Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[citybutch]

*sigh*... this is why I like conversations better face to face... We could have a lot of fun discussing this... I can see where my next response would be misinterpreted and so I will step aside.

Maybe someday we can have the conversation in person, Jess...

Originally Posted by Jess

While I totally understand your disdain for the origins of the word "woman", I still can not find the OED current definition of "woman", so I do not understand why it is so offensive today.

Much of the discord in this thread has been about the "traditional" definition of "lesbian". I would assert then, that perhaps we should also toss out female, because it is offensive to me to be just a being that produces eggs.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by citybutch

*sigh*... this is why I like conversations better face to face... We could have a lot of fun discussing this... I can see where my next response would be misinterpreted and so I will step aside.

Maybe someday we can have the conversation in person, Jess...

Always down for that! I agree, sometimes it is only through face to face that we can begin to lower our defenses enough to truly "hear" one another. Because, believe me, I am laughing at a lot of this.. LOL... Mostly, the faces I feel cross my face when I just go " huh?"

Thanks again!

[Heart]

Kobi, I think I'm pretty clear about what I stand for. I guess I just don't have a very either/or sensibility. It's more of a both/and sensibility. If that feels like flip flopping to you, so be it. I notice you didn't engage with any of my questions.

Jess, what I was trying to express was something that I was saying when SA was feeling that her identity as a lesbian was being challenged in this thread: That our individual twists and turns, (including who we are sleeping with at any given moment), tells us very little. This goes back to one of my original arguments (just to be consistent Kobi), about how circling around and around identity (labels, roles, who one sleeps with, etc), is politically unproductive. What concerns me are the broader issues of what happens to those of us that the patriarchal world sees as lesbians, and more broadly, as women.

I hope that's clearer.

ETA: Also, when I said this: I do not get why any of these labels based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism," I was responding to what I felt was implied in Kobi's prior post, that if one has slept with men, one might be politically suspect. Of course, I am aware that this is a common perception in separatist communities, and actually I understand where it comes from -- the reality of patriarchy means women will be suspicious of other women who have consorted with men.


Heart

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Well lets see. I said:

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

I dont see any mention of sleep partner.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Well lets see. I said:

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

I dont see any mention of sleep partner.

Mkay, so may I ask what you specifically mean by her flip-flopping?

[Heart]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Yes, I do wonder what it is that Kobi sees as flip-flopping. I actually have no problem with people re-inscribing their identities any number of times in any number of ways. I never said I did. In fact, I asserted in this thread that I think people can and should self-identify, and I accepted SA's self identifying as a lesbian regardless of who she was sleeping with (transmen, etc). So I don't see where I flip-flopped. I think Kobi must have had some expectation or assumption about my lesbian identity that I did not fulfill. But that's not my problem.

There is one thing though that I will cop to just to be very clear about where my focus lies. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit for Kobi: What agitates me is not whether a lesbian sleeps with a man. What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.

So, having said that as clearly as I can, I realize that its not about the thread topic of "lesbian pride," and I will bow out so as not to derail further.

Maybe I'll start a thread.

Peace,
Heart

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Jess

I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

I hope it's okay that I post here for a moment.

I really think it's more complicated than "actively have sex with other women". I mean, honestly, if that were all it took then I would be a Lesbian. I mean, maybe functionally I am - but functionality doesn't count for shit with me.

I have been sleeping with, and exclusively with, my lawfully wedded wedded person (who, incidentally, is a woman) for I think 6 years now. Historically, prior to getting together with my spouse, I slept with both men and women. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that I will ever sleep with a man again (presuming that my current relationship lasts the rest of my life). However, I am still not a Lesbian. I have slept with far more women than I have men, but I'm still not a Lesbian.

It's got to be about more than just fucking. It's got to be about intent, and political alignment, and intentional political alignment. Do you feel me?

(Also - big ups to Heart. I liked where she asked (to paraphrase) "If I'm not sleeping with ANYBODY - what am I?")

