CherylNYC, I, too, have been a gender transgressor my entire life.

In recent years, I've felt like an exile caught in the cross hairs of two competing, though disconcertingly similar, gender binaries - hetero-normity and queer-normity.

If hetero-patriarchists and queer theorists, alike, see me as transgressive because of my buzz cut, skinny jeans and Harley boots.... where do I go to be seen as gender congruent woman?

This is a worthy question, Apocalipstic.

As a lesbian woman with a Feminist sensibility, I don't see me "playing into" anything. There is no place in my relationships for misogyny of any kind.

I think gender analysis has it's place, but not to the exclusion of everything else women and other disenfranchised people face.

SNIP SNIP

I could not help but recall the term "Lavender Menace" after reading this.

Well... I don't want to be oppositional, but NOW is one of those organizations that really had to work through its own homophobia and racism. NOW did not originally consider the voices of lesbians or women of color. In fact, the Lavender Menace was formed in 1970 to protest the exclusion of queer women from the feminist movement. Many feminists of Color are still having to carve out a voice in the feminist movement, especially in relation to issues of poverty. Femininsm is a notoriously white middle/upper-class movement.

I respect Gloria Steinem, but as recently as our last presidential election she wrote an editorial that constructed some problematic comparisons between Clinton and Obama in terms of which is worse - sexism or racism, and totally ignored the existance of women of color who deal with both. (Oppression olympics is a very bad idea.)

Nonetheless, NOW is still active and there is an upcoming PBS special about Steinem that I'm looking forward to seeing.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a fierce feminist -- it's perhaps the most relevant social movement on the planet, but I feel that its important to keep a critical perspective.

Heart

I see a great deal of this. The construct, within gender studies, is that if a woman likes, for instance, trucks, baseball, fishing, beer and power tools that person is 'masculine of center'. If said person then goes ahead and transitions, this is supposed to be transgressive and demolishing the gender binary. How is it though since it appears to recapitulate the existing gender construction of male = trucks, sports, fishing, beer and tools?

I would argue, like you do, Cheryl that I am transgressing gender boundaries/roles because, even though my passions lie in typically 'male' things such as the physical sciences, Linux and the Free/Open Source Software movement generally, skepticism and a certain holding to living my life rationally none of that makes me 'male' or 'masculine'. The problem, in other words, does not lie in my being a woman who is a geek rather, it lies in society defining certain things which are not really gendered as having gender traits. I don't 'think like a man', I think like a scientist.

This is merely to say that feminism is a movement made of people who came to feminism with their own predilections and cultural baggage intact. Given the time period where NOW was formed, it would have been remarkable if feminism had *not* had a non-trivial amount of racism, certainly, and homophobia. This is not to excuse anything, it is merely to remind that people are products--to some greater or lesser degree--of their time and the movements they spawn are also products of that time.

Cheers
Aj

This is one of the most obvious contradictions of the gender theory bandwagon. I shake my head in disbelief every time I meet a young person who I would peg as butch, who I find claims a male ID and then talks about how transgressive it is to do so. The young person inevitably then goes on to try to prove how 'male' they are by enumerating all of the ways they fit into a traditionally male stereotype. I think it must be a case of the Emperor's new clothes that others fail to point out the obvious.

This is a subject near and dear to me. That said, I feel a little guilty going on an extended tear about the way male IDed people who, in another time, would likely have been lesbians and are now not making sense to me. No matter where my lesbian ID falls in the world of fashionable theorising, my ID isn't changing. We're talking about pride in that ID. Those who've eschewed the ID of which I'm proud may or may not make sense to me, but that doesn't change who I am.

The academic pendulum is probably swinging back. It always does. Those whose work was considered young and edgy are abandoned for the next hot theorizer. Needless to say, the new theory doesn't have to make any more sense than the old ones. It's like any other fashion, it just has to be fresh. Academics make their careers by coming up with something that seems new and interesting. That's cold comfort for a young person struggling with their ID, but I have no influence over those who treat human ID as a game through which they can make career splash. I'll just keep offering huge, loud support for butch lesbian women.

