Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Heart

I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think it is (as you alluded to in another post) a complication inherent in organizing around identity instead of issues or ideology, and especially in organizing around sexual and gender identity in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux.

We need to let of the notion that every single event or grouping has to be for everyone all the time. Maybe the key is in understanding that sometimes it’s not just about shared identity but shared paths or experiences. Being a woman-identified person who was born into a female body is a different experience than being a woman-identified person who was born into a male body. They are different paths to womanhood and each comes with its own (sometimes overlapping and sometimes not) set of challenges and wounds and triumphs.

I don’t think it’s hard for most people to see how transwomen (in this example) might in some circumstances want and need space that is exclusive to those who have that shared experience and path. But it’s a harder leap for some to make that it would be reasonable and valid for the other group of women (for which there is no specific name that I am aware of that neither casts them in an oppressor role nor is offensive to transwomen – but I may just be behind on the lingo) to want and need the same. This is the failure point. This is where the standard conceptual model we use around autonomous organizing breaks down and doesn’t quite fit the situation.

In our standard model, there is a marginalized or oppressed group that exists within a larger group, e.g. lesbians of color in a lesbian organization and then there is the dominant group, e.g. white lesbians. It’s pretty clear in a situation like this when and how autonomous organizing should work. I think the problem stems from trying to apply this exact model to groups of women; it doesn’t quite work. Yes, the cis/trans axis of marginalization exists and is a factor. But it doesn’t negate sexism. The women-who-must-not-be-named still face, in our society, mountains of shit specifically around being women. And the mountains of shit may sometimes be the same or similar as those faced by transwomen but sometimes they will be very different. <<disallowed word>>It is also not unreasonable to think that during the portion of their lives that transwomen were seen as male they absorbed some of the messages of male privilege. There are incredibly powerful and pervasive forces that are brought to bear upon us all from birth, basically. It would be naïve to think they don’t have an impact.

So maybe instead of using that conceptual model of autonomous organizing, we need to use a different one. I know the analogy I’m about to use is profoundly imperfect, it doesn’t fit exactly, and I know that even making these kinds of analogies is tricky at best. It’s simply meant to present a different frame of reference than the one that is typically used in this situation. <<disallowed word>>But what it brings to mind are times when I have seen, within PoC groups, organizing that coalesces around specific racial groups. Because although these groups are all affected by racism, their experiences are different. Being African American is not the same as being Asian American and neither of them is the same as being Native American.

As I said, it’s not a perfect analogy. But my thought is that if we approach these situations differently than we have been, if we can agree that the model we have been trying to use doesn’t fit, then maybe we can see our way clear to occasions of autonomous organizing that don’t feel oppressive or erasing, that don’t rely on policing identity, and that do feel supportive and respectful of our different experiences and paths.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Slater

I think it is.... a complication inherent in organizing around identity instead of issues or ideology, and especially in organizing around sexual and gender identity in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux.

It is more than a complication....

I-identity politics is a claim to a particularistic form of victimization by patriarchy and the redress of same by patriarchy. Seeking acceptance or redress by patriarchy, does not change patriarchy. Nor does it do anything to better the lot of the still oppressed by patriarchy.

I-identity gender politics reinforces the false authenticity of gender constructs - "yours", mine, everyones. It doesn't matter how good or bad, alternatively or faithfully, we perform a construct.... it doesn't matter if we willing or knowingly or not comply with a construct.... it's still a construct authored, more or less, by patriarchy.

As you say, Slater: "....in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux", what does identity even mean anymore?

Originally Posted by Slater

We need to let of the notion that every single event or grouping has to be for everyone all the time. Maybe the key is in understanding that sometimes it’s not just about shared identity but shared paths or experiences Being a woman-identified person who was born into a female body is a different experience than being a woman-identified person who was born into a male body. They are different paths to womanhood and each comes with its own (sometimes overlapping and sometimes not) set of challenges and wounds and triumphs.

Coalescing around "shared paths or experiences." and shared oppression, what a novel concept ! (Said ironically, not sarcastically.)