Sorry for crashing in on your party, peoples. I do that on occasion.

[Cin]

I don’t know if I ever stopped laying claim to lesbian pride. I don’t think so. Although I did at times feel like lesbian pride needed to reclaim me.

For me, being a lesbian and a feminist are inexorably linked and I am proud to label myself a lesbian feminist. When I examine my ideas about what is a lesbian and what is a feminist I find myself thinking about them in the ideological sense, although, hopefully, I am also a lesbian feminist in the practical sense as well. But I can see a place for ideological lesbian feminists. Although I suppose defining them as allies could work almost as well.

I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives.

Of course there is oppression enough to go around and while an understanding of sexism, misogyny and the patriarchy is extremely useful (I would say necessary), the focus of everyone’s work is not going to be on that particular form of oppression. And just as an understanding of sexism and misogyny is invaluable for all those who battle oppression in any form, it is also useful for lesbian feminists to understand, in depth, other forms of oppression as well.

There is always softness at the borders. Where things intersect slippage often occurs. The edges of things often feel dangerous because of this natural fluidity. Yet, understandably, it is also the place where perception is heightened. I suppose it is only natural that people feel the need to patrol borders. Nobody wants to be taken over or erased. But I think it is much much more difficult than we could even imagine to eliminate or erase things. Change though I suppose is inevitable.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I don’t know if I ever stopped laying claim to lesbian pride. I don’t think so. Although I did at times feel like lesbian pride needed to reclaim me.

For me, being a lesbian and a feminist are inexorably linked and I am proud to label myself a lesbian feminist. When I examine my ideas about what is a lesbian and what is a feminist I find myself thinking about them in the ideological sense, although, hopefully, I am also a lesbian feminist in the practical sense as well. But I can see a place for ideological lesbian feminists. Although I suppose defining them as allies could work almost as well.

I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives.

Of course there is oppression enough to go around and while an understanding of sexism, misogyny and the patriarchy is extremely useful (I would say necessary), the focus of everyone’s work is not going to be on that particular form of oppression. And just as an understanding of sexism and misogyny is invaluable for all those who battle oppression in any form, it is also useful for lesbian feminists to understand, in depth, other forms of oppression as well.

There is always softness at the borders. Where things intersect slippage often occurs. The edges of things often feel dangerous because of this natural fluidity. Yet, understandably, it is also the place where perception is heightened. I suppose it is only natural that people feel the need to patrol borders. Nobody wants to be taken over or erased. But I think it is much much more difficult than we could even imagine to eliminate or erase things. Change though I suppose is inevitable.

This makes sense to me.

I am feeling pretty confident that the patriarchy is the grand pooh-bah of oppression, the prototype which all other forms of oppression emulate.

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

I believe internalized misogyny is certainly an effective method of control and keeps us separate. But I don’t think it is the most effective control mechanism. I think misogyny of any stripe cuts across generations, race, class etc. And it is no more recognizable than the internalized version. Even the blatant, violent, horrific encouraged by society and sanctioned by a government misogyny on display all over the world is not recognized for what for what it is – organized and supported hatred of women. Instead we tend to say, with a measure of sadness and even a little disgust in our voices, that women are still oppressed in some countries. Hell, well, ya, I guess. But divide and conquer is quite a successful ploy and is used to keep all oppressed people separate from each other. We are taught to separate by race, class, sex, gender, sexual preference, religious beliefs, government ideology etc… We are also taught not to show each other mercy but instead to hold each other suspect.

Originally Posted by Kobi

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

I agree that we do not live in a perfect world. And I certainly can attest that words and actions very often do not match. But I think individuals should be held accountable for their actions, not groups of people that these individuals identify with. I certainly wouldn’t want any incongruency on my part attributed to butches who identify as women and are lesbian feminists. But perhaps you mean there is an actual organized attempt at infiltration by groups of people with a particular ideological agenda. I have trouble believing I can be threatened sufficiently to call in the troops by an ideology. I know I’m probably alone in this, but I’ve always been suspicious of simply an ideology as a weapon of mass destruction. In my experience it has often been the desire to destroy an ideology that has caused the mass destruction.

