Thank you Bob!

So you're saying it's fair to run about policing the identities, labels, what-have-yous of complete strangers who are more "masculine presenting" because their identities, labels, and what-have-yous have the potential to paint another completely unrelated "masculine presenting" person with a brush that they don't like?

Sorry, Bob. I'm not buying it. I call horseshit.

If Nick where to, say, call me his "princess kitty hobag" in public should all Femmes everywhere have some sort of an outcry because they were oppressed by proxy? Fuck that.

A masculine appearing WOMAN (however she may identify and whatever her and her partner may share between them) is being reduced to a short man with boobs.

Just who is policing identities? Now people are saying short man with boobs is an identity.

Random - it's really frustrating for you to claim you understand what I'm saying when you obviously think that I am just not being accepting of diverse identities. That is not what my issue is at all.

Assumptions are made routinely that masculine women are "male." Butch women are assumed to be male identified, even when they are not. These assumptions are so woven into the fabric of our community that they go un-noticed. I used Nixon's comment to make that point.

I won't argue with you further because we are talking about apples and oranges

Heart

I disagree wholeheartedly

And who said these people belonged to a community? Did they say they did, or are we forcing them to be in a 'community'?

And to which community do they belong?

Since when does what the 'community' label you supercede how you identify yourself?

And since when did making an individual the representative spokesperson for ALL in the community become vogue again? I thought privilege 101 stated very clearly that's not how things work. This Cynthia character represents nada about my life, so why is she a spokesperson for my 'community'? Why is she a representative held to some high high standard? If we don't want straight people to make us all 'representatives' and 'ambassadors', we can't apply that ourselves when it's 'convenient'.


Dylan

How is that "reduced"? Are you saying that there is something -wrong- with short men with boobs? Do you have a hate-on for Danny DeVito? What is going on here?

And maybe "short man with boobs" IS the identity of someone, somewhere. I wasn't being tongue in cheek when I said that I self-identify as "A fat Drew Barrymore". I fucking DO, okay? Because it's the closest thing that I can think of to what/who I actually am.

Why are you personalizing what someone else may or may not be referred to as?

But *is* she a woman?
Are we assuming she is a woman because she has breasts and a vagina? Have we *seen* her breasts and vagina?
Do we know whether or not she is right now, at this very minute, sitting in a Dr's office filling our her paperwork for SRS?
Do we know that she isnt on testosterone?

Now, let me be clear that Im not "defaulting to the male experience" here by wondering aloud these questions, just being curious though how the proverbial "we" perceive a person's gender as opposed to how "they" perceive it.

Good discussion.

This argument always reminds me of when you couldn't be butch or femme without taking MASSIVE amount of flack from the lesbian community..How as femmes we are letting down the womans movement because we are giving in to the patriarcal idea of what a woman should look like...

I belive that that at times, what is best for the *community* what you *should be or say to properly represent your *people* is not what works for you as a person...

I am not the one speculating how she identifies.

This is way beyond frustrating for me. Good day.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with Cynthia's partner's id. It doesn't matter if she's butch, trans, andro, sporty or none of those. It's the way Cynthia chose to describe her masculine female partner as a MAN because that is the only way she can be understood since masculinity CANNOT, apparently belong to a women. That's my point.

Now. If her partner was, in fact, a man and/or if she came out as a transman tomorrow, the interesting thing is that I think we'd hear a whole lot of hulabaloo about how transphobic Nixon's comment was. Would any of us refer to Chaz Bono or any of our FtM brethern as "men with boobs?" It would be considered highly disrespectful.

And that's my other point: the privileging of men/male identity over women/female identity.

Heart

That's fine..

For me we are not talking apple and oranges... we are talking different sides of the coins...

Yes, there are assumptions that masculine women are male... There are assumptions that masculine women are gay.. (I live in NE.. every time I go out to one of the small towns, farm wifes set off my butchar all the time..)

I'm just pointing out that while there are masuline women who id as women, there are also masculine women who id as male...

