Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Kobi]

Dapper,

To answer your inquiry, sometimes within a certain context we might perceive things differently or interpret them differently or miss them all together. There is a built in system of checks and balances for when this happens. The system was on top of things today.

From my point of view, this doesn't detract from the good things that are occuring in this thread. Amongst those good things are the following:

1. People who, perhaps, didnt feel they had a "safe" place to talk about a multitude of issues of concern to them found a place. And, the space was respected. Wow.

2. In this "safe" place, stuff that has been festering below the surface began to see the light of day. As you are aware, when things fester without a voice, when they do find a voice they dont always come thru in the most optimal way.

3. When this occured, and it did on many occasions, it was addressed. And, it was addressed in a respectful manner which was educative rather than punitive, exploratory rather than presumptive, and aimed at expanding a dialogue rather than shutting a dialog down. To me, this is a huge accomplishment. Not perfect but a huge step forward.

4. This thread, aside from the times there were attempts to turn into something it wasnt, has had a conspicuous lack of histrionics, drama, and reactionary behavior. This too has helped further a dialog and exploration and goodwill among its participants. It hasnt been about consensus. It has been, from my standpoint, about sharing, listening, learning, and a lot of other neat stuff geared toward growth and understanding.

5. There is a process going on here that feels and looks a lot different. It is not perfect but it feels generally healthy and helpful.

If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to pm me.

[dreadgeek]

Kobi:

Thank you for explaining your position. You may have noticed that pretty much the *minute* MWMF was invoked, I backed off the conversation and went silent. That is because I *knew* that it was only a matter of time before something was posted where transwomen would be portrayed as 'not really women' or 'not really belonging to the lesbian community'. At that moment, the space--not just this thread but this entire site--became unsafe for me. Now, I don't really expect the world to be a safe space. I would not have made it into middle-age as a black lesbian if I expected the world to welcome me with open arms. I do, however, strongly prefer to be in spaces where I won't be subject to reading things that explicitly state--for reasons entirely beyond your control, you do not belong here. But it goes farther than that. Yesterday, as I wrestled with saying something in response, a question crossed my mind: is there any amount of time or effort a transwoman could spend in the lesbian community that would allow her to not be thought of as an interloper and to be brought into the circle of 'sister'. My gut instinct is that for anyone who uses the term 'once-males' to refer to transgendered women a million years wouldn't be half enough time. I also get the feeling--and I may be wrong--that if a transwoman carried not just her own weight but the weight of the next 10 women around her, those contributions would *still* not be enough.

So what I read was that transwomen had no legitimate place and in that moment, as I said before, this place became deeply 'unsafe'. So why am I still here? Why did I not leave? Because before I was a queer, I was already black. I know unsafe space. I know how to maneuver around unsafe space. My neighborhood was unsafe space--in the way that being the only black kid in your class from kindergarten to sixth grade can be. At some point in between being subjected to the tender mercies of elementary school children picking on the kid who looks most different to the experience of coming out and promptly being told that I was a race traitor (yes, I have had people say that to me) for being queer, I realized that if someone holds a prejudice against me, there is very little I can do to change their mind. I can, however, decide that I will hold my head high, that I will carry myself with dignity and that I will hold to a very high standard of conduct. My logic is that the bigot will still think me low, undeserving or an interloper but I will, in the fullness of time, make that bigot look like a fool. How? By being a shining star. By being honorable, intelligent, erudite, kind, expansive, friendly and hard-working. What could do more damage to any of the myths that people might have about me because I'm black, queer, etc. than to be the kind of woman you could proudly take home to mother?

