|
Quote:
Also I have not stated how I identify as far as "lesbian" goes... I'm not sure what you "do not have any issues with" as far as my identity. ETA: (because I just read your most recent post) I personally in no way got the impression you hate lesbians, (and I'm wondering where that was implied)... and I am truly sorry you're as upset as you are, unfortunately when people have hard discussions it can feel personal... I assure you on my end it's not. |
Quote:
Just sometimes when someone new, or who thinks differently says we are all Lesbians, the responses can sound like being a Lesbian is the most disgusting thing in the world. I understand that to you, this is true and I understand why. I just wish that the general you, not you personally, would maybe use a softer tone when discussing Lesbians. It is just as hurtful to us/them, as it was to you those times when someone told you you were not a good Lesbian. Make sense at all? |
Quote:
Cheers Aj |
I'm going to say this once and then leave the thread, because I've had it trying to say this over and over. NO ONE has said that being a lesbian is a bad thing, NO ONE has implied that lesbians are less than, NO ONE has said anything about lesbians that even in the slightest way puts down lesbians. What has been said is that not ALL homosexual women ARE lesbians. All this getting upset over something not said or implied by those who who have stated they aren't lesbians is foolishness and down right crap. Now have fun tearing folks apart over what hasn't been said. It's starting to sound like a broken record, and isn't community building in the least.
Have a wonderful Holiday! |
Quote:
And since I actually agree with what you said, I somehow felt we had less right to be hurt than Arwen. ugh ugh ugh. My appologies. |
Corkey there are people here who are lesbians who think that derogatory things have been said here- so our opinions don't matter?
Arwen and anyone else, I personally don't care whether anyone identifies as a lesbian or not, but I don't appreciate the stereotypes and the oh ick lesbian sentiments or that we are somehow less evolved- which is all in this thread. |
OH MY GOD...this is just unbelievable!!!
I can't wait to get back in here!!!! LOL! Just because you are a Lesbian, taking offense to others not IDing as a Lesbian, not liking the word Lesbian or not relating to what some may call "Lesbian Sex" is just selfish and ridiculous! YOU are a Lesbian! GREAT! I LOVE Lesbians!!!! We LOVE Lesbians. I do not identify as one! Many of us do not identify as one! SO WHAT! I have noticed a glaze over some posters EYES who don't really act like they really want to understand, and I mean REALLY understand someone different then themselves or maybe it's just emotional or mental blockage. No one is out to make Lesbian extinct...but she sure is changing and evolving! |
I personally haven't seen anyone object to anyone else not identifying as a lesbian. Are we speaking different languages? WTF
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You conclude that we are Changing and Evolving. What exactly do you mean by that? |
Quote:
All I can say to that is please quote where people actually stated they take offense to others not ID'ing as lesbian when you do... the last thing that's needed here is more twisting and misunderstanding of peoples statements just to stir the pot. Not saying that you like to do that... would just like to see people using quotes INSTEAD of restating people comments using entirely different words... hence changing the context... and then arguing the altered context. |
well hi.
