Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Martina]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Martina, I asked a specific question. Why did you write this?:

"2) It tends to have an agenda that is in part reactionary.... Here? Who knows? Probably some transphobia...."

The discussion is about lesbians. You haven't stated a reason why you would conclude that a discussion about lesbian ID taking place amongst women who feel that their lesbian ID is embattled "Probably (has) some transphobia". You've made an unsupported assumption. Why does a discussion about a female ID have to have something to do with males? ("transfolk, male ID'd... transphobia")

Is it possible to discuss lesbian pride without discussing males or male IDs?

That was my interpretation. i seriously don't know what else to say. i think that when one defends an ID, like being French, one is defending AGAINST something, like being an immigrant of African or Arab descent. That is what i meant. i don't know what else to say. i am sorry.

[Linus]

[Posting as a member]

Kobi, I hope if it's ok that I interject here. I don't want to take away something that is important for lesbian members and if I'm speaking out of turn, I apologize.

Originally Posted by Martina

That was my interpretation. i seriously don't know what else to say. i think that when one defends an ID, like being French, one is defending AGAINST something, like being an immigrant of African or Arab descent. That is what i meant. i don't know what else to say. i am sorry.

Martina, I'm a bit puzzled. I'm not sure where an association of claiming an identity automatically means that you're against something. I claim many identities: transguy, geek, Acadian, Canadian, immigrant, intelligent (or so I believe), middle-aged, etc.

But none of those mean that I'm against anyone who isn't in those categories. Just because someone identifies as lesbian (sexual identity) doesn't mean that they are automatically against trans-individuals (gender identity). To me, this kind of idea -- "us vs. them" -- is contrary and does nothing more but to divide the LGBT community as a whole. There are transwomen who are lesbians and transmen who are gay. By claiming those identities doesn't mean self-hatred.

Now, are there lesbians who dislike transmen and transwomen? Sure. But I do not believe that is what this discussion is about. It's about (and Kobi, please correct me if I'm wrong on this) reclaiming lesbian as a positive and proud title and not something that one should be ashamed of, least of all in one's own community.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by Linus

[Posting as a member]

I'm not sure where an association of claiming an identity automatically means that you're against something.

It does not. Of course. Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples.

Let's look at this quote -- from Kobi, whom i did not mean to offend by not using her name.

I am a freakin lesbian - one of those relic women who wants to be with women who want to be with other women.

I am tired of feeling invisible in my own community. I am tired of feeling like a guest in my own community.

Who MIGHT be making her feel like a guest in her OWN community? Perhaps someone NOT a "woman who wants to be with other women?" i am guessing. The possibilities of people who choose to ID as lesbian but are not women loving women are somewhat limited. i speculated.

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking. But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Martina

It does not. Of course. Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples.

Let's look at this quote -- from Kobi, whom i did not mean to offend by not using her name.



Who MIGHT be making her feel like a guest in her OWN community? Perhaps someone NOT a "woman who wants to be with other women?" i am guessing. The possibilities of people who choose to ID as lesbian but are not women loving women are somewhat limited. i speculated.

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking. But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

I can't speak for Kobi, but I can say unequivocally that when I use the word 'lesbian' to identify myself I have been met with some hostility from people who, in another time and place, would have certainly been called lesbians, and probably would have called themselves lesbians. In some circles, including b-f communities, calling oneself a lesbian is considered uncool, a relic from former times, and a word associated with people who would choose to oppress those who don't fit into a narrow definition of what it means to be a woman who has sex with and partners with other women. There have been lesbians who claim I can't be one because I'm a stonefemme, because I'm a leatherwoman, and because I partner with butch women. I very powerfully, emphatically, and crankily claim the label LESBIAN because I am one. F.U. to anyone who attempts to tell me otherwise.

