Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[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.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

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.

My apologies. I interpret cisgender to mean an individual who does not experience body dysphoria. That is my context. To me, identity along the butch/andro/femme spectrum is a completely different kettle of fish. It isn't my place to dictate how others interpret the term.

I do not intend to sit here and insist one of us is right and one is wrong because i don't think it's that clear cut. Thank you to Heart for explaining your position, thank you to you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

My apologies. I interpret cisgender to mean an individual who does not experience body dysphoria. That is my context. To me, identity along the butch/andro/femme spectrum is a completely different kettle of fish. It isn't my place to dictate how others interpret the term.

I do not intend to sit here and insist one of us is right and one is wrong because i don't think it's that clear cut. Thank you to Heart for explaining your position, thank you to you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1] Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2]

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

SA you seem to be speaking of cissexual, while others are speaking to the definition of cisgender. Not unlike transsexual and transgender.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1] Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2]

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

SA you seem to be speaking of cissexual, while others are speaking to the definition of cisgender. Not unlike transsexual and transgender.

Thank you for pointing that out. I see I was mistaken in my terminology.

[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.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

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?

hijacking identities? Identity is established by the individual. I'm not telling anyone who they are or who they aren't.

Are my thoughts less important because I haven't been in the community as long?

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.[/COLOR]

Well since I said it was surprising to me, feel free to get out the markers and color yourself amazed. This was the first time I have come across the term being offensive.

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.

I beg to differ. There may be clear bias to you, but that bias is not clear to me. I don't believe anyone strives to be biased.

[COLOR="Red"]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.

So because I learned that particular brand of gender theory, I am unintentionally offensive because gender theory is presumptive. I have no idea what to make of this, but you are entitled to your opinon.

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.

I find it contradictory indeed to say "you're not being dismissed, i just don't have time and don't care, you should be able to figure it out from my comments" when I made a distinct point of telling you that was how i was feeling. Conversely, you have every right to not give a rat's derriere about how I feel. My emotions are my responsibility.

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




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.




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.




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.





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




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.



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

This is a repeat, so I'll just leave it at that.

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.

I refuse to be drawn into the oppression olympics with you. This whole statement smacks of "holier than thou" and is positively infuriating to me.

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.



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

These two statements are redundant but you have a point. The concept of eliminating gender is the only thing I will take from this so-called conversation.


I find your tone and responses to be ageist and dismissive, and it is clear to me that you and I are unable to have a productive dialogue on this subject. You are clearly quite intelligent and I'm sure will continue to contribute to the threads in productive ways. With that in mind, I wish you all the best and hope that you and I can limit our interaction regarding this subject in particular to discussions about the weather.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Well since I said it was surprising to me, feel free to get out the markers and color yourself amazed. This was the first time I have come across the term being offensive....



... These two statements are redundant but you have a point. The concept of eliminating gender is the only thing I will take from this so-called conversation...

SA,
It's been my experience that most people who use the term 'cis' are very surprised to learn that someone finds it offensive. Like you, they've learned that it's a way to acknowledge the struggles that trans people face, and the alleged lack of similar struggles that people who have never been trans supposedly get to avoid. We've spent quite a bit of time discussing the real problems such a term brings up, (Heart, will you run for President?), and the way some of us have felt ambushed by the rapid, community-wide adoption of this term that feels quite erasing to us. We didn't get to consent to this. To complete the erasure, many of us who object to the term have been repeatedly silenced by others who tell us that makes us transphobes. No wonder you haven't heard anything about 'cis' being offensive thus far. The power of being labeled a transphobe is so great that it took the establishment of a lesbian zone on a website catering to butch/femme people, the vast majority of whom ID as women who partner with women, for us to feel safe enough to have a discussion about the offensiveness of 'cis'.

Like most of us here, I would like to get back to the important topic of lesbian pride. As it has in many other parts of our community, arguments about trans inclusion have diverted us. We can't seem to keep from letting those arguments divert our attention in this thread any better than we can in the lesbian community at large, or so I perceive it.

Like many, I deeply resent that feminist thought, which I hold as my touchstone, has been dismissed and derided in favour of gender theory in academic circles. That brings me to the second of your statements which I quoted. This is the very crux of the problem I perceive with current gender theory getting in the way of my lesbian pride. I understand that this statement about eliminating gender came up in the context of an acrimonious argument between you and Chazz, but it's telling.

My understanding of gender theory is that it seeks to undermine binary gender by simply declaring that there is no such thing. The world isn't made up of women and men, the world is made up of millions of beings of indeterminate gender. Those beings should be allowed to declare whatever gender they understand themselves to be at any point in their lives, or not, and that designation may change many times over their lives. Current gender theory holds that it's inherently oppressive to name a baby's gender based on her or his genitalia and chromosomal make-up, and that birth designation should no longer be practiced. There, now. We've eliminated gender.

