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

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

As another trouble-maker on this thread, I wanted to explain why I think that the meanings of words matter. Now, because I'm going to use examples using race I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think anyone on this thread is racist, has said anything racist, or would ever say anything racist. It is just that the examples I have at hand use race.

If words evolve and have no flexible meaning then it would require me to take a face value the following statement: "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friend's are black. I just don't know what you people are calling yourself this decade so I just use the n-word." Or, one my favorites..."I'm not a racist. I just think that there's the 'good blacks', like you, and the n-word blacks, like the rest of them". Now, does the disclaimer "I'm not a racist" mean that the person is not expressing racist sentiment? Does the word racist have a meaning that is commonly agreed upon and, more or less, fixed or is it fluid such that someone could make statements like the two above (both of which I have heard, in some variation, multiple times in my 42 years) and by merely invoking the phrase "I'm not a racist..." means that whatever racist might mean, it cannot mean them.

I live by the idea that racist (like other words) have a more-or-less fixed meaning and that merely saying "I'm not a racist but..." does not confer some magical, water-to-wine fairy dust on the words that immediately follow such that no matter how racist they might SOUND they are not, actually, racist because the person has just proclaimed that they are not racist.

I use this as an example and I'll admit it is an extreme, in your face, example because I want to make it clear WHY I think that language matters in the way that I do.

I am perfectly willing to admit that my view may be hopelessly antiquarian and, if I dare say so, 20th century. It probably is. I am a product of my time.

Cheers
Aj

i agree. language does matter. it simply has huge variation in its meaning (which we're proving right now). this isnt a discussion about the meaning of the word "lesbian" anymore. it's a discussion about the ways in which we can each see a word or a sentence or an idea as meaning something very different than it was intended.

i do not dislike the word lesbian. i dont dislike lesbians. i dont dislike female identified lesbians. and yet, that's how i came across to some people. i wanted to discuss the obvious (to me only) expansion of language that happens to some people when they exit one definition and enter another and so i joined the conversation. i expressed an opinion based on a common idea for many BFP members. i didnt do it in a way that was clear. it also, as has been stated, wasnt asked for or invited. but...sigh...i did it.

my example is less obvious than your very good one: i dont use the word lesbian to describe myself and then require that my attraction to and/or behavior with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man be included in the definition of the word.

clear as muddy muddy mud?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

LMAO!!!
Now, does the Macbook Pro Lesbian eat p*ssy?

If you give me week or so, I'm sure I can write an AppleScript so that you can use it as a remote control for your favorite vibrator. LOL

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

i agree. language does matter. it simply has huge variation in its meaning (which we're proving right now). this isnt a discussion about the meaning of the word "lesbian" anymore. it's a discussion about the ways in which we can each see a word or a sentence or an idea as meaning something very different than it was intended.

i do not dislike the word lesbian. i dont dislike lesbians. i dont dislike female identified lesbians. and yet, that's how i came across to some people. i wanted to discuss the obvious (to me only) expansion of language that happens to some people when they exit one definition and enter another and so i joined the conversation. i expressed an opinion based on a common idea for many BFP members. i didnt do it in a way that was clear. it also, as has been stated, wasnt asked for or invited. but...sigh...i did it.

my example is less obvious than your very good one: i dont use the word lesbian to describe myself and then require that my attraction to and/or behavior with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man be included in the definition of the word.

clear as muddy muddy mud?

Actually, that is very clear and a point I would absolutely agree with. If you are with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man (whatever their chromosomal pattern is) then I would wholeheartedly agree that to say that this met the definition of 'lesbian' would be to stretch the word beyond recognition. I can certainly see how one would NOT use the term 'lesbian' in that case. My wife doesn't use the term 'lesbian' because she identifies as a bisexual-dyke (which, as I understand it to mean) that she is affectionately attracted to women but if I were to disappear out of her life and it was a lonely Saturday night and she needed a little 'sumthin-sumthin' and the right guy was around she would have sex with him. But if she were looking for another serious relationship it would be with another butch woman (or possibly transman).

So that makes perfect sense to me. I'm curious, would you then say that you are homosexual or bisexual?

And thank you for your patience, semiotics is completely out of my academic venue (which is computational biology/biomedical informatics) so I may be completely oversimplifying language.

Cheers
Aj

[hippieflowergirl]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, that is very clear and a point I would absolutely agree with. If you are with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man (whatever their chromosomal pattern is) then I would wholeheartedly agree that to say that this met the definition of 'lesbian' would be to stretch the word beyond recognition. I can certainly see how one would NOT use the term 'lesbian' in that case. My wife doesn't use the term 'lesbian' because she identifies as a bisexual-dyke (which, as I understand it to mean) that she is affectionately attracted to women but if I were to disappear out of her life and it was a lonely Saturday night and she needed a little 'sumthin-sumthin' and the right guy was around she would have sex with him. But if she were looking for another serious relationship it would be with another butch woman (or possibly transman).

So that makes perfect sense to me. I'm curious, would you then say that you are homosexual or bisexual?

And thank you for your patience, semiotics is completely out of my academic venue (which is computational biology/biomedical informatics) so I may be completely oversimplifying language.

Cheers
Aj

THANKYOU!!!

i've been holding my breath! i'm really tiptoeing around right now feeling like a bad academic and a bad femme and a bad person and boo-hoo-hoo-poor Kathlene-boo-hoo-hoo (PLEASE read that last bit as sarcastic!)