Concerning racial variables with the Second Wave, I continue to be baffled at how our historical minds stop at these initial flawas instead of going further-

Many women of color took issue with the white, middle-class influence at that time with the movement and were very outspoken. They then brought issues of women of color to the discussion and widened (thankfully) this discussion and have since been a major force in feminist theory. This brought brown women to the table as well.

Social movements do exactly this- bring all of the variables out that need to be addressed. They are not static, nor are they perfect- just like individual people. Consciousness at one level gives rise to consciousness at other levels. Growth happens this way.

Yes, given the times (as was true of the First Wave), it was an imperfect movement. Yet, it gave rise to all voices because those voices realized there was a space in which to speak.

I get so tired of historical cherry picking. History needs to be studied with a fluid and open mind. I stood with many WOC "back then" that needed to add to the conversation and give it breadth. Actually, there were many WOC in the early days that spoke up.

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

Why Feminism?
 

"Because women's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

~Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, 14 September 1987

me in blue, except the excerpt of yours I highlighted in red... I hope this isn't too confusing...

Thank you, as usual, for your insights. I truly believe that until Women's Rights are fully embodied ( since we are a mere HALF of the world population) then no other "ism" will be fully eradicated. Women, and lesbians in particular, are at the forefront of EVERY human rights movement. I can't imagine a world where lesbians weren't fighting for the next right thing. This , in huge part, is why I become fearful for "lesbians" , to become "passe/ obsolete/ unfashionable".

I am a hair short of a tangent, so I will go read a fluff thread and hopefully drift off to sleep. Pride/ Equality/ Human Rights are words that call to me from my waking slumber, in these "tired" years of struggling. It renews me to read the words of everyone here who seem to really "get it", that it is NOT about a "battle of oppressions" , but a convergence of all oppressed that will rise.

Wonderful conversation! Thank you to all ya'll from the dirty south!

As I read these posts, I could not help but recall a long number of years when my activity level in feminism/women's rights was high and it seemed every waking moment was somehow devoted to the cause or earning money so I could work for the cause.....then due to life circumstances my enthusism died down and the more my involvement in the Butch Femme community grew the further i strolled from feminism, women;s rights and thought it was my Identity, their lack of my identity acceptance or some such thing...
It has been a long road and I must confess at times a lonely one....No organization is without warts, or callusses nor are they deemed perfect after all mere humans are what keep them going.
Over the past year or so, I reentered society in many ways and rekindled and built my alliances with the women's movement, the hunger projects and a few other socio political organizations that I feel very strongly about. I must confess I am better able to see myself in the mirror after recommitting energy to the women's movement;

Until all women in the world young and old alike receive education, healthcare and the right to control their bodies no woman on earth will be free nor equal.
Maternal health, fistule repair, education things we take for granted must be granted to all woman in the world, for as long as there is a place on the earth where it is ok to beat a woman, rape a woman, not educate a woman, use her only as a male producing machine without regard for her as a human or her body....no woman in the world is equal. We are all still second class citizens and we as a group do not have human rights...

dean

Good points all around Jess, however one of the things I've learned to do as a white feminist is listen to the voices of women of color about their experiences with racist constructs. Since you linked to the Steinhem article, I am providiing some links to responses written by WOC:

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/...gainst-gender/

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/...inton_0108.asp

And because I can't link to it, I'm posting the full text of a blog post by
"AngryBlackBitch." You can find her blog here: http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/

Jan 8th, 2008
I’m worried too, Ms. Steinem…
This isn’t an easy post to write. I am a proud black feminist who holds a deep respect for feminist leaders and has done a lot of inner work to come to terms with feminism’s history with race and class. Yeah, this is not an easy post to write…but a sistah’s got to do what a sistah’s got to do.

Gloria Steinem has an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled Women Are Never Front-Runners. I read the Op-Ed and I feel compelled to address it here. I highly recommend that you read the piece before you go on reading this post.
After reading Steinem’s Op-Ed I felt invisible…as if black and woman can’t exist in the same body. I felt undocumented…as if the history of blacks and the history of women have nothing to do with the history of black women.

When I read “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).” I felt both attacked and ignored at the same time.

I think of the women and men in my family who were not extended the protected vote until 1965. I wince at the lack of acknowledgment for the black women of Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery who had to march with their brothers in the 1960s to attain the vote because the suffrage movement abandoned them in a Southern strategy to get the vote in 1920.

