Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Heart]

Dapper, Ender... did you see where I, a lesbian feminist woman, pushed back against excluding transwomen? I'm just curious if you saw that part of the dialogue that was going on here? Because one of the things that was important to me, in the wake of the BV/BN split, was that butch women were speaking up, finally about things that had long been festering. Which was an opportunity.

I have no argument with June modding Chazz's comment, but I do have a problem with the suggestion that Chazz leave the site. Chazz is no longer here to read your posts or to engage in discussion, whether it's about transwomen belonging or butch women belonging. That's a loss.

Sadly,
Heart

[Kobi]

Dapper,

To answer your inquiry, sometimes within a certain context we might perceive things differently or interpret them differently or miss them all together. There is a built in system of checks and balances for when this happens. The system was on top of things today.

From my point of view, this doesn't detract from the good things that are occuring in this thread. Amongst those good things are the following:

1. People who, perhaps, didnt feel they had a "safe" place to talk about a multitude of issues of concern to them found a place. And, the space was respected. Wow.

2. In this "safe" place, stuff that has been festering below the surface began to see the light of day. As you are aware, when things fester without a voice, when they do find a voice they dont always come thru in the most optimal way.

3. When this occured, and it did on many occasions, it was addressed. And, it was addressed in a respectful manner which was educative rather than punitive, exploratory rather than presumptive, and aimed at expanding a dialogue rather than shutting a dialog down. To me, this is a huge accomplishment. Not perfect but a huge step forward.

4. This thread, aside from the times there were attempts to turn into something it wasnt, has had a conspicuous lack of histrionics, drama, and reactionary behavior. This too has helped further a dialog and exploration and goodwill among its participants. It hasnt been about consensus. It has been, from my standpoint, about sharing, listening, learning, and a lot of other neat stuff geared toward growth and understanding.

5. There is a process going on here that feels and looks a lot different. It is not perfect but it feels generally healthy and helpful.

If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to pm me.

[dreadgeek]

Kobi:

Thank you for explaining your position. You may have noticed that pretty much the *minute* MWMF was invoked, I backed off the conversation and went silent. That is because I *knew* that it was only a matter of time before something was posted where transwomen would be portrayed as 'not really women' or 'not really belonging to the lesbian community'. At that moment, the space--not just this thread but this entire site--became unsafe for me. Now, I don't really expect the world to be a safe space. I would not have made it into middle-age as a black lesbian if I expected the world to welcome me with open arms. I do, however, strongly prefer to be in spaces where I won't be subject to reading things that explicitly state--for reasons entirely beyond your control, you do not belong here. But it goes farther than that. Yesterday, as I wrestled with saying something in response, a question crossed my mind: is there any amount of time or effort a transwoman could spend in the lesbian community that would allow her to not be thought of as an interloper and to be brought into the circle of 'sister'. My gut instinct is that for anyone who uses the term 'once-males' to refer to transgendered women a million years wouldn't be half enough time. I also get the feeling--and I may be wrong--that if a transwoman carried not just her own weight but the weight of the next 10 women around her, those contributions would *still* not be enough.

So what I read was that transwomen had no legitimate place and in that moment, as I said before, this place became deeply 'unsafe'. So why am I still here? Why did I not leave? Because before I was a queer, I was already black. I know unsafe space. I know how to maneuver around unsafe space. My neighborhood was unsafe space--in the way that being the only black kid in your class from kindergarten to sixth grade can be. At some point in between being subjected to the tender mercies of elementary school children picking on the kid who looks most different to the experience of coming out and promptly being told that I was a race traitor (yes, I have had people say that to me) for being queer, I realized that if someone holds a prejudice against me, there is very little I can do to change their mind. I can, however, decide that I will hold my head high, that I will carry myself with dignity and that I will hold to a very high standard of conduct. My logic is that the bigot will still think me low, undeserving or an interloper but I will, in the fullness of time, make that bigot look like a fool. How? By being a shining star. By being honorable, intelligent, erudite, kind, expansive, friendly and hard-working. What could do more damage to any of the myths that people might have about me because I'm black, queer, etc. than to be the kind of woman you could proudly take home to mother?