sorry it took me so long to get back into the swing of the discussion. i'm not avoiding. some last minute research kept me busy until now. since i seem to be the trouble-starter this week i'd like to begin with an apology to anyone i've offended with my opinions and my lack of understanding, whether real or perceived. for my real lack of understanding, i beg patience. i am not unwilling to be wrong, to admit wrongness, to be taught, to learn and to grow. i welcome the opportunity. for my perceived lack of understanding, i beg tolerance. if i am not being clear it is because i do not know i am being unclear, not because i am obtuse or because i simply refuse to be clear. we use language differently, even if the language is the same one. we use it differently because we are different from one another, even if we are all human. we have different filters, different experiences, different minds and philosophies, and different abilities with regard to critical thinking. i will be the first to admit that i have noticed some cognitive challenges in the last year, mostly having to do with short term memory and with some long term recall. neither of those things hamper my feeling, nor do they hamper my desire to participate positively in conversation, even difficult conversation, and to listen and learn and contribute and be heard. i'd like to clear up any misunderstanding my posts may have created for anyone by saying the following: 1) i have absolutely no issue with the word "lesbian". i have no issue with any word of which i can think. because language and semiotics and marginalization make up the bulk of my work, i find it difficult to take offense with words, symbolism or the life experiences of others, period. 2) i do not identify my self, my life, my core, my being or my experiences as being a "lesbian" self, life, core, being or experiences. if others do, then they do. i dont have any feelings about the identifying words of others except to acknowledge and respect them and to use those words as required by the people who adopt them. i feel nothing but respect for the experiences of others. i have no need or desire (overt or hidden) to feel otherwise. 3) i have no issue with a dictionary definition of any word. limitations in print demand that many definitions be curtailed. dictionaries change every year. words are added and eliminated. there are dictionaries for "archaic" language and urban dictionaries and culturally relevant dictionaries and so on ad nauseum. none of them are "wrong" or "right" so much as they just "are". they account for the averaging of a particular language as well as a collective human understanding of concepts and ideas. they do not, however, encompass all that "is". there exists too much of everything for that. 4) if one person feels complete and satisfied with the definition of the word "Dog" as one that encompasses all domestic canines, i am not offended. if another person feels the same definition is limiting of specifics and variation and nuances and so on, i am not offended. if someone does not feel the word "Dog" encompasses all that some dogs are, i am not offended. i understand that my analogy is silly...but it serves my point somewhat. if a person says X is the word i use to identify myself with then i too refer to them as X. if someone says i do not use the word X...i use the word Y...then i also use the word Y to refer to them. my opinion and my language do not matter. Y is the word i use, out of respect primarily. my understanding expands to encompass the word Y as something new in my paradigm. that is evolution on the individual level. many individuals, all expanding their paradigm, leads to evolution on a more global level. it is critical thinking and philosophical growth at its best. 5) i am neither a "lesbian" by the dictionary definition nor by a personal one. i do not partner with people who identify themselves as women. i partner with transguys and/or male ID'd butches. the words i use are not "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" because i do not feel they are right for me. i do not have a single solitary issue with any of those words or anyone who uses them to define themselves. they are simply not my words. i do not speak for anyone except myself unless i am relating the stories and experiences i've been privy to and am free to relate and then, i am not doing so to represent anyone, i am simply relating a story. i do not speak FOR anyone except myself. any belief to the contrary is mistaken. 6) if someone tells me they are X...because they've been told they are X or the dictionary defines them as X...i worry, but i accept their decision. if the same person tells me they are X...because they feel X and they know they are X then i accept them as X and do not worry. i expect the same in return. as an example, if a person tells me they are a butch, female identified lesbian then i go forward using those words for that friend. if someone tells me they are a male identified butch, a genderqueer person, a lesbian, a transguy, a man, intersexed or that they use specific pronouns (hy, hir, ze, she, he and so on) i assimilate those words for that friend. it is not confusing to me and it does not bother me. i wouldnt presume to be bothered by the words anyone else uses for themselves. 