Butch Femme Planet
Page 11 of 19 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Butch Femme Planet (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Gender Discussions (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=111)
-   -   "Butch" and "Femme" - Truly Antiquated Terms or More Marginalization? (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=365)

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl (Post 24813)
this definition only works if the "lesbian" is sexually attracted to someone whose gender is "woman". what about the person whose gender is butch? or transguy? or genderqueer? or intersex? or fill-in-the-blank?

this definition of "lesbian" demands we continue to swallow a binary gender paradigm. such a paradigm has been proven to be greatly limited, limiting, and evolving. it has been many years since science/medicine discovered there were more genetic combinations than xx and xy.

additionally, there was a time when "heterosexual" meant "attracted to 2 sexes" and "homosexual" meant "attracted to 1 sex"...thus, btw, making "heterosexuality" an "abnormality".

generalizations usually end up eliminating important information...evolution in thinking as well as evolution in science being the information threatened with elimination at the moment.
Lesbian is a synonym for female homosexual.

hippieflowergirl 12-23-2009 12:12 AM
one of the things i find interesting in this discussion is the obvious path of evolution.

we are, many of us, part of something i think of as a "transitional generation". i'll use myself as an example.

my parents were between 20 and 30 years older than i am and were raised in a very cut and dried world: their grandparents and parents grew up working farmland, got married, owned a house, had several children who grew up working farmland, and they were together until death.

my parents thought they would have the same life but ended up chosing other work besides farming, traveled extensively, bought a house, raised one child, both of them worked, then dad went to college and just mom worked and they divorced when i was 17. in doing all of this, they deviated from the "norm" created by their parents and grandparents and several generations prior. their generation began an evolutionary transition out of a centuries old cultural paradigm.

i'm 46. i'm single and happy living alone. i've had my career and dont work currently. grad school starts in a few weeks. i rent rather than own and have no children. if i'd had children they would be in their 20s now and the wonders they imagined wouldnt have even registered on my grandparents' radar. they (and their future children/grandchildren) are cultural pioneers.

my point is that as humankind, science, philosophy and etc evolves, the language of such things will evolve as well. there will come a time when people will define themselves using a vocabulary that we would be wholly familiar with.

perhaps, the start of such evolution is discussions like this one. it might be easier to say that human beings are simply "sexual" and to agree that there are a million and one ways to express that truth. maybe that will come close to illuminating what it is we're all trying to explain to one another with such vehement calm.

or not.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl (Post 24822)
one of the things i find interesting in this discussion is the obvious path of evolution.

we are, many of us, part of something i think of as a "transitional generation". i'll use myself as an example.

my parents were between 20 and 30 years older than i am and were raised in a very cut and dried world: their grandparents and parents grew up working farmland, got married, owned a house, had several children who grew up working farmland, and they were together until death.

my parents thought they would have the same life but ended up chosing other work besides farming, traveled extensively, bought a house, raised one child, both of them worked, then dad went to college and just mom worked and they divorced when i was 17. in doing all of this, they deviated from the "norm" created by their parents and grandparents and several generations prior. their generation began an evolutionary transition out of a centuries old cultural paradigm.

i'm 46. i'm single and happy living alone. i've had my career and dont work currently. grad school starts in a few weeks. i rent rather than own and have no children. if i'd had children they would be in their 20s now and the wonders they imagined wouldnt have even registered on my grandparents' radar. they (and their future children/grandchildren) are cultural pioneers.

my point is that as humankind, science, philosophy and etc evolves, the language of such things will evolve as well. there will come a time when people will define themselves using a vocabulary that we would be wholly familiar with.

perhaps, the start of such evolution is discussions like this one. it might be easier to say that human beings are simply "sexual" and to agree that there are a million and one ways to express that truth. maybe that will come close to illuminating what it is we're all trying to explain to one another with such vehement calm.

or not.
Are you saying you believe homosexuality is obsolete?
Or that the language describing lesbians needs to evolve into something that does not describe lesbians?

hippieflowergirl 12-23-2009 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24820)
Lesbian is a synonym for female homosexual.
okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women.

if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse?

by your definition, the answer is 'yes' and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.

hippieflowergirl 12-23-2009 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24823)
Are you saying you believe homosexuality is obsolete?
Or that the language describing lesbians needs to evolve into something that does not describe lesbians?
i'm not saying that i believe anything is obsolete. i am saying that we are evolving and so our language is evolving.

the language describing people will evolve as people themselves evolve. i do not quite understand the idea that language that does describe lesbians must evolve into something that does not describe lesbians. describe and define are different things.

if someone tells me who i am, and i know they are wrong, i will say so. i dont mean any offense in doing so. i simply dont want to be defined by another person, and i especially dont want to be defined in terms that exclude the truth of who i am. people who insist that i use their words and definitions to define myself are being disrespectful.

according to the definition that a lesbian is a woman who has sexual intercourse with women, i am not a lesbian. i have sexual intercourse with butches or transguys. what word does the dictionary demand i use to define myself?

dictionaries are references. they are not etched in stone. they change every year. words are added and eliminated because language evolves. everything evolves.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl (Post 24824)
okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women. The english language definition for lesbian is "female homosexual".

if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?A lesbian is synonymous with a female homosexual.