Years ago, when I came out and first discovered that there were two groups within the queer community--particularly the lesbian community--that were considered once and for all time outside the circle of sisterhood; bisexuals and transwomen. The blatantly racist or anti-Semitic statement had no place and any woman fool enough to utter it in public would have the wrath of Sappho herself visited upon her. But bisexuals could be spoken of in terms of being vectors of disease contaminating what would otherwise have been an ostensibly disease-free lesbian community. At least bisexuals were not thought to be intentionally volunteering to be disease vectors while transwomen were thought to have truly evil intent--although this being the 90s and post-modernism being what it was, no one used the term evil. Rather, it was couched in terms of transwomen having some nebulous, shadowy but nefarious intent to do undermine the lesbian community from within. At the time, I was writing for every gay or lesbian newspaper or magazine that would publish me. I stumbled across a question that was relevant in 1991 and is relevant 20 years later, what are we in this for? By this I mean the Movement for the rights of queer people to live their lives as full citizens with agency. Are we in it because--as I believe--that it is simply wrong for individuals to be discriminated against in either law or custom because of some arbitrary characteristic OR are we in this because such discrimination is happening to *us*. This is a non-trivial difference. If you believe that bigotry and prejudice are wrong then one would hope one would spread that net as far as possible. It goes beyond the discrimination that happens to me, it is the discrimination I make others the target of. If, on the other hand, one believes that the discrimination that happens to one's own group is wrong but not that bigotry or prejudice are generally wrong, then one need not look to the plank in one's own eye. All that matters is that the other person standing on one's foot get the hell off your foot. IF the queer movement is against bigotry or prejudice based upon arbitrary characteristics of gender or sexual orientation, then our movement cannot give much quarter to a form of bigotry that says "I don't care, nor do I have to care, how long ago you transitioned you will always be, in my eyes, whatever your chromosomes say you are". If, on the other hand, we are concerned only with the more limited question of "lesbians and gay men are subject to injustice because they are gay or lesbian" that allows for the community to have a space for bigotry against bisexuals or transsexuals or transgendered people or, for that matter, butches and femmes.

Twenty years ago, I cast my lot in with that part of the community that believed that the discrimination that happens to bisexuals or transsexuals *within* the queer community is no better than discrimination that happens against all queer people. I would have preferred that gender theory were not the vehicle by which transgendered people gained a greater level of acceptance because I think that post-modernism, upon which gender theory is based, is deeply and profoundly broken because it is incoherent. I almost feel guilty at having benefited from gender theory and its ancestor, post-modernism, because I would be quite happy putting the final nail in the coffin of that ideology.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Kobi

Dapper,

To answer your inquiry, sometimes within a certain context we might perceive things differently or interpret them differently or miss them all together. There is a built in system of checks and balances for when this happens. The system was on top of things today.

From my point of view, this doesn't detract from the good things that are occuring in this thread. Amongst those good things are the following:

1. People who, perhaps, didnt feel they had a "safe" place to talk about a multitude of issues of concern to them found a place. And, the space was respected. Wow.

2. In this "safe" place, stuff that has been festering below the surface began to see the light of day. As you are aware, when things fester without a voice, when they do find a voice they dont always come thru in the most optimal way.

3. When this occured, and it did on many occasions, it was addressed. And, it was addressed in a respectful manner which was educative rather than punitive, exploratory rather than presumptive, and aimed at expanding a dialogue rather than shutting a dialog down. To me, this is a huge accomplishment. Not perfect but a huge step forward.

4. This thread, aside from the times there were attempts to turn into something it wasnt, has had a conspicuous lack of histrionics, drama, and reactionary behavior. This too has helped further a dialog and exploration and goodwill among its participants. It hasnt been about consensus. It has been, from my standpoint, about sharing, listening, learning, and a lot of other neat stuff geared toward growth and understanding.

5. There is a process going on here that feels and looks a lot different. It is not perfect but it feels generally healthy and helpful.

If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to pm me.

[CherylNYC]

Thank your for all your posts, Aj. Like Kobi, I missed 'once male' altogether. I didn't understand the reference, and giddy with the joy of FINALLY reading posts by and for lesbian feminist butch-femme women, instead of reading posts about how far butches can push themselves towards maleness on the spectrum(sic), I didn't bother to sort out the meaning of the term.

I've been excited about a seeming resurgence in lesbian pride. As much as I wish we were not talking about the acceptance of transwomen in our community instead of lesbian pride, clearly we're not done yet.