Originally Posted by Heart

What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.
Heart

I also see the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism. It makes me sad and angry. I don’t know how to combat it. I just don’t see any change coming. All I can do is to continue to speak out. To explain how I see misogyny and the patriarchy as the real root of all evil whenever the opportunity presents itself and sometimes even when the opportunity doesn’t present itself but instead hides in some deep dark hole.

But I don't really get how people identifying as trans/gender-queer or whatever translates as a loss for the identity of women. I don't think it's an either/or kind of thing. I doubt anyone is thinking, Oh I was going to identify as a butch woman but now I'm going in this direction. I think it just fits for them. And I don't think anyone is going to be choosing one identity over another for any other reason than that is how they feel, that is who they believe they are. And it's not like we win something if we have more people on our side. I do however think we win if we have more people with an understanding of sexism, misogyny, male privilege and the patriarchy.

One thing I believe very strongly is that no one can take my identity away. Or make me identify differently from how I feel. And I don’t believe I have the power to do that to anyone else. Even if I wanted to. Which I surely don’t. So I don’t see any reason to worry about losing anything or having my identity erased or its border destroyed. How could that happen? Would I be assimilated into another identity? Without my believing I am that how could it happen? I guess I get confused by ideas of vigorous border patrolling. How can one identity be in danger from another? I mean you can’t take anyone’s identity away can you? I get that you can dismiss people, set up hierarchies, undervalue female identities, but how is that different from what has always been true? No one can make me believe that I am less than. But it is frustrating to know so many turn a blind eye and really and truly have no idea whatsoever the depth and breadth of pain and hurt that misogyny causes us all. But I don’t really understand how that translates to danger to my identity. I don’t see any threat to how I identify in any real, this is war the enemy is at the gate, kind of way.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

....What agitates me is not whether a lesbian sleeps with a man. What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.

So, having said that as clearly as I can, I realize that its not about the thread topic of "lesbian pride," and I will bow out so as not to derail further.

Maybe I'll start a thread.

Peace,
Heart

I don't feel alone. I'm blessed to have a strong Feminist and lesbian IDed women's community online and off. Truly blessed.

As to the "Reclaiming of Lesbian Pride".... I've come to realizations about that based on this thread and discussions with friends about it.

The Lesbian Pride I remember was a collective, mutually empowering celebration of female commonality and lived experience as lesbian women. One's social strata, race, background didn't matter. We held certain basic tenets in common: We were woman-centric, and personally/politically mobilized to fight against women's oppression and homophobia.

This mobilization and activism did NOT come at small cost. Patriarchy was not as accepting of uppity women or uncloseted lesbians in those days. Many of us were struggling to feed our children, ourselves, find and keep jobs, keep life and limb together, deal with homophobic families and friends - AND - exorcise our internalized sex-based gender mandates, patriarchal values and internalized homophobia. Things that don't seem to matter much anymore.

Yes, we looked forward to celebrating Lesbian Pride - formerly and informally. Those celebrations were the rare occasions when we could come together in our lesbian womanhood unsupervised, or penalized. It was powerful and empowering - heady stuff, indeed.

The days of Lesbian Pride based in shared, lived experience and commonality of purpose are, I suspect, over for good.... People can't even agree on what "female" or "lesbian" means, anymore.

How then, do woman IDed lesbians celebrate pride in our shared identity or lesbian HERitage? ....I suppose "we" could do a performance-based exercise in Lesbian Pride. Or, we could attend the Butch Voices conference and hope for a workshop or two that speaks to "our" lives.... Or, "we" could turn on the LOGO channel and hope for a show on woman IDed lesbians. They are few and far between these days, almost non-existent. It's pretty much trans everything, all the time, even there.... All of that is a poor substitute for the Lesbian Pride I remember.

