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

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Looking at what like a "word problem"?
As a english speaker, lesbian=homosexual. A female homosexual is by definition a lesbian. Of course she can call herself whatever she wants if she is not speaking the english language.

__________________________________________________ _____
Les⋅bi⋅an  [lez-bee-uhn]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to Lesbos.
2. (usually lowercase) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of female homosexuality.
3. (usually lowercase) erotic; sensual.
–noun
4. an inhabitant of Lesbos.
5. (usually lowercase) a female homosexual.
Origin:
1595–1605; < L Lesbi(us) Lesbian (< Gk Lésbios, equiv. to Lésb(os) Lesbos + -ios adj. suffix) + -an; (defs. 2, 5) alluding to the poet Sappho of Lesbos, whose verse deals largely with her emotional relationships with other women
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

les·bi·an (lěz'bē-ən)
n. A woman whose sexual orientation is to women.
adj. Of, relating to, or being a lesbian. See Usage Note at gay.

[From the putative homosexuality of Sappho, lyric poet of Lesbos.]
Les·bi·an (lěz'bē-ən)
n.
A native or inhabitant of Lesbos.

The ancient Greek dialect of Lesbos.

adj. Of or relating to Lesbos.

[From Latin Lesbius, from Greek Lesbios, from Lesbos.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009

Cultural Dictionary

lesbian

A homosexual woman. (See also gay.)

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Word Origin & History

lesbian (adj.)
1591, from L. Lesbius, from Gk. lesbios "of Lesbos," Gk. island in northeastern Aegean Sea, home of Sappho, great lyric poet whose erotic and romantic verse embraced women as well as men, hence meaning "relating to homosexual relations between women" (1890; lesbianism in this sense is attested from 1870) and the noun, first recorded 1925. Slang variant lez, les is from 1929; lesbo first attested 1940. Before this, the principal fig. use (common in 17c.) was lesbian rule (1601) a mason's rule of lead, of a type used on Lesbos, which could be bent to fit the curves of a molding; hence, "pliant morality or judgment."
"And this is the nature of the equitable, a correction of law where it is defective owing to its universality. ... For when the thing is indefinite the rule also is indefinite, like the leaden rule used in making the Lesbian moulding; the rule adapts itself to the shape of the stone and is not rigid, and so too the decree is adapted to the facts." [Aristotle, "Nicomachean Ethics"]
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: 1les·bi·an
Pronunciation: 'lez-bE-&n
Function: adjective
often capitalized : of or relating to homosexualitybetween females

Main Entry: 2lesbian
Function: noun
often capitalized : a female homosexual called also sapphic, sapphist
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Medical Dictionary
lesbian les·bi·an (lěz'bē-ən)
n.
A gay or homosexual woman. adj.
Of, relating to, or being a lesbian.

Synonym: Homosexual

this definition only works if the "lesbian" is sexually attracted to someone whose gender is "woman". what about the person whose gender is butch? or transguy? or genderqueer? or intersex? or fill-in-the-blank?

this definition of "lesbian" demands we continue to swallow a binary gender paradigm. such a paradigm has been proven to be greatly limited, limiting, and evolving. it has been many years since science/medicine discovered there were more genetic combinations than xx and xy.

additionally, there was a time when "heterosexual" meant "attracted to 2 sexes" and "homosexual" meant "attracted to 1 sex"...thus, btw, making "heterosexuality" an "abnormality".

generalizations usually end up eliminating important information...evolution in thinking as well as evolution in science being the information threatened with elimination at the moment.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

this definition only works if the "lesbian" is sexually attracted to someone whose gender is "woman". what about the person whose gender is butch? or transguy? or genderqueer? or intersex? or fill-in-the-blank?

this definition of "lesbian" demands we continue to swallow a binary gender paradigm. such a paradigm has been proven to be greatly limited, limiting, and evolving. it has been many years since science/medicine discovered there were more genetic combinations than xx and xy.

additionally, there was a time when "heterosexual" meant "attracted to 2 sexes" and "homosexual" meant "attracted to 1 sex"...thus, btw, making "heterosexuality" an "abnormality".

generalizations usually end up eliminating important information...evolution in thinking as well as evolution in science being the information threatened with elimination at the moment.