Your post has made me thoughtful about my own history. I have a baaad history with men. I've been the object of a lifetime of very invasive, not to mention criminal behaviour. The reason I'm far more wary of men, even though I've also been financially and sexually abused by a woman, is that my issues with men are current and ongoing. I may be pushing 50, but they still sniff up my butt like a pack of dogs. No, there's nothing flattering about it. I would be a fool and a victim if I didn't maintain a VERY guarded posture with most men. For me, safety is relative and the safest space is women's space. Like many feminists of my era, I treasure and guard women's space because it's very meaningful to me.

This is relevant because many lesbians have felt, just as you pointed out, that transwomen are really men who have come to invade women's space. I certainly felt that way for a long time. A close friend, A, changed that view. She's a woman. Period. I don't care that A has a long history as a man prior to her transition. Like you, she holds her head high, carries herself with dignity, and holds herself to a very high standard of conduct. I'm quite certain that she did that before she transitioned, too.

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet.

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting, and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As far as I know, here in NYC my friend is no longer in danger of being disrespected or made to feel unwelcome in any part of our communities. MWMF is the only event from which she's excluded. I've observed her getting the fish-eye in straight settings, but according to her she hasn't felt or heard any anti-trans actions or words directed towards her from anyone in our LGBT, BDSM, or women's communities. Ironically, she has been vilified by other trans people because of her views about what it means to be a woman. My friend can happily come and go to women's groups and events in safety because there's been such a strong push towards trans acceptance here in NYC.

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.)

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off.

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Kobi:

Thank you for explaining your position. You may have noticed that pretty much the *minute* MWMF was invoked, I backed off the conversation and went silent. That is because I *knew* that it was only a matter of time before something was posted where transwomen would be portrayed as 'not really women' or 'not really belonging to the lesbian community'. At that moment, the space--not just this thread but this entire site--became unsafe for me. Now, I don't really expect the world to be a safe space. I would not have made it into middle-age as a black lesbian if I expected the world to welcome me with open arms. I do, however, strongly prefer to be in spaces where I won't be subject to reading things that explicitly state--for reasons entirely beyond your control, you do not belong here. But it goes farther than that. Yesterday, as I wrestled with saying something in response, a question crossed my mind: is there any amount of time or effort a transwoman could spend in the lesbian community that would allow her to not be thought of as an interloper and to be brought into the circle of 'sister'. My gut instinct is that for anyone who uses the term 'once-males' to refer to transgendered women a million years wouldn't be half enough time. I also get the feeling--and I may be wrong--that if a transwoman carried not just her own weight but the weight of the next 10 women around her, those contributions would *still* not be enough.

So what I read was that transwomen had no legitimate place and in that moment, as I said before, this place became deeply 'unsafe'. So why am I still here? Why did I not leave? Because before I was a queer, I was already black. I know unsafe space. I know how to maneuver around unsafe space. My neighborhood was unsafe space--in the way that being the only black kid in your class from kindergarten to sixth grade can be. At some point in between being subjected to the tender mercies of elementary school children picking on the kid who looks most different to the experience of coming out and promptly being told that I was a race traitor (yes, I have had people say that to me) for being queer, I realized that if someone holds a prejudice against me, there is very little I can do to change their mind. I can, however, decide that I will hold my head high, that I will carry myself with dignity and that I will hold to a very high standard of conduct. My logic is that the bigot will still think me low, undeserving or an interloper but I will, in the fullness of time, make that bigot look like a fool. How? By being a shining star. By being honorable, intelligent, erudite, kind, expansive, friendly and hard-working. What could do more damage to any of the myths that people might have about me because I'm black, queer, etc. than to be the kind of woman you could proudly take home to mother?