I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

[*Anya*]

Cheryl, thank you for brilliantly verbalizing what I have been unable to state, and even if I had attempted; would not have done so articulately and eloquently.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

SA,
I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

Cheryl,

A couple of thoughts. First I would like to point out that it was Chazz and not ScandalAndy who argued that all genders are constructs of the patriarchy, are therefore invalid, and should be eliminated. In your remarks, you seem to be speaking as though this argument came from SA. I apologize if I am misreading you.

I wonder though, why you don't think it would work to talk about sexism in terms of sex instead of gender. In your paragraph about feminism why couldn't 'woman' be replaced with 'female'? What do you think would be lost? Same for your definition of lesbian. I'm not arguing, as Chazz did, that genders are inherently bogus. I'm just curious why you think, in this particular context, making the same points with respect to sex instead of gender does not work.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Chazz

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

Jettisoning the concept of gender because you think it's all a product of patriarchy? Wow. My gender ID is transguy. If you want to give up the concept of gender, then you are saying this part of who I am, which is important to me, is something produced by patriarchy and therefore not real or valid. I am not saying that being a transguy is the only or most important thing about me, but it is an important thing, to me. It isn't something that years of being raised and socialized as a girl could make go away. It isn't something that I decided I wanted so that I could gain privilege that I haven't had while living as a woman (even after hormones and top surgery I still don't have any more privilege). I can assure you I am not a woman who just isn't satisfied with any conventional definition of "woman". I don't strictly ID as a man, because my being trans is an important part of who I am. I do have a herstory, as someone else on this site pointed out to me. I don't deny or reject all the years that I lived as a girl/woman. Those years are part of who I am today. But I'm not a woman, and I knew I wasn't when I was 6 years old. My gender is not some cultural construct. There is something hard-wired about it. It is part of who I am, inside.

So, tell me Chazz: do you think my gender identity is something meaningless, or just a product of patriarchy?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Jettisoning the concept of gender because you think it's all a product of patriarchy? Wow. My gender ID is transguy. If you want to give up the concept of gender, then you are saying this part of who I am, which is important to me, is something produced by patriarchy and therefore not real or valid. I am not saying that being a transguy is the only or most important thing about me, but it is an important thing, to me. It isn't something that years of being raised and socialized as a girl could make go away. It isn't something that I decided I wanted so that I could gain privilege that I haven't had while living as a woman (even after hormones and top surgery I still don't have any more privilege). I can assure you I am not a woman who just isn't satisfied with any conventional definition of "woman". I don't strictly ID as a man, because my being trans is an important part of who I am. I do have a herstory, as someone else on this site pointed out to me. I don't deny or reject all the years that I lived as a girl/woman. Those years are part of who I am today. But I'm not a woman, and I knew I wasn't when I was 6 years old. My gender is not some cultural construct. There is something hard-wired about it. It is part of who I am, inside.

So, tell me Chazz: do you think my gender identity is something meaningless, or just a product of patriarchy?

I can't say.......

[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.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

The leap to meaningless is, well, quite a leap.... But no, it doesn't render anything meaningless. It does render it open to discussion.

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

Different ideas about identity politics and how they work are good, that is, until they don't work for everyone.

I already responded to my being "dismissive" of ScandalAndy in a prior post.

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

The utility of the term "CIS" doesn't serve lesbian women. In this thread about lesbian pride, I'm arguing for those it doesn't serve - lesbians.

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

I didn't think you were "suggesting that lesbians or women had created it".

Originally Posted by Slater

Oppression hierarchies are hardly limited to gender politics.

Yeah, I know....

Originally Posted by Slater

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 agree that trans identity politics "intersects and interacts" with sexism differently than other oppressions. In fact, I'm arguing that very point in my way.

What gets overlooked in most identity politics, especially when ally-ship is expected (demanded?) of other groups, is the need for excavation.

Not all identity "conceptual structures" carry equally well. Especially, when they dilute another groups identity politics and/or carry forward the seeds of the system's oppression they presume to challenge. The sexism within the Black Panther Movement by luminaries like Carmichael, Cleaver, Newton and most recently Malik Zulu Shabazz is well documented. And then, there's the lesbianphobia, racism and class privilege of many 2nd Wave Feminists to consider.

A claim to oppression even when valid, does not ensure an absence of horizontal oppression.

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

Someday, perhaps, some linguistic wizard will clarify how "tone" is conveyed in posts and text messages. Until then, I'll consider "tone" a feature of perception based in unanimity of thought.

[Chazz]

It's just been pointed out to me that not everyone is familiar with certain terms and concepts. Thank you to the person who graciously pointed this out to me without jumping to the conclusion that I'm being "dismissive".

It's difficult to have discussions of complex issues that require years of accumulated knowledge, lived experience and herstory.

It's not possible for me to always qualify what I'm saying for a number of reasons. I IMAGINE this is how POC feel while having discussions about racism and white privilege. They can't always set aside what they are doing in a conversation to impart their meanings, perspectives and accumulated information to others.

Thanks to the person who gave me the heads up.