Yep, we're pretty much marginalized these days - yesterday's news. Dinosaurs even. But dang, I'm not old yet and I remember the power and the passion, and the pride. I even remember how easy it was to meet a perspective partner who shared my Feminist sensibilities. Now, we're all sequestered in solitude, or endogenous communities, perusing online dating sites.

Yep, things sure have changed.... I understand that there are now infinite possible combinations of genitalia, clothing, mannerisms, sexuality, labels and roles within the neoLGBTQ "community". I understand that. Don't care much about it either way, really....

What I do care about is that I now have to put quotation marks around my identity - lesbian.... I care about the marginalizing/invisiblizing/censoring of lesbian women and Feminists.... I care about the appropriation and the presumption to naming others (including butch me) that is tolerated, even justified by many.... I care about the "good-girlism going on the LGBTQ community. The care-taking by "lesbians" of everybody but lesbians.... I care that all of this is being done in the name of "ally-ship".... This is not a politic I take pride in.

"We may recall some of the message of Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology (1984). A great deal of the machinery of men’s oppression and exploitation of women is mechanism by which women’s own energies and resources are turned against us [and one another], to suppress our spirits, cloud our judgment and consume us. And one of the most effective devices for this is the construction and manipulation of good and evil. It is a complex strategy. One part is the identification of certain things as good and others as evil-the naming of vices and virtues, and of sins. These are falsely and deceptively named. Almost anything that would strengthen or empower us or inspire us with the spirit of rebellion will be named “evil” or “sinful.” - Marilyn Frye

For me, Lesbian Pride is in large part about rebellion. It's not about exchanging one dogma for another, or embracing unfathomable theories authored by academics chasing tenure who are, admittedly or not, male-values-centric. Especially, not when said theory in NO tangible way addresses women's oppression. There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

[Heart]

Miss Tick - I basically agree that misogyny is a scourge that is under-estimated and under-examined, and I agree that it is the root of homophobia, however I am not prepared to say that it is the root of racism or classim, nor am I prepared to create any kind of ranking about which of those are worse or greater or lesser. Suffice to say they are all linked.

I also agree that identity is personal, but I see a definite relationship between misogyny and the undervaluing of woman in terms of social, systemic, and academic trends related to identity. Plus I have a personal reaction to what I have seen in my own communities about people's decisions to jettison their identities as women, and I shared that.

No one makes choices about their identity as a woman/not-a-women free of the impact of misogyny because we are all swimming in it everyday. It's inescapable, as you yourself point out, so I don't really understand how you can say that they have zero relationship.

But whatever. I'm sick of this thread now, frankly.

I experienced something here that was pretty eye-opening: Treated as suspect, termed a flip-flopper, a political liability even, because I don't conform to someone's very rigid and policed notions of lesbian identity. In my years as an active member of political lesbian communities, that hasn't happened before. And then guess what? A transman stood up for me and a non-lesbian identified femme repped me. Huh.

I'm not granting it more power than it deserves, (though I'll admit my feelings were hurt), but it certainly gives me pause in terms of what some queers/lesbians/femmes/etc are talking about when they rant about the closed ranks of old-school lesbian-feminists.

I'll reiterate something I said in a prior post -- that I get it, that it's actually patriarchy that creates this suspicion and policing. But while I get it, I don't like it, and I will also say that it's a decidedly un-feminist way of engaging, as it divides women from each other in ways that reduce our collective power. If women don't organize across race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, etc - we have no hope of fighting patriarchy.

Heart

[Heart]

There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

Chazz - you ain't startin' it -- cause there's women globally, lesbian and otherwise, who are doin' it -- adressing women's oppression that is.

All of this feels like it's gotten a bit grandiose at this point. If you're isolated, maybe that's on you.

I'm out.