One should never be above the other... We can't automaticly assume that one is anything.. unless they say what they are...

No, that's not what I said. What I said is that certain types of language are intrinsically demeaning, regardless of who it's applied to and whether or not that person likes it.

I fail to see how demeaning one group of people empowers another who may share (for the sake of convenience) the same 'label'. Such as 'butch', for example. Butch has come to encompass such a wide variety of personas, presentations, and gender identities that it's almost become meaningless in any real sense. Regardless of whether you're male-id'ed or female-id'ed, language that implies that women who are masculine are somehow less than is wrong.

Or to use a slightly more inflammatory example, most people would probably agree that regardless of its use among certain musical genres and subcommunities, it's not okay to use the the N word. We recognize that as word that is fundamentally and in and of itself meant only to harm.

I fear that misogyny, unlike racism (random teabaggers aside) is so ingrained in people that they don't recognize it when they see it. It's not about policing others' identities, it's about policing ourselves.

Who are we to say that short man with boobs isn't an identity?

Just the same as tall woman with dick could be an identity...

Ah, see, now we're talking!
See, when I read that she is describing her masculine female partner as a man, I first wondered if she was just trying to get people who dont have the language that we have to understand. Thinking futher though, I wondered if she was describing her masculine female partner that way because she knows something that we dont know (the whole hypothesis about how her partner may or may not self-identify her gender).

I do definitely agree that there is privileging in the identity of men/male over the woman/female...until there isnt. For the most part, this exists on a grand scale throughout just about every corner of society, but then I think of Femme privilege in context with my Butch partner experiencing homophobia and Im able to see cracks in my (once-solid) little gender vase.

Yes. Thank you.

That's my point.

If someone referred to their partner as well he's basically a tall woman with a dick this conversation would be far different.

You think so?

I haven't lived your experience as a butch.. So I haven't had your experiences..

But for me... I would just as strongly support someones right to be a tall woman with a dick as I do a short man with boobs...

Now someone other that the person or the persons partner labling anyone either one would meet with resistance..

Random..

Who's partner IS occassionaly a tall woman with a dick...

I'm not sure how many times it has to be repeated that the issue isn't one individual's personal identity.

Edit: as far as I know no one here knows Cynthia Nixon's partner personally.

Jesus Christ. This discussion was not intended to be about whether someone can call themselves a short man with boobs or a tall woman with dick. How does it get reduced down to: "Anyone can call themselves whatever they want?" If that's the discussion you want to have - go ahead.

But that is not the discussion I started.

I think Im getting stuck on the intimacy.

I asked myself how I would feel if the person making this comment was a random stranger on the street.

I'd be pissed.

The fact that it is her partner making this comment makes me feel as if there is intimate knowledge and intimate boundaries between them that I dont have a right to impose upon.
Where is the line? Is there an intersection between fighting for the visibility of masculine women by calling out comments such as these and taking comments such as these as intimate words to and about people who are partnered no matter their gender?

..

I guess that is the difference in viewpoints..

Your stance on the issue is that it isn't one individual's personal identity...

My stance is that it is always one person

For me.. the indivdual is more important that the mass.. one is just as important as the many...

*banging my head against the brick wall yet again*

"she's basically a man with boobs"

that a generalized statement- not my partner identifies as a short man with boobs.

This has nothing to do with one person's personal identity- none of us even knows what hers is or if she even has one.

Geeze Louise

Everybody can call themselves what they want and their partners can too if with consent. So what does that have to do with the issue Heart has raised?

thanks, nixon's comment totally felt dismissive and shitty, to me.

(and if i'd have said that about anyone i've dated, i'd have found myself very SINGLE, after.)

I'LL tell you what it's got to do with it.

The price of Limburger in Hamburg.