[hippieflowergirl]

from last year's Urban Dictionary

lesbian

n.) A gender identity in which an individual defines themselves as female (woman) and actively embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic and sexual energies geared toward another person who also defines themselves as female (woman).

transgendered

n.) A gender identity in which an individual defines his/her self by a sex and/or gender other than the physical determination given at birth. Transgendered identity presentation does not presume a/any specific sexual orientation/identity (homo, hetero, pan or asexual -- lesbian, gay, butch, femme, queer, etc.)

femme:

n.) Gender identity in which an individual (female, male or other) has an awareness of cultural standards of femininity and actively embodies a feminine appearance, role, or archetype, usually--but not always--associated with a gay or queer sexual identity/sexuality; more accentuated and intentional than a straight female gender identity or gender presentation and distinctly challenges standards of femininity through purposeful transgression against binary gender paradigms.

n.) Person (male, female or other) who identifies and/or presents an overtly feminine or feminine acting gender identity and sometimes--but not necessarily-- embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic and sexual energies geared toward an opposite gender presentation. Occasionally used to denote an individual, or the submissive role in a relationship.

v.) To actively embody a feminine identity or gender presentation.

adj.) Feminine in a quasi-traditional and/or non-traditional way--or referring to something/one (male or non-female) that/whom is related to or embodies a conscious femininity.

butch:

n.) Gender identity in which someone (female, male or other) has an awareness of cultural standards of masculinity and actively embodies a masculine appearance, role, or archetype, usually--but not always--associated with a gay or queer sexual identity/sexuality; more accentuated and intentional than straight male gender identity or gender presentation and distinctly challenges standards of masculinity through purposeful transgression against binary gender paradigms.

n.) Person (male, female or other) who identifies and/or presents an overtly masculine or masculine-acting gender identity and sometimes--but not necessarily-- embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic, and sexual energies geared toward an opposite gender presentation. Occasionally used to denote an individual, or the dominant role in a relationship.

v.) To actively embody a butch identity or gender presentation.

adj.) Masculine in a quasi-traditional and/or non-traditional way--or referring to something/one (female or non-male) that/whom is related to or embodies a conscious masculinity.

[Gemme]

Isn't it interesting how things evolve? I'll take my part of the trouble-making pie and sit down with it for a while.

For me, this conversation began because ONE LINE out of a fairly long post I made stood out to Cyclopea. As time went on, I realized I had written it backwards, so I definitely understood some of the confusion as to what I was saying. I take responsibility for not wording my thoughts exactly as I meant them.

I would never invalidate another's identity or self-image knowingly or willingly, although...through the night...I felt just that way from Cyclopea and AJ. Arwen and hippie have said the same thing at varying points. Like both of them, I had to step away from this thread. I needed to try to regain some perspective and get in touch with myself and find out what kind of place I was coming from exactly.

Now, I come back in, refreshed and hopeful and I see that hippie (Kathlene, if I may?) has done a wonderful job bridging the differences. If you aren't in PR or politics, you SHOULD be, girl!

I am honestly very sorry for those that felt, along the way, my point changed from "you are a lesbian and it works for you and that is GOOD but I am not a lesbian, but am homosexual by definition, so all homosexuals are NOT lesbians" to "all lesbians are bad because I don't identify that way". I never meant to say that, so if someone could pinpoint the specific post(s) where I actually said that, I'd be grateful.

Please let it be clear that I am NOT invalidating the fact that feelings were hurt. I know mine were and I apologize for my part in hurting others. What I am saying, and I ask that anyone who may respond to this post read this next part VERY CAREFULLY as I am doing my best to make myself as clear as I can, is that while I agree that all lesbians are homosexuals, not all homosexuals are lesbians. That's it. That is bluntly EXACTLY what I said. Never once did I attempt to make someone justify their identity nor did I invalidate it, although I felt like both were happening to me. Never did I say anything derogatory about lesbians or Queers or Martians or anyone else. I just made every attempt I could to help those who misinterpreted what I said or my tone. Along the way, Corkey and hippie and NAAG got what I was saying with some clarification and I appreciated that. Kosmo was able to present what I was trying to say better than I did and I also appreciate that.

In the end, everyone's filter is different. Everyone has different sensitivities. Everyone has different personal definitions (whether they coincide with Mirriam-Webster's definitions or not). Our past experiences color our present and future interactions. I acknowledge this and think that I've learned something in reading the past couple of pages of dialogue that will help me in communicating with people here. For that, I am very thankful.

Everyone wants to be HEARD though and that's why I felt it necessary for me to come back in here. Hopefully, it doesn't stir the pot or cause anymore rabblerousing. Like I said earlier, hippie's done a great job of smoothing the ruffled feathers and I don't want to take away from the wonderful posts and progress she's made. I just felt that my point had been twisted and turned into something it was never meant to be. And that is something I could not let happen. In this environment, we ARE our words. And I will not be changed into something I am not.

[QueenofQueens]

Originally Posted by Blue_Vegan_Daddy-O

I am interested to hear from anyone who identifies as a Lesbian who also finds the statement offensive. So Thank You for explaining to me how it makes you feel as well.

Yes, QueenofQueens, I completely understand when a person says that Lesbianism is disgusting, sick and perverted that this would be hurtful. The intent is derogatory, judgmental and prejudice. Although, I don't identify as a Lesbian this would be hurtful to me as well because there are many I love that do identify as a Lesbian and I have also identified as a Lesbian myself. But even if I didn't know a Lesbian or had never been one, it would still be hurtful to me to watch/hear/see a person put someone else down in this manner and not be accepting of another person's differences. And not be concerned with how their words would make someone else feel. I am not one to sit by and watch. I would have alot to say to anyone who would treat another person that way.

When I'm called a Lesbian it feels unnatural. It doesn't feel right. It feels weird. It's the same to me as being called a girl. Not because either are disgusting to me, but because I do not relate to being either one.

I would have asked Turasultana's intent before I assumed she was stating her feelings in a derogatory way.