Years ago, when I came out and first discovered that there were two groups within the queer community--particularly the lesbian community--that were considered once and for all time outside the circle of sisterhood; bisexuals and transwomen. The blatantly racist or anti-Semitic statement had no place and any woman fool enough to utter it in public would have the wrath of Sappho herself visited upon her. But bisexuals could be spoken of in terms of being vectors of disease contaminating what would otherwise have been an ostensibly disease-free lesbian community. At least bisexuals were not thought to be intentionally volunteering to be disease vectors while transwomen were thought to have truly evil intent--although this being the 90s and post-modernism being what it was, no one used the term evil. Rather, it was couched in terms of transwomen having some nebulous, shadowy but nefarious intent to do undermine the lesbian community from within. At the time, I was writing for every gay or lesbian newspaper or magazine that would publish me. I stumbled across a question that was relevant in 1991 and is relevant 20 years later, what are we in this for? By this I mean the Movement for the rights of queer people to live their lives as full citizens with agency. Are we in it because--as I believe--that it is simply wrong for individuals to be discriminated against in either law or custom because of some arbitrary characteristic OR are we in this because such discrimination is happening to *us*. This is a non-trivial difference. If you believe that bigotry and prejudice are wrong then one would hope one would spread that net as far as possible. It goes beyond the discrimination that happens to me, it is the discrimination I make others the target of. If, on the other hand, one believes that the discrimination that happens to one's own group is wrong but not that bigotry or prejudice are generally wrong, then one need not look to the plank in one's own eye. All that matters is that the other person standing on one's foot get the hell off your foot. IF the queer movement is against bigotry or prejudice based upon arbitrary characteristics of gender or sexual orientation, then our movement cannot give much quarter to a form of bigotry that says "I don't care, nor do I have to care, how long ago you transitioned you will always be, in my eyes, whatever your chromosomes say you are". If, on the other hand, we are concerned only with the more limited question of "lesbians and gay men are subject to injustice because they are gay or lesbian" that allows for the community to have a space for bigotry against bisexuals or transsexuals or transgendered people or, for that matter, butches and femmes.

Twenty years ago, I cast my lot in with that part of the community that believed that the discrimination that happens to bisexuals or transsexuals *within* the queer community is no better than discrimination that happens against all queer people. I would have preferred that gender theory were not the vehicle by which transgendered people gained a greater level of acceptance because I think that post-modernism, upon which gender theory is based, is deeply and profoundly broken because it is incoherent. I almost feel guilty at having benefited from gender theory and its ancestor, post-modernism, because I would be quite happy putting the final nail in the coffin of that ideology.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Kobi

Dapper,

To answer your inquiry, sometimes within a certain context we might perceive things differently or interpret them differently or miss them all together. There is a built in system of checks and balances for when this happens. The system was on top of things today.

From my point of view, this doesn't detract from the good things that are occuring in this thread. Amongst those good things are the following:

1. People who, perhaps, didnt feel they had a "safe" place to talk about a multitude of issues of concern to them found a place. And, the space was respected. Wow.

2. In this "safe" place, stuff that has been festering below the surface began to see the light of day. As you are aware, when things fester without a voice, when they do find a voice they dont always come thru in the most optimal way.

3. When this occured, and it did on many occasions, it was addressed. And, it was addressed in a respectful manner which was educative rather than punitive, exploratory rather than presumptive, and aimed at expanding a dialogue rather than shutting a dialog down. To me, this is a huge accomplishment. Not perfect but a huge step forward.

4. This thread, aside from the times there were attempts to turn into something it wasnt, has had a conspicuous lack of histrionics, drama, and reactionary behavior. This too has helped further a dialog and exploration and goodwill among its participants. It hasnt been about consensus. It has been, from my standpoint, about sharing, listening, learning, and a lot of other neat stuff geared toward growth and understanding.

5. There is a process going on here that feels and looks a lot different. It is not perfect but it feels generally healthy and helpful.

If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to pm me.

[CherylNYC]

Thank your for all your posts, Aj. Like Kobi, I missed 'once male' altogether. I didn't understand the reference, and giddy with the joy of FINALLY reading posts by and for lesbian feminist butch-femme women, instead of reading posts about how far butches can push themselves towards maleness on the spectrum(sic), I didn't bother to sort out the meaning of the term.

I've been excited about a seeming resurgence in lesbian pride. As much as I wish we were not talking about the acceptance of transwomen in our community instead of lesbian pride, clearly we're not done yet.

Your post has made me thoughtful about my own history. I have a baaad history with men. I've been the object of a lifetime of very invasive, not to mention criminal behaviour. The reason I'm far more wary of men, even though I've also been financially and sexually abused by a woman, is that my issues with men are current and ongoing. I may be pushing 50, but they still sniff up my butt like a pack of dogs. No, there's nothing flattering about it. I would be a fool and a victim if I didn't maintain a VERY guarded posture with most men. For me, safety is relative and the safest space is women's space. Like many feminists of my era, I treasure and guard women's space because it's very meaningful to me.