Originally Posted by Slater

I don’t think it’s hard for most people to see how transwomen (in this example) might in some circumstances want and need space that is exclusive to those who have that shared experience and path. But it’s a harder leap for some to make that it would be reasonable and valid for the other group of women (for which there is no specific name that I am aware of that neither casts them in an oppressor role nor is offensive to transwomen – but I may just be behind on the lingo) to want and need the same. This is the failure point. This is where the standard conceptual model we use around autonomous organizing breaks down and doesn’t quite fit the situation.

Apparently, it is impossible for some to make that leap.

I think the term is "cisgendered woman". A term many lesbians, myself included, find insulting and an erasure of our lived experience under patriarchy. Nonetheless, it's a term that is used constantly. It falsely casts women as privileged (compliance is not privilege), and it inaccurately casts lesbians as gender congruent. Why do that? Really why? And, why use terms that offend many lesbians while arguing against language that offends others? Where is the consistency or ally-ship in that?

Originally Posted by Slater

In our standard model, there is a marginalized or oppressed group that exists within a larger group, e.g. lesbians of color in a lesbian organization and then there is the dominant group, e.g. white lesbians. It’s pretty clear in a situation like this when and how autonomous organizing should work. I think the problem stems from trying to apply this exact model to groups of women; it doesn’t quite work. Yes, the cis/trans axis of marginalization exists and is a factor. But it doesn’t negate sexism. The women-who-must-not-be-named still face, in our society, mountains of shit specifically around being women. And the mountains of shit may sometimes be the same or similar as those faced by transwomen but sometimes they will be very different. <<disallowed word>>It is also not unreasonable to think that during the portion of their lives that transwomen were seen as male they absorbed some of the messages of male privilege. There are incredibly powerful and pervasive forces that are brought to bear upon us all from birth, basically. It would be naïve to think they don’t have an impact.

The "cis/trans axis of marginalization exists" not because of WBW/lesbians, it exists because of patriarchy.

Why is it permissible to call out the patriarchal messages absorbed by some, but not others? ....And before someone chimes in - NO they are not equally called out. In many cases the privileged behaviors of trans. are overlooked, even ignored, because a false (albeit patriarchal) hierarchy of oppression has been erected in the "big tent". This too is a byproduct of I-gender politics.

Originally Posted by Slater

So maybe instead of using that conceptual model of autonomous organizing, we need to use a different one. I know the analogy I’m about to use is profoundly imperfect, it doesn’t fit exactly, and I know that even making these kinds of analogies is tricky at best. It’s simply meant to present a different frame of reference than the one that is typically used in this situation. <<disallowed word>>But what it brings to mind are times when I have seen, within PoC groups, organizing that coalesces around specific racial groups. Because although these groups are all affected by racism, their experiences are different. Being African American is not the same as being Asian American and neither of them is the same as being Native American.

As I said, it’s not a perfect analogy. But my thought is that if we approach these situations differently than we have been, if we can agree that the model we have been trying to use doesn’t fit, then maybe we can see our way clear to occasions of autonomous organizing that don’t feel oppressive or erasing, that don’t rely on policing identity, and that do feel supportive and respectful of our different experiences and paths.

Slater, you may call it "autonomous organizing" - I call it by it's philosophical/post-modern name: Subjective relativism.

Originally Posted by Heart

But that can obscure the fact that as a group men commit the bulk of both public and private violence and oppression. The vast bulk. Men hold the institutional power (like white folks do) and that changes the game when it comes to enacting oppression.

Yes, it does.... It also changes the dialog when some people are more invested in claiming oppression than excavating it within themselves.

Originally Posted by Heart

I too am the mother of a son. He's a decent, thoughtful, respectful young man. I work with numerous feminist male allies. One of the things that makes them allies is that they know they carry male privilege. Without that awareness, they cannot be allies.

I'm the mother of a daughter - a Black African-American/Cuban-Chinese daughter. The straight males friends that I count as some of the best human beings on the planet get it, too. The people who don't get it, but claim to be just like me, are the ones I worry about.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

I-identity politics is a claim to a particularistic form of victimization by patriarchy and the redress of same by patriarchy. Seeking acceptance or redress by patriarchy, does not change patriarchy. Nor does it do anything to better the lot of the still oppressed by patriarchy.

What do you mean by "Identity politics"? I'm just looking for a definition so that I can be sure to interpret the term in exactly the same way that you do.