If Turasultana feels similar to the way I do, it would be unfair for someone to automatically assume that because I don't like being called a Lesbian, that I find being one is disgusting or a negative.

When I read what Turasultana wrote, I could relate. As I'm sure there are others who do as well. And I'm sure there are also others who would take offense.

Where is the line drawn? Are we not allowed to say that being called a Lesbian makes us feel a negative emotion __________ (fill in the blank)?

QueenofQueens, do you feel that Turasultana was coming from a derogatory place, as if to call Lesbians disgusting?

Turasultana, maybe you could explain to use more of why you feel the way you do?

This is all so very interesting to me. The division and misunderstandings. I do believe it is very good for us to talk about it and to understand where we are all coming from. There is more I want to say...but my brain is getting very very tired and it's way past my bedtime and I can't write or think much more...LoL.

But I would like to continue this discussion tomorrow and really understand better.

Blue, I've been meaning to respond to this and only had the time to do so now.
I want to make my opinion and intentions crystal clear with regard to my previous post in this thread because I feel that you largely missed the point of what I said. I will enumerate my points to avoid further confusion and because I realize that a lot of ground has been covered in this thread.

1. I never believed that Tura was being intentionally hurtful.
2. People are capable of being insulting or hurtful without intending to do so, sometimes folks just act callously or thoughtlessly and need to be called on it.
3. When people feel the need to define themselves in negative terms, i.e. "I'm not lesbian, I'm not pro choice, I'm not a butch" and do so adamantly among people who do identify in those ways, the implication in their words can easily be read as pejorative by those who ARE what they decry they are NOT.


I realize some people have a lot of hurt attached to the word "lesbian" because of painful, personal experiences. Many, MANY of us as butches and femmes were wholesale rejected by the larger lesbian community or partners we cared for, simply because of how we interpret our queerness, myself included.

Some of us have chosen to embrace the identity of lesbian as an act of sheer defiance and as an open acknowledgment of our homosexuality. Some of us, instead, have chosen to reject the word. But I sincerely wonder, as a member of the former group, if you have chosen to reject the word "lesbian", and the identity, and are defining in negative terms, then what as a female bodied homosexual do you embrace in its stead? Have you truly made peace with the fact that you are homosexual? Are you okay with everything that being a female bodied person in relationship with another female bodied person manifests, entails and means? If not, then why not? These are hypothetical questions that I ponder and not directed toward any individual here.

For those who reject the identity "lesbian", I would ask for you all to think about how it would feel if you heard, for example, someone proclaiming, "I am NOT transensual, it squicks me out", or stone, or nesbian (not equating these words, just using them as examples), or whatever words you choose to embrace, simply in order to define yourselves. To me, it feels like coming out as a femme to the larger glbt community all fucking over again. I'm sick to death of having to defend and explain being a lesbian, and what that looks like presented by me, to other homosexuals especially.

If someone were to mistakenly presume that all b/f folks are transensual, for example, I (who am not transensual) do not feel the need to defend myself by breaking my id down in a way that would hurt those who are transensual. Isn't it hard enough for people to just move through the world as queer without hearing that their identities and sexual proclivities make other members of their community nauseous? That sort of judgment, couched in the safe haven of "personal opinion" feels secretly fascistic to me. Again, I want to know, why must anyone define themselves in negative terms?

Regardless of our choices regarding our identities, I think it behooves every single one of us to examine why we reject or embrace certain sexual descriptors, and sexual proclivities, to ensure that there is not the least trace of internalized homophobia or misogyny leading the way. Yes, I get that diversity is grand, and that all our triggers aren't tripped the same, and I say vive' le difference if it's a genuine expression of who you are. If not, taking a moment to face a truth that might make you uncomfortable, but which will ultimately help liberate your authentic self, is crucial to our evolution, individually and as a group. Examining our own potential homophobia and misogyny is as important an act of introspection as any regarding privilege or racism, especially within a community which is predominately queer and female bodied.

[Gemme]

QoQ, I value your thoughts very much and, while I'm sure Blue will get back with you (since it was directed towards Blue), I'd like to address a couple of things, if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by QueenofQueens

3. When people feel the need to define themselves in negative terms, i.e. "I'm not lesbian, I'm not pro choice, I'm not a butch" and do so adamantly among people who do identify in those ways, the implication in their words can easily be read as pejorative by those who ARE what they decry they are NOT.

Why is someone saying they are not something suddenly derogatory? I am not Native American but that does not mean that I am being derogatory towards those who are by saying that I am simply not. When did 'not' become a dirty word? If someone says that they are not Queer, I do not take offense to that. They are defining their own personal self; something I cannot do. I cannot tell them they are right or wrong. That's their determination to make, yes?

Maybe I am missing something but I just don't see it.

Some of us have chosen to embrace the identity of lesbian as an act of sheer defiance and as an open acknowledgment of our homosexuality. Some of us, instead, have chosen to reject the word. But I sincerely wonder, as a member of the former group, if you have chosen to reject the word "lesbian", and the identity, and are defining in negative terms, then what as a female bodied homosexual do you embrace in its stead? Have you truly made peace with the fact that you are homosexual? Are you okay with everything that being a female bodied person in relationship with another female bodied person manifests, entails and means? If not, then why not? These are hypothetical questions that I ponder and not directed toward any individual here.

I like the way you've worded these questions. It's easier to fit my thoughts around. I have some questions that have come from yours.

If I don't choose to embrace something, does that automatically mean I am rejecting it? Really? Have we and this world been reduced to black and white thinking? It must be this or that, with no inbetween or thinking outside of the box?

And does a female bodied person partnering with a female bodied but MALE or MASCULINE brained partner still fall under these parameters?

Does partnering with someone who is not female brained mean that I am somehow uneasy with homosexuality within myself? Does that mean that, if I were to identify as a lesbian, that I could ONLY partner with female bodied and female brained partners?