7) i expect to be treated with the same consideration i extend. when i am not, i remove myself from the situation. if i am considered unacceptable it does not bother me. i am comfortable being unacceptable. moreso than i would be conforming to an identity that is not mine. i am a queer transsensual femme. as with all people, my understanding of myself continues to evolve as my mind evolves in its role as part of cultural and global evolution. when someone calls me a lesbian i am going to engage in conversation with them and give them different words for me. i am going to do that because i respect myself and because i respect them enough to share myself with them on a personal level. i grew up in a world where lesbian was the ONLY word to use. as the world and my understanding changed i realized i was using a word that did not belong to me. it is not only out of respect for myself that i now use different words, but because i see some of the nuances of words that makes me feel as though i am being moe respectful of others when i DONT use the word for myself. that may be an odd-Kathlene-only phenomenon, but it is how i feel nonetheless. words dont offend me. they are tools. mistakes dont offend me. they are also tools. intent and intention are the things that can carry the weight of offense in my world. regardless of my feelings, in the moment or long term, i also choose to believe that things are not solely as i see them...because it is impossible for me to see everything. i will be honest about my own feelings. that's the point of this long-winded and slightly pedantic post. in the same long breath, i refuse to presume that anyone here has either intent or intention to harm/offend/marginalize me. thanx for playing. :hippie: ~ ~ ~ ~ |
Quote:
Think of it in the ways that computers evolve and change. For example, my first computer, which I bought back in the early 90's, was a 486/SX with (get ready for it) 16mb of RAM and a 126mb hard drive! Now, if I still had that machine I'm sure it would probably boot up but it wouldn't really be useful and no sane person would want one other than as a museum piece. There's nothing *wrong* with the 486/SX. It had its time and is an interesting piece of history but anyone who thinks it is still a truly useful piece of technology is hopelessly antiquarian and perhaps should be put out to technological pasture lest they mess things up for the rest of us. If one is still using a 486/SX one should, at minimum, have the common decency to be embarrassed about it. My 18 month old Macbook Pro, on the other hand, has 4GB of RAM and 320GB hard drive. It is shiny and new. Hell the *video card* has 512mb of ram on it! It is useful, cool, and oh-so-very-sexy, if I do say so myself. Anyone should be happy and proud to have one. It has evolved. Now, of course, there's nothing WRONG with the person using a 19 year old computer---I mean some of my best friend's and all that. But really, my first machine could run one program at a time. If I was using Word Perfect, I couldn't play Sim City. My MBP has, as I write this, 15 programs running including iTunes with a 40GB music library. I still have another gig and a half to spare and I have not, in the nearly two years I've had it, managed to get my available memory down below a GB and trust me I have tried! Modern, sleek, useful. It's sort of like that. Lesbians are 486/SX's, post-lesbians are Macbook Pros. </tongue> Cheers Aj |
Quote:
i wanted to take time to comment on your very honest and feeling post because i am the trouble maker in this conversation. thank you for putting words to your feelings. i appreciate hearing them very sincerely. i do not find it necessary, satisfying, relevant, desirable or appropriate to "ridicule" or "minimize" anyone...not women, not lesbians, not butches, not femmes, not transpersons, not genderqueers, not anyone. even Hitler gets 1 point on the scoreboard from me (he was a good artist). i do not think the terms lesbian and woman are antiquated. i do not think they are irrelevant. if i have not made myself clear, i apologize. i see nothing wrong with any word i can think of. i wouldnt presume to find language offensive. i find it limiting at times, and i like watching its expansion, but i do not think it is wrong or right or any of those qualifying words. language just is. i will make my point with something you said that proves the ways in which people using the same language can hear or understand 2 vastly different things. you said: p.s. Cyclopea I saw absolutely nothing hostile in your tone. I thought you were being very matter of fact. I believe what some are saying is that female homosexual has more than one meaning. i thought that Cyclopea was saying exactly the opposite. thank you again for your honesty. :hippie: |
Quote:
Now, does the Macbook Pro Lesbian eat p*ssy? :jester: |
Quote:
Pardon the derail, but I think you used this analogy just to show off your computer. pfftt. lol. |
Quote:
Cheers Aj |
SNIP ===>
Quote:
the only reason i wondered if the concepts of "lesbian = female homosexual = a woman who has sex with women" is because that seems to limit the definition of a person to whomever they have sex with. :hippie: |
Quote:
this is such a good question. and i think the answer is both "yes and no". we're speaking exactly the same language. but our angst proves that the dictionary definition of words isnt the only way in which we understand words! you understand one thing and i understand another. it doesnt make either of us wrong, it simply means there's a learning curve to understanding one another's filters and perspectives with regard to language. Cyclopea asked relevant questions and so did i. neither of us did the best job answering the other. i left the conversation feeling like i was being invalidated and definitely like the enemy. today, i still feel like the enemy. no one called me the enemy but it does not prevent me from feeling that way. i dont blame anyone for the way i feel. but that i was regarded as the enemy was made clear in more than one mind based on the PMs i've gotten. it wouldn surprise me to discover that those on the opposite side of the discussion feel invalidated as well. one of the reasons people react so strongly is because they feel threatened. fortunately, here, we share the one thing that makes conversations like this possible: we all believe it's important is to remind one another that individual opinions dont necessarily mean that we think the other is wrong. it only means that we dont understand one another yet. |
As another trouble-maker on this thread, I wanted to explain why I think that the meanings of words matter. Now, because I'm going to use examples using race I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think anyone on this thread is racist, has said anything racist, or would ever say anything racist. It is just that the examples I have at hand use race.