And there it is again…that invisibility; like a brutal weight that I am so bloody tired of carrying. When I consider Steinem's “So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one?” I’m left confused. What country does Gloria live in where race barriers are taken seriously? I’d love to know…shit, maybe I’ll move there. But I’m a black woman and this is America where none of my barriers are given more than a token consideration and I’ll present this Op-Ed as exhibit A in that argument.

Steinem goes on to say, “I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.”

But this article is soaked in the fluid of competition. It reeks of frustration that I fear is born from a place of entitlement even though it is dressed in the language of the oppressed. And I’ll point out again, the suffrage movement progressed without racial or true class unity and many a sister were damaged by that division.
We should remember that, but first we have to know it.

What worries me is that Gloria bought that bullshit about Obama’s race being a unifying factor. C’mon now, these are early dates yet and campaign operatives have already taken a dip in the race baiting pool. Not for one second do I believe that the unifying power of Senator Obama’s blackness will not eventually collide with the same elegant condescension contained in Steinem's Op-Ed.

What worries me is that this is kind of article that makes some black women wary of feminism…wary of the sisterhood…because eventually, just give it time, it will all come down to black and white or women and men with black women vanished from the equation.

What worries me is the ease with which Ms. Steinem tossed out the insult of implying that Iowans, when faced with a black male candidate, went with that candidate because they are somehow more comfortable with black male leadership than female leadership. It begs the question how John Edwards failed to win by a landslide.

What worries me is that the author is frustrated that Obama hasn’t been accused of playing the race card for his civil rights references and feels that Hillary is getting a raw deal when she gets accused of playing the gender card. Let’s keep it real…Steinem is just frustrated about that race card because a black man is supposed to get called on that shit and she didn’t give permission for any rule change.

What worries me is the patronizing tone with which Steinem dismisses the choices of young women voters. Is it any wonder that young women pause before embracing the feminist movement? Steinem concludes that young women are not radical yet. Will she conclude the same of black women should Clinton lose South Carolina?

I agree with Ms. Steinem that we have to be able to say that we are supporting her, a woman candidate, "because she would be a great president and because she is a woman." But we also have to be able to say I’m not supporting her because I’ve evaluated her and examined her resume without being labeled a victim or self hating or not radical enough or not feminist enough or easily dazzled by great oratory skills or more black than woman or just too darn stupid to do what Ms. Steinem thinks we should do.


Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Heart

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but....... The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory.

Despite its problems, the tools of 2nd Wave Feminism were collectively liberating to all women. Even when women splintered off from the main body of Feminism to focus on oppressions of particular interest/importance to them, they took Feminism's "tools" with them. This is how Womanism, Lesbian Feminism, Third-world Feminism, Postcolonial Feminism, etc., were birthed. Thank HP for all of that.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Feminism is empowering and unifying even in its diversification - not solipsistic and individualistic like gender theory.

(Solipsism is the position that anything outside of ones mind is untrue. If a solipsist thinks or imagines something, it exists, objective, tangible reality be damned. Other people's reality be damned, too.)


I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

:vigil:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tone here, or maybe I'm pushing a point at the wrong juncture... but I am unwilling to wear rose-colored feminist glasses. It's funny, since I have been one of the most ardent feminists on these boards for years to be in this position, but I'm firm in both my feminism and my willingness to critique it.

Heart

I get this. Thank you. I had not previously read the article, so when you mentioned it, I made a point of looking it up. Likewise, I had not read responses to that article. I can understand that frustration much better having read their actual words. I realize that when I read an article, I read it with different filters ( those being created by my life experience).

I am glad you posted those links and the last response. It gave me a chance to look at it a different way. I do not think it changes at all the overall point Ms. Steinem was making. I do, however, see how women of color can feel invisible in what has been seen historically ( by many) the "white heterosexual financially advantaged" feminist movement. I can certainly understand the anger that accompanies those feelings ( as expressed in the response that was fully posted).