Regardless of our choices regarding our identities, I think it behooves every single one of us to examine why we reject or embrace certain sexual descriptors, and sexual proclivities, to ensure that there is not the least trace of internalized homophobia or misogyny leading the way. This is as important an act of introspection as any regarding privilege or racism, especially within a community which is predominately queer and female bodied.

Again, why must it be embrace or reject? Why can't something simply not apply to us?

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. My questions in response to yours are not in anger or frustration but I am genuinely confused.

[QueenofQueens]

Originally Posted by Gemme

QoQ, I value your thoughts very much and, while I'm sure Blue will get back with you (since it was directed towards Blue), I'd like to address a couple of things, if you don't mind.
Of course not Gemme.
My answers below in my beloved Courier.


Why is someone saying they are not something suddenly derogatory? I am not Native American but that does not mean that I am being derogatory towards those who are by saying that I am simply not. When did 'not' become a dirty word? If someone says that they are not Queer, I do not take offense to that. They are defining their own personal self; something I cannot do. I cannot tell them they are right or wrong. That's their determination to make, yes?
Maybe I am missing something but I just don't see it


The answer here lies within the question you asked. You are not Native American, nor am I, but would you at any time feel the need to qualify your identity as an American citizen by exclaiming that fact? Furthermore, do you make it a habit to describe yourself to people based upon all the things you aren't?
Normally, I'll say something like "I'm a Femme dyke" or "I'm gay" or "I'm Cuban", in order to give folks an idea about my identity if the subject comes up (which it does rarely and briefly offline). I never say "I'm not a gay man" or "I'm not a transensual femme" or "I'm Caribbean, but I'm certainly not Puerto Rican". To me, this seems rather nihilistic and divisive.

Not, isn't a dirty word, in and of itself. Everyone certainly has the right to make distinctions when false assumptions are made about who they are. The offense for me lies when that distinction is made with pejorative or rude language, or when it is expressed without sensitivity for those present.
I wouldn't say "I am NOT heterosexual because to me it squicks me out" around my straight friends as if being hetero was anathema. To me, it just isn't a kind way of expressing who I am.



I like the way you've worded these questions. It's easier to fit my thoughts around. I have some questions that have come from yours.

If I don't choose to embrace something, does that automatically mean I am rejecting it? Really? Have we and this world been reduced to black and white thinking? It must be this or that, with no in between or thinking outside of the box?

To your first question the answer is absolutely yes. If you make a statement denying that you are lesbian, then you are by definition rejecting that identity for yourself. As to your second question, I'm not a proponent of polarized thought at all. To me fluidity means just that, allowing oneself to embrace and travel among, many identities at once. Logically that allows little room for rejection. I have never said that a person couldn't be both lesbian and ____ and ____. But those of you who have rejected lesbian identity, seem to have assigned it a very narrow definition, and therefore, by shutting it out from the realm of possibility, in my opinion, are much nearer to black and white thinking than you believe yourself to be.
True fluidity needs to neither embrace nor reject any identity because it is capable of mercurial movement among all or none of them AND contrary to popular belief, fluidity and taxonomy can coexist peacefully.

And does a female bodied person partnering with a female bodied but MALE or MASCULINE brained partner still fall under these parameters?

Does partnering with someone who is not female brained mean that I am somehow uneasy with homosexuality within myself? Does that mean that, if I were to identify as a lesbian, that I could ONLY partner with female bodied and female brained partners?

These are questions that only you can answer for yourself. I could never, nor would I ever want to, make those determinations for someone.
If you're implying that my questions were somehow a veiled accusation, or an implication of having to choose "one or the other", I can assure you that they were not.
I can tell you that I fully embrace being a homosexual woman with all that entails. Because of that, I embrace all attendant terminology, as an act of both pride and defiance. When I was with a man, I still thought of myself as a dyke, largely because that is my authentic self. To me, identity is not determined by who we partner with, nor was I trying to imply that it is for those who do not claim "lesbian".
I asked several questions in this paragraph, some related to how we express our sexuality with another person, and some related to our own personal journeys to self actualization. For me, embracing the fact that I'm a lesbian, was a part of that journey. I just wonder how those who claim female homosexuality, while pairing that claim with the contradiction of rejecting the term lesbian, achieve peace. I was really being sincere, I'm trying to figure out how y'all come to terms with your homosexuality, since our paths to it are obviously very different.

Again, why must it be embrace or reject? Why can't something simply not apply to us?

We absolutely can proceed from a place of neutrality with regard to what doesn't apply to us. However, what I have witnessed here and elsewhere with regard to this admittedly sensitive topic, hardly passes as neutral from where I stand. If you (the general you) have no attachment to the lesbian id, then why qualify your identity by denying it?

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. My questions in response to yours are not in anger or frustration but I am genuinely confused.

Thank you too for engaging with me in a very thoughtful manner. I love and appreciate these types of discussions. For reals.

Anyway, I hope this clears up some of your confusion 'cause I'm kinda tired an' shit.

ETA: If one is pan- or omnisexual, that terminology is inclusive of all forms of hetero and homo sexuality. If one embraces pan- or omnisexuality as their identity, there is no logical reason to reject ANY sexual identity.

[QueenofQueens]

Originally Posted by Blue_Vegan_Daddy-O

No one is out to make Lesbian extinct...but she sure is changing and evolving!

Trust me, no one else's identity could ever be a threat to mine.
It's rudeness that I take umbrage at.

So, while we're on the subject, I find this particular statement extremely rude and patronizing.

How on earth have you concluded that rejecting lesbian identity is an earmark of "change" and "evolution" for lesbians? Guess what, lesbians still exist as (Shock! Horror!) lesbians.