If words evolve and have no flexible meaning then it would require me to take a face value the following statement: "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friend's are black. I just don't know what you people are calling yourself this decade so I just use the n-word." Or, one my favorites..."I'm not a racist. I just think that there's the 'good blacks', like you, and the n-word blacks, like the rest of them". Now, does the disclaimer "I'm not a racist" mean that the person is not expressing racist sentiment? Does the word racist have a meaning that is commonly agreed upon and, more or less, fixed or is it fluid such that someone could make statements like the two above (both of which I have heard, in some variation, multiple times in my 42 years) and by merely invoking the phrase "I'm not a racist..." means that whatever racist might mean, it cannot mean them. I live by the idea that racist (like other words) have a more-or-less fixed meaning and that merely saying "I'm not a racist but..." does not confer some magical, water-to-wine fairy dust on the words that immediately follow such that no matter how racist they might SOUND they are not, actually, racist because the person has just proclaimed that they are not racist. I use this as an example and I'll admit it is an extreme, in your face, example because I want to make it clear WHY I think that language matters in the way that I do. I am perfectly willing to admit that my view may be hopelessly antiquarian and, if I dare say so, 20th century. It probably is. I am a product of my time. Cheers Aj Quote:
|
Quote:
gives a whole new meaning to the concept of being "computer literate"! :cracked: |
Originally Posted by Cyclopea http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/foru...s/viewpost.gif
LMAO!!! Now, does the Macbook Pro Lesbian eat p*ssy? :jester: Quote:
|
Quote:
i agree. language does matter. it simply has huge variation in its meaning (which we're proving right now). this isnt a discussion about the meaning of the word "lesbian" anymore. it's a discussion about the ways in which we can each see a word or a sentence or an idea as meaning something very different than it was intended. i do not dislike the word lesbian. i dont dislike lesbians. i dont dislike female identified lesbians. and yet, that's how i came across to some people. i wanted to discuss the obvious (to me only) expansion of language that happens to some people when they exit one definition and enter another and so i joined the conversation. i expressed an opinion based on a common idea for many BFP members. i didnt do it in a way that was clear. it also, as has been stated, wasnt asked for or invited. but...sigh...i did it. my example is less obvious than your very good one: i dont use the word lesbian to describe myself and then require that my attraction to and/or behavior with someone who identifies themselves as a straight man be included in the definition of the word. clear as muddy muddy mud? |
Quote:
Cheers Aj |
Quote:
So that makes perfect sense to me. I'm curious, would you then say that you are homosexual or bisexual? And thank you for your patience, semiotics is completely out of my academic venue (which is computational biology/biomedical informatics) so I may be completely oversimplifying language. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
THANKYOU!!! i've been holding my breath! i'm really tiptoeing around right now feeling like a bad academic and a bad femme and a bad person and boo-hoo-hoo-poor Kathlene-boo-hoo-hoo (PLEASE read that last bit as sarcastic!) |
just to throw another wrench in the works
from last year's Urban Dictionary
lesbian n.) A gender identity in which an individual defines themselves as female (woman) and actively embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic and sexual energies geared toward another person who also defines themselves as female (woman). transgendered n.) A gender identity in which an individual defines his/her self by a sex and/or gender other than the physical determination given at birth. Transgendered identity presentation does not presume a/any specific sexual orientation/identity (homo, hetero, pan or asexual -- lesbian, gay, butch, femme, queer, etc.) femme: n.) Gender identity in which an individual (female, male or other) has an awareness of cultural standards of femininity and actively embodies a feminine appearance, role, or archetype, usually--but not always--associated with a gay or queer sexual identity/sexuality; more accentuated and intentional than a straight female gender identity or gender presentation and distinctly challenges