Years ago, when I came out and first discovered that there were two groups within the queer community--particularly the lesbian community--that were considered once and for all time outside the circle of sisterhood; bisexuals and transwomen. The blatantly racist or anti-Semitic statement had no place and any woman fool enough to utter it in public would have the wrath of Sappho herself visited upon her. But bisexuals could be spoken of in terms of being vectors of disease contaminating what would otherwise have been an ostensibly disease-free lesbian community. At least bisexuals were not thought to be intentionally volunteering to be disease vectors while transwomen were thought to have truly evil intent--although this being the 90s and post-modernism being what it was, no one used the term evil. Rather, it was couched in terms of transwomen having some nebulous, shadowy but nefarious intent to do undermine the lesbian community from within. At the time, I was writing for every gay or lesbian newspaper or magazine that would publish me. I stumbled across a question that was relevant in 1991 and is relevant 20 years later, what are we in this for? By this I mean the Movement for the rights of queer people to live their lives as full citizens with agency. Are we in it because--as I believe--that it is simply wrong for individuals to be discriminated against in either law or custom because of some arbitrary characteristic OR are we in this because such discrimination is happening to *us*. This is a non-trivial difference. If you believe that bigotry and prejudice are wrong then one would hope one would spread that net as far as possible. It goes beyond the discrimination that happens to me, it is the discrimination I make others the target of. If, on the other hand, one believes that the discrimination that happens to one's own group is wrong but not that bigotry or prejudice are generally wrong, then one need not look to the plank in one's own eye. All that matters is that the other person standing on one's foot get the hell off your foot. IF the queer movement is against bigotry or prejudice based upon arbitrary characteristics of gender or sexual orientation, then our movement cannot give much quarter to a form of bigotry that says "I don't care, nor do I have to care, how long ago you transitioned you will always be, in my eyes, whatever your chromosomes say you are". If, on the other hand, we are concerned only with the more limited question of "lesbians and gay men are subject to injustice because they are gay or lesbian" that allows for the community to have a space for bigotry against bisexuals or transsexuals or transgendered people or, for that matter, butches and femmes.

Twenty years ago, I cast my lot in with that part of the community that believed that the discrimination that happens to bisexuals or transsexuals *within* the queer community is no better than discrimination that happens against all queer people. I would have preferred that gender theory were not the vehicle by which transgendered people gained a greater level of acceptance because I think that post-modernism, upon which gender theory is based, is deeply and profoundly broken because it is incoherent. I almost feel guilty at having benefited from gender theory and its ancestor, post-modernism, because I would be quite happy putting the final nail in the coffin of that ideology.

Cheers
Aj

[Martina]

i thought the Daryn thing was annoying. i appreciate that the mods acknowledge they could have handled it better. He also made a snipe on another thread about Japanese lesbian feminists or something like that. Maybe he was angry after the big reaction he got. But i didn't see his participation as particularly well-intentioned.

i also think that whether it crops up frequently on this site or not, there is a lot of lesbian bashing still common in our community. i have heard it. i get way tired of it. And sometimes you know what someone is saying even if they stop short of saying something that one could report.

That said, i think this thread has bordered on transphobia off and on throughout. i tried to make that point, but was every so gently shown the door. Maybe i didn't make it well.

Talking about pure feminism is a dangerous discourse. It suggests an other, an impure feminism (gender theory?). Also talking about what it used to be like to be a lesbian compared to now suggests to me that people feel displaced, unrecognized, not valued for their contributions. The context of the Butch Voices controversy makes it pretty clear who the other is, the other whose voice is supposedly heard and valued more. Framing the conversation this way requires that it be understood as either-or, as a conflict.

Reclaiming from whom? is the question.

As i said to someone in PM, even the great gender outlaw posts seem to be trying to reclaim a status that was lost or has lost cache. If we are saying we were the original badasses, we're clearly also talking about who is now considered to be a gender outlaw. i am just saying that there has been an invisible other present throughout, and to my mind, it is at least in part the transperson.

Interesting that instead of a transman, the eruption of bigotry was that older anxiety, the presence of transwomen in our communities.

i am going to be offline for a couple of days. i have a new smart phone that should allow me to see stuff, but i don't know if i can use it well enough yet.

[BullDog]

Medusa I don't think you are an agent of the patriarchy and I do think you are supportive of lesbians, but I super bummed that you think having a Lesbian Zone is going to create a "militant, separatist and unwelcoming" space for those who don't i.d. as lesbians.

There are lesbians calling for more inclusive space, there are lesbians speaking out against transphobia, there are lesbians being supportive across the gender spectrum. I get that lesbians can post in any thread from 'What's For Dinner" to Racism to Gender theory threads. I also see a clear need for lesbian visibility and don't get why having a Lesbian Zone would be more potentially divisive than say a Trans Zone or Butch Zone or Femme Zone. I am seriously bummed.