There have been plenty of straight POCs who attempt to police the behaviours of LGBT POCs. Some have claimed that gayness is a white disease. Does that make LGBT POCs disavow their connection to their communities? Not usually, and yet that's a common response amongst those who might once have called themselves lesbians. Because some lesbians have attempted to police their (b-f, trans, leather), IDs, they eschew the use of the label. Some of the not-very-bright people who have challenged my lesbian ID have done so because they assume it must mean I'm a transphobe.

The reason I'm hammering this point with you Martina, is that there is not one place in my general definition or in my self ID that has anything to do with males or transphobia. You brought that accusation into the thread spuriously, and you have yet to support the accusation with any quote. You merely assert that feeling defended around the use of this, in my opinion, embattled ID, must have something to do with transphobia. This is inflammatory because in my experience, unsupported accusations of transphobia are sometimes used to shut down conversations about lesbian ID.

I'm a prickly, argumentative person when I get riled up. Attempts to shut me down don't work very well, but others who are not as verbally aggressive as I am will walk away from those conversations where their lesbian ID has been mocked or denigrated feeling disempowered and invalidated. This is the reason why 'Lesbian Pride' is a topic of importance to me. Unless one is foolish enough to personally challenge my ID, there's nothing "dangerous" about this discourse.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

This is inflammatory because in my experience, unsupported accusations of transphobia are sometimes used to shut down conversations about lesbian ID.

i have seen that too. Or about any issue around women. It was not my intent to shut down discussion of lesbian identity or to divert it to a discussion of transphobia. i probably could have made all my points without saying that. i am sure it is part of the mix of motivations for some folks who use this rhetoric because it is explicitly said. Not here. i agree with you.

i am not saying that there aren't many other reasons to experience lesbian ID as challenged. i hate defending myself, but on the dash site, i spent a lot of time and energy trying to end the lesbian bashing that was tolerated for so long there.

In any case, i agree with the moderators that parsing this out is probably the work of another thread.

Re the assumption of lesbian = woman loving woman, i gotta say that on this site, that IS excluding folk. i guess we know that.

[BullDog]

I do agree that the focus of lesbian threads should be on women. However within the context of our community there are also a significant number of lesbians partnered with males/male identified people. I think lesbian needs to be discussed and understood within this broader context. They are women, so the focus is still on women. Also many males/male identified persons do have ties to the lesbian community. It is part of their herstory/history.

[Jess]

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

i have seen that too. Or about any issue around women. It was not my intent to shut down discussion of lesbian identity or to divert it to a discussion of transphobia. i probably could have made all my points without saying that. i am sure it is part of the mix of motivations for some folks who use this rhetoric because it is explicitly said. Not here. i agree with you.

i am not saying that there aren't many other reasons to experience lesbian ID as challenged. i hate defending myself, but on the dash site, i spent a lot of time and energy trying to end the lesbian bashing that was tolerated for so long there.

In any case, i agree with the moderators that parsing this out is probably the work of another thread.

Re the assumption of lesbian = woman loving woman, i gotta say that on this site, that IS excluding folk. i guess we know that.

So, if lesbian does not mean 'woman loving woman' then what does lesbian mean? Does lesbian include an FTM who loves women? Does it include a cisgendered male who loves women? If the term includes the former then why does the term not include the latter? Does it include a cross-dressing man who 'feels like a woman' when convenient but keeps his heterosexual male identity for career purposes? Does it include a homophobic cisgendered heterosexual man who says "I'm a lesbian, we both love women, yuk yuk"? If not, why does it include the FTM but not any of the cisgendered men?

I fear that this construction points us toward "well, if I like what you stand for then your identity is what you say it is but if I don't like what you stand for then your identity isn't what you say it is". It might just be me but I think that kind of stance lives in the same ethical neighborhood as plain old-fashions, down-home bigotry.

Cheers
Aj

[Reader]

SNIP

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I can't speak for Kobi, but I can say unequivocally that when I use the word 'lesbian' to identify myself I have been met with some hostility from people who, in another time and place, would have certainly been called lesbians, and probably would have called themselves lesbians. In some circles, including b-f communities, calling oneself a lesbian is considered uncool, a relic from former times...