Dusa - it's not about the individual identity for me or about the intimate relationship. I'm not concerned with their identities or their relationship. For me, it's about the paucity of language and images, the assumption that only men/male can be masculine, and all that that implies about views of women's genders and sexualities in society, culture and communities, including queer ones. Even if Nixon's partner is not a woman, the statment is minimizing and dismissive of the reality and complexity of butch women's lives -- because her partner is certainly seen in the world as a woman. Except now she is seen as a man with boobs.

I don't hold Nixon responsible for the fact that there are such narrow visions of what women are, and so few ways to describe the lives of women that fall outside of cultural norms, but it saddens me that she has to use this kind of tired, (and yes, sexist, misogynistic, and homophobic) remark to describe her partner.

Heart

Is this (below) what you're referring to as saying her partner saying she doesn't ID as butch? (I say she b/c her partner refers to her as "her")

Because I pretty much read that as her saying she'd (Christine) be upset for saying that really the personalities are the opposite of what they appear as... and also I know she did say one of the things she loved about her was her "butch-ness", earlier in the article.

Probably shouldn't be making statements that she isn't butch any more than assuming that she is (or identifies as such).

It's interesting, would it be as acceptable and defended if Cynthia had said "one of the things I love about him is his trans-ness" - "he's a short woman without boobs".

If you find that offensive, but are defending her about the "short man with boobs" crappola... well that to me is a problem.

Because I know... everyone would be all over that like fly's on shit.

It doesn't, necessarily, but maybe it does. We've apparently beat the poor horse several times since I logged in earlier about this, so I won't go into why our perception of her relationship makes no difference and that she, as one entertainer in this world who happens to be a member of our community, is not responsible for teaching the masses about gender identity, male privilege or anything beyond or in between.

Agreed. To both.


I agree that the wording is awkward at best. Luckily, no one else has ever misspoken or had their words twisted or misquoted by folks not in the slightest bit involved in the discussion at hand. :blink:

To me, she was extolling a particular virtue or group of virtues or traits of her partner. I, personally, connected the term she used to mean "my partner has a masculinity (very similar to that of a man) and a femininity (physically) that I enjoy". Does that mean that masculinity always equals man? No. But for many, it does.


But what if Christine likes being addressed as such? What if she's okay with her partner saying that about HER? Who are we to judge?

It could be. Or not.


Private..until hundreds or thousands find out about it and then deconstruct it and assign the blame of hundreds of years of phobias and lynchings to it.

I'm sure Cynthia wishes she said something different or added to the comment. Well, I would think she would, but I don't really know, because I'm not her and my perception of her words and relationship don't really mean anything to anyone but myself.

I'd probably be confused. I might even ask for clarity (and yes, I do do that with strangers some times).

We can't pick and choose how our community is presented. Honestly, I think that is why some of those who have posted are truly pissed. It may be tied up with male privilege and genuine offense at the term, but who are we to impose (thanks for that...it's exactly what I feel) on their relationship. Did she come to our home and say it? Nope.

Everyone's not actually...

ETA: Not that everyone should be... I was making a comparison in the severity of reaction to the hypothetical situation I put forth and the situation at hand.

I stand by what I said, the reactions to the situation of a woman (to which Cynthia refers to her partner as) being called a man, as opposed to a male being referred to as a woman, in the context of these discussions in our community aren't comparable.

Metro

Sassy, yeah she appears to be newly out. I don't hate the messenger just the message. And also the fact that such tired, sexist, misogynist and homophobic remarks are being defended.

To quote Heart:

The message over and over is masculine women/butch women- suck it up, laugh it off. Not so when derogatory comments are made towards other masculine gender identities in our community.

Thumbs Down to Nixon's Description
 

Thank you, Heart, for so succinctly phrasing what is wrong with Nixon's description.

Last night, I was IM'ing, linked the article, pasted the phrase in question and typed *UGH*...today, I thought about it more and, lo and behold, a mighty thread to read with much to ponder.

Many of you have already expressed (better than I could have articulated!) the reason for my automatic response of taking offense at her phrasing and equating her partner with a man.