What you said intones that those who remain lesbian id'ed are not evolved. It implies that the logical evolution of lesbian identity is... a rejection of lesbian identity (wtf?).

I find what you said to be incredibly arrogant, dismissive and mythologizing of many of us, especially in light of the fact that you are male id'ed and, I'm assuming, non lesbian. Is this how you have reconciled your journey to self actualization as male? What I mean is, I'm assuming at some point you thought you were a dyke/lesbian (if not, please forgive the assumption), and along the way, fully embraced the fact that you were actually male. So, do you identify your journey as a natural course of "lesbian evolution", and for your femme counterparts, a full on rejection of the identity, because that's how it played out for you? I'm really curious why you're framing it this way.

If you don't get why I find what you said appallingly condescending, let me put it to you this way; It's something akin to a guy telling a "bunch of hysterical bitches to just calm down" as he laughs at their outrage. You have no right to make such a pronouncement about me, or other lesbians. Now, if you actually id as a male lesbian, then I'd be really curious to hear your take on your own personal evolution. If you aren't, Id prefer that you refrain from making determinations about mine and that of other lesbians.

Your beliefs DO NOT determine the evolutionary process, no ones do, not mine, not anyone's. Only nature can put her pimp stick down on that.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by QueenofQueens

The answer here lies within the question you asked. You are not Native American, nor am I, but would you at any time feel the need to qualify your identity as an American citizen by exclaiming that fact? Furthermore, do you make it a habit to describe yourself to people based upon all the things you aren't?
Normally, I'll say something like "I'm a Femme dyke" or "I'm gay" or "I'm Cuban", in order to give folks an idea about my identity if the subject comes up (which it does rarely and briefly offline). I never say "I'm not a gay man" or "I'm not a transensual femme" or "I'm Caribbean, but I'm certainly not Puerto Rican". To me, this seems rather nihilistic and divisive.

Not, isn't a dirty word, in and of itself. Everyone certainly has the right to make distinctions when false assumptions are made about who they are. The offense for me lies when that distinction is made with pejorative or rude language, or when it is expressed without sensitivity for those present.
I wouldn't say "I am NOT heterosexual because to me it squicks me out" around my straight friends as if being hetero was anathema. To me, it just isn't a kind way of expressing who I am.

Thank you QoQ! You put in words what I've been trying to express.

I had thought, yesterday, about posting something I manifestly don't believe just as an example: 'I'm not trans. I would never want anyone to mistake me for trans. I would be upset if someone said I was trans!" Now, if I said that wouldn't it sound like I was saying "trans is something I want as far away from me as possible". You can almost hear the "get it off me" even in this venue.

My beautiful wife, Belly, is bisexual. When I first came out, I identified as bisexual (until my *second* lesbian relationship because at that point I realized that unless something VERY interesting happened, I was never going to have another heterosexual relationship) but I would not say "I'm not bi! I wouldn't want someone to mistake me for bi because that just squicks me out." Firstly, such a statement would, in fact, be an insult to the woman I love and it would *hurt* her. I know this because I have seen the hurt in her eyes when lesbians make very unkind comments about bisexuals (who, it seems, are still considered acceptable whipping girls in the community). Secondly, my identity is not really defined by who I was but am no longer but by who I *am*.

Being a black woman, I don't define myself as a not-white woman. I define myself as a *black* woman. Being a geekgrrl, I don't define myself as a not-mainstream but as a geek. Being a butch, I don't define myself as a not-femme but as a butch. Being a lesbian I don't define myself as not-anymore-bisexual or a not-anymore-heterosexual but as a lesbian or, alternatively, a dyke.

You bring up an interesting point in your statement "I'm Cuban but I'm certainly not Puerto Rican". I have heard Caribbean blacks make a point of saying that they are NOT American blacks--as if that were not something a decent brown-skinned person would want to be. If I were to make a point of saying I'm not Jamaican, one would be somewhat justified in saying "hey, Aj, what's so wrong with Jamaicans that you're so emphatically NOT one". Now, I've had people ask me if I was from Jamaica (because, don't ya know, ALL black people with dreadlocks are from Jamaica) and I've corrected them by saying "no, I'm an American born in America". But that's correcting a misinterpretation. I've had people ask "what country are you from" and I'll tell them the same thing, I'm an American who was born here. Again, correcting a misinterpretation. I've even had people say "why don't you go back to Africa" and I've corrected them by pointing out that given the reality of the transatlantic slave trade, it's likely that my bloodline has been here longer than their bloodline since my bloodline HAD to have hit these shores by 1809 (when the slave trade across the Atlantic ended) while their bloodline could easily have showed up on Ellis Island in 1910. But, again, that's not saying "I'm not African" it's simply correcting historical ignorance.

There's a difference and I've been so caught up in the emotions of this topic (yes, Virginia, I DO have emotions! LOL) that I haven't been able to put it into something coherent until I read your post. So thank you.

Cheers
Aj

[BullDog]

How people identify is of course entirely up to them. No one need identify as a lesbian. We are not recruiting.

However, the narrow minded views of what a lesbian is or is capable of expressing in terms of her sexuality and identity that are quite often expressed in butch femme circles feels like internalized homophobia and anti-woman to me. A woman who is attracted to another woman - lesbian- or a woman having sex with another woman, just simply isn't enough- it's limited, less evolved, something people need to be clear that they are NOT. Whereas queer/genderqueer/masculine identified/male within a female body and those attracted to such people are the cutting edge, revolutionary, evolved genders.

By the way I am not sure why people use masculine identified to refer to themselves as not identifying as woman and/or female. Butches who identify with being female are masculine. Women can and are masculine as well. My masculine pronoun is She.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by QueenofQueens

The answer here lies within the question you asked. You are not Native American, nor am I, but would you at any time feel the need to qualify your identity as an American citizen by exclaiming that fact? Furthermore, do you make it a habit to describe yourself to people based upon all the things you aren't?