Lesbian is a synonym for female homosexual.

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Lesbian is a synonym for female homosexual.

okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women.

if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse?

by your definition, the answer is 'yes' and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women. The english language definition for lesbian is "female homosexual".

if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?A lesbian is synonymous with a female homosexual.

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse? Do you define sexual orientation based on intercourse?

by your definition, the answer is 'yes' Wha??? I don't follow. and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either. Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?

Lesbian is a synonym for "female homosexual".

[hippieflowergirl]

okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women.


The english language definition for lesbian is "female homosexual".

yes...i believe i acknowledged that you cited the dictionary. that it was an english dictionary was presumed. i also said that i understood that this was a definition you were comfortable with. i have no issue with you using words in a way that make you comfortable. i do not have to use them the same way.


if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?

A lesbian is synonymous with a female homosexual.


i see the repetition but i missed you answering the question. if i partner with someone who does not consider themselves "woman" then am i still a lesbian by your definition? or does no one's definition of themselves matter more/appear more relevant than Webster's?

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse? Do you define sexual orientation based on intercourse? by your definition, the answer is 'yes'

Wha??? I don't follow.



based on your dictionary definition of lesbian...that "lesbian" is defined as a woman who has sex with women....that means that lesbians are solely defined by the act of sexual intercourse.

and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.


Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?


i am speaking for myself when i use the word "i".

when i say "not all lesbians feel that way" i am relating the comments of people i know, people who do identify themselves as lesbians, who do not feel defined by the fact that they have sex with people who identify themselves as women.


Lesbian is a synonym for "female homosexual".

is there a point to repeating this statement? i apologize if it doesnt sound as though i understand that this is your point of view. i understand that you referred to the dictionary and that the statement is a summary of what you found there. i am perfectly comfortable not agreeing with the dictionary. i am comfortable with the concept of evolving language and with the idea that i do not define myself using the dictionary as my sole reference for reflection. i am comfortable not agreeing also, but if there is something i am supposed to understand in the repetition i will be the first to admit that i do not see it. sorry.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women.


The english language definition for lesbian is "female homosexual".

yes...i believe i acknowledged that you cited the dictionary. that it was an english dictionary was presumed. i also said that i understood that this was a definition you were comfortable with. i have no issue with you using words in a way that make you comfortable. i do not have to use them the same way.
Make me comfortable? I did not create the english language. I don't need to be patronized by someone who disagrees with the existence of dictionaries,lol.

if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?

A lesbian is synonymous with a female homosexual.


i see the repetition but i missed you answering the question. if i partner with someone who does not consider themselves "woman" then am i still a lesbian by your definition? or does no one's definition of themselves matter more/appear more relevant than Webster's?You ask here whether sexual orientation/affectational orientation is defined by one's relationships and actions. Are you asking for my personal opinion? Why?

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse? Do you define sexual orientation based on intercourse? by your definition, the answer is 'yes'

Wha??? I don't follow.



based on your dictionary definition of lesbian...that "lesbian" is defined as a woman who has sex with women....that means that lesbians are solely defined by the act of sexual intercourse. OK you obviously didn't read them. That's why I keep repeating.

and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.


Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?


i am speaking for myself when i use the word "i".

when i say "not all lesbians feel that way" i am relating the comments of people i know, people who do identify themselves as lesbians, who do not feel defined by the fact that they have sex with people who identify themselves as women.


Lesbian is a synonym for "female homosexual".

is there a point to repeating this statement? i apologize if it doesnt sound as though i understand that this is your point of view. Yes, that's it, really.i understand that you referred to the dictionary and that the statement is a summary of what you found there. i am perfectly comfortable not agreeing with the dictionary. i am comfortable with the concept of evolving language What do you find problematic about lesbian/homosexual women having words to describe themselves?and with the idea that i do not define myself using the dictionary as my sole reference for reflection. i am comfortable not agreeing also, but if there is something i am supposed to understand in the repetition i will be the first to admit that i do not see it. sorry.

Then I'll keep repeating.