I have had difficulty at times in being able to "hear" all of the nuances of white privilege. I think a great deal of this, for me, was in my questioning of much of the source material for this new "wave" of racism awareness coming from a white heterosexual male. It is much easier for me to hear the reality of life in America for People(s) of Color FROM People of Color. It rings crystal clear to me then. This is not me asking for someone else to do my work for me. This is me saying, I can hear what Shark-Fu ( the author of the last response) said far easier than I can hear Tim Wise saying it or something similar. I have been extremely bothered for a couple of years now that the most often quoted person in this country addressing white privilege is a white man. I ran across an article that at least allowed me to see I am not completely off base in this feeling. While some folks will probably want to rip my head off for what they may see is me besmearing Tim Wise, I would ask that they have a look at it first.:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com...lege-tim-wise/

I don't mean to derail or veer too far off topic, but I guess for me a huge part of my life as a lesbian has been wrapped in my feminism. My feminism tells me to listen ( I agree with your statement above, Heart, completely) to the voices of all women. I can not affect change if I don't understand completely what needs changed.

Thank you sincerely for sharing those responses as that act is the difference between saying "Steinem dismissed WOC" and "women of color felt dismissed by her and here is what they said". Too often I find the position of many white anti-racists to be so adamant they forget to "allow" someone else to really hear the feelings, thoughts, ideas of our women of color sisters. Their actual words are very important to me. I need to hear them. I do not need to be told to "go do my own work" when my work IS listening.

This is how feminism and my lesbian feminism works for me. I am equal to engage and that is a very powerful and freeing thing.

Heart, maybe you're "misunderstanding the tone or pushing a point at the wrong juncture" of my post. Maybe, maybe not..... I don't know.

I don't wear "rose-colored feminist glasses", either.

I do think that Feminism (warts and all) offers much better tools for challenging patriarchy than gender theory. I also think the needs of, and issues of importance to, lesbians/butch/women have been marginalized under gender theory.


:vigil:

Well said, Jess....

There are times when, for good reason, women cannot "hear" one another. It may be because a woman cannot witness another woman's unearned privilege and listen to her at the same time. Hurt, anger, a need for healing is occupying the foreground.... This needs to be okay.

These are the times when women need to be afforded the intrinsic right to separate and coalesce around a common experience of pain or their particular experience of oppression. This should be okay, too.

Not everything can be resolved on command, or in one sitting, especially when the source of the pain and oppression is a day to day, lived experience.

That WOC (or lesbian women, for that matter) are asked to sideline their needs/imperatives for the greater good, or the benefit of others, or in the service of a "big tent" metaphor, it NOT okay.

That said, not everything can be resolved in one sitting or conversation, especially when the source of pain and oppression is ongoing.

I agree.

Ahhh... as a feminist, this I don't agree with. I vehemently support women-only spaces, (as I do POC spaces, which may have people in them who "appear" to be as white as me). Trangender women belong in women's spaces. Woman-born-woman is an exclusionary term to my feminist mind, based upon the extreme experiences of misogyny that transwomen deal with. To me, this is a feminist, (not a gender-theory) issue. I run a shelter for battered women and teach self-defense classes to women survivors of assault. Both spaces include transgender women.

I agree about the marginalization and the calling out. Perhaps I was personalizing.... thank you for the dialogue, warts and all.

Heart

Chazz is right about the pain and hurt in these discussions. Also anxiety, sadness, frustration....

To share a bit further about my experience:

Just as I recognize the privilege that transmen garner, (even when they refuse to), I also recognize the misogyny and sexism that transwomen deal with. Hate crimes and violence towards transwomen is off the charts high.

I work in a field (anti-domestic violence) founded by 2nd wave feminists in the 1970s, many of whom were lesbians. The inability of many of the providers in this field to provide safety or services for transwomen who have been raped or were in abusive relationships (most often with a straight man), is deeply disturbing and divisive.

I have worked with other lgbtq advocates to help grass roots feminists shift their thinking on this. Yes, we have used "gender theory," which frankly hasn't been very useful. I did a presentation about using a more "gender neutral" lens at a conference once and the mainstram feminists in the room got up and walked out.