This is relevant because many lesbians have felt, just as you pointed out, that transwomen are really men who have come to invade women's space. I certainly felt that way for a long time. A close friend, A, changed that view. She's a woman. Period. I don't care that A has a long history as a man prior to her transition. Like you, she holds her head high, carries herself with dignity, and holds herself to a very high standard of conduct. I'm quite certain that she did that before she transitioned, too.

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet.

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting, and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As far as I know, here in NYC my friend is no longer in danger of being disrespected or made to feel unwelcome in any part of our communities. MWMF is the only event from which she's excluded. I've observed her getting the fish-eye in straight settings, but according to her she hasn't felt or heard any anti-trans actions or words directed towards her from anyone in our LGBT, BDSM, or women's communities. Ironically, she has been vilified by other trans people because of her views about what it means to be a woman. My friend can happily come and go to women's groups and events in safety because there's been such a strong push towards trans acceptance here in NYC.

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.)

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off.

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Kobi:

Thank you for explaining your position. You may have noticed that pretty much the *minute* MWMF was invoked, I backed off the conversation and went silent. That is because I *knew* that it was only a matter of time before something was posted where transwomen would be portrayed as 'not really women' or 'not really belonging to the lesbian community'. At that moment, the space--not just this thread but this entire site--became unsafe for me. Now, I don't really expect the world to be a safe space. I would not have made it into middle-age as a black lesbian if I expected the world to welcome me with open arms. I do, however, strongly prefer to be in spaces where I won't be subject to reading things that explicitly state--for reasons entirely beyond your control, you do not belong here. But it goes farther than that. Yesterday, as I wrestled with saying something in response, a question crossed my mind: is there any amount of time or effort a transwoman could spend in the lesbian community that would allow her to not be thought of as an interloper and to be brought into the circle of 'sister'. My gut instinct is that for anyone who uses the term 'once-males' to refer to transgendered women a million years wouldn't be half enough time. I also get the feeling--and I may be wrong--that if a transwoman carried not just her own weight but the weight of the next 10 women around her, those contributions would *still* not be enough.

So what I read was that transwomen had no legitimate place and in that moment, as I said before, this place became deeply 'unsafe'. So why am I still here? Why did I not leave? Because before I was a queer, I was already black. I know unsafe space. I know how to maneuver around unsafe space. My neighborhood was unsafe space--in the way that being the only black kid in your class from kindergarten to sixth grade can be. At some point in between being subjected to the tender mercies of elementary school children picking on the kid who looks most different to the experience of coming out and promptly being told that I was a race traitor (yes, I have had people say that to me) for being queer, I realized that if someone holds a prejudice against me, there is very little I can do to change their mind. I can, however, decide that I will hold my head high, that I will carry myself with dignity and that I will hold to a very high standard of conduct. My logic is that the bigot will still think me low, undeserving or an interloper but I will, in the fullness of time, make that bigot look like a fool. How? By being a shining star. By being honorable, intelligent, erudite, kind, expansive, friendly and hard-working. What could do more damage to any of the myths that people might have about me because I'm black, queer, etc. than to be the kind of woman you could proudly take home to mother?

Years ago, when I came out and first discovered that there were two groups within the queer community--particularly the lesbian community--that were considered once and for all time outside the circle of sisterhood; bisexuals and transwomen. The blatantly racist or anti-Semitic statement had no place and any woman fool enough to utter it in public would have the wrath of Sappho herself visited upon her. But bisexuals could be spoken of in terms of being vectors of disease contaminating what would otherwise have been an ostensibly disease-free lesbian community. At least bisexuals were not thought to be intentionally volunteering to be disease vectors while transwomen were thought to have truly evil intent--although this being the 90s and post-modernism being what it was, no one used the term evil. Rather, it was couched in terms of transwomen having some nebulous, shadowy but nefarious intent to do undermine the lesbian community from within. At the time, I was writing for every gay or lesbian newspaper or magazine that would publish me. I stumbled across a question that was relevant in 1991 and is relevant 20 years later, what are we in this for? By this I mean the Movement for the rights of queer people to live their lives as full citizens with agency. Are we in it because--as I believe--that it is simply wrong for individuals to be discriminated against in either law or custom because of some arbitrary characteristic OR are we in this because such discrimination is happening to *us*. This is a non-trivial difference. If you believe that bigotry and prejudice are wrong then one would hope one would spread that net as far as possible. It goes beyond the discrimination that happens to me, it is the discrimination I make others the target of. If, on the other hand, one believes that the discrimination that happens to one's own group is wrong but not that bigotry or prejudice are generally wrong, then one need not look to the plank in one's own eye. All that matters is that the other person standing on one's foot get the hell off your foot. IF the queer movement is against bigotry or prejudice based upon arbitrary characteristics of gender or sexual orientation, then our movement cannot give much quarter to a form of bigotry that says "I don't care, nor do I have to care, how long ago you transitioned you will always be, in my eyes, whatever your chromosomes say you are". If, on the other hand, we are concerned only with the more limited question of "lesbians and gay men are subject to injustice because they are gay or lesbian" that allows for the community to have a space for bigotry against bisexuals or transsexuals or transgendered people or, for that matter, butches and femmes.