standards of femininity through purposeful transgression against binary gender paradigms. n.) Person (male, female or other) who identifies and/or presents an overtly feminine or feminine acting gender identity and sometimes--but not necessarily-- embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic and sexual energies geared toward an opposite gender presentation. Occasionally used to denote an individual, or the submissive role in a relationship. v.) To actively embody a feminine identity or gender presentation. adj.) Feminine in a quasi-traditional and/or non-traditional way--or referring to something/one (male or non-female) that/whom is related to or embodies a conscious femininity. butch: n.) Gender identity in which someone (female, male or other) has an awareness of cultural standards of masculinity and actively embodies a masculine appearance, role, or archetype, usually--but not always--associated with a gay or queer sexual identity/sexuality; more accentuated and intentional than straight male gender identity or gender presentation and distinctly challenges standards of masculinity through purposeful transgression against binary gender paradigms. n.) Person (male, female or other) who identifies and/or presents an overtly masculine or masculine-acting gender identity and sometimes--but not necessarily-- embodies intellectual, emotional, romantic, and sexual energies geared toward an opposite gender presentation. Occasionally used to denote an individual, or the dominant role in a relationship. v.) To actively embody a butch identity or gender presentation. adj.) Masculine in a quasi-traditional and/or non-traditional way--or referring to something/one (female or non-male) that/whom is related to or embodies a conscious masculinity. |
Isn't it interesting how things evolve? I'll take my part of the trouble-making pie and sit down with it for a while.
For me, this conversation began because ONE LINE out of a fairly long post I made stood out to Cyclopea. As time went on, I realized I had written it backwards, so I definitely understood some of the confusion as to what I was saying. I take responsibility for not wording my thoughts exactly as I meant them. I would never invalidate another's identity or self-image knowingly or willingly, although...through the night...I felt just that way from Cyclopea and AJ. Arwen and hippie have said the same thing at varying points. Like both of them, I had to step away from this thread. I needed to try to regain some perspective and get in touch with myself and find out what kind of place I was coming from exactly. Now, I come back in, refreshed and hopeful and I see that hippie (Kathlene, if I may?) has done a wonderful job bridging the differences. If you aren't in PR or politics, you SHOULD be, girl! :) I am honestly very sorry for those that felt, along the way, my point changed from "you are a lesbian and it works for you and that is GOOD but I am not a lesbian, but am homosexual by definition, so all homosexuals are NOT lesbians" to "all lesbians are bad because I don't identify that way". I never meant to say that, so if someone could pinpoint the specific post(s) where I actually said that, I'd be grateful. Please let it be clear that I am NOT invalidating the fact that feelings were hurt. I know mine were and I apologize for my part in hurting others. What I am saying, and I ask that anyone who may respond to this post read this next part VERY CAREFULLY as I am doing my best to make myself as clear as I can, is that while I agree that all lesbians are homosexuals, not all homosexuals are lesbians. That's it. That is bluntly EXACTLY what I said. Never once did I attempt to make someone justify their identity nor did I invalidate it, although I felt like both were happening to me. Never did I say anything derogatory about lesbians or Queers or Martians or anyone else. I just made every attempt I could to help those who misinterpreted what I said or my tone. Along the way, Corkey and hippie and NAAG got what I was saying with some clarification and I appreciated that. Kosmo was able to present what I was trying to say better than I did and I also appreciate that. In the end, everyone's filter is different. Everyone has different sensitivities. Everyone has different personal definitions (whether they coincide with Mirriam-Webster's definitions or not). Our past experiences color our present and future interactions. I acknowledge this and think that I've learned something in reading the past couple of pages of dialogue that will help me in communicating with people here. For that, I am very thankful. Everyone wants to be HEARD though and that's why I felt it necessary for me to come back in here. Hopefully, it doesn't stir the pot or cause anymore rabblerousing. Like I said earlier, hippie's done a great job of smoothing the ruffled feathers and I don't want to take away from the wonderful posts and progress she's made. I just felt that my point had been twisted and turned into something it was never meant to be. And that is something I could not let happen. In this environment, we ARE our words. And I will not be changed into something I am not. |