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse? Do you define sexual orientation based on intercourse?

by your definition, the answer is 'yes' Wha??? I don't follow. and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either. Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?
Lesbian is a synonym for "female homosexual".

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl (Post 24825)
i'm not saying that i believe anything is obsolete. i am saying that we are evolving and so our language is evolving.

the language describing people will evolve as people themselves evolve. i do not quite understand the idea that language that does describe lesbians must evolve into something that does not describe lesbians. describe and define are different things.

if someone tells me who i am, and i know they are wrong, i will say so. i dont mean any offense in doing so. i simply dont want to be defined by another person, and i especially dont want to be defined in terms that exclude the truth of who i am. people who insist that i use their words and definitions to define myself are being disrespectful.

according to the definition that a lesbian is a woman who has sexual intercourse with women, i am not a lesbian. i have sexual intercourse with butches or transguys. what word does the dictionary demand i use to define myself?

dictionaries are references. they are not etched in stone. they change every year. words are added and eliminated because language evolves. everything evolves.
Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?

Gemme 12-23-2009 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24830)
Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?
I am gobsmacked as to how you've come to these conclusions from what she said.

*shakes head*

hippie said: if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.

you said: Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?

Where on Earth do you get "I'm speaking for lesbians" from if "I" used the word lesbian to define "myself", "I" wouldn't feel that way either???

I just don't see the connection. She can speak for herself, of course, but I am not seeing how you get that from her response. Maybe it will be clearer in the morning.

Good night, all.

hippieflowergirl 12-23-2009 12:56 AM
okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women.


The english language definition for lesbian is "female homosexual".

yes...i believe i acknowledged that you cited the dictionary. that it was an english dictionary was presumed. i also said that i understood that this was a definition you were comfortable with. i have no issue with you using words in a way that make you comfortable. i do not have to use them the same way.


if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?

A lesbian is synonymous with a female homosexual.


i see the repetition but i missed you answering the question. if i partner with someone who does not consider themselves "woman" then am i still a lesbian by your definition? or does no one's definition of themselves matter more/appear more relevant than Webster's?

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse? Do you define sexual orientation based on intercourse? by your definition, the answer is 'yes'

Wha??? I don't follow.



based on your dictionary definition of lesbian...that "lesbian" is defined as a woman who has sex with women....that means that lesbians are solely defined by the act of sexual intercourse.

and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.


Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?


i am speaking for myself when i use the word "i".

when i say "not all lesbians feel that way" i am relating the comments of people i know, people who do identify themselves as lesbians, who do not feel defined by the fact that they have sex with people who identify themselves as women.


Lesbian is a synonym for "female homosexual".

is there a point to repeating this statement? i apologize if it doesnt sound as though i understand that this is your point of view. i understand that you referred to the dictionary and that the statement is a summary of what you found there. i am perfectly comfortable not agreeing with the dictionary. i am comfortable with the concept of evolving language and with the idea that i do not define myself using the dictionary as my sole reference for reflection. i am comfortable not agreeing also, but if there is something i am supposed to understand in the repetition i will be the first to admit that i do not see it. sorry.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemme (Post 24832)
I am gobsmacked as to how you've come to these conclusions from what she said.

*shakes head*

hippie said: if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.

you said: Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?

Where on Earth do you get "I'm speaking for lesbians" from if "I" used the word lesbian to define "myself", "I" wouldn't feel that way either???

I just don't see the connection. She can speak for herself, of course, but I am not seeing how you get that from her response. Maybe it will be clearer in the morning.

Good night, all.
An entire post from a non lesbian about lesbians? Speaking about how lesbians feel and stating how she would find the term lesbian problematic IF SHE WAS ONE? You don't see it- maybe only a lesbian would understand...

hippieflowergirl 12-23-2009 12:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24830)
Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?

wow.

i'm going to defer answering this until i am less disturbed by the hostility that i feel coming with it.

good night everyone.