Normally, I'll say something like "I'm a Femme dyke" or "I'm gay" or "I'm Cuban", in order to give folks an idea about my identity if the subject comes up (which it does rarely and briefly offline). I never say "I'm not a gay man" or "I'm not a transensual femme" or "I'm Caribbean, but I'm certainly not Puerto Rican". To me, this seems rather nihilistic and divisive.

There have been times when I have said something along those lines or have heard someone say something along those lines. True, it's a rarity, but like most everything...it's been done.

Although, when I might say, "I am not _____ but yada yada yada" I am not attempting to claim my status as American, femme, etc. It's simply me addressing something that is connected for me. I find it difficult to see it as being divisive, but I can follow the road your thoughts are taking here. Perhaps the words themselves aren't divisive, but the connection itself that's being made is.

*shrug*

Voila! As I was beginning to respond to you, someone came into my lobby and provided me with a near perfect example of what I mean.

The guest I was talking with was telling me about his adopted son who was recently released from prison. While in prison this man made jewelry. Jewelry that resembled traditional Native American jewelry. In our conversation, my guest said, "Now, Joe's not Native American, but the jewelry he makes resembles that style." Would you consider that statement divisive?

To me, and granted I had the benefit of being in front of this gentleman and was able to see the pride shining from his eye (only one...the other's gone...but that's another story), but this is not divisive. To me, he's saying that his son does such high quality work in his jewelry making that it could be mistaken with that designed by Native Americans. That his replicas could be mistaken for their original pieces.

Not, isn't a dirty word, in and of itself. Everyone certainly has the right to make distinctions when false assumptions are made about who they are. The offense for me lies when that distinction is made with pejorative or rude language, or when it is expressed without sensitivity for those present.
I wouldn't say "I am NOT heterosexual because to me it squicks me out" around my straight friends as if being hetero was anathema. To me, it just isn't a kind way of expressing who I am.

I can understand the reflex that hearing/seeing that would cause. You are right; that's not a positive statement.

To your first question the answer is absolutely yes. If you make a statement denying that you are lesbian, then you are by definition rejecting that identity for yourself. As to your second question, I'm not a proponent of polarized thought at all. To me fluidity means just that, allowing oneself to embrace and travel among, many identities at once. Logically that allows little room for rejection. I have never said that a person couldn't be both lesbian and ____ and ____. But those of you who have rejected lesbian identity, seem to have assigned it a very narrow definition, and therefore, by shutting it out from the realm of possibility, in my opinion, are much nearer to black and white thinking than you believe yourself to be.

For myself, I don't have a definition for lesbian (except the one from the dictionary that's been regurgitated several times in here). As a non-lesbian (which I'm not fond of saying, as that seems like it makes everything lesbians versus everyone else and that's not how I see it, but I'll go with the flow for this thread), I have no right to define any lesbian's identity. BUT, I have no right to define anyone else's identity. Period.

I think the either/or thing is something we'll just have to agree to disagree on, but I see your thought processes more clearly now.

True fluidity needs to neither embrace nor reject any identity because it is capable of mercurial movement among all or none of them AND contrary to popular belief, fluidity and taxonomy can coexist peacefully.

These are questions that only you can answer for yourself. I could never, nor would I ever want to, make those determinations for someone.
If you're implying that my questions were somehow a veiled accusation, or an implication of having to choose "one or the other", I can assure you that they were not.

Nope, no accusations, although I do feel a bit like it's being turned into lesbians vs. non-lesbians, much like heterosexuals vs. homosexuals or butches and femmes vs. everyone else. There's so much division already, it seems unfortunate and unproductive to continue to spread the gap.

I can tell you that I fully embrace being a homosexual woman with all that entails. Because of that, I embrace all attendant terminology, as an act of both pride and defiance. When I was with a man, I still thought of myself as a dyke, largely because that is my authentic self. To me, identity is not determined by who we partner with, nor was I trying to imply that it is for those who do not claim "lesbian".

I asked several questions in this paragraph, some related to how we express our sexuality with another person, and some related to our own personal journeys to self actualization. For me, embracing the fact that I'm a lesbian, was a part of that journey. I just wonder how those who claim female homosexuality, while pairing that claim with the contradiction of rejecting the term lesbian, achieve peace. I was really being sincere, I'm trying to figure out how y'all come to terms with your homosexuality, since our paths to it are obviously very different.

My identity is like clothing. Some clothes feel better on me than others. Some are tight and restrictive and some are too loose and get caught on things all the time. I feel comfortable in wearing the term homosexual although it's not something I actively portray or seek. It just is. Lesbian feels like a pair of pants that just doesn't fit quite right. It doesn't mean they are defective pants; only that they do not fit my body and me.

We absolutely can proceed from a place of neutrality with regard to what doesn't apply to us. However, what I have witnessed here and elsewhere with regard to this admittedly sensitive topic, hardly passes as neutral from where I stand. If you (the general you) have no attachment to the lesbian id, then why qualify your identity by denying it?

I don't see being a non-lesbian as denying lesbianism or lesbians. I see it as knowing that that just doesn't work for me. Perhaps it's a personality thing? Because when I deny or reject something or someone, that thing or person KNOWS it. It would be more in your face. Here, for me, I just don't feel that lesbianism, as I know it, is for me.

Again, I shall agree to disagree with you.

Thank you too for engaging with me in a very thoughtful manner. I love and appreciate these types of discussions. For reals.

Anyway, I hope this clears up some of your confusion 'cause I'm kinda tired an' shit.

Actually, it did help. Thank you.