In the true spirit of liberation
Quote:
I want to make my opinion and intentions crystal clear with regard to my previous post in this thread because I feel that you largely missed the point of what I said. I will enumerate my points to avoid further confusion and because I realize that a lot of ground has been covered in this thread. 1. I never believed that Tura was being intentionally hurtful. 2. People are capable of being insulting or hurtful without intending to do so, sometimes folks just act callously or thoughtlessly and need to be called on it. 3. When people feel the need to define themselves in negative terms, i.e. "I'm not lesbian, I'm not pro choice, I'm not a butch" and do so adamantly among people who do identify in those ways, the implication in their words can easily be read as pejorative by those who ARE what they decry they are NOT. I realize some people have a lot of hurt attached to the word "lesbian" because of painful, personal experiences. Many, MANY of us as butches and femmes were wholesale rejected by the larger lesbian community or partners we cared for, simply because of how we interpret our queerness, myself included. Some of us have chosen to embrace the identity of lesbian as an act of sheer defiance and as an open acknowledgment of our homosexuality. Some of us, instead, have chosen to reject the word. But I sincerely wonder, as a member of the former group, if you have chosen to reject the word "lesbian", and the identity, and are defining in negative terms, then what as a female bodied homosexual do you embrace in its stead? Have you truly made peace with the fact that you are homosexual? Are you okay with everything that being a female bodied person in relationship with another female bodied person manifests, entails and means? If not, then why not? These are hypothetical questions that I ponder and not directed toward any individual here. For those who reject the identity "lesbian", I would ask for you all to think about how it would feel if you heard, for example, someone proclaiming, "I am NOT transensual, it squicks me out", or stone, or nesbian (not equating these words, just using them as examples), or whatever words you choose to embrace, simply in order to define yourselves. To me, it feels like coming out as a femme to the larger glbt community all fucking over again. I'm sick to death of having to defend and explain being a lesbian, and what that looks like presented by me, to other homosexuals especially. If someone were to mistakenly presume that all b/f folks are transensual, for example, I (who am not transensual) do not feel the need to defend myself by breaking my id down in a way that would hurt those who are transensual. Isn't it hard enough for people to just move through the world as queer without hearing that their identities and sexual proclivities make other members of their community nauseous? That sort of judgment, couched in the safe haven of "personal opinion" feels secretly fascistic to me. Again, I want to know, why must anyone define themselves in negative terms? Regardless of our choices regarding our identities, I think it behooves every single one of us to examine why we reject or embrace certain sexual descriptors, and sexual proclivities, to ensure that there is not the least trace of internalized homophobia or misogyny leading the way. Yes, I get that diversity is grand, and that all our triggers aren't tripped the same, and I say vive' le difference if it's a genuine expression of who you are. If not, taking a moment to face a truth that might make you uncomfortable, but which will ultimately help liberate your authentic self, is crucial to our evolution, individually and as a group. Examining our own potential homophobia and misogyny is as important an act of introspection as any regarding privilege or racism, especially within a community which is predominately queer and female bodied. |
QoQ, I value your thoughts very much and, while I'm sure Blue will get back with you (since it was directed towards Blue), I'd like to address a couple of things, if you don't mind.