SNIP

I could not help but recall the term "Lavender Menace" after reading this.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Martina

It does not. Of course. Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples.

Let's look at this quote -- from Kobi, whom i did not mean to offend by not using her name.



Who MIGHT be making her feel like a guest in her OWN community? Perhaps someone NOT a "woman who wants to be with other women?" i am guessing. The possibilities of people who choose to ID as lesbian but are not women loving women are somewhat limited. i speculated.

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking. But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

"The rheotoric of oppression. Poor me stuff. SOUND like victims."

Wow powerful stuff. Sends a big message. In the midst of what is going on here, it is plain and simple deflection. And, it is further evidence of misogyny, sexism, and homophobia being alive and well in our own community.

Lesbians, like me, have a reason or many reasons to feel the way we do. The danger is in remaining silent thereby being complicit in our own victimization.

There are kids out there, like me. Who will speak for them? Who will be role models for them? Who will help them forge their identities and their pride and their heritage?

I dont have to take away from another or be in opposition to another just to be who I am. But I will be damned if I will stand by silently while other groups are doing it to me.

Funny things those semantics huh?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Martina

....Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples....

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking....

If it's a "normal way of thinking", and research verifies it, what's the problem?

What you're sayng, here, is simply not logical or accurate. It's a false conflation. Defining oneself differently is not oppositional. It does not equate to a disavowal.

If I say: I am me, you are you, that's not disavowing you (or anyone else). It's simply saying You're not me. When did it become NOT okay to say You're not me?

ANSWER: When objectivity (demonstrable fact) caved to subjectivity (feelings), that's when. Yes, some "facts" are proven wrong over time, but proving them wrong never makes feelings facts.

(BTW, there hasn't been even a whiff of anybody disavowing anyone/or group in this thread. It's simply been lesbians saying: As a lesbian I feel marginalized in the community . Yes, that means someone or some group has been doing the marginalizing. That isn't a disavowal - it's a call for reflection.)

Originally Posted by Martina

But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

EXCEPT when straight women ARE, demonstrably, "less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity" as they strive to fit a patriarchal paradigm.

Originally Posted by Martina

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

What, then, are you calling the lesbians in this thread who do feel marginalized? "Dangerous" discoursers???? If so, I'm down with it.

Originally Posted by Kobi

"The rheotoric of oppression. Poor me stuff. SOUND like victims."

Wow powerful stuff. Sends a big message. In the midst of what is going on here, it is plain and simple deflection. And, it is further evidence of misogyny, sexism, and homophobia being alive and well in our own community.

Maybe about the "misogyny, sexism, and homophobia" stuff, maybe.... Then again, maybe it's just post-modern/gender theory hermeneutics. You know, the discourse of it's okay when I do it, you, not so much because everything is relative and subjective until I say it's not.

Really Kobi , ya gotta get down with the post-modern semiotics or you're not going to see the big picture, or be welcome in the big tent.

Originally Posted by Kobi

.....Funny things those semantics huh?

I'll say.

[Kobi]

Per wikipedia:


Semiotics, also called semiotic studies or (in the Saussurean tradition) semiology, is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which, for its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. Semiotics is often divided into three branches:

Semantics: Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata, or meaning
Syntactics: Relations among signs in formal structures
Pragmatics: Relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication.[citation needed] However, some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science. They examine areas belonging also to the natural sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics or zoosemiosis.

Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[1] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences."[2] Charles Morris adds that semantics deals with the relation of signs to their designata and the objects which they may or do denote; and, pragmatics deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, that is, with all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning of signs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

My "wtf does this mean/now I have to figure it out dont I?" chore of the day. Thanks Chazz LOL.

[Chazz]

Sorry, Kobi.

It's just that a misspoken word, a poor turn of phrase, can result in page after page of gender warfare.

My use of the term "Semiotics" was me balancing on one toe as I walked on eggshells. Successful or not, I strive for clarity. I also try and show that words have meaning and that some words are more meaningful than others.

