Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Medusa]

Folks -

There have been some ugly posts in this thread that are entirely too personal and shitty. If you cannot have this discussion in a calm, civil manner without trying to jab one another, then kindly bow out and let the discussion continue.

Thanks,
Angie

[BullDog]

Kobi I really don't know why you are so disappointed and I guess I am not clear on what your intent of the thread is.

I personally am a lesbian that takes pride in how multi-faceted the identity lesbian is and welcome the discussion of it in all its many aspects.

[Heart]

Martina - I love your posts here.

Lesbian is as much a culturally/politically/socially bound term and identity as it is a sexual orientation.

You know.... I knew that this thread ran the risk of turning into policing of the term lesbian...

If the thread is also a reaction to recent BV conflicts, I notice that the butch women who split from BV stated that their primary concerns were transparency, and the fact that BV no longer had a strongly articulated feminist, anti-misogynist, anti-agist message. I think that's important, because they are focusing on issues, not identities. That's what solidarity is really about.

But back to lesbian pride: If you express pride in being a lesbian and/or honor that history/experience, I don't need to take an inventory of who you've slept with or even what your genitals look like to stand with you under the banner of lesbian pride.

Heart

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Heart

But back to lesbian pride: If you express pride in being a lesbian and/or honor that history/experience, I don't need to take an inventory of who you've slept with or even what your genitals look like to stand with you under the banner of lesbian pride.

Heart

Yes, this....thank you Heart.

I know I've said this here and there in various threads....but I truly, deeply wish that we could all just define ourselves and let everyone else do the same.

I don't need to understand how Julie or Snow or Kobi or Bulldog or Dapper or anyone else here defines themselves in order to respect them and their own definition.

If I choose to call myself lesbian or queer or dyke or femme or bisexual...then I am. I happen to know someone who defined herself as a lesbian for years, even though she was a virgin who had had no intimate relationships with anyone. Is she a lesbian to me? Yes, because she claims it.

I agree that language carries weight and has meaning...but I think we use it too often to fracture and splinter and poke and prod.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by JustJo

If I choose to call myself lesbian or queer or dyke or femme or bisexual...then I am.

Yes, language is important -- which is why I chose the words I did: I will stand with anyone under the banner of lesbian pride -- because pride is about community, as well as individuals, and for me pride doesn't have to be about sameness.

But... I am not ready to agree that anyone is whatever they wish to call themselves. I've thought about this over time... I don't control what others say they are, and I don't police it, but that doesn't mean I see whatever they tell me to see. Someone who has no claim to any Native American Tribe, but decides that they want to call themselves Native American is not identifying, they are appropriating.

Heart

[BullDog]

Thanks to Martina, Julie, Dapper, Heart and others for pointing out that lesbian is as much a cultural, social, spiritual and political orientation and identity as it is sexual orientation.

Lesbian is my sexual orientation. I am also a stone butch and there is zero conflict for me in being a stone butch and lesbian. Lesbian is also very much a part of the social and cultural world that I came of age in. I knew I liked girls from the age of five if not younger. Growing up I heard the terms gay and lesbian. I did not know about queer or terms like female identified butch until I came online- neither one of those terms have much personal meaning to me. They are not a part of my history or culture. However for others those terms do resonate with them on a personal level.

I moved to Santa Cruz, California when I was in my early twenties- which is like Lesbianville, USA (one of them) and was totally immersed in lesbian culture and feminism. Lesbian is very much about my personal history, culture and politics as much as who I am attracted to. Not everyone has that same history or connection that I do. Others have a different connection with the word lesbian. Some may have a more narrower interpretation of what lesbian means than I do. That's ok as long as you don't impose your own personal meaning onto others.

I speak out often about what I see as lesbian bashing, the perpetuation of lesbian stereotypes, and narrow definitions of what lesbian is or can be in butch femme circles. It makes it tough to speak out when some BF lesbians seem to be imposing these same narrow definitions back onto people.

[apretty]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Thanks to Martina, Julie, Dapper, Heart and others for pointing out that lesbian is as much a cultural, social, spiritual and political orientation and identity as it is sexual orientation.

