Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it nicely.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when, in fact, I'm the recipient of unearned white privilege?

hijacking identities? Identity is established by the individual. I'm not telling anyone who they are or who they aren't.

Are my thoughts less important because I haven't been in the community as long?

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.[/COLOR]

Well since I said it was surprising to me, feel free to get out the markers and color yourself amazed. This was the first time I have come across the term being offensive.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender - it makes of us, gender consumers.

I beg to differ. There may be clear bias to you, but that bias is not clear to me. I don't believe anyone strives to be biased.

[COLOR="Red"]I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

So because I learned that particular brand of gender theory, I am unintentionally offensive because gender theory is presumptive. I have no idea what to make of this, but you are entitled to your opinon.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation of my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

I find it contradictory indeed to say "you're not being dismissed, i just don't have time and don't care, you should be able to figure it out from my comments" when I made a distinct point of telling you that was how i was feeling. Conversely, you have every right to not give a rat's derriere about how I feel. My emotions are my responsibility.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not....




You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it for you.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when I'm not? This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere because of this.




ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.




Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender. I think of this as gender consumerism.





I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga




Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation about my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.



I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not.

This is a repeat, so I'll just leave it at that.

I'll leave you to your molecules and, instead, say: When I see terms like "CIS" or "trans", I see people, not molecules. But then, I'm a scientist, too, but of a different order (Human Services). I spend 60+ hours a week trying to disavow teenage girls of their misbegotten notions of gender. Notions that are contributing to their being exploited, abused, impregnanted and infected with STDs and HIV. Notions that keep them depressed and abusing their bodies ("cutting", eating disorders, substance abuse, etc.). Their modern day hero(in)es keep them gender, self-preoccupied, too; it's often fatal. It doesn't matter which gender construct or deconstruct one buys into, it still keeps the myth of gender constructs alive. We're all gender consumers under patriarchy. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs - it simply re-envisages constructs.

Lesbians/women like me, who's life's work it is to keep young women from being systematically (systemically?) murdered by gender constructs, find the self-preoccupation with labels and gender identity maddening.

I refuse to be drawn into the oppression olympics with you. This whole statement smacks of "holier than thou" and is positively infuriating to me.

Here's a thought.... How about dropping the concept of gender altogether? Constructed or deconstructed, it's still all about gender.... Everyone is a gender consumer under patriarchy. There's no escaping it. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs. The myth of gender has to go.



How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

These two statements are redundant but you have a point. The concept of eliminating gender is the only thing I will take from this so-called conversation.


I find your tone and responses to be ageist and dismissive, and it is clear to me that you and I are unable to have a productive dialogue on this subject. You are clearly quite intelligent and I'm sure will continue to contribute to the threads in productive ways. With that in mind, I wish you all the best and hope that you and I can limit our interaction regarding this subject in particular to discussions about the weather.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Well since I said it was surprising to me, feel free to get out the markers and color yourself amazed. This was the first time I have come across the term being offensive....



... These two statements are redundant but you have a point. The concept of eliminating gender is the only thing I will take from this so-called conversation...

SA,
It's been my experience that most people who use the term 'cis' are very surprised to learn that someone finds it offensive. Like you, they've learned that it's a way to acknowledge the struggles that trans people face, and the alleged lack of similar struggles that people who have never been trans supposedly get to avoid. We've spent quite a bit of time discussing the real problems such a term brings up, (Heart, will you run for President?), and the way some of us have felt ambushed by the rapid, community-wide adoption of this term that feels quite erasing to us. We didn't get to consent to this. To complete the erasure, many of us who object to the term have been repeatedly silenced by others who tell us that makes us transphobes. No wonder you haven't heard anything about 'cis' being offensive thus far. The power of being labeled a transphobe is so great that it took the establishment of a lesbian zone on a website catering to butch/femme people, the vast majority of whom ID as women who partner with women, for us to feel safe enough to have a discussion about the offensiveness of 'cis'.

Like most of us here, I would like to get back to the important topic of lesbian pride. As it has in many other parts of our community, arguments about trans inclusion have diverted us. We can't seem to keep from letting those arguments divert our attention in this thread any better than we can in the lesbian community at large, or so I perceive it.