It's clear to me that we do not have to change our feminist, anti-patriarchal frmework one jot in order to bring transwomen into safe spaces, because transwomen are very vulnerable to patriarchal oppression and danger. But that's been a hard message to get across. The feelings of suspicion, threat, and betrayal within the feminist advocacy community remains intense. I think we have to shift away from gender-speak and go back to language and tools rooted in feminism in order to continue the discussion.

What I am reminded of, (thanks to this thread), is that patriarchy makes it hard for us to trust each other.

Heart

You're most welcome, Heart.

FYI-
 

And from Jeanne Cordova of Butch Nation:
http://networkedblogs.com/lINy3

Posted on FB: This Saturday, at the BV Conference 12pm. BULLDAGGER: For Women-Identified, Female-Pronoun Using Butches. This Sunday, 12pm. "Exploring Our Masculinities While Keeping Our Feminisms." Oakland Marriott. The room is under the name Goldberg. Free and open to the public. Butch Nation will be there. Post widely.

Also on FB, posted by Krys Freeman of BV: Friday, 12pm. Town Hall Meeting -- To discuss all that has transpired in the past few weeks. Jewett Ballroom Free and open to the public. Butch Nation encouraged to attend. Post widely.

This will probably be my last post on this subject. I would prefer to focus on issues of importance to me and women who have shared my life's experience.

BTW, I'm not feeling strident, though this post may come across as same.

Actually, these are the words of Joyce Stevens...

Written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet, International Woman's Day, 1975.
Joyce Stevens is author of Taking the Revolution Home, Work Among Women in the Communist Party of Australia 1920 -1945 and other books.

Just wanted to give credit where credit is due...

Chazz - My responses in blue. I understand that you wish to move on, this response is not about the content (we have places we disagree, which is fine), but it is about the tone and the kinds of divisions/accusations/justifications that come up over and over when feminism and genderism cross -- always seeming to be at cross purposes....

I think we may have a differing points of view about the "privilege" "transmen garner". I don't see "passing" as a privilege for anyone.

Nor do I - I was not referring to "passing."

It's a much as most lesbians can do to provide for themselves, their children and one another, to the extent that they do and can. (Hell, my community has an impossible time keeping lesbian businesses open because lesbians are so short of resources.)

But, in the spirit of fairness, I promise to refer my lesbian and straight DV clients to DV shelters started, operated and financed by transwomen.

Huh? I do not get this statement (sarcastic?). Ouch.


I have worked with other lgbtq advocates to help grass roots feminists shift their thinking on this. Yes, we have used "gender theory," which frankly hasn't been very useful. I did a presentation about using a more "gender neutral" lens at a conference once and the mainstram feminists in the room got up and walked out.

I'm sorry that happened to you. It must have felt awful, but people are entitled to vote with their feet.

Chazz, my point here was that gender theory was NOT going to work for all the reasons you, among others, have elucidated, and that I agree with. I'm talking about my learning curve and you seem to be chastizing me.


I think it's okay for Feminists to have different perspectives about what constitutes "suspicion, threat, and betrayal" and any given identity. I think it's okay for women to choose, for themselves, how they wish to allocate their time and resources (where and to whom) without being pressured, cajoled or guilt tripped.

Nothing I have said was intended to pressure or guilt trip. Not my style.

The afore mentioned happens all the time in "our" current community. We are uniformly expected to jump onto the band wagon of the day, when it's all some of us can do to master our own particularistic destinies and self-understanding.

I'm sensing that the direction in which I took the discussion feels to you like a derail of the issue of lesbian pride and more specifically of lesbian BUTCH pride. Is that true? Coming off of the BV/BN thing, I get that, but this thread is not only about butches, but about all of us who are lesbians, and also those of us who are feminists.

My interests and proclivities lie elsewhere. Their deal doesn't speak to me. It doesn't further my understanding of myself as a woman IDed butch. Should I ignore my imperatives in the name of someone else's version of "solidarity"? Rally around other's cause(s) rather than my own? Send a check? What? ....I listen, I introspect, I choose, and then I act according to the beat of my own drummer.

This doesn't sound strident -- just defensive, as if you felt attacked or dismissed by the issues I raised. Of course you get to choose your focus, your imperative, and act accordingly. I don't know how what I raised opposes that, unless it was my belief that transwomen should be allowed at MWMF. It just doesn't strike me as very feminist for a transwoman to be barred, while transmen, male-pronoun-using, transmasculine, male-butch-3rd gendered people have access.