I-identity gender politics reinforces the false authenticity of gender constructs - "yours", mine, everyones. It doesn't matter how good or bad, alternatively or faithfully, we perform a construct.... it doesn't matter if we willing or knowingly or not comply with a construct.... it's still a construct authored, more or less, by patriarchy.

SO your statement is that gender constructs are false, okay, but all social constructs are, doesn't mean they don't exist nor does it mean we can function without social behaviors. I don't know about you, but I personally author and act out my own behaviors regardless of where they fit in anyone's definitions. How is "the patriarchy" influencing this for me? Forgive me if I am misinterpreting these terms.

As you say, Slater: "....in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux", what does identity even mean anymore?




Coalescing around "shared paths or experiences." and shared oppression, what a novel concept ! (Said ironically, not sarcastically.)




Apparently, it is impossible for some to make that leap.

I think the term is "cisgendered woman". A term many lesbians, myself included, find insulting and an erasure of our lived experience under patriarchy. Nonetheless, it's a term that is used constantly. It falsely casts women as privileged (compliance is not privilege), and it inaccurately casts lesbians as gender congruent. Why do that? Really why? And, why use terms that offend many lesbians while arguing against language that offends others? Where is the consistency or ally-ship in that?


What is it about "cisgendered" that you find insulting and erasing? In the context of gender, cisgendered women do have some instances of privilege that transgendered women are not privy to. If you doubt this, please examine our current correctional system for a pointed example. However, in relation to male privilege and patriarchy, all women regardless of trans or cis status suffer oppression.

Also, may i point out that you use "cisbutch" to identify yourself in your sidebar? If you have objections to the word "cis" in any terminology, it undermines your argument to use it for yourself, correct?


The "cis/trans axis of marginalization exists" not because of WBW/lesbians, it exists because of patriarchy.

Please tell me why you believe this. I do not believe that only those with male privilege judge based on cis/trans. I believe that marginalization is widespread indeed.


Why is it permissible to call out the patriarchal messages absorbed by some, but not others? ....And before someone chimes in - NO they are not equally called out. In many cases the privileged behaviors of trans. are overlooked, even ignored, because a false (albeit patriarchal) hierarchy of oppression has been erected in the "big tent". This too is a byproduct of I-gender politics.

Perhaps you are right, not all patriarchal messages are being called out. then again, perhaps they are not patriarchal messages and your personal experience is influencing the lens through which you view and interpret interactions with others.

Slater, you may call it "autonomous organizing" - I call it by it's philosophical/post-modern name: Subjective relativism.




Yes, it does.... It also changes the dialog when some people are more invested in claiming oppression than excavating it within themselves.



I'm the mother of a daughter - a Black African-American/Cuban-Chinese daughter. The straight males friends that I count as some of the best human beings on the planet get it, too. The people who don't get it, but claim to be just like me, are the ones I worry about.


I do not claim to be like you, as you have experienced intersectionalities that I have not. I do, however, want to learn from that while at the same time questioning the information I am given. I have never been one to accept what someone (anyone) says just because they've said it. I like to ask why and get clarification, as I'm sure you do too. I hope that you will help me understand you better.

Chazz, you and I have been butting heads quite a bit lately, but I genuinely wish to understand why you feel the way you do, and what these terms mean to you. Thank you.

[CherylNYC]

SA- Many butch women who feel that their gender is butch have expressed that they're offended by the term cisgendered. Chazz is not the only one. She's more than able to give you her perspective, so I won't presume to speak for her.

I think it's a very poor term because it divides people into two camps. I strongly feel that there's a vast difference between women and men, and even I understand that there's a fluidity that a world divided into 'cis' and 'non-cis' denies.

[Heart]

SA - there have been numerous ongoing discussions about why "cis" is experienced by some lesbians, butches, and women as erasing, and Chazz's use of "cisbutch" came out of a particular conversation and is used in a somewhat ironic sense, I believe.

Being cisgendered implies alignment with one's assigned gender, and while I was assigned "woman," and do not disagree with that assignment, being gendered as a woman is not a privilege in the context of patriarchy. That is the crux of the argument. Further, being assigned woman and being a lesbian and/or being visibly queer/butch further reduces the privilege of living as one's assigned gender of woman, adding homophobia to the misogyny/sexism that we live with every day.