Arwen 12-23-2009 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24830)
Do you find it problematic that there are homosexual women/lesbians in the world who are sexually oriented to other women? Or do you find it problematic that there are words to describe gay females? Do you feel the words that describe lesbian/homosexual women need to be broadened, because lesbians just take up too much danged space in the world, or have too many danged rights? Why do you, as a non-lesbian have an issue with the words lesbian/female homosexual to describe women affectationally and sexually oriented to other women?
Do you find it problematic that there are women who do not identify as heterosexual and also choose to not identify as lesbian?

Why do you, as a lesbian, have an issue with the words non-heterosexual-but-not-lesbian may choose to not use to describe themselves.

The issue here it that it seems, Cyclopea, that you are trying to define other people's self i.d.

Why is that? I am truly curious. Does it somehow reflect on you if I choose to say that I am not a lesbian?

I could go into chapter and verse on why I choose not to call myself a lesbian, but maybe you would like to read the thread Open Letter: Dear Femme where this is addressed to some extent.

Bottom line is that no one gets to define me but me.

Your tone is couched in rather dogmatic language (which I also do so I'm fine with that). You might want to reread your posts and ask yourself if you are asking, demanding or going into lecture mode.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl (Post 24833)
okay, you use the equation, lesbian = female homosexual and female homosexual = lesbian. that part i get. it's what works in your world. it doesn't work in mine for the reasons i already stated:

you cited a dictionary which defines lesbian as a woman whose sex partners are also women.


The english language definition for lesbian is "female homosexual".

yes...i believe i acknowledged that you cited the dictionary. that it was an english dictionary was presumed. i also said that i understood that this was a definition you were comfortable with. i have no issue with you using words in a way that make you comfortable. i do not have to use them the same way.
Make me comfortable? I did not create the english language. I don't need to be patronized by someone who disagrees with the existence of dictionaries,lol.

if i partner with someone who does not identify themselves as "woman" then am i a lesbian?

A lesbian is synonymous with a female homosexual.


i see the repetition but i missed you answering the question. if i partner with someone who does not consider themselves "woman" then am i still a lesbian by your definition? or does no one's definition of themselves matter more/appear more relevant than Webster's?You ask here whether sexual orientation/affectational orientation is defined by one's relationships and actions. Are you asking for my personal opinion? Why?

and a new question based on your cited definition of "lesbian": is being a lesbian solely defined by sexual intercourse? Do you define sexual orientation based on intercourse? by your definition, the answer is 'yes'

Wha??? I don't follow.



based on your dictionary definition of lesbian...that "lesbian" is defined as a woman who has sex with women....that means that lesbians are solely defined by the act of sexual intercourse. OK you obviously didn't read them. That's why I keep repeating.

and yet not all "lesbians" feel that way. if i did use the word "lesbian" to define myself, i wouldnt feel that way either.


Are you speaking for "lesbians" here?


i am speaking for myself when i use the word "i".

when i say "not all lesbians feel that way" i am relating the comments of people i know, people who do identify themselves as lesbians, who do not feel defined by the fact that they have sex with people who identify themselves as women.


Lesbian is a synonym for "female homosexual".

is there a point to repeating this statement? i apologize if it doesnt sound as though i understand that this is your point of view. Yes, that's it, really.i understand that you referred to the dictionary and that the statement is a summary of what you found there. i am perfectly comfortable not agreeing with the dictionary. i am comfortable with the concept of evolving language What do you find problematic about lesbian/homosexual women having words to describe themselves?and with the idea that i do not define myself using the dictionary as my sole reference for reflection. i am comfortable not agreeing also, but if there is something i am supposed to understand in the repetition i will be the first to admit that i do not see it. sorry.
Then I'll keep repeating.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl (Post 24836)
wow.

i'm going to defer answering this until i am less disturbed by the hostility that i feel coming with it.

good night everyone.
I'm sorry you feel hostility? Not intended as hostile at all. I think this gets to the crux of our conversation here. I look forward to your response. Have a pleasant evening!

hippieflowergirl 12-23-2009 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24835)
An entire post from a non lesbian about lesbians? Speaking about how lesbians feel and stating how she would find the term lesbian problematic IF SHE WAS ONE? You don't see it- maybe only a lesbian would understand...
this is both unfair and unkind. if there's a problem with me, please PM me. i see no reason to be rude to Gemme.

i was not speaking for all lesbians nor was i telling anyone how to define themselves. i was participating in a conversation, one that has turned into something ugly.

in an exchange of ideas, there is no reason to feel threatened or hostile when people dont agree. there is no mandate for agreement in conversation. there is, however, the possibility for greater understanding of one another. i am glad i understand your point of view. i do not demand that you see mine. it would be nice if we could return to the discussion and leave the animosity out of things.

good night

Arwen 12-23-2009 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24841)

I'm sorry you feel hostility? Not intended as hostile at all. I think this gets to the crux of our conversation here. I look forward to your response. Have a pleasant evening!
The repetition of the definition as though she is an idiot is more than hostile and unpleasant, Cyclopea.