Quote:
Thanks for your thoughtful questions. My questions in response to yours are not in anger or frustration but I am genuinely confused. |
Quote:
ETA: If one is pan- or omnisexual, that terminology is inclusive of all forms of hetero and homo sexuality. If one embraces pan- or omnisexuality as their identity, there is no logical reason to reject ANY sexual identity. |
Quote:
It's rudeness that I take umbrage at. So, while we're on the subject, I find this particular statement extremely rude and patronizing. How on earth have you concluded that rejecting lesbian identity is an earmark of "change" and "evolution" for lesbians? Guess what, lesbians still exist as (Shock! Horror!) lesbians. What you said intones that those who remain lesbian id'ed are not evolved. It implies that the logical evolution of lesbian identity is... a rejection of lesbian identity (wtf?). I find what you said to be incredibly arrogant, dismissive and mythologizing of many of us, especially in light of the fact that you are male id'ed and, I'm assuming, non lesbian. Is this how you have reconciled your journey to self actualization as male? What I mean is, I'm assuming at some point you thought you were a dyke/lesbian (if not, please forgive the assumption), and along the way, fully embraced the fact that you were actually male. So, do you identify your journey as a natural course of "lesbian evolution", and for your femme counterparts, a full on rejection of the identity, because that's how it played out for you? I'm really curious why you're framing it this way. If you don't get why I find what you said appallingly condescending, let me put it to you this way; It's something akin to a guy telling a "bunch of hysterical bitches to just calm down" as he laughs at their outrage. You have no right to make such a pronouncement about me, or other lesbians. Now, if you actually id as a male lesbian, then I'd be really curious to hear your take on your own personal evolution. If you aren't, Id prefer that you refrain from making determinations about mine and that of other lesbians. Your beliefs DO NOT determine the evolutionary process, no ones do, not mine, not anyone's. Only nature can put her pimp stick down on that. |
Quote:
I had thought, yesterday, about posting something I manifestly don't believe just as an example: 'I'm not trans. I would never want anyone to mistake me for trans. I would be upset if someone said I was trans!" Now, if I said that wouldn't it sound like I was saying "trans is something I want as far away from me as possible". You can almost hear the "get it off me" even in this venue. My beautiful wife, Belly, is bisexual. When I first came out, I identified as bisexual (until my *second* lesbian relationship because at that point I realized that unless something VERY interesting happened, I was never going to have another heterosexual relationship) but I would not say "I'm not bi! I wouldn't want someone to mistake me for bi because that just squicks me out." Firstly, such a statement would, in fact, be an insult to the woman I love and it would *hurt* her. I know this because I have seen the hurt in her eyes when lesbians make very unkind comments about bisexuals (who, it seems, are still considered acceptable whipping girls in the community). Secondly, my identity is not really defined by who I was but am no longer but by who I *am*. Being a black woman, I don't define myself as a not-white woman. I define myself as a *black* woman. Being a geekgrrl, I don't define myself as a not-mainstream but as a geek. Being a butch, I don't define myself as a not-femme but as a butch. Being a lesbian I don't define myself as not-anymore-bisexual or a not-anymore-heterosexual but as a lesbian or, alternatively, a dyke. You bring up an interesting point in your statement "I'm Cuban but I'm certainly not Puerto Rican". I have heard Caribbean blacks make a point of saying that they are NOT American blacks--as if that were not something a decent brown-skinned person would want to be. If I were to make a point of saying I'm not Jamaican, one would be somewhat justified in saying "hey, Aj, what's so wrong with Jamaicans that you're so emphatically NOT one". Now, I've had people ask me if I was from Jamaica (because, don't ya know, ALL black people with dreadlocks are from Jamaica) and I've corrected them by saying "no, I'm an American born in America". But that's correcting a misinterpretation. I've had people ask "what country are you from" and I'll tell them the same thing, I'm an American who was born here. Again, correcting a misinterpretation. I've even had people say "why don't you go back to Africa" and I've corrected them by pointing out that given the reality of the transatlantic slave trade, it's likely that my bloodline has been here longer than their bloodline since my bloodline HAD to have hit these shores by 1809 (when the slave trade across the Atlantic ended) while their bloodline could easily have showed up on Ellis Island in 1910. But, again, that's not saying "I'm not African" it's simply correcting historical ignorance. There's a difference and I've been so caught up in the emotions of this topic (yes, Virginia, I DO have emotions! LOL) that I haven't been able to put it into something coherent until I read your post. So thank you. Cheers Aj |
How people identify is of course entirely up to them. No one need identify as a lesbian. We are not recruiting.