I spoke out in this thread about things that I saw as exclusionary, I spoke out against the transphobia. I am not coming from a "purist" or separatist state at all.

[Medusa]

Wait a minute.

Let's be clear. I did not say the zone *is* going to create a separatist environment.

"Is" is an action verb and would mean that I think that is occurring right now. I don't.

I said "has the potential to create". That is me expressing my own personal fears. Me expressing a fear is very different than labeling something as "this is occurring as we speak".

I'm sorry if that wasn't more clear.

I have read and posted in this zone multiple times. It has existed on this site for well over a year. None of the conversations here have ever been redirected, renamed, or moved. My support of this zone is clear given that it scares me but that I work to overcome that fear by participating in and digesting the discussions here that sometime make me cringe or want to pull my hair out (and that isn't specific to the LZ, it has happened in multiple threads and zones on these forums).

I'll say it again: I support the Lesbian Zone.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things [B]BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting [hence my reference to 'once men'] , and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, [hence my reference to once men] but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.) [This happens a lot. I've been at several explicitly lesbian "parties" where this has happened.]

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

If my response is in any way threatening or violates the TOS for the site, I welcome the mods to contact me about it so that i may modify my behavior accordingly.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.


Chazz,

I felt and feel uncomfortable with this particular part of your post. It's feels like you're wanting to have this conversation using slurs? Yet transfolk are not allowing you? It seems oogy it feels oogy am I misreading you?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.

I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

Coming after????

Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by Chazz

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

The use of the term "once men" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Admin

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

[Of course you had multiple reports.... It's not me who had propagated the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma. I'm just pointing at it from this lesbians perspective as some one who has felt increasingly marginalized by trans/gender ideology within the "community".]

The use of the term "once women" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

[It could be because I take no pride in what has/is happening to lesbians within the community.... But because you mentioned it.... I, in no way, trashed the "trans experience". Nor was I aware that it was a one size fits all "experience".]

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

I'm out of the conversation. So........

[Heart]

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

Heart

[dreadgeek]

June:

When I was little--probably 12 or around there--I was baking biscuits with my grandmother and I asked her if she hated white people. She was born in 1903 and lived her whole life in the same town in Louisiana (Ruston). If anyone had a reason to hate white people, it was Mama Gus. She looked at me, sat me down and gave me this which, to this day, forms the core of my ethics:

"Baby, we can't hate them back. See, maybe the Klansman just don't know any better. He might not know that black people are also children of God. But you and I know what it's like to be hated. Now, if you do evil out of ignorance, God will forgive that because only He knows everything. But if you do evil because you have seen it, you know it is evil and you choose to do it anyway, that makes you worse than any Klansman. It means you wanted to be evil, even though you know that it hurts real people."

Every time I feel tempted or seduced by hatred--and hating others IS seductive, looking down on others is the easiest mental trick in the world--I remember her words. When I think of Michelle Bachmann, who I have no doubt would happily sign laws that would all but outlaw us, I remember my grandmother's words. I can think her a fool, I can certainly point out that the woman knows slightly more American history than my dog only because my dog can't read, I will absolutely rush to the barricades to defend my nation against the theocracy she wishes to bring but I cannot *hate* her. Oppose, yes. Hate? No.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by June

On a personal note:

It is truly heartbreaking for me that in a thread about Lesbian Pride that a Butch Lesbian has to essentially make a case for herself to be included in the "Loving Circle of Sappho".

In all of our personal narratives, I am sure we can point to many, many people of all kinds who have usurped, oppressed and tread unpleasantly upon our backs in order to lift themselves up.

When we, as a microcosm community allow a few people to do this in order to exert their "Pride" and/or ownership of something, in this case, Lesbian, it does not make us stronger, it divides and others us into factions.

It is my opinion that people who do this are no better, and possibly worse than the likes of Michelle Bachmann, et al. The people who see us as less than human and actively seek to oppress us further based solely upon who we love.

My personal narrative contains experiences that prove to me that it is when I am seen for all the other things I am, a mother, great employee, volunteer, friend, that who I sleep with becomes less important, than who I am as a whole.

It is perplexing to me when "we" do not allow this same courtesy to others that we meet, but instead choose to paint all with the same brush based on opinions formed previously. This is how, even now, in 2011, Racism, Sexism, Misogyny, Sizism, Classism and any other ism you can think of is still running rampant.