[apretty]

When E and I were at a concert a few weeks ago there were about a thousand lesbians, I sat next to a couple who were nice enough--They weren't "like us" in the sense that there wasn't any B/F going on but they were sweet and in fact invited me/us to a swim party some time this month...

(*Of course I broke the ice by asking if either of them had spotted their therapists, yet and while E kept his distance as he's apt to do, I had two temporary BFFs though by first appearance I am sure they didn't know what to make of me in my glam-ass maxi dress and gold accessories.)

In the course of our short conversations between songs, my seat-neighbor made it clear that she was glad that a "mannnnn" wasn't sitting next to her and made a sound and face in disgust. I countered with my standard head-tilt and vague puzzled look followed with half-smile to acknowledge her discomfort with men but to also let her know (hopefully) that I didn't share in her thinking.

Of course this is just a single instance but it does speak to the sort of 'phobia' that we've been hinting at, I think. A maleness phobia/distrust (that possibly butches bring to the table by appearance/manner/what have you...) I mean, it's one thing for a Femme to bring her "femininity" but that's ultimately accepted because it's less threatening... Easily dismissed.

So, I guess I don't have a big, huge point except to speak to my experience in "lesbian" space as it's difficult to additionally, have my queer self understood...

And I am not blind to how the lesbian identity has been disparaged over the years (online and elsewhere)... Which has me thinking about women and legitimacy and this devaluing of "lesbian" is more of the same devaluing of another being deemed "female". Which really, that's the part that keeps me from abandoning "lesbian" altogether because I refuse to be a part of that women othering women.

Forgive if I make less than total sense--I should have been in bed hours ago, please feel free to request clarification. Thanks.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Linus

[Posting as a member]

Kobi, I hope if it's ok that I interject here. I don't want to take away something that is important for lesbian members and if I'm speaking out of turn, I apologize.



Martina, I'm a bit puzzled. I'm not sure where an association of claiming an identity automatically means that you're against something. I claim many identities: transguy, geek, Acadian, Canadian, immigrant, intelligent (or so I believe), middle-aged, etc.

But none of those mean that I'm against anyone who isn't in those categories. Just because someone identifies as lesbian (sexual identity) doesn't mean that they are automatically against trans-individuals (gender identity). To me, this kind of idea -- "us vs. them" -- is contrary and does nothing more but to divide the LGBT community as a whole. There are transwomen who are lesbians and transmen who are gay. By claiming those identities doesn't mean self-hatred.

Now, are there lesbians who dislike transmen and transwomen? Sure. But I do not believe that is what this discussion is about. It's about (and Kobi, please correct me if I'm wrong on this) reclaiming lesbian as a positive and proud title and not something that one should be ashamed of, least of all in one's own community.

Linus,

Again thank you for being supportive. Ironic how transmen "get it". No drama, no rudeness. They seem to just get it.

I do, however, take exception to "lesbian" being downgraded to a "sexual identity".

For some of us, it is not a just sexual identity. It is something special, unique, and very specific that defines who we are at the core of our beings and, in many cases, what we stand for. It is way bigger than a sexual identity.

And reclaiming lesbian, minus all the qualifiers and the politics that spur them, is about pride and self respect. It is about taking back something that is being dismantled and parcelled out amongst other groups for their own purposes who seem to have little regard for those they are affecting.

Lesbian is not less than, a lesser part of, outdated, not enough or any of the other dismissal and derogatory things that are happening around it.

And, it is about opening your mouth when you see it happening, calling it what it is, and making it clear it is not appreciated or acceptable. What is happening is hurtful, divisive, dismissive, oppressive, offensive, and simply rude.

[ScandalAndy]

I'm a lesbian, I'm proud to be a lesbian, and I'm a little tired of the last few threads I've checked out being turned into a discussion of what "lesbian" means, followed by lots of people trying to reinvent the wheel by asking "well what about this situation? Do they count?". What the heck? Why is that necessary? I want to come here and support others and feel supported, not questioned.