Living as a woman (queer, straight, etc) is a risk, and the prefix "cis" can feel like it erases that reality by implying that if we are congruent with our gender, then all is well and we can sail forth without concern. That's pretty much a gross erasure of sexism and misogyny.

Chazz coined "cisbutch" as a means of indicating that she is NOT congruent with her assigned gender of "woman, in the sense of what "woman" is supposed to mean in a patriarchal culture. For that matter, I am also not congruent with what its supposed to mean to be a woman. But calling me a "ciswoman" erases that completely. If it were used in a very narrow sense of only comparing me to a woman of transgender experience, then it is accurate. But the fact is that much of the violence transwomen experience is rooted in the same sexism and misogyny that all women face. It feels to me that "cis" is used far more in the context of transmen who are not grappling so much with sexism/misogyny, but more with the boundary struggles they are having in women's communities.

Heart

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz, you and I have been butting heads quite a bit lately, but I genuinely wish to understand why you feel the way you do, and what these terms mean to you. Thank you.

ScandalAndy, I don't see myself as butting heads with you. I don't give disagreements with other people that much space in my head.

I-identity politics is a complex subject that cannot be explained in one sitting. It may take some research on your part.

I've discussed my issues with the term "cisgender" in a number of prior posts. It's a neologism that assigns false privilege to gender congruent women - compliance with patriarchy is not a privilege for the overwhelming majority of women on the planet. And the term "cisgender" holds absolutely no meaning, whatsoever, for lesbians who are gender incongruent women by patriarchal standards.

It should be enough that I, and other lesbians, find the term, "cisgender", inaccurate and insulting. I resent that it is not policed the same way other terms are. More than this I should not have to say.

[lettertodaddy]

Thank you for bringing up your issues with the term cisgender, chazz. That word doesn't sit well with me, and it wasn't until I read your posts that I understood why.

[ScandalAndy]

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you)

I'm afraid I don't view the world the same way you do, as I am not dividing into "cis and non-cis". There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer, and every flavor combination therein. I detest binary systems, and this is probably a failing on my part that I did not communicate that, when I personally use nomenclature that defines the opposite ends of a spectrum, that I am including all identities within that spectrum.

Thank you for letting me know that you find that term offensive. I would like to find a universally acceptable term that I may use around the site that will not offend any of the members. If you have any suggestions, that would be great. Until then, though, I hope I may ask for a bit more of your patience as I still would like to describe my identity with a term.


Heart: Thank you, I wasn't aware of the discussions regarding the terms that were happening here. I believe my main misunderstanding here was that I am not content with using the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy, therefore I do see the privilege experienced by women whose path does not include the same gender introspection that transgendered women experience. I do agree with you that all women, regardless of gender journeys, under a patriarchal system, are oppressed.

I apologize if I implied that women who identify with their birthassigned gender can sail forth without concern. That was not my intention as that is not at all my belief. All women face many struggles in defining themselves and holding their own in the world.


Chazz: I am very sorry to hear that I do not warrant any of your time, as I have taken my time to respond to your post and ask questions. It hurts me quite a bit that you see fit to dismiss me so readily as someone of no consequence to you.

I asked you to explain identity politics because I cannot address your statements unless I know how you see it. I'm sorry your response was "go look it up", or at least, that's how it felt to me.

Please feel free to report my post for using the term you find offensive.

I am a scientist, and when I see the word trans, I see a molecule with two reactive groups, one on each side of the molecule. When i see cis, i see a molecule with both reactive groups on the same side. Thank you biochemistry. I am able to apply that scientific knowledge to gender theory and see that for some, like myself, it makes sense. Since there appeared to be a need for transgendered individuals to use the word "trans" to describe themselves and their gender journey, it made sense to me to use "cis" to describe myself and aspects of my journey. I admit this system does not work well for everyone.

Perhaps the best solution would be to get rid of trans and cis altogether, but then would we have adequate language to describe ourselves and our experiences? I am not so sure.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you) ...
.

That's close, but Heart gave a far better explanation.
"Being cisgendered implies alignment with one's assigned gender, and while I was assigned "woman," and do not disagree with that assignment, being gendered as a woman is not a privilege in the context of patriarchy. That is the crux of the argument. Further, being assigned woman and being a lesbian and/or being visibly queer/butch further reduces the privilege of living as one's assigned gender of woman, adding homophobia to the misogyny/sexism that we live with every day.

