Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[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.

[Heart]

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

[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.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

[Jess]

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

[*Anya*]

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

[Slater]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

As for the other part, I misunderstood you. You were addressing SA, but arguing against a position put forth explicitly by Chazz and I simply misunderstood your intent.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

What I'm missing is why anyone would claim a genderless lesbian ID. I don't get it.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

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.

You're right, these arguments do keep coming up, and that is worth examining, but I want to get back to lesbian pride too.

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.

Cheryl: I think some things have gotten jumbled up here and I would like to do my best to handle them as gently and respectfully as I am able.

The second half of my quote was my response to Chazz's suggestion that we eliminate gender altogether. Whether that suggestion was made in jest or not, I am not sure. However, it was an option I did not consider so my comment that it was all i was taking from the conversation was meant to imply that it was the idea I intended to take some time to think about. I apologize for not being clearer about that, I can see how that might have been misinterpreted to mean something else.

I feel the need to point out that gender studies was one of my two minors. I don't know what happened that made you believe it was my field of study, but I'm sure I mentioned it somewhere so I"m sure it was just an honest mistake. No biggie, I spent four years taking the classes and debating with others, writing my papers, being praised, and being criticized just like everyone else in my class. I don't claim to be an expert, just a normal person who learned some stuff that made me think critically about some things.

Originally Posted by Heart

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

Heart, I'm sorry this conversation is so draining on you. I can sympathize with that feeling, as I'm not feeling particularly buoyant about this exchange, myself. To be quite frank, I'm not here to argue, that's not who I am, and not what I am about. I don't want to be the bad guy here. I feel I have worked very hard to present my points without insult and in a calm manner.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I think I am finally beginning to understand where the disconnect is happening here. You are correct, I did say that trans people experience dysphoria "on top of" the rampant misogyny of a patriarchal society. That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I could see how it can be viewed as erasing language. I did not mean at all to imply that this is the pinnacle of oppression, I just didn't take the time to reinforce all of the things that lesbians and women go through. That was an oversight on my part and you were right to remind me of that. Maybe I've gotten so used to carrying that burden around that I forget to acknowledge that it's there. I will continue to keep this in the back of my mind, but for now I don't think I can say much more that would be coherent as I am still processing it.

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

Again, you have a very valid point here. I have to repeat what I've said before, it is possible that I can't see the forest for the trees. There are many things that are important to me and women's rights is most assuredly one of those things. I got off on a tangent, sure, but I have more than enough passion to fight for more than one thing.




I also hope (as do you and Cheryl) that we can bring this back around to lesbian pride, as that's what I made such a big fuss over in the first place. I was the first to complain about getting off topic, and now I've gone and derailed it myself. For that i apologize not only to you both, but to everyone who came to this thread and was disappointed by what they found. I hope I've responded to your concerns in a way that works for both of us and will help us get back to what we originally came here for.

[Chazz]

De-obfuscation 101

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

SEXISM = discrimination based on sex

GENDER BIAS = discrimination based on sex-typed social construction; stereotyping based on sex

GENDERISM = a neologism used to illustrate a myth, and/or reinforce it, as the case may be.

GENDER INCONGRUENCY = not complying with sex-typed, constructed gender roles

Originally Posted by Slater

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same.

This is completely inaccurate.... Just because people sometimes wrongly conflate gender with sex doesn't make it ontologically accurate. Conflating the two and knowing better, is a deliberate attempt to confuse people and issues. It happens all the time

I write and edit professional stuff for a living, I assure everyone that sex and gender have never been used interchangeably in literate, literary or scientific circles. It is an ontological error to do so.

Conflating sex with gender is a recent phenomena owing, in large part, to gender theory. It is being vigorously addressed, and excised, in scholarly and scientific journals. There is no place for I-politics, of any kind, in scientific research.

This conflation IS NOT BENIGN. It's taken a generation-plus for Feminist scholars to expose/critique/exorcise, if only just barely, sexist bias from science and literature. Now, that work is being undone by subjective relativists. This is devastating for precisely the reasons Cheryl stated: "Gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny...." I would have excluded the word "seems" because the facts are before us. ....Butches as "masculine of center", etc., etc. ! ! ! !

Originally Posted by Slater

But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

HOLY COW ! ! ! ! In one swipe of lexical incohesion, I lost my butch womanhood.

Gender is NOT biology. Adult females ARE woman. Gender presentation does NOT change ones sex. Why do these simple, observable facts have to be argued over and over again? HMMMM ? ? ? ?

Gender theory DOES promote a binary system. It "sanctions" going from point A on a binary scale to point Z. Everything in between is a matter of gender constructed degree.

No, Slater.... Adult females will always be women.

It doesn't matter if a gender system is binary or not. Gender mythology is the issue. Having 10,000 variations of a myth doesn't change the fact that it's a myth, especially when it comes to patriarchy. (Patriarchy is very adaptable.)

Originally Posted by Slater

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

Tightly "interwoven" by patriarchy - not women or lesbians.... Feminists have been trying to strip gender constructs from sex long before gender theory became the cause célèbre of the day. It's tough, arduous work, but women have been doing it, and doing it well. Women's lives depend on that being successful. (So do trans and intersexed people's lives.)