Is it very difficult to accept that the identifier of "lesbian" can apply to many different people with different interpretations, and that we can all find community with one another, even if we don't share the same definition of the word?


I'm so frustrated with the threads right now and I personally feel like we can't get more than two or three people together without it somehow turning into a need to have a debate or prove a point. I really want BFP to be a place where I can find support and community, and lately I feel like all I find is another opportunity to get really defensive. Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but maybe it's more than that.

I interpreted this thread as Kobi's attempt to say "hey, I'm here. Anybody else?" without the drive to have a big analytical debate. I"m seeing a lot of posturing and defensiveness and that makes me really sad. Why is this happening?


Again, let me reiterate that this is my personal opinion, you can agree or disagree with me as you see fit, and I respect your right to do so.

[Thinker]

Good morning!

I've been away most of the weekend and just now got caught up in this thread (responding to a handful of reported posts we received).

It seems there *have* been efforts made to keep responses/challenges at a respectful level. Thanks for that.

If you don't mind my take on things.....????

There is a little battle here over exactly what 'lesbian' entails. The bottom line is that we are simply NOT going to all land on *exactly* the same definition. But because we all place value on who we are as individuals and how we self-identify, it seems pretty simple that we should also afford that same right to others.

Like I always say... I don't have to agree nor do I have to fully understand, but I respect you and how you feel about it.

I don't feel like I'm giving up anything/conceding by saying that either. There is room in this world for all of us.

Kobi, I'm sorry for your frustration. I know what you did and didn't want in this particular space (thread). But, you know, just about every new discussion that pops up veers away from the original intent and toward something else. A lot of the time that totally sucks, and some of the time it is a wonderful thing.

I do think it is best that we leave transphobia out of this discussion. Perhaps another thread altogether if someone feels the need to do so??? It doesn't feel good to have something like that implied, and it's perfectly understandable why an individual would challenge that implication. In addition, it makes a thread that was meant to celebrate lesbian pride about some other identity.

This is a second gentle reminder to be respectful to other members. If you feel you just can't do that here, then it might be a good idea to visit the thread at a later time.

Thinker (moderator)

[Medusa]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I'm a lesbian, I'm proud to be a lesbian, and I'm a little tired of the last few threads I've checked out being turned into a discussion of what "lesbian" means, followed by lots of people trying to reinvent the wheel by asking "well what about this situation? Do they count?". What the heck? Why is that necessary? I want to come here and support others and feel supported, not questioned.


Is it very difficult to accept that the identifier of "lesbian" can apply to many different people with different interpretations, and that we can all find community with one another, even if we don't share the same definition of the word?


I'm so frustrated with the threads right now and I personally feel like we can't get more than two or three people together without it somehow turning into a need to have a debate or prove a point. I really want BFP to be a place where I can find support and community, and lately I feel like all I find is another opportunity to get really defensive. Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but maybe it's more than that.

I interpreted this thread as Kobi's attempt to say "hey, I'm here. Anybody else?" without the drive to have a big analytical debate. I"m seeing a lot of posturing and defensiveness and that makes me really sad. Why is this happening?


Again, let me reiterate that this is my personal opinion, you can agree or disagree with me as you see fit, and I respect your right to do so.

This post really spoke to me.

ScandalAndy - I'm going to use this as a bouncing off point!

Folks, here we have a person who is fairly new to our community who has demonstrated something I think we need to be reminded of. I think many of us are skilled at diving deep within an issue and teasing it out because we have been doing it for a long, long time. We have a certain level of dialog in this community that is sometimes very process-y, sometimes very abrupt. I think that can look and feel really off-putting to people who are new to this space.

Especially people reading a thread title, thinking that the thread is going to be go the direction of the thread title, and then once they enter the thread, seeing that people are arguing or debating over minutiae. I am not saying that type of micro-processing isn't a good thing but I want the "big picture" of the thread to be honored.