One of the worst elements of 2nd Wave Feminism, in my estimation, was the pressure mostly white and/or privileged Feminists brought to bear on all women to adopt their agenda. And when "we" (lesbians, WOC, B&Fs....) didn't, we were castigated, vilified and tagged as being - %*#^@.

Am I doing that?

What I am reminded of, (thanks to this thread), is that patriarchy makes it hard for us to trust each other. - Heart

Exactly.... My "trust" isn't garnered when my personal agenda is set for me. Nor is it nurtured when I'm pressured or guilted into supporting people, places and things that don't "speak" to me, honor my boundaries or identity, or my take on reality.

Again, is that what you have experienced from my posts here? Because truly that was not my intention or goal. And I wonder, feel both mystified, confused, and - okay yes, upset that we are in this place.

When I talk feminism, I highlight issues of race/gender that feminism erased or essentialized. When I talk gender theory, I highlight issues of feminism and patriarchy that gender theory erased and denigrated. So, lesbians think I'm being anti-feminist, and queers think I'm being anti-genderist. Guess I can't win. But none of it - NONE of it is intended to personally erase anyone else's experience or choices. It's all in the interest of dialogue, intersection, and growth. I was kinda hoping I wouldn't have to make that disclaimer in this thread.

What's individualistic about it? i am sure there are explanations that focus on individuals, but what is individualistic about it. i don't actually know what gender theory you mean, so it's hard for me to speculate.

No, there are areas of those "days" that I cannot embrace. What I know is that without the Second Wave (and the days of my Grandmother before it), we would not be having this discussion at all. By definition, "movement" includes a change in place or position- it is not static, therefore, gives rise to critical thought throughout time- as time gives us new perspectives.

We have a feminist foundation that begs us to explore and grow even when we have to re-examine ourselves and accept the warts. It was the second Wave that brought awareness of gender theory to the forefront as a feminist paridigm.

Given this, it is difficult to accept that gender theory remains a block to the entire LGBTQ population continuing to remain separate. The irony I spoke of earlier and what is at the heart of deep wounds.

This has actually come full circle for me as a butch woman. The very same tactics and male power structures of "old" are wounding me in ways within our very own community using what the Second Wave believed to be a means to heal.

Thanks Jo!
 

Thanks, I appreciate it a lot. It is a quote of a quote of a quote.

I am always glad to know the origin of quotes I have come across over the years that are not atributed to the right person, in order to give credit where credit is due!

Heart, my responses are in purple.

Chazz, Thanks for your responses, your efforts to clarify, and your willingness to dialogue. I know there was some personal clouding, and appreciate that you took the time.

Heart

You're welcome, Heart. (f)

"Clouding", maybe so, necessarily cautious, likely and understandably.

I think you've been unfairly roughed-up by people unwilling to listen, hear, or engage respectfully. Their loss because you have a lot of insightful and thought provoking things to share. I learn a lot from you.

Thank you, too, for putting up with my terse writing style. The unfortunate byproduct of too much report writing for Da Sistem.

Just wanted to chime in to say that I appreciate the respectfulness in this thread. It can get so hard to exchange ideas on such sensitive topics. I am taking in many different ideas from the posts as they are giving me more insight into how each of us has experienced things from our own lenses. Also, there isn't any of the "hidden gem" slights wrapped in sugar that only serve to divide us instead of listening to each other.

Postmodernism is a mix of philosophies: Primarily, subjectivism and epistemic relativism. These philosophies hold that no epistemic standard is defensible, true or factual.

A postmodernist might argue “that modern science is nothing more than a “myth,” a “narration”, a “social construction.” (Professor Steven Luper, Trinity University)

Gender theory is the offspring of postmodernism. One of its primary tenets is that gender performativity is a way of destabilizing/deconstructing gender conventions.

Feminists hold that gender conventions are fictional, grotesque myths; and that re-enacting them in any context perpetuates oppression.

Gender performativity is an individual, self-focused activity – even when performed in a group…. Models at a Playboy photo shoot are individually re-inscribing gender constructs even when posing for a group photograph.