Like many, I deeply resent that feminist thought, which I hold as my touchstone, has been dismissed and derided in favour of gender theory in academic circles. That brings me to the second of your statements which I quoted. This is the very crux of the problem I perceive with current gender theory getting in the way of my lesbian pride. I understand that this statement about eliminating gender came up in the context of an acrimonious argument between you and Chazz, but it's telling.

My understanding of gender theory is that it seeks to undermine binary gender by simply declaring that there is no such thing. The world isn't made up of women and men, the world is made up of millions of beings of indeterminate gender. Those beings should be allowed to declare whatever gender they understand themselves to be at any point in their lives, or not, and that designation may change many times over their lives. Current gender theory holds that it's inherently oppressive to name a baby's gender based on her or his genitalia and chromosomal make-up, and that birth designation should no longer be practiced. There, now. We've eliminated gender.

I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

[*Anya*]

Cheryl, thank you for brilliantly verbalizing what I have been unable to state, and even if I had attempted; would not have done so articulately and eloquently.

[Heart]

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

[Slater]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

SA,
I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

Cheryl,

A couple of thoughts. First I would like to point out that it was Chazz and not ScandalAndy who argued that all genders are constructs of the patriarchy, are therefore invalid, and should be eliminated. In your remarks, you seem to be speaking as though this argument came from SA. I apologize if I am misreading you.

I wonder though, why you don't think it would work to talk about sexism in terms of sex instead of gender. In your paragraph about feminism why couldn't 'woman' be replaced with 'female'? What do you think would be lost? Same for your definition of lesbian. I'm not arguing, as Chazz did, that genders are inherently bogus. I'm just curious why you think, in this particular context, making the same points with respect to sex instead of gender does not work.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

Cheryl,

A couple of thoughts. First I would like to point out that it was Chazz and not ScandalAndy who argued that all genders are constructs of the patriarchy, are therefore invalid, and should be eliminated. In your remarks, you seem to be speaking as though this argument came from SA. I apologize if I am misreading you.

I wonder though, why you don't think it would work to talk about sexism in terms of sex instead of gender. In your paragraph about feminism why couldn't 'woman' be replaced with 'female'? What do you think would be lost? Same for your definition of lesbian. I'm not arguing, as Chazz did, that genders are inherently bogus. I'm just curious why you think, in this particular context, making the same points with respect to sex instead of gender does not work.

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

[Jess]

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

[*Anya*]

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

[Slater]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

As for the other part, I misunderstood you. You were addressing SA, but arguing against a position put forth explicitly by Chazz and I simply misunderstood your intent.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

SA,
It's been my experience that most people who use the term 'cis' are very surprised to learn that someone finds it offensive. Like you, they've learned that it's a way to acknowledge the struggles that trans people face, and the alleged lack of similar struggles that people who have never been trans supposedly get to avoid. We've spent quite a bit of time discussing the real problems such a term brings up, (Heart, will you run for President?), and the way some of us have felt ambushed by the rapid, community-wide adoption of this term that feels quite erasing to us. We didn't get to consent to this. To complete the erasure, many of us who object to the term have been repeatedly silenced by others who tell us that makes us transphobes. No wonder you haven't heard anything about 'cis' being offensive thus far. The power of being labeled a transphobe is so great that it took the establishment of a lesbian zone on a website catering to butch/femme people, the vast majority of whom ID as women who partner with women, for us to feel safe enough to have a discussion about the offensiveness of 'cis'.

Like most of us here, I would like to get back to the important topic of lesbian pride. As it has in many other parts of our community, arguments about trans inclusion have diverted us. We can't seem to keep from letting those arguments divert our attention in this thread any better than we can in the lesbian community at large, or so I perceive it.

You're right, these arguments do keep coming up, and that is worth examining, but I want to get back to lesbian pride too.

Like many, I deeply resent that feminist thought, which I hold as my touchstone, has been dismissed and derided in favour of gender theory in academic circles. That brings me to the second of your statements which I quoted. This is the very crux of the problem I perceive with current gender theory getting in the way of my lesbian pride. I understand that this statement about eliminating gender came up in the context of an acrimonious argument between you and Chazz, but it's telling.