Heart

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Chazz

How then, do woman IDed lesbians celebrate pride in our shared identity or lesbian HERitage? ....I suppose "we" could do a performance-based exercise in Lesbian Pride. Or, we could attend the Butch Voices conference and hope for a workshop or two that speaks to "our" lives.... Or, "we" could turn on the LOGO channel and hope for a show on woman IDed lesbians. They are few and far between these days, almost non-existent. It's pretty much trans everything, all the time, even there.... All of that is a poor substitute for the Lesbian Pride I remember.

Yep, we're pretty much marginalized these days - yesterday's news. Dinosaurs even. But dang, I'm not old yet and I remember the power and the passion, and the pride. I even remember how easy it was to meet a perspective partner who shared my Feminist sensibilities. Now, we're all sequestered in solitude, or endogenous communities, perusing online dating sites.

Yep, things sure have changed.... I understand that there are now infinite possible combinations of genitalia, clothing, mannerisms, sexuality, labels and roles within the neoLGBTQ "community". I understand that. Don't care much about it either way, really....

What I do care about is that I now have to put quotation marks around my identity - lesbian.... I care about the marginalizing/invisiblizing/censoring of lesbian women and Feminists.... I care about the appropriation and the presumption to naming others (including butch me) that is tolerated, even justified by many.... I care about the "good-girlism going on the LGBTQ community. The care-taking by "lesbians" of everybody but lesbians.... I care that all of this is being done in the name of "ally-ship".... This is not a politic I take pride in.

For me, Lesbian Pride is in large part about rebellion. It's not about exchanging one dogma for another, or embracing unfathomable theories authored by academics chasing tenure who are, admittedly or not, male-values-centric. Especially, not when said theory in NO tangible way addresses women's oppression. There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

I’m struggling to figure what is actually being said here. Is it that if there weren’t so such acceptance of trans people there would be more lesbians? Or is it that there are less women loving women to give their attention to other women and issues of misogyny and patriarchy? Is it the plethora of male identified people that is the issue or those who love them?

I guess I don’t understand. Is there something that leads one to believe that there could be less trans people and less women to love them if we would just expend our energy only on other women like 2nd wave feminists believed? Suppose trans people and those who love them don’t want to do that? It certainly doesn’t seem all that fair to me. Isn’t the issue more about getting others to recognize misogyny, sexism and the oppression of women and to fight against it. To get men and male identified people to recognize how male privilege works in their life. I get that like the politics of 2nd wave feminists trans politics are rather myopic. It’s kind of new for everyone. Hopefully things will become more balanced. Third wave feminism is much different from 2nd wave.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Heart

Miss Tick - I basically agree that misogyny is a scourge that is under-estimated and under-examined, and I agree that it is the root of homophobia, however I am not prepared to say that it is the root of racism or classim, nor am I prepared to create any kind of ranking about which of those are worse or greater or lesser. Suffice to say they are all linked.

I did not mean to rank oppression. I was trying to say it is the meeting point of all oppression, it is where oppression intersects, not that it surpasses every other oppression in severity or is the root of all oppression. My statement was
"I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives."

When i said misogyny was the patriarchy's most effective tool I meant it intersected with more oppressions than for example classism or racism does. That is what makes it so effective. Not that it is inherently worse.
And when I said it "transcends all the isms" I was using the definition of transcends that means to pass beyond the limits of. Meaning it is not limited by race or class. Not that it is the worse form of oppression.

Originally Posted by Heart

No one makes choices about their identity as a woman/not-a-women free of the impact of misogyny because we are all swimming in it everyday. It's inescapable, as you yourself point out, so I don't really understand how you can say that they have zero relationship.

You're absolutely right. I don't how I could have missed that. It's not possible to make a decision about identity in a vacuum. Absolutely. I don't know what I was thinking.

I think I got here late to the party and feelings are running awfully high. I don't have that much emotion invested yet and I guess I should just back out quietly.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I’m struggling to figure what is actually being said here. Is it that if there weren’t so such acceptance of trans people there would be more lesbians? Or is it that there are less women loving women to give their attention to other women and issues of misogyny and patriarchy? Is it the plethora of male identified people that is the issue or those who love them?