Some of us have been super pissed off about the erasure of women with the Butch Voices thing going on. I think that type of marginalization can echo in threads like these where "Lesbian" is being defined for the purpose of the thread as "women into other women" and all of the sudden we are discussion bio men, gay men, Butches who identify as men, trans men, etc.

Not at all saying that men or male-identity issues need to be parsed completely from this discussion. Not into that kind of separatism, but I do think we need to be focusing on "women into women".

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Medusa

This post really spoke to me.

ScandalAndy - I'm going to use this as a bouncing off point!

Folks, here we have a person who is fairly new to our community who has demonstrated something I think we need to be reminded of. I think many of us are skilled at diving deep within an issue and teasing it out because we have been doing it for a long, long time. We have a certain level of dialog in this community that is sometimes very process-y, sometimes very abrupt. I think that can look and feel really off-putting to people who are new to this space.

Especially people reading a thread title, thinking that the thread is going to be go the direction of the thread title, and then once they enter the thread, seeing that people are arguing or debating over minutiae. I am not saying that type of micro-processing isn't a good thing but I want the "big picture" of the thread to be honored.

Some of us have been super pissed off about the erasure of women with the Butch Voices thing going on. I think that type of marginalization can echo in threads like these where "Lesbian" is being defined for the purpose of the thread as "women into other women" and all of the sudden we are discussion bio men, gay men, Butches who identify as men, trans men, etc.

Not at all saying that men or male-identity issues need to be parsed completely from this discussion. Not into that kind of separatism, but I do think we need to be focusing on "women into women".

Please let me add that I really enjoy the micro-processing. There are a lot of brilliant minds here that have very enlightening through processes and are able to view things from perspectives that I myself am not privy to. I really appreciate that type of approach as well, and I don't want anyone to think that I am attempting to marginalize or invalidate those thoughts.




Getting back on topic from my mini derail, I'm proud to call myself a lesbian, but I"m noticing more and more that younger folks are consciously refusing to do so because they feel the identifier is too restrictive. I'm wondering if there are any constructive and inclusive ways to represent lesbian pride as the wonderful thing it is and bring youth back into the community. Thoughts?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Please let me add that I really enjoy the micro-processing. There are a lot of brilliant minds here that have very enlightening through processes and are able to view things from perspectives that I myself am not privy to. I really appreciate that type of approach as well, and I don't want anyone to think that I am attempting to marginalize or invalidate those thoughts.

Getting back on topic from my mini derail, I'm proud to call myself a lesbian, but I"m noticing more and more that younger folks are consciously refusing to do so because they feel the identifier is too restrictive. I'm wondering if there are any constructive and inclusive ways to represent lesbian pride as the wonderful thing it is and bring youth back into the community. Thoughts?

Interesting question. I have an initial response that might grow as I think on it more.

I think there are many ways to do this. For me, it is a multi pronged approach.

The first, is reclaiming the word lesbian for myself. I am a lesbian. I used to use qualifiers and combine terms. Not any more. How can anyone relate to lesbian if we no longer use the word or we qualify it to death? Using it gives visibility that it is still alive and well and perking right along despite what others would prefer to think.

The second, is speaking to those issues surrounding lesbianism. It is speaking up when lesbian is equated with something passe, outdated, not good enough, and all the other negaters that have been mentioned in this thread. It is reclaiming our voice, our power, and our right to be.

The third, is starting threads like this in a zone meant for us. Young folk and newbies need to see lesbians are present and accounted for. They also need to see that we, as lesbians, have similar and dissimilar issues with others under the queer umbrella. They need to see we, as lesbians, can work in concert with other queers on issues we have in common, and we can forge ahead on our own to address those issues which affect us alone.

The fourth, remembering what youth entails i.e. a time to explore and experience, try stuff on, individuals deciding what works and doesnt work for them. As someone who was raised when homosexuality was still a psychistric diagnosis, I am all for taking advantage of the freedoms and options available today! But, all us queers, still need to accept some responsibility for being available to youth who may need us to be there and be visible. We didnt evolve in a vacuum. Neither will they.