You do get that not everyone will agree with you, right? You do get that you can't force a definition down someone's throat, correct?

For me, lesbian is synonymous with a woman who enjoys having female-oriented sex with another woman. My butch lover may be a lesbian (and that's all right by me) but I am not a lesbian in that there are aspects of lesbian sex that do not appeal to me in any shape, form or fashion.

I am not a pillow princess, but that word has been applied to me by butch lesbian lovers who were not stone.

That is one of the reasons I do not call myself a lesbian and one of the reasons I simply dread dating someone who isn't fully aware of my personal id as a queer femme and not a lesbian.

You need to understand that you may be unintentionally being very hurtful in your forcing that definition on some of us. I do not think you mean to be, but that is where you are skimming very very close to for me personally.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arwen (Post 24838)
Do you find it problematic that there are women who do not identify as heterosexual and also choose to not identify as lesbian?
Not at all, I think it's great and consider them allies.
Why do you, as a lesbian, have an issue with the words non-heterosexual-but-not-lesbian may choose to not use to describe themselves.
I don't!

The issue here it that it seems, Cyclopea, that you are trying to define other people's self i.d.
Not at all! That is simply not true.

Why is that? I am truly curious. Does it somehow reflect on you if I choose to say that I am not a lesbian?
Why are terms decribing lesbian/female homosexuals so problematic to non-heterosexual-but-not-lesbian people? I just don't get it. And as I said a few posts back, I would never ever want someone to ID as lesbian/female homosexual if they were not one! Frankly I'm offended that you would read so much into my posts that is not there, and I wonder why...


I could go into chapter and verse on why I choose not to call myself a lesbian, but maybe you would like to read the thread Open Letter: Dear Femme where this is addressed to some extent.
As I posted earlier in the thread I would never want someone to ID as a lesbian who was not a lesbian/homosexual female. Ever. I accept and respect them as they are. Or did you skip that post?

Bottom line is that no one gets to define me but me.
I never said otherwise so please don't make such unfair accusations.

Your tone is couched in rather dogmatic language (which I also do so I'm fine with that). You might want to reread your posts and ask yourself if you are asking, demanding or going into lecture mode. Wow, very harsh.
Please read my previous posts before making ugly accusations and personal attacks. Thanks.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 01:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl (Post 24842)
this is both unfair and unkind. if there's a problem with me, please PM me. i see no reason to be rude to Gemme.

i was not speaking for all lesbians nor was i telling anyone how to define themselves. i was participating in a conversation, one that has turned into something ugly.

in an exchange of ideas, there is no reason to feel threatened or hostile when people dont agree. there is no mandate for agreement in conversation. there is, however, the possibility for greater understanding of one another. i am glad i understand your point of view. i do not demand that you see mine. it would be nice if we could return to the discussion and leave the animosity out of things.

good night
I'm sorry you feel I was rude to Gemme- that was certainly not my intention. I was simply clarifying.

Arwen 12-23-2009 01:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclopea (Post 24850)
Please read my previous posts before making ugly accusations and personal attacks. Thanks.
Thanks but I have read and actually enjoyed most of your posts. I am sorry if you found my words as "ugly accusations and personal attacks." They were not meant to be at all. I simply wanted to give you an opportunity to reread your post that I was referring too.

Simply restating your point over and over is not discussion to me.

Cyclopea 12-23-2009 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arwen (Post 24845)
The repetition of the definition as though she is an idiot is more than hostile and unpleasant, Cyclopea.

You do get that not everyone will agree with you, right? You do get that you can't force a definition down someone's throat, correct?

For me, lesbian is synonymous with a woman who enjoys having female-oriented sex with another woman. My butch lover may be a lesbian (and that's all right by me) but I am not a lesbian in that there are aspects of lesbian sex that do not appeal to me in any shape, form or fashion.

I am not a pillow princess, but that word has been applied to me by butch lesbian lovers who were not stone.

That is one of the reasons I do not call myself a lesbian and one of the reasons I simply dread dating someone who isn't fully aware of my personal id as a queer femme and not a lesbian.

You need to understand that you may be unintentionally being very hurtful in your forcing that definition on some of us. I do not think you mean to be, but that is where you are skimming very very close to for me personally.
What on earth makes you think that I, or any other lesbian wants non-lesbians to use the language by which we describe ourselves??? At no time did I, or would I, desire for non-lesbians/female homosexuals to use the language we use to describe ourselves.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:50 AM.
Page 11 of 19 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018