ETA: If one is pan- or omnisexual, that terminology is inclusive of all forms of hetero and homo sexuality. If one embraces pan- or omnisexuality as their identity, there is no logical reason to reject ANY sexual identity.

Oh, boy. So it's pan or omni-sexuals versus the rest of us now? *tongue in cheek*

Although.....flip your arguments, please. By claiming lesbian so strongly, are you (in general or those who feel this applies to them) DENYING every other form of sexuality and sexual expression? If so, why is this claim so different from those who say "I'm not lesbian"? I do understand about a post or two being worded hurtfully. Taking that out of the equation, aren't those proclaiming lesbian doing the exact thing that the non-lesbians are being accused of doing?

Originally Posted by BullDog

How people identify is of course entirely up to them. No one need identify as a lesbian. We are not recruiting.

.....

By the way I am not sure why people use masculine identified to refer to themselves as not identifying as woman and/or female. Butches who identify with being female are masculine. Women can and are masculine as well. My masculine pronoun is She.

I think you answered yourself by your first paragraph. It's not up to anyone to wonder WHY someone id's as they do. It's our job as a respectful human being to accept their self-identification for what it is: theirs.

Women can definitely be masculine. So can those who do not identify as women or connect with their female body. I think masculine is a connection between woman and man, separating them from each other but keeping them intertwined simultaneously.

[Blue_Daddy-O]

I have a whole lot to say and lots of responses to get back to so I will be posting as soon as time permits!

I do hope everyone is having a wonderful and peaceful holiday! Happy Holidays Everyone, even you Lesbians!! LOLOLOLOL!!!!

[hippieflowergirl]

well hi,

i've read and re-read the posts that make up this thread and i have a question for any/all who might care to answer publicly or privately.

is my original post, the reply i wrote to "Victoria" in which i said that i'm not a lesbian/do not identify as a lesbian offensive? did it sound like i was saying "OMG that's disgusting! i'm not one of those people?"

i ask because when i made the statement all i was thinking was "lesbian isnt the word i use for my self." i wasnt trying to dissociate from the word because i thought there was something wrong with the term itself or with anyone who is perfectly comfortable with it. i was responding to a post that seemed (to my necessarily limited understanding) to insist that we all use the word lesbian as a self-identifier. that was it.

it was suggested earlier this week that i am patronizing in my responses and that "no one asked for" my opinion. if i derailed the conversation and/or was not welcome to participate or if i was rude to any who posted or who has been reading the thread i apologize. my excuse for my original post was based on the name of the thread and the comments of a particular participant. as for being patronizing, i can only offer the lack of human connection between typist and reader(s) as an excuse. i do not wish or intend to patronize anyone.

it disturbs me that things i've said may have contributed to the deterioration of our discussion from the sharing of our varied experiences and different understandings of the world to the semi-denial of one another out of some perceived threat, one that i dont feel ever existed.

my responses are, in part, responsible for that (mistakenly) perceived threat if, when i wrote a reply to "Victoria" or to anyone else, i said anything that gave one of you the idea that i was claiming some kind of superiority simply because i do not use the word lesbian for myself. i've read my posts and do not see a "better than" mindset in my words. though i cant promise to see every flaw in my thinking i can, however, be certain of my intent and hope it comes across. when it doesnt i will clarify. that's all i was ever trying to do. i feel that many of the questions i posed remain unanswered but i hope that there will never be a question about my own feelings about any person, here or elsewhere, when it comes to this subject.

i am writing to both extend my well wishes to all for a very happy and rewarding new year as well as to unsubscribe from our discussion. i feel as though i've shaken a box of precious objects and in doing so, done damage that i would never have dknowingly or willingly done had i realized what gifts were inside. each one of you has presented me with something that i value by sharing your passion and your opinions and your selves in this venue. you are wealth that i take with me into my work and into my negotiation of the world every day. i am sincerely grateful for each of you.

Happy New Year

kathlene

[T D]

* Bingo * I believe respect, or lack of it, is mostly at the bottom these signals of "silencing". I have had things said to me in threads at that "other" site which I found very disheartening, rude, and silencing. Because someone says something that someone else doesn't think is relevant doesn't mean that it's not of value to others.

In reality everyone who has something to say has a right to say whatever it is. It seems that saying it, hearing it, responding to it with "mutual respect" seems to be the culprit for the most part. For the life of me I cannot figure out why this is such a difficult thing to grasp and do.

Going back to enjoying my Christmas day now

Originally Posted by June

Hey! As a community member, June likes your voice, even the sassy one! I am not going to go back through all the posts, but I sincerely hope no one intimated to you that "Your opinion wasn't asked for" in thread, because, that would piss me off just as much as if someone said it to me, or anyone else.

*I* don't think it's about holding back on opinions, *I* think it's about being willing to not just type, but listen as well. Some folks aren't able to do that. But, leaving the conversation isn't ALWAYS the answer. You seem to be willing to not just listen, but also be reflective -- What a gift!

It is worriesome to me as a community member that we (general we) appear to be fighting not only for space, but to be heard. For *me* this is not, nor should it ever be a pissing contest about "less than" or "more than". It seems like it should be more about mutual respect.

"I don't consider myself to be a Lesbian, and this is why"
"I am a masculine female who prefers female pronouns"
"I don't relate to any part of my female being, and this is why"
"I am a Lesbian, and this is what it means to me"

Or even, as the Thread topic indicates:

"I used to ID as Butch, but now I ID as this, and this is why"
"I am a Femme, but lately, I have been thinking about this..."
"I don't use any labels at all, I am just me and think they are unecessary and this is why"

I think, for me, my AHA! moment in this thread, or at least two significant ones came from dreadgeek and QueenofQueens posts using the example of:

"Ewwwwww, I am not a Lesbian and will never ID that way!" and then converting it to "OMG! I can't believe someone thought I was (whatever), I am so offended"

If you just look at that, even if no post actually SAID that, several of them inferred it, and I can totally see how it could be hurtful.