I'm trying to read this thread 'as if' what was being said isn't the above because I'm trying to walk my talk about giving one another the benefit of the doubt and not assuming, as a starting point, the *worst* possible motives on the part of others. I fear, though, that what is being expounded IS, in fact, that trans people are 'the Problem' and that if it weren't for 'them' then the larger 'we' of the lesbian community would be a more vibrant place.

cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm trying to read this thread 'as if' what was being said isn't the above because I'm trying to walk my talk about giving one another the benefit of the doubt and not assuming, as a starting point, the *worst* possible motives on the part of others. I fear, though, that what is being expounded IS, in fact, that trans people are 'the Problem' and that if it weren't for 'them' then the larger 'we' of the lesbian community would be a more vibrant place.

cheers
Aj

And this just plain sux! When are we going to stop this BS? Until or unless we can look to our common (and there are plenty) struggles as an entire group and educate ourselves more fully about all of our identities and issues we deal with across the queer spectrum, we are never going to have a thing to feel prideful about.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

And this just plain sux! When are we going to stop this BS? Until or unless we can look to our common (and there are plenty) struggles as an entire group and educate ourselves more fully about all of our identities and issues we deal with across the queer spectrum, we are never going to have a thing to feel prideful about.

ALH:

I've become convinced that until we get over identity politics, this kind of discussion will continue to dog us. However good the intentions might have been, identity politics has been a bog we have gotten sucked into. Now we're lost in it and all we can manage to do is come up with ever ramifying identity labels as if the fact that we did not know we were X was the actual problem facing us. I've grown weary of it.

I don't see how educating ourselves about our identities will actually help us because that won't get us past two *really* dysfunctional things we do: the first is that we assume the worst. It's not that white women in the community might not have thought about black women or what-have-you. No, in OUR community it is that white lesbians are irredeemably racist and, given half a chance, would love to see black women destroyed. That's the *first* interpretation. And we tell ourselves that we are doing this in the name of liberation. Poppycock! We're doing it because it is easier to take the worst interpretation than it is to step back and reflect on other possible causes. The other thing we do is that every time a new identity pops into existence, we have to go through vocabulary angst. First we define the new identity. Then we decide that since this identity name points out the difference between that group and all the other human beings who are *NOT* part of that group we have to come up with a term that describes everyone else.

The most obvious example is cisgendered. It is an entirely pointless word. It really is. It was created as a way of 'evening the playing field' with transgendered people. This was nominally necessary because talking about transwomen or transmen was somehow not empowering because it assumed that men and women who were *not* transgendered were the default. So now we have this term cisgendered so that transpeople can be empowered to live our lives. Except it does no such thing. The thing is these linguistic Rube Goldberg devices are moving targets anyway. So, transwoman or transman is supposed to be a sign that someone doesn't think of transgendered people as 'real' men or 'real' women so we come up with a neologism because THAT will change things. Except that once everyone adopts whatever term then THAT becomes the descriptor that is responsible for our oppression so we have to come up with another term and so on.

It's like the deckchair feng shui that the black community goes through about once a generation. My grandmother was colored. My parents were negroes. I was black. My son was African American. My granddaughter is a person of color (i.e. colored). Yay! We've come full circle. Does anyone here believe that the *reason* Barack Obama was elected President was because he was African American and not a negro? Anyone?