To the extent that gender theorists get in the way of that work by continuing to conflate sex with gender, it's anti-woman/lesbian/Feminist, and anti-gender incongruent people of all stripes - including trans and intersexed people.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

....As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Originally Posted by Jess

Why should I have to change the language of who I am because of a haircut or clothes or whether I prefer power tools to blowdryers? I want to be able to proudly say, I am a woman, I am a lesbian, I wear these clothes and this hairstyle and like saws.

'Cause according to many genderists, Jess, that's guy stuff. ....Hence, women/lesbian/butches/anti-gender incongruent people stay endlessly trapped in gender constructed mythology.

Aint' subjective relativism grand ! ! ! !

Originally Posted by Jess

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

When you stop being confused, be concerned.

[Cin]

I remember a thread on another forum about if a man has the right to identify as a lesbian, a male lesbian. I believe I posted something or other about how I believe everyone has a right to identify however they chose.

If someone, who looks like just some guy to me, says he identifies as reptilian and believes he is a python then I guess I will try to honor that, although I won’t understand it since he doesn’t appear to me to be a snake at all.

But I think when people embrace an identity, yet do not fit the definition of that identity, then it is okay to ask them why they believe that identity is valid for them. When a group of people assign an identity to another different group and the definition of the assigned identity clearly doesn’t ring true to the defined group then I think it is okay to ask questions.

My experience has been that people don’t really care for that. It feels intrusive I guess. But adopting an identity that isn’t a traditional fit can feel invasive to some who share that identity. Just like insisting on giving others, despite their protests, an identity that doesn’t work feels, at the very least, dismissive. I don’t think an explanation is too much to ask. I think it is okay to wonder and to ask why someone feels a particular identity encompasses them when they do not fit the traditional definition as with lesbian. I think it is logical to ask why someone will insist on defining you using an identity that does not work for you as with cis-gendered. And clearly insisting that Adult females ARE woman erases and discounts the identities of those who FEEL differently.

I think lesbian for someone who sleeps with women as well as men fits better than cis-gendered fits for someone like me. At least they encompass part of the definition of lesbian. I have no clue what it would be like to live in a place where my gender is remotely similar to, or congruent with, society’s definition.

I really don’t believe anyone can or should try to define someone else. But it happens. However, I think if we chose an identity for ourselves or for others (as in the case of cis) that doesn’t really fit the widely accepted definition and/or upsets the other you are naming then we should take responsibility for explaining our choices. We should also be willing to listen to what the other has to say about how your decision effects them.

It seems that people often feel it is an imposition to explain themselves. Some feel they have a right to never be challenged. When asked why, I notice people often give some version of “because” for an answer. The version of “because” people most often use is “it’s my opinion”. People seem extremely adverse to explanations, especially ones that are, at least partially, rooted in fact or reality. And it is even worse when the challenging questions are directed at an oppressed group or a member of an oppressed group. If one chooses to go there, one risks the likelihood that one will be accused of being some sort of -phobe or bigot.

To me reality does matter and facts are important. A common language and a shared understanding of what a word means is necessary for communication. If we want to change that, such as claim for ourselves a not so traditional definition for lesbian, define an entire group of people as cis and paint them with the same brush, decide we are female but not woman, or appropriate an identity such as reptilian, then we are responsible for explaining our choices. Conversations may seem endless but dialogue in cases such as these are invaluable. Words are all we have to make our actions and beliefs comprehensible to others. To stop talking, to cease explaining ourselves, our reasons, our feelings, is to close the door on understanding.

I also think that explaining things brings a degree of clarity to the person doing the explaining as well. It’s a form of self-exploration I think. Unfortunately people are not always interested in engaging in that way. They may feel they have done it enough already or just don’t trust the process or, and perhaps especially, the person questioning them. Or maybe they don’t even trust the question. Sometimes they think there is no answer it just is what it is. I encountered this quite a bit when I try to engage people who identify as female but not as women. I want to understand what it is about woman that is so different from female. What is it about female that is more acceptable, more palatable? Is it society’s definition of woman that makes it so hard to own? Or is it something else?

Attempting to understand others’ reasons for how they feel about an identity, whether it ends in clarity or not, shouldn’t negate anyone’s right to identify how they chose or to define an identity to their own personal satisfaction. Attempting to understand others is always priceless no matter the result. I think of attempting to understand others or putting oneself in someone else’s place and imagining how it feels, to be the sort of thing that one gets better at with practice. I think of understanding and empathy as muscles that are directly connected to our ears and indirectly to our hearts and like most muscles grow proportionally to the exercise they receive.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Chazz

HOLY COW ! ! ! ! In one swipe of lexical incohesion, I lost my butch womanhood.

Ummm, no. Nowhere did I say that the identity of butch woman was not also valid. This One True Way thing is your mindset not mine.

Originally Posted by Chazz

No, Slater.... Adult females will always be women.

If all the word "woman" means is adult female, then yes an adult female is always a woman. But the word woman is used to describe a gender/gender role. For instance, why would Cheryl and Heart have been concerned earlier in this very thread that the elimination of genders would eliminate the category of women entirely.

I would argue that the what makes it seem like adult female = woman is that gender roles were so strictly and inexorably tied to sex that they were regarded as equivalent. The words sex and gender are used interchangably in society as though they are the same. How many forms ask for gender when really what they are asking for is sex? I can not even begin to imagine how you can suggest that the conflation of sex and gender is a recent development.

Your worldview is as nonsensical and unpersuasive to me as mine is to you. Neither of those seems likely to change.

[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.......