Living as a woman (queer, straight, etc) is a risk, and the prefix "cis" can feel like it erases that reality by implying that if we are congruent with our gender, then all is well and we can sail forth without concern. That's pretty much a gross erasure of sexism and misogyny."

Calling me cisgendered, meaning that my gender conforms to the gender I'm expected to exhibit, might pass muster in a simplistic way even though I detest the term. Calling any of my butch partners or girlfriends cisgendered is laughable. I may have been a tomboy as a child, but I was never mistaken for a boy. I may have deliberately put myself in unsafe positions by coming out, but my girlfriends never had that luxury. They were out whether or not they would have chosen it. Their presentation and their masculine energy made them targets and kept them from fitting in. They weren't like other girls. They weren't like other women. Many perceive their gender as butch. That's why calling them cisgendered is offensive. It erases butch women.

Heart did such a great job explaining why it erases us as lesbians that there's no need to further elaborate. I really resent that somehow this problematic term has suddenly gained so much currency.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you)

I'm afraid I don't view the world the same way you do, as I am not dividing into "cis and non-cis". There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer, and every flavor combination therein. I detest binary systems, and this is probably a failing on my part that I did not communicate that, when I personally use nomenclature that defines the opposite ends of a spectrum, that I am including all identities within that spectrum.

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it nicely.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when, in fact, I'm the recipient of unearned white privilege?

This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and in some cases, an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière about how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere over this.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Thank you for letting me know that you find that term offensive. I would like to find a universally acceptable term that I may use around the site that will not offend any of the members. If you have any suggestions, that would be great. Until then, though, I hope I may ask for a bit more of your patience as I still would like to describe my identity with a term.

ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

....I wasn't aware of the discussions regarding the terms that were happening here. I believe my main misunderstanding here was that I am not content with using the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy, therefore I do see the privilege experienced by women whose path does not include the same gender introspection that transgendered women experience. I do agree with you that all women, regardless of gender journeys, under a patriarchal system, are oppressed.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender - it makes of us, gender consumers.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I apologize if I implied that women who identify with their birthassigned gender can sail forth without concern. That was not my intention as that is not at all my belief. All women face many struggles in defining themselves and holding their own in the world.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz: I am very sorry to hear that I do not warrant any of your time, as I have taken my time to respond to your post and ask questions. It hurts me quite a bit that you see fit to dismiss me so readily as someone of no consequence to you.

I asked you to explain identity politics because I cannot address your statements unless I know how you see it. I'm sorry your response was "go look it up", or at least, that's how it felt to me.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation of my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Please feel free to report my post for using the term you find offensive.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not....

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you)

I'm afraid I don't view the world the same way you do, as I am not dividing into "cis and non-cis". There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer, and every flavor combination therein. I detest binary systems, and this is probably a failing on my part that I did not communicate that, when I personally use nomenclature that defines the opposite ends of a spectrum, that I am including all identities within that spectrum.

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it for you.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when I'm not? This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere because of this.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Thank you for letting me know that you find that term offensive. I would like to find a universally acceptable term that I may use around the site that will not offend any of the members. If you have any suggestions, that would be great. Until then, though, I hope I may ask for a bit more of your patience as I still would like to describe my identity with a term.

ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Heart: Thank you, I wasn't aware of the discussions regarding the terms that were happening here. I believe my main misunderstanding here was that I am not content with using the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy, therefore I do see the privilege experienced by women whose path does not include the same gender introspection that transgendered women experience. I do agree with you that all women, regardless of gender journeys, under a patriarchal system, are oppressed.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender. I think of this as gender consumerism.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I apologize if I implied that women who identify with their birthassigned gender can sail forth without concern. That was not my intention as that is not at all my belief. All women face many struggles in defining themselves and holding their own in the world.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz: I am very sorry to hear that I do not warrant any of your time, as I have taken my time to respond to your post and ask questions. It hurts me quite a bit that you see fit to dismiss me so readily as someone of no consequence to you.