Remaining silent = Complicity and approval.

As far as I know, save for personal ones, there is no universal litmus test for Lesbian, and yet some of us act as though there is and actively seek to impose it on others in order to exclude and silence.

--June

[BullDog]

I have been reading the thread and there have been some great points made. I was put off by some of the remarks earlier about qualifying who was lesbian and it felt exclusionary to me. That's pretty much when I checked out. Also, I certainly am not going to support any lesbian or any organization that attempts to exclude or "other" transwomen.

I am proud to be a lesbian and celebrate our diversity.

[Kobi]

There is no nice way to address this so I will just be straight forward.

There was an issue here yesterday. It was moderated. When I saw the moderation, I had to ask what it was about because my interpretation of it and the reason for it wasnt the same thing. And when I got the answer, I sat here and mulled over how or if I address this because, to me, I was between a rock and a hard place. No matter how I handled this, someone would be somehow umbridged about it. And I knew it.

Aj you are right, this isnt a safe place. It never was. I had to make a stink to get this space and I had to fight for the right to have this thread and to clarify over and over and over its intent. I ask to ask over and over why it was so threatening for lesbians, like me, to have a place to talk about stuff - even unpleasant stuff. Stuff that people do not want aired because it is too threatening to the pervailing opinions we expect everyone to spout off like good little doobies. And I had to ask why there was such a need to try and silence lesbians like me.

We are thousands of different people with thousands of different perspectives and life stories and horror stories and experiences. Yet, somehow we are all supposed to tow the same line for the sake of "unity" because we are all queer? That is illogical.

This thread isnt a safe place and never was. Anyone who was brave enough to post here was a fish in a barrel with a ready supply of vultures sitting on the sidelines reading every word of every post under a microscope waiting for the moment to pounce.

And the minute they got it, a moderation wasnt enough. The PATRIARCHY had to come roaring in with a vehemence worthy of an Oscar and chastise the bad bad lesbians. AND, they demand that we bad bad lesbians/women explain ourselves.

I wish I could say this is about bigotry but it doesnt feel like it. Bigotry may have been the impetus but there are larger issues here that cannot be swept under the rug over and over and over again without continuing to
feed into the resentments, pecking order, and the right of people to have and express differing opinions.

We would much prefer that everyone have the same perspective, the same values, the same opinions.....ahhh yes our beloved diversity of sameness. Just because we put blinders on doesnt mean all is right with the world. And there will continue to be deep resentments in this community because the things that need to be aired and discussed cant be.

And the saddest part is those who straddled the fence, waiting to see which way the wind was going to blow before they weighed in today.

I wish I could say I was surprised this happened but I am not. Nor am I disappointed. It was only a matter of time until lesbians, like me, would be put in their proper place ......again.

There was a concerted effort to silence our voices and our concerns and our opinions. Seems to me, mission accomplished!

[BullDog]

Kobi, lesbians who are also transwomen should feel safe in a thread on lesbian pride.

Lesbians who are partnered with male identified people should feel welcome in a thread on lesbian pride.

Lesbians who have a different idea of what lesbian pride means than you (for example me) should feel free to share our thoughts on lesbian pride.

Your opinion is one lesbian's opinion. So is mine.

[Heart]

*sigh*

The thing is Kobi, a choice was made to use terminology that was, in fact, transphobic. The phrase "once-men" was erasing of the butch lesbian transwomen that were participating in this thread! The moderation was appropriate. Why are you making it about silencing lesbians overall? That's just counter-productive.

I do have a beef with the fact that months ago when a male-identified butch called lesbians "man-haters," the comment was parsed and explained away, diluted as part of that person's "truth," and lightly moderated, if memory serves.

The rest of the paragraph that was moderated in this thread, about lesbians doing the "heavy lifting," spear-heading the funding and building of domestic violence shelters, could most certainly be called someone's "truth."

So inevitably and defensively I find myself wondering... do trans identities just have more currency at this juncture than lesbian identities? How else to compare the swift modding of a transphobic slur and the support that followed with the lack of moderation of a phobic stereotyping of lesbians?

But beyond the issue of moderating, which is at best an inexact art form, I am feeling, (based in part on a discussion with a very smart femme lesbian), like the whole issue of "re-claiming" lesbian pride has a whiff of "othering" about it. Like we are taking something back from someone who isn't really "one of us." In light of what happened -- that feels off to me. I don't want to participate in that. I'm not interested in pure feminism or pure lesbianism for that matter. Hell, there are plenty of reasons why I am quite impure myself.