Thanks for reiterating this--My politics have always been lesbian.

I have to say, I want space here and I want space elsewhere and it would be hard to choose where to align myself if I had to make that choice.

(Not to BullDog, specifically) Also, what's with the qualifiers--Why explain that you don't touch vagina but you're still a lesbian? That for me, feels like qualifying your space in *here* and that for me, feels like discomfort.

*I am speaking to the Stonefemmes because if feels like for me, that "stone" is frequently used in threads about ..well, anything and in here, in particularly it seems if not dismantling, at least divisive.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Heart

Yes, language is important -- which is why I chose the words I did: I will stand with anyone under the banner of lesbian pride -- because pride is about community, as well as individuals, and for me pride doesn't have to be about sameness.

But... I am not ready to agree that anyone is whatever they wish to call themselves. I've thought about this over time... I don't control what others say they are, and I don't police it, but that doesn't mean I see whatever they tell me to see. Someone who has no claim to any Native American Tribe, but decides that they want to call themselves Native American is not identifying, they are appropriating.

Heart

I have to echo this because, in fact, I think words do have meaning. My oldest friend is a cis-gendered, heterosexual white man. I love Jeff as my brother. If Jeff EVER were to do the "I'm a lesbian too, we both love women, yuk yuk" schtick it would go hard on him. NOT because I think someone must have two X chromosomes to be a lesbian but because him saying that he's a lesbian would stretch the definition of lesbian far beyond its breaking point. He would be appropriating the term and I would take a dim view of that. So while it is emotionally satisfying to say that people are whatever they say they are, not only is that not what we actually mean it would be incoherent if it were!

If it were the case that all one had to do to be, say, black in America would be to say "I'm black" then saying that there are black people would be meaningless. Since I've met you, Heart, I'm going to use you as an example (with the caveat that I KNOW you would never do this). If you were to roll up on me and say "what's up my n---er?!" by way of greeting and then, when I looked at you with my "you might want to explain yourself real quick" look and you discoursed on how you 'identified' as black and therefore you were using the 'n-word' black person to black person, I would probably place you in front of the nearest mirror and ask you to look at the two of us until you'd worked it out. What I *wouldn't* do is just accept that you get to say you are black and know what it is like to be black in America. Now, to be clear, if someone who *is* black comes up and greets me with the n-word it's still not going to go well for them but for completely different reasons. Well, mostly completely different--I find it the height of hypocrisy for us in the black community to use that word with one another while at the same time bristling when a white person uses the word. But that's a different conversation entirely and not one I'm having here.

That said, consistency matters. The next time someone reading this thinks that someone is whatever it is they say they are, imagine the likes of a Rush Limbaugh claiming that he is a lesbian and AS A LESBIAN can speak about what lesbian lives and loves are like. Imagine then that he launches on some virulently homophobic diatribe all under the cover of loving critique of the lesbian community which he claims as his own. Does Rush Limbaugh have any place to talk about lesbian lives, claiming that his identity as a lesbian gives him a place at the table and a voice? I'm sorry but I would have to say that it doesn't. If it does, then 'lesbian' is an empty word signifying absolutely nothing. That is an erasure I am not willing to stand by for nor could I make an argument in favor of standing by for it. If, however, we are going to deny Mr. Limbaugh the right to identify himself as a lesbian because he is a cisgendered, heterosexual male then we need to at least be willing to consider that lesbian might have meaning, that it might form a boundary of sorts, and that just as my wife--who I love dearly--has no claim to a black identify, people who are not within that boundary have no claim to lesbian identity. That doesn't mean that they are bad people or that they have no legitimate identity of their own, simply that for them to claim a lesbian identity is meaningless. And it has to be (or at least should be) based upon something that can be fairly applied instead of "well, of course, Rush Limbaugh has no right because I dislike/disagree with him". That's not a solid enough case.



Cheers
Aj

[Jess]

one of these lesbians ain't like the other one...

