bridging the differences. If you aren't in PR or politics, you SHOULD be, girl!

I am honestly very sorry for those that felt, along the way, my point changed from "you are a lesbian and it works for you and that is GOOD but I am not a lesbian, but am homosexual by definition, so all homosexuals are NOT lesbians" to "all lesbians are bad because I don't identify that way". I never meant to say that, so if someone could pinpoint the specific post(s) where I actually said that, I'd be grateful.

Please let it be clear that I am NOT invalidating the fact that feelings were hurt. I know mine were and I apologize for my part in hurting others. What I am saying, and I ask that anyone who may respond to this post read this next part VERY CAREFULLY as I am doing my best to make myself as clear as I can, is that while I agree that all lesbians are homosexuals, not all homosexuals are lesbians. That's it. That is bluntly EXACTLY what I said. Never once did I attempt to make someone justify their identity nor did I invalidate it, although I felt like both were happening to me. Never did I say anything derogatory about lesbians or Queers or Martians or anyone else. I just made every attempt I could to help those who misinterpreted what I said or my tone. Along the way, Corkey and hippie and NAAG got what I was saying with some clarification and I appreciated that. Kosmo was able to present what I was trying to say better than I did and I also appreciate that.

In the end, everyone's filter is different. Everyone has different sensitivities. Everyone has different personal definitions (whether they coincide with Mirriam-Webster's definitions or not). Our past experiences color our present and future interactions. I acknowledge this and think that I've learned something in reading the past couple of pages of dialogue that will help me in communicating with people here. For that, I am very thankful.

Everyone wants to be HEARD though and that's why I felt it necessary for me to come back in here. Hopefully, it doesn't stir the pot or cause anymore rabblerousing. Like I said earlier, hippie's done a great job of smoothing the ruffled feathers and I don't want to take away from the wonderful posts and progress she's made. I just felt that my point had been twisted and turned into something it was never meant to be. And that is something I could not let happen. In this environment, we ARE our words. And I will not be changed into something I am not.