I'm down with lesbian pride, but if it means that a transwomen who is a lesbian isn't fully included in this space, then like MWMF, I'm out.

Heart

[dreadgeek]

So, in order for lesbians like you to be heard, to be validated, it was necessary for someone to be able to use a term that was rather bigoted. Look, if the only way that lesbians like you can feel that this is your space and that your concerns are being addressed, is for women like me to have to just put up with terms like 'once-male' being thrown around without challenge, then okay. Okay, here, doesn't mean I'm going away. It does mean that that is a piece of information that is useful to have and I'm glad I now know.

I am not arguing--and my presence here does not militate for--not airing issues that need to be aired. Yet, I have two questions for you:

1) If, instead of saying something about transwomen, the statement had been that black women--for whatever reason--had no legitimate place within lesbian community and had people spoken up against it, would you still feel that lesbians like you had been silenced? If not, why not? Why is it that, if all you knew was that I'm a black lesbian, it would be unacceptable to say that 'women like that' (who are not, after all, lesbians like you) are not legitimately apart of this community but since it is transwomen, that is in bounds?

2) Is there any amount of time, any amount of effort, any action whatsoever that would EVER earn a transwoman the right--in your eyes--to legitimately claim a seat at the table?

I, too, was enjoying the conversation right up until the point where it became clear that transwomen--in the eyes of some--aren't woman enough to deserve to call themselves lesbian. At that point, I had a decision to make; do I risk starting WW III or do I just let someone else speak up and see what happens. I chose the latter path.

I think these issues are important. I think they need to be discussed. I don't, however, think they need to be discussed at the cost of letting statements of the "transwomen, you are not welcome here". If some transwoman did X, where X is some horrible thing, then she should have to answer for that. Not because she is a transwoman, but because she did some act that was unacceptable. Being trans should not make one subject to a lighter standard or a heavier standard but the same standard, as much as is possible. But that's not what was being put forth. What was being put forth was the idea that transwomen qua transwomen are not, cannot and should not be welcome in lesbian community. Not actions, simply the fact that the woman in question has a Y chromosome and that's enough.

This statement is not meant to be silencing, nor is it meant to be putting lesbians like you in their place. I am no apologist for patriarchy. I feel that my years in this community--and by this community I mean the lesbian community--have earned me a place at the table. I earned it at the Whiptail Lizard Lounge in San Francisco, where I spent two years volunteering every weekend. I earned it going around the Bay Area in the mid-nineties, when the Internet was just starting to come to public consciousness and either wiring up organizations that helped women, building their web sites, or training women how to use computers. It was earned teaching classes at a DV shelter so women could use the web to find safe, permanent housing for themselves and their children. It was earned by doing *precisely* the opposite of what Chazz said transwomen did. Instead of showing up and saying "seat me", I showed up, asked permission to enter, and then said "how can I help". When I came out as trans on this board last year, I talked about asking whether or not women like me were welcome at the Whiptail Lizard Lounge. I got blasted because people said I shouldn't have had to ask for permission and maybe they were right. But I had read my feminist theory, I knew about male privilege and I wasn't about to be one of those transwomen who pretended that since we had been at war with our own bodies since childhood, we could pretend that male privilege never had anything to do with us. Instead, I intuitively grasped that the way to approach things was to show up, be useful, live my feminism, and I would gain acceptance. It worked spectacularly and that attitude has served me well for 22 years. It serves me well to this day.

To this day, I still try to give more than I take from the lesbian community because I like the feeling of being a sister who, when the hard work needs to be done, is right up at the front, painting the walls, or dumping the trash, or doing whatever needs doing whether it is pleasant or easy or not. That, to me, is part and parcel of being a sister.

This isn't an apologia nor is it asking for your acceptance. I am too old and too strong to need the acceptance of anyone else. It is a statement that regardless of what others might think, I AM a strong black woman and I AM a lesbian who is proud to be a lesbian. I will never apologize for that nor will I ever apologize for standing up for myself. I will also not apologize for being grateful that people stood up and spoke for women who might otherwise not have been spoken for.

In sisterly spirit
Aj