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I have to echo this because, in fact, I think words do have meaning. My oldest friend is a cis-gendered, heterosexual white man. I love Jeff as my brother. If Jeff EVER were to do the "I'm a lesbian too, we both love women, yuk yuk" schtick it would go hard on him. NOT because I think someone must have two X chromosomes to be a lesbian but because him saying that he's a lesbian would stretch the definition of lesbian far beyond its breaking point. He would be appropriating the term and I would take a dim view of that. So while it is emotionally satisfying to say that people are whatever they say they are, not only is that not what we actually mean it would be incoherent if it were!

If it were the case that all one had to do to be, say, black in America would be to say "I'm black" then saying that there are black people would be meaningless. Since I've met you, Heart, I'm going to use you as an example (with the caveat that I KNOW you would never do this). If you were to roll up on me and say "what's up my n---er?!" by way of greeting and then, when I looked at you with my "you might want to explain yourself real quick" look and you discoursed on how you 'identified' as black and therefore you were using the 'n-word' black person to black person, I would probably place you in front of the nearest mirror and ask you to look at the two of us until you'd worked it out. What I *wouldn't* do is just accept that you get to say you are black and know what it is like to be black in America. Now, to be clear, if someone who *is* black comes up and greets me with the n-word it's still not going to go well for them but for completely different reasons. Well, mostly completely different--I find it the height of hypocrisy for us in the black community to use that word with one another while at the same time bristling when a white person uses the word. But that's a different conversation entirely and not one I'm having here.

That said, consistency matters. The next time someone reading this thinks that someone is whatever it is they say they are, imagine the likes of a Rush Limbaugh claiming that he is a lesbian and AS A LESBIAN can speak about what lesbian lives and loves are like. Imagine then that he launches on some virulently homophobic diatribe all under the cover of loving critique of the lesbian community which he claims as his own. Does Rush Limbaugh have any place to talk about lesbian lives, claiming that his identity as a lesbian gives him a place at the table and a voice? I'm sorry but I would have to say that it doesn't. If it does, then 'lesbian' is an empty word signifying absolutely nothing. That is an erasure I am not willing to stand by for nor could I make an argument in favor of standing by for it. If, however, we are going to deny Mr. Limbaugh the right to identify himself as a lesbian because he is a cisgendered, heterosexual male then we need to at least be willing to consider that lesbian might have meaning, that it might form a boundary of sorts, and that just as my wife--who I love dearly--has no claim to a black identify, people who are not within that boundary have no claim to lesbian identity. That doesn't mean that they are bad people or that they have no legitimate identity of their own, simply that for them to claim a lesbian identity is meaningless. And it has to be (or at least should be) based upon something that can be fairly applied instead of "well, of course, Rush Limbaugh has no right because I dislike/disagree with him". That's not a solid enough case.



Cheers
Aj

Wow. This is powerful, validating, and illuminating. Thank you.

( I am so psyched. I actually understood this without having to look anything up. )

[Martina]

i agree that ID's have some content, but it's often not what we say it is. .

There is a point at which labels lose meaning, but what we should do, IMO, is to positively describe ourselves, and not try to create a totally coherent, unique, or prescriptive ID. Know that the ID is porous. Think of it as a loose description.

Think of how gay male identity has changed. Even though there is a genetic component, the stylized acts -- i think that is the judith butler term -- that mark gay men change over time. How gay men enact their gay male identity actually changes over time. It's a construct overlaying some basic behaviors not common to all members, some of which are genetically influenced.

You can't even say that much about race. There are no basic behaviors. There is no genetic history that is shared by all people who ID as African American. It may LOOK like it. But it's not there. There is no cultural or class content that is common to all. What is common to all is the experience of racism against African Americans in the U.S. That is not how the ID is understood, of course. We act as if we believe that there is a shared cultural and genetic content even if we know better.

So, yes, we do have to have ID's that are useful and do exclude some people. But it is important to acknowledge that on the level at which they are useful to us, the level of coherence, they are cultural constructs.

And creating coherent identity categories is full of pitfalls. We do it because it's useful and it's how humans think. But we should do it mindfully. We should not define ourselves in opposition to others. And we should not try to create prescriptive identities.