Nixon has been with her partner since 2004--not that she needs to be the expert on anything--but god, please! People were already (I know b/c I follow the celeb goss) commenting upon Marinoni's masculine looks/presentation and same 'ol comments of *why not just be with a man?* Now, Nixon verifies (to the public) that a butch or masculine presenting woman basically IS a man...with boobs. She confirmed (joking or not, private understanding or not) what people already thought of butch women--they really are just women posing as men--so why not just be with a (real) man? (especially when you are with a FAKE man, an ugly looking mannish woman at that! <--variations of awful, disgusting comments that have been posted pre and post this article regarding this couple.

As far as whether Marinoni ID's as other than female/woman, here is a snippet of an interview with Nixon from the past who clearly states that she fell in love with a woman:

She continues, “I had been with men all my life and I had never met a woman I had fallen in love with before. But when I did, it didn’t seem so strange. “I don’t define myself. I’m just a woman in love with another woman.”
....
She notes, “I met this woman and I fell in love with her. In terms of my sexual orientation, I don’t really feel that I changed. I don’t feel any different than I did before.”

Anyway, regardless of where you fall on this issue, what a great discussion.

Kids Know Best
 

I think her 3 year old son is right on the mark:



Charlie’s processing of the relationship started at school. “His teachers were just so great about it,” Nixon says, “because they were the first people that started referring to ‘Charlie’s moms,’ which is so lovely, and we really hadn’t done that yet. So Charlie came home one day and he said [to Marinoni], ‘You’re my mommy too!’ ” Deciding to seize the opportunity, Nixon began calling her partner Mama Christine. “I said, ‘Charlie, where’s Mama Christine? Is Mama Christine in the other room? Would you take this to Mama Christine? What does Mama Christine want for breakfast?’ I did this a nauseating amount, and one morning we’re at breakfast and Christine is in the shower and Charlie says, ‘Where’s Papa?’ My daughter says ‘Papa? You mean Daddy?’ And he said ‘No, Papa! Christine!’ He’d come up with this masculine name for her. It’s gone through a whole series of things.” When Charlie’s Russian barber told him to ask his daddy to give him a little brother, Nixon says she stood back to watch the preschool-age Charlie’s *reaction. “I was just going to let it go—what are you going to say? But I saw Charlie—I saw it land and how he thought about this, and he was quiet for a while. Then he very slowly said, ‘Sometimes I call Christine Mommy.’ It was like Charlie was trying to navigate what everybody’s assumptions about him and his family were at age 3. It was so amazing.”

http://advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=110591

She's Papa and she's Mama Christine and she's Mommy :)

The story that Nixon describes of her family is very similar to one I am familiar with. My butch roommate is a mother and grandmother. Her grandson, when he was about 3, started calling his grandmother Guz (we think it's a combo between Buzz Lightyear and Grandma). It fits his butch grandmother to a t. The kids call their femme grandmother Nana. Kids know butches are somewhat different and they figure it out.

Whether Nixon's partner specifically ids as butch or not, she appears to face many of the same issues that a lot of butches/masculine women face. She deals with people that know and love her as well as perfect strangers who might not always know where to place her. She deals with it in her house, at the barber shop, at her kids' school, wherever she happens to go. That's in the context of being a masculine, lesbian/queer WOMAN (in terms of how you are perceived, not talking personal, individual identity) in this world- and all the good, bad and indifferent things that go along with that. The very lived experiences that lots of people in butch femme communities seem to want to ignore or erase.

If she's a man with boobs she must be able to stroll around central park shirtless enjoying the sun on her double D's without getting so much as a second glance.

I took Nixon's remarks as being humorous and off-the-cuff and overall I respect her immensely and don't hold her comment against her.

That being said I appreciate Heart's topic: that there is a lack of language to describe female masculinity without equating it with maleness and thus insulting the naturalness of the butch woman. Being masculine does not make someone less of a woman.

Great thread! :)

I don't think it matters who Nixon is or what she said- I think Heart just used that as a good example to start a discussion on the language surrounding female masculinity...