But YOU, HFG, DO NOT need to take the blame for the conversation going to Hell in a handbasket, because sometimes that happens, and then usually, it corrects itself, which I think is what is happening here now.

SO! Re-subscribe to this thread! Let your voice be heard! Be prepared to defend yourself if need be, or clarify.

[Blue_Daddy-O]

Originally Posted by June

Hi, Blue Vegan --

Your post was reported and I have to say that upon review, I don't care for what appears to be your "tone". It appears to be sarcastic, rude and condescending.

If it is being misread, please take a moment to explain further here in the thread.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Lesbian Moderator,

June

Yes, I am being completely misread! No doubt, by those who don't know me or my sense of humor. I am very easy to read in person and have a big heart (and a playful heart too) and never, and I can say never, have the misreads and misunderstandings live that I have had in this thread. When I am finally able to completely respond to post in here, I think much of that will be cleared up. Granted those who feel just as strong about their opinions as I do mine, we may have to come to a place of agreeing to disagree. Even though we disagree with each other doesn't mean we can't share a laugh and still be friends. I can be a very serious person and still like to laugh and make others laugh, even when being serious, it cuts the tension. There is no room for hate, at least not in my world and I wish others felt the same way!

Anyone who knows me, knows how much I truly love ALL Lesbians, I have been dating a Lesbian Femme for the last 5 months, I have ex-girlfriends over the last 20 years who are Lesbians, many many friends who I love and adore who are Lesbians and I was a Lesbian for 10 years. Sometimes my Mom is a Lesbian Femme, when she's not idenifying as Bi-sexual, LoL. I don't always agree with Lesbians and their POVs, hence the discussion in this thread.

I am a very passionate and outspoken person, in person as well as online. I also take very seriously when others wrongly judge and mistreat others. It is very upsetting for me to watch and I will be responding to that when I return.

[Darth Denkay]

Bulldog,

You got me. I am one of those who has identified as masculine butch. In my mind what I was trying to get across is that - gender-wise - I don't identify as male or female, man or woman. I used masculine thinking it was a useful alternative to male or female, but as you point out, it really isn't. Female id'd butches identify as masculine, male id'd butches identify as masculine - I think it is probably safe to say that most, if not all butches identify with masculinity. So to call myself a masculine identified butch is basically redundant.

I guess I was trying to create a category so that I wouldn't have to identify myself by saying what I'm not (not man or woman) because as we know that can come across as stigmatizing those identities. I'm female in the biological sense, but I don't feel like I fit into either gender category. I guess this is one instance when, if I need to qualify myself in terms of gendered male and female, I'll have to go with the 'not' identifiers. So from now on, I will never call myself a masculine butch; masculine gives you no additional information beyond butch.

You rock Bulldog!

Originally Posted by BullDog

By the way I am not sure why people use masculine identified to refer to themselves as not identifying as woman and/or female. Butches who identify with being female are masculine. Women can and are masculine as well. My masculine pronoun is She.

[BullDog]

Thank you Wicket for taking my words in the spirit it was intended. You rock too.

I understand the difficulties of language- there aren't any words to really describe the space between male and female or man and woman. However, yes, most butches consider themselves to be masculine so I believe it is redundant to say masculine identified.

Also to use it in the sense to signify non-woman and/or non-female is quite problematic for me. Women can be and are masculine (not just butches), and for me it is very important not to lose sight of that- through language or anything else. It is also important for me that we continue to expand what woman can be- not of course to make others into women who don't feel that they are.

Quite frankly from my perspective, female identified is redundant too. I have just used it in the past so that I would not be mistaken for being male or male identified. Just Butch is fine for me, or for my own longtail version it's Stone Butch Lesbian.

[Darth Denkay]

Hey Bulldog,

I really appreciate this dialogue.

Originally I identified only as butch - for me that was my gender that existed outside of male and female. As I saw other butches identifying as male or female, I figured I should use a qualifier too - since neither male or female fit comfortably. But you know what - I am butch, plain and simple. I get that for some butches either male or female resonates - but for me I'm just a good old butch.

You also make a really good point about women in general being masculine, regardless of sexual orientation. My mom, who as far as I know is straight, looks pretty masculine. She doesn't attempt to embrace femininity or masculinity, she is just herself, which happens to be an individual with a nice blend of masculine and feminine. I bet if you asked her if she identified as masculine or feminine, she'd say neither. She expresses what I would call her innate masculinity without any conscious effort. If I had to identify her I'd say masculine straight female, (although, to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'straight' part isn't accurate).

Finally, I'm glad that you mention that female-identified butch is a little redundant too. At least as I understand the terms. Because I use male and female to signify physical sex, for me it feels unnecessary to point out that I am physically female. Now, I've never mentioned this before because I didn't want to come across as invalidating those who do embrace female-identified butch, but for me, butch is sufficient.

Originally Posted by BullDog

Thank you Wicket for taking my words in the spirit it was intended. You rock too.

I understand the difficulties of language- there aren't any words to really describe the space between male and female or man and woman. However, yes, most butches consider themselves to be masculine so I believe it is redundant to say masculine identified.

Also to use it in the sense to signify non-woman and/or non-female is quite problematic for me. Women can be and are masculine (not just butches), and for me it is very important not to lose sight of that- through language or anything else. It is also important for me that we continue to expand what woman can be- not of course to make others into women who don't feel that they are.

Quite frankly from my perspective, female identified is redundant too. I have just used it in the past so that I would not be mistaken for being male or male identified. Just Butch is fine for me, or for my own longtail version it's Stone Butch Lesbian.