This subject has me really exercised so I'm going to sign off but I want to leave you with this thought:

"Equality in spite of evident nonidentity is a somewhat sophisticated concept and requires a moral stature of which many individuals seem to be incapable. They rather deny human variability and equate equality with identity. Or they claim that the human species is exceptional in the organic world in that only morphological characters are controlled by genes and all other traits of the mind or character are due to “conditioning” or other nongenetic factors. Such authors conveniently ignore the results of twin studies and of the genetic analysis of nonmorphological traits in animals. An ideology based on such obviously wrong premises can only lead to disaster. Its championship of human equality is based on a claim of identity. As soon as it is proved that the latter does not exist, the support of equality is likewise lost." (Steven Pinker quoting W.D. Hamilton in The Blank Slate)

The evil I see is not that as a black lesbian I have rights that derive BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian and I am denied those rights. Rather, I see it that as a member of Homo sapiens I have certain rights which I am denied BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian. My rights should not hinge upon this or that identity. I have no rights that should be granted because of my identity and *all* my rights are such that I should not be denied ANY of them because of my identity. To the degree that I am treated accordingly, I experience that as justice.

Cheers
Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

THANK YOU!!!!!

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

ALH:

I've become convinced that until we get over identity politics, this kind of discussion will continue to dog us. However good the intentions might have been, identity politics has been a bog we have gotten sucked into. Now we're lost in it and all we can manage to do is come up with ever ramifying identity labels as if the fact that we did not know we were X was the actual problem facing us. I've grown weary of it.

I don't see how educating ourselves about our identities will actually help us because that won't get us past two *really* dysfunctional things we do: the first is that we assume the worst. It's not that white women in the community might not have thought about black women or what-have-you. No, in OUR community it is that white lesbians are irredeemably racist and, given half a chance, would love to see black women destroyed. That's the *first* interpretation. And we tell ourselves that we are doing this in the name of liberation. Poppycock! We're doing it because it is easier to take the worst interpretation than it is to step back and reflect on other possible causes. The other thing we do is that every time a new identity pops into existence, we have to go through vocabulary angst. First we define the new identity. Then we decide that since this identity name points out the difference between that group and all the other human beings who are *NOT* part of that group we have to come up with a term that describes everyone else.

The most obvious example is cisgendered. It is an entirely pointless word. It really is. It was created as a way of 'evening the playing field' with transgendered people. This was nominally necessary because talking about transwomen or transmen was somehow not empowering because it assumed that men and women who were *not* transgendered were the default. So now we have this term cisgendered so that transpeople can be empowered to live our lives. Except it does no such thing. The thing is these linguistic Rube Goldberg devices are moving targets anyway. So, transwoman or transman is supposed to be a sign that someone doesn't think of transgendered people as 'real' men or 'real' women so we come up with a neologism because THAT will change things. Except that once everyone adopts whatever term then THAT becomes the descriptor that is responsible for our oppression so we have to come up with another term and so on.

It's like the deckchair feng shui that the black community goes through about once a generation. My grandmother was colored. My parents were negroes. I was black. My son was African American. My granddaughter is a person of color (i.e. colored). Yay! We've come full circle. Does anyone here believe that the *reason* Barack Obama was elected President was because he was African American and not a negro? Anyone?

This subject has me really exercised so I'm going to sign off but I want to leave you with this thought:

"Equality in spite of evident nonidentity is a somewhat sophisticated concept and requires a moral stature of which many individuals seem to be incapable. They rather deny human variability and equate equality with identity. Or they claim that the human species is exceptional in the organic world in that only morphological characters are controlled by genes and all other traits of the mind or character are due to “conditioning” or other nongenetic factors. Such authors conveniently ignore the results of twin studies and of the genetic analysis of nonmorphological traits in animals. An ideology based on such obviously wrong premises can only lead to disaster. Its championship of human equality is based on a claim of identity. As soon as it is proved that the latter does not exist, the support of equality is likewise lost." (Steven Pinker quoting W.D. Hamilton in The Blank Slate)

The evil I see is not that as a black lesbian I have rights that derive BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian and I am denied those rights. Rather, I see it that as a member of Homo sapiens I have certain rights which I am denied BECAUSE I'm a black lesbian. My rights should not hinge upon this or that identity. I have no rights that should be granted because of my identity and *all* my rights are such that I should not be denied ANY of them because of my identity. To the degree that I am treated accordingly, I experience that as justice.

Cheers
Aj