However, the narrow minded views of what a lesbian is or is capable of expressing in terms of her sexuality and identity that are quite often expressed in butch femme circles feels like internalized homophobia and anti-woman to me. A woman who is attracted to another woman - lesbian- or a woman having sex with another woman, just simply isn't enough- it's limited, less evolved, something people need to be clear that they are NOT. Whereas queer/genderqueer/masculine identified/male within a female body and those attracted to such people are the cutting edge, revolutionary, evolved genders. By the way I am not sure why people use masculine identified to refer to themselves as not identifying as woman and/or female. Butches who identify with being female are masculine. Women can and are masculine as well. My masculine pronoun is She. |
Quote:
Although.....flip your arguments, please. By claiming lesbian so strongly, are you (in general or those who feel this applies to them) DENYING every other form of sexuality and sexual expression? If so, why is this claim so different from those who say "I'm not lesbian"? I do understand about a post or two being worded hurtfully. Taking that out of the equation, aren't those proclaiming lesbian doing the exact thing that the non-lesbians are being accused of doing? Quote:
Women can definitely be masculine. So can those who do not identify as women or connect with their female body. I think masculine is a connection between woman and man, separating them from each other but keeping them intertwined simultaneously. |
I have a whole lot to say and lots of responses to get back to so I will be posting as soon as time permits!
I do hope everyone is having a wonderful and peaceful holiday! Happy Holidays Everyone, even you Lesbians!! LOLOLOLOL!!!! |
best wishes for the New Year
well hi,
i've read and re-read the posts that make up this thread and i have a question for any/all who might care to answer publicly or privately. is my original post, the reply i wrote to "Victoria" in which i said that i'm not a lesbian/do not identify as a lesbian offensive? did it sound like i was saying "OMG that's disgusting! i'm not one of those people?" i ask because when i made the statement all i was thinking was "lesbian isnt the word i use for my self." i wasnt trying to dissociate from the word because i thought there was something wrong with the term itself or with anyone who is perfectly comfortable with it. i was responding to a post that seemed (to my necessarily limited understanding) to insist that we all use the word lesbian as a self-identifier. that was it. it was suggested earlier this week that i am patronizing in my responses and that "no one asked for" my opinion. if i derailed the conversation and/or was not welcome to participate or if i was rude to any who posted or who has been reading the thread i apologize. my excuse for my original post was based on the name of the thread and the comments of a particular participant. as for being patronizing, i can only offer the lack of human connection between typist and reader(s) as an excuse. i do not wish or intend to patronize anyone. it disturbs me that things i've said may have contributed to the deterioration of our discussion from the sharing of our varied experiences and different understandings of the world to the semi-denial of one another out of some perceived threat, one that i dont feel ever existed. my responses are, in part, responsible for that (mistakenly) perceived threat if, when i wrote a reply to "Victoria" or to anyone else, i said anything that gave one of you the idea that i was claiming some kind of superiority simply because i do not use the word lesbian for myself. i've read my posts and do not see a "better than" mindset in my words. though i cant promise to see every flaw in my thinking i can, however, be certain of my intent and hope it comes across. when it doesnt i will clarify. that's all i was ever trying to do. i feel that many of the questions i posed remain unanswered but i hope that there will never be a question about my own feelings about any person, here or elsewhere, when it comes to this subject. i am writing to both extend my well wishes to all for a very happy and rewarding new year as well as to unsubscribe from our discussion. i feel as though i've shaken a box of precious objects and in doing so, done damage that i would never have dknowingly or willingly done had i realized what gifts were inside. each one of you has presented me with something that i value by sharing your passion and your opinions and your selves in this venue. you are wealth that i take with me into my work and into my negotiation of the world every day. i am sincerely grateful for each of you. Happy New Year :snowysmiley: :antler: :snowman: kathlene |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43 AM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018