[hippieflowergirl]

one of the things i find interesting in this discussion is the obvious path of evolution.

we are, many of us, part of something i think of as a "transitional generation". i'll use myself as an example.

my parents were between 20 and 30 years older than i am and were raised in a very cut and dried world: their grandparents and parents grew up working farmland, got married, owned a house, had several children who grew up working farmland, and they were together until death.

my parents thought they would have the same life but ended up chosing other work besides farming, traveled extensively, bought a house, raised one child, both of them worked, then dad went to college and just mom worked and they divorced when i was 17. in doing all of this, they deviated from the "norm" created by their parents and grandparents and several generations prior. their generation began an evolutionary transition out of a centuries old cultural paradigm.

i'm 46. i'm single and happy living alone. i've had my career and dont work currently. grad school starts in a few weeks. i rent rather than own and have no children. if i'd had children they would be in their 20s now and the wonders they imagined wouldnt have even registered on my grandparents' radar. they (and their future children/grandchildren) are cultural pioneers.

my point is that as humankind, science, philosophy and etc evolves, the language of such things will evolve as well. there will come a time when people will define themselves using a vocabulary that we would be wholly familiar with.

perhaps, the start of such evolution is discussions like this one. it might be easier to say that human beings are simply "sexual" and to agree that there are a million and one ways to express that truth. maybe that will come close to illuminating what it is we're all trying to explain to one another with such vehement calm.

or not.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

one of the things i find interesting in this discussion is the obvious path of evolution.

we are, many of us, part of something i think of as a "transitional generation". i'll use myself as an example.

my parents were between 20 and 30 years older than i am and were raised in a very cut and dried world: their grandparents and parents grew up working farmland, got married, owned a house, had several children who grew up working farmland, and they were together until death.

my parents thought they would have the same life but ended up chosing other work besides farming, traveled extensively, bought a house, raised one child, both of them worked, then dad went to college and just mom worked and they divorced when i was 17. in doing all of this, they deviated from the "norm" created by their parents and grandparents and several generations prior. their generation began an evolutionary transition out of a centuries old cultural paradigm.

i'm 46. i'm single and happy living alone. i've had my career and dont work currently. grad school starts in a few weeks. i rent rather than own and have no children. if i'd had children they would be in their 20s now and the wonders they imagined wouldnt have even registered on my grandparents' radar. they (and their future children/grandchildren) are cultural pioneers.

my point is that as humankind, science, philosophy and etc evolves, the language of such things will evolve as well. there will come a time when people will define themselves using a vocabulary that we would be wholly familiar with.

perhaps, the start of such evolution is discussions like this one. it might be easier to say that human beings are simply "sexual" and to agree that there are a million and one ways to express that truth. maybe that will come close to illuminating what it is we're all trying to explain to one another with such vehement calm.

or not.

Are you saying you believe homosexuality is obsolete?
Or that the language describing lesbians needs to evolve into something that does not describe lesbians?

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Are you saying you believe homosexuality is obsolete?
Or that the language describing lesbians needs to evolve into something that does not describe lesbians?

i'm not saying that i believe anything is obsolete. i am saying that we are evolving and so our language is evolving.

the language describing people will evolve as people themselves evolve. i do not quite understand the idea that language that does describe lesbians must evolve into something that does not describe lesbians. describe and define are different things.

if someone tells me who i am, and i know they are wrong, i will say so. i dont mean any offense in doing so. i simply dont want to be defined by another person, and i especially dont want to be defined in terms that exclude the truth of who i am. people who insist that i use their words and definitions to define myself are being disrespectful.

according to the definition that a lesbian is a woman who has sexual intercourse with women, i am not a lesbian. i have sexual intercourse with butches or transguys. what word does the dictionary demand i use to define myself?

dictionaries are references. they are not etched in stone. they change every year. words are added and eliminated because language evolves. everything evolves.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

i'm not saying that i believe anything is obsolete. i am saying that we are evolving and so our language is evolving.

the language describing people will evolve as people themselves evolve. i do not quite understand the idea that language that does describe lesbians must evolve into something that does not describe lesbians. describe and define are different things.

if someone tells me who i am, and i know they are wrong, i will say so. i dont mean any offense in doing so. i simply dont want to be defined by another person, and i especially dont want to be defined in terms that exclude the truth of who i am. people who insist that i use their words and definitions to define myself are being disrespectful.

according to the definition that a lesbian is a woman who has sexual intercourse with women, i am not a lesbian. i have sexual intercourse with butches or transguys. what word does the dictionary demand i use to define myself?

dictionaries are references. they are not etched in stone. they change every year. words are added and eliminated because language evolves. everything evolves.

Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?

I am gobsmacked as to how you've come to these conclusions from what she said.

*shakes head*

hippie said: if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.

you said: Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?

Where on Earth do you get "I'm speaking for lesbians" from if "I" used the word lesbian to define "myself", "I" wouldn't feel that way either???

I just don't see the connection. She can speak for herself, of course, but I am not seeing how you get that from her response. Maybe it will be clearer in the morning.

Good night, all.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Gemme

I am gobsmacked as to how you've come to these conclusions from what she said.

*shakes head*

hippie said: if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.

you said: Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?

Where on Earth do you get "I'm speaking for lesbians" from if "I" used the word lesbian to define "myself", "I" wouldn't feel that way either???

I just don't see the connection. She can speak for herself, of course, but I am not seeing how you get that from her response. Maybe it will be clearer in the morning.

Good night, all.

An entire post from a non lesbian about lesbians? Speaking about how lesbians feel and stating how she would find the term lesbian problematic IF SHE WAS ONE? You don't see it- maybe only a lesbian would understand...

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?

wow.

i'm going to defer answering this until i am less disturbed by the hostility that i feel coming with it.

good night everyone.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

wow.

i'm going to defer answering this until i am less disturbed by the hostility that i feel coming with it.

good night everyone.

I'm sorry you feel hostility? Not intended as hostile at all. I think this gets to the crux of our conversation here. I look forward to your response. Have a pleasant evening!

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?

Do you find it problematic that there are women who do not identify as heterosexual and also choose to not identify as lesbian?

Why do you, as a lesbian, have an issue with the words non-heterosexual-but-not-lesbian may choose to not use to describe themselves.

The issue here it that it seems, Cyclopea, that you are trying to define other people's self i.d.

Why is that? I am truly curious. Does it somehow reflect on you if I choose to say that I am not a lesbian?

I could go into chapter and verse on why I choose not to call myself a lesbian, but maybe you would like to read the thread Open Letter: Dear Femme where this is addressed to some extent.

Bottom line is that no one gets to define me but me.

Your tone is couched in rather dogmatic language (which I also do so I'm fine with that). You might want to reread your posts and ask yourself if you are asking, demanding or going into lecture mode.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Arwen

Do you find it problematic that there are women who do not identify as heterosexual and also choose to not identify as lesbian?
Not at all, I think it's great and consider them allies.
Why do you, as a lesbian, have an issue with the words non-heterosexual-but-not-lesbian may choose to not use to describe themselves.
I don't!

The issue here it that it seems, Cyclopea, that you are trying to define other people's self i.d.
Not at all! That is simply not true.

Why is that? I am truly curious. Does it somehow reflect on you if I choose to say that I am not a lesbian?
Why are terms decribing lesbian/female homosexuals so problematic to non-heterosexual-but-not-lesbian people? I just don't get it. And as I said a few posts back, I would never ever want someone to ID as lesbian/female homosexual if they were not one! Frankly I'm offended that you would read so much into my posts that is not there, and I wonder why...


I could go into chapter and verse on why I choose not to call myself a lesbian, but maybe you would like to read the thread Open Letter: Dear Femme where this is addressed to some extent.
As I posted earlier in the thread I would never want someone to ID as a lesbian who was not a lesbian/homosexual female. Ever. I accept and respect them as they are. Or did you skip that post?

Bottom line is that no one gets to define me but me.
I never said otherwise so please don't make such unfair accusations.

Your tone is couched in rather dogmatic language (which I also do so I'm fine with that). You might want to reread your posts and ask yourself if you are asking, demanding or going into lecture mode. Wow, very harsh.

Please read my previous posts before making ugly accusations and personal attacks. Thanks.