The enactment of real-world, gender conventions - of performing/embodying fictional constructs – makes them appear (feel) natural, organic, real. This reinforces gender stereotypes whether the performativity is meant to be parody or not; whether it’s meant to be a burlesque metaphor or not.

African Feminist and author, Nnameka, had this to say about sex roles: Western European and North American epistemologies since ‘post structuralism’s [now referred to as postmodernism] focus on discourse and aesthetics instead of social action encourages the egocentricity and individualism that undermines collective action.’ (Nnameka, 2003, p.364).

:vigil:

I was cruising some of the older posts (lol cruising) and noticed that there was a bit of discussion about feminist reading material.

Is there any other reading material/movies that anyone finds particularly prideful or that portrays lesbians in a positive light? I know one of the major critiques of lesbian representation in the media is that they're either crazy or they die at the end of the film. I always struggle with that.


As a side note, I spent the past five days in a very small town and was openly talked about when my friend kissed me. It was a tiny peck, but apparently all the old men in the firehall saw fit to flap their gums about it. I refused to let them make me feel bad about who I am. There's my prideful moment for the week.

Call me a sap, but for a happy, stress-free lesbian movie night, I never get enough of The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls In Love. The butch/femme girls bumbling into love are adorable. The butch lesbian aunt and her femme partner, (and exes), are perfectly portrayed. It's sweet, and the lesbians get to be happy. It was one of the first times I saw movie images that looked like people I know.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take it....I have to say SOMETHING
 

One of you please help me understand this.

How can either of you talk about how "refreshing" it is that everyone is being so "respectful" in this thread?

There is blatant bigotry of transwomen going on in this thread. Did you guys just miss that part, or are you ok with that part? Really, I want to understand this.

There is more than one lesbian transwoman on this message board. They are a PART of our community. Do you not think they are reading the words that have been written here? Do you have any freaking concept as to how it might be making them feel?

I agree with you, AtLast, there is no "hidden gem" slights...there are right out there in the open!

Yes, I know that June handled this, but I cannot sit idly by and not have some member of the community acknowledge how shitty this is, so I am doing it, even though I do not belong in this thread.

Chazz, we have lesbian transwomen here. They are an important part of our community. Please consider that the next time you speak about "once-male", people.

(P.S. I will not be available to post again until Sunday, Good nIght, all).

I'm sorry to intrude on the discussion, though perhaps apologies are pointless when I've already waltzed in...but I'm sorry. It's difficult to stand by, especially when we've already got a thread going on the issue, when such blatant transphobia is displayed. I fully support lesbians claiming lesbian pride, but what I don't support is doing it by degrading transwomen and claiming that transwomen lesbians are not "real" lesbians or "real" women. To me that is utterly and completely transphobic. I know that June addressed part of what I have to say, but I don't think the point can be stressed enough.

@Chazz

Claiming that transwomen are not born women, and that their presence among lesbians/women that they deem to be their sisters is not "honouring" or "respecting" women who were born with XX chromosomes, is so utterly transphobic. Transwomen are women in every way. They may have been born with the wrong chromosomes and in the wrong body, but they are women through and through. They are not lesser women than women who were born female-bodied. I fail to see how you think that excluding one component of the lesbian community is somehow benefiting that community. That kind of mentality wreaks of the typical Janice Raymond bullshit of transwomen somehow being a threat to other women, or being sent to "infiltrate" women's spaces in order to corrupt or destroy them.

And here you ignore the history of the G/L liberation movement, the same way you ignored the history of transmen in the butch community some months back. Or perhaps you just like to omit the portions of history that don't suit you and your ideas. Transwomen in particular have been a part of the struggle for gay and lesbian rights since the beginning of the movement. They were among the pioneers who struggled against discrimination and police brutality exhibited against gays, lesbians and alongside them transwomen/drag queens of all sexual orientations. Transwomen in particular were thrown under the bus despite the sacrifices they made. So when you sit there and claim that transwomen have just sat back and waited for lesbians and women born XX to fight their battles for them, I'm sorry but you're twisting history so perversely that it is nothing short of insult to the transwomen who sacrificed so much.