My understanding of gender theory is that it seeks to undermine binary gender by simply declaring that there is no such thing. The world isn't made up of women and men, the world is made up of millions of beings of indeterminate gender. Those beings should be allowed to declare whatever gender they understand themselves to be at any point in their lives, or not, and that designation may change many times over their lives. Current gender theory holds that it's inherently oppressive to name a baby's gender based on her or his genitalia and chromosomal make-up, and that birth designation should no longer be practiced. There, now. We've eliminated gender.

I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

Cheryl: I think some things have gotten jumbled up here and I would like to do my best to handle them as gently and respectfully as I am able.

The second half of my quote was my response to Chazz's suggestion that we eliminate gender altogether. Whether that suggestion was made in jest or not, I am not sure. However, it was an option I did not consider so my comment that it was all i was taking from the conversation was meant to imply that it was the idea I intended to take some time to think about. I apologize for not being clearer about that, I can see how that might have been misinterpreted to mean something else.

I feel the need to point out that gender studies was one of my two minors. I don't know what happened that made you believe it was my field of study, but I'm sure I mentioned it somewhere so I"m sure it was just an honest mistake. No biggie, I spent four years taking the classes and debating with others, writing my papers, being praised, and being criticized just like everyone else in my class. I don't claim to be an expert, just a normal person who learned some stuff that made me think critically about some things.

Originally Posted by Heart

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

Heart, I'm sorry this conversation is so draining on you. I can sympathize with that feeling, as I'm not feeling particularly buoyant about this exchange, myself. To be quite frank, I'm not here to argue, that's not who I am, and not what I am about. I don't want to be the bad guy here. I feel I have worked very hard to present my points without insult and in a calm manner.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I think I am finally beginning to understand where the disconnect is happening here. You are correct, I did say that trans people experience dysphoria "on top of" the rampant misogyny of a patriarchal society. That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I could see how it can be viewed as erasing language. I did not mean at all to imply that this is the pinnacle of oppression, I just didn't take the time to reinforce all of the things that lesbians and women go through. That was an oversight on my part and you were right to remind me of that. Maybe I've gotten so used to carrying that burden around that I forget to acknowledge that it's there. I will continue to keep this in the back of my mind, but for now I don't think I can say much more that would be coherent as I am still processing it.

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

Again, you have a very valid point here. I have to repeat what I've said before, it is possible that I can't see the forest for the trees. There are many things that are important to me and women's rights is most assuredly one of those things. I got off on a tangent, sure, but I have more than enough passion to fight for more than one thing.




I also hope (as do you and Cheryl) that we can bring this back around to lesbian pride, as that's what I made such a big fuss over in the first place. I was the first to complain about getting off topic, and now I've gone and derailed it myself. For that i apologize not only to you both, but to everyone who came to this thread and was disappointed by what they found. I hope I've responded to your concerns in a way that works for both of us and will help us get back to what we originally came here for.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

What I'm missing is why anyone would claim a genderless lesbian ID. I don't get it.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

[citybutch]

Actually it is very different.... One can identify as female and be very proud of that... and not identify as woman. Check the OED... two completely different definitions.

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Actually it is very different.... One can identify as female and be very proud of that... and not identify as woman. Check the OED... two completely different definitions.

I was not discussing identity. I should have made that clear.

[citybutch]

Neither am I. I am talking the English language. Woman and female, by definition, are two different things.

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

I was not discussing identity. I should have made that clear.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

Got it. Yes, I understand that a person can ID as butch as a gender. But how does that equate to being a genderless lesbian?

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Neither am I. I am talking the English language. Woman and female, by definition, are two different things.

According to Websters:

Definition of WOMAN
1
a : an adult female person

Definition of FEMALE
1
a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs (2) : pistillate

b (1) : composed of members of the female sex <the female population> (2) : characteristic of girls or women <composed for female voices> <a female name>

[imperfect_cupcake]

um *hand up*.. I do know people who ID as female but of no particular gender except their own individual thang AND a lesbian. Because they see lesbian as primarily female-female, not woman-woman (but the bulk of which is inclusive of woman-woman).

[Jess]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Neither am I. I am talking the English language. Woman and female, by definition, are two different things.

Not trying to make a stink here, but what is OED? I am familiar with the definitions Cheryl gave. Please show me what you are talking about.

[Heart]

If one identifies proudly as female, then what is it about "women" that one is rejecting?