I asked you to explain identity politics because I cannot address your statements unless I know how you see it. I'm sorry your response was "go look it up", or at least, that's how it felt to me.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation about my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Please feel free to report my post for using the term you find offensive.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I am a scientist, and when I see the word trans, I see a molecule with two reactive groups, one on each side of the molecule. When i see cis, i see a molecule with both reactive groups on the same side. Thank you biochemistry. I am able to apply that scientific knowledge to gender theory and see that for some, like myself, it makes sense. Since there appeared to be a need for transgendered individuals to use the word "trans" to describe themselves and their gender journey, it made sense to me to use "cis" to describe myself and aspects of my journey. I admit this system does not work well for everyone.

I'll leave you to your molecules and, instead, say: When I see terms like "CIS" or "trans", I see people, not molecules. But then, I'm a scientist, too, but of a different order (Human Services). I spend 60+ hours a week trying to disavow teenage girls of their misbegotten notions of gender. Notions that are contributing to their being exploited, abused, impregnanted and infected with STDs and HIV. Notions that keep them depressed and abusing their bodies ("cutting", eating disorders, substance abuse, etc.). Their modern day hero(in)es keep them gender, self-preoccupied, too; it's often fatal. It doesn't matter which gender construct or deconstruct one buys into, it still keeps the myth of gender constructs alive. We're all gender consumers under patriarchy. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs - it simply re-envisages constructs.

Lesbians/women like me, who's life's work it is to keep young women from being systematically (systemically?) murdered by gender constructs, find the self-preoccupation with labels and gender identity maddening.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Perhaps the best solution would be to get rid of trans and cis altogether, but then would we have adequate language to describe ourselves and our experiences? I am not so sure.

Here's a thought.... How about dropping the concept of gender altogether? Constructed or deconstructed, it's still all about gender.... Everyone is a gender consumer under patriarchy. There's no escaping it. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs. The myth of gender has to go.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Perhaps the best solution would be to get rid of trans and cis altogether, but then would we have adequate language to describe ourselves and our experiences? I am not so sure.

How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

[Dominique]

Many thanks to all of you, for speaking about cisgendered.

And the great divide.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Chazz

I-identity gender politics reinforces the false authenticity of gender constructs - "yours", mine, everyones. It doesn't matter how good or bad, alternatively or faithfully, we perform a construct.... it doesn't matter if we willing or knowingly or not comply with a construct.... it's still a construct authored, more or less, by patriarchy.

Yes gender is a construct. Culture is a construct. Values, ideology. And all of it exists with a patriarchal systems and is inevitably influenced by that system. If that renders identity and identity politics inherently meaningless, then it renders all of culture inherently meaningless.

Suffice to say you and I have different ideas about identity politics, about how they work and what purpose they can serve. Similarly, we see autonomous organizing quite differently as well. Given how dismissive you were when ScandalAndy asked you to elaborate on your ideas about identity politics, I don’t feel inclined to try to pursue that particular matter any further, so I’ll leave it that.



I agree that the cis- terminology is problematic. I think it has utility in talking in general terms about transphobia. And clearly it is an identifier that works for some people. I don’t think it works well as a broad identifier because it is oversimplified and binary, which is why I didn’t use it in that context.

Originally Posted by Chazz

The "cis/trans axis of marginalization exists" not because of WBW/lesbians, it exists because of patriarchy.

Why is it permissible to call out the patriarchal messages absorbed by some, but not others? ....And before someone chimes in - NO they are not equally called out. In many cases the privileged behaviors of trans. are overlooked, even ignored, because a false (albeit patriarchal) hierarchy of oppression has been erected in the "big tent". This too is a byproduct of I-gender politics.

I’m not sure where you thought I was suggesting that lesbians or women had created it. Of course it is all tied up with sexism, just as homophobia is all tied up with sexism.

Oppression hierarchies are hardly limited to gender politics. They come up whenever you have populations that face multiple kinds of oppression. I will say that I think the way that transphobia intersects with and interacts with sexism is a bit different than the relationships among other oppressions and that’s why trying to use the same sorts of conceptual structures that we often use with other combinations of oppressions has not worked well.

I suppose I could go on and try to explicate the differences you and I have in how we see trans oppression as functioning in society, but as nothing in the tone of your responses suggests that you have interest in actual dialog, I’m not sure anything would be served by it.