Twenty years ago, I cast my lot in with that part of the community that believed that the discrimination that happens to bisexuals or transsexuals *within* the queer community is no better than discrimination that happens against all queer people. I would have preferred that gender theory were not the vehicle by which transgendered people gained a greater level of acceptance because I think that post-modernism, upon which gender theory is based, is deeply and profoundly broken because it is incoherent. I almost feel guilty at having benefited from gender theory and its ancestor, post-modernism, because I would be quite happy putting the final nail in the coffin of that ideology.

Cheers
Aj

[Martina]

i thought the Daryn thing was annoying. i appreciate that the mods acknowledge they could have handled it better. He also made a snipe on another thread about Japanese lesbian feminists or something like that. Maybe he was angry after the big reaction he got. But i didn't see his participation as particularly well-intentioned.

i also think that whether it crops up frequently on this site or not, there is a lot of lesbian bashing still common in our community. i have heard it. i get way tired of it. And sometimes you know what someone is saying even if they stop short of saying something that one could report.

That said, i think this thread has bordered on transphobia off and on throughout. i tried to make that point, but was every so gently shown the door. Maybe i didn't make it well.

Talking about pure feminism is a dangerous discourse. It suggests an other, an impure feminism (gender theory?). Also talking about what it used to be like to be a lesbian compared to now suggests to me that people feel displaced, unrecognized, not valued for their contributions. The context of the Butch Voices controversy makes it pretty clear who the other is, the other whose voice is supposedly heard and valued more. Framing the conversation this way requires that it be understood as either-or, as a conflict.

Reclaiming from whom? is the question.

As i said to someone in PM, even the great gender outlaw posts seem to be trying to reclaim a status that was lost or has lost cache. If we are saying we were the original badasses, we're clearly also talking about who is now considered to be a gender outlaw. i am just saying that there has been an invisible other present throughout, and to my mind, it is at least in part the transperson.

Interesting that instead of a transman, the eruption of bigotry was that older anxiety, the presence of transwomen in our communities.

i am going to be offline for a couple of days. i have a new smart phone that should allow me to see stuff, but i don't know if i can use it well enough yet.

[BullDog]

Medusa I don't think you are an agent of the patriarchy and I do think you are supportive of lesbians, but I super bummed that you think having a Lesbian Zone is going to create a "militant, separatist and unwelcoming" space for those who don't i.d. as lesbians.

There are lesbians calling for more inclusive space, there are lesbians speaking out against transphobia, there are lesbians being supportive across the gender spectrum. I get that lesbians can post in any thread from 'What's For Dinner" to Racism to Gender theory threads. I also see a clear need for lesbian visibility and don't get why having a Lesbian Zone would be more potentially divisive than say a Trans Zone or Butch Zone or Femme Zone. I am seriously bummed.

I spoke out in this thread about things that I saw as exclusionary, I spoke out against the transphobia. I am not coming from a "purist" or separatist state at all.

[Medusa]

Wait a minute.

Let's be clear. I did not say the zone *is* going to create a separatist environment.

"Is" is an action verb and would mean that I think that is occurring right now. I don't.

I said "has the potential to create". That is me expressing my own personal fears. Me expressing a fear is very different than labeling something as "this is occurring as we speak".

I'm sorry if that wasn't more clear.

I have read and posted in this zone multiple times. It has existed on this site for well over a year. None of the conversations here have ever been redirected, renamed, or moved. My support of this zone is clear given that it scares me but that I work to overcome that fear by participating in and digesting the discussions here that sometime make me cringe or want to pull my hair out (and that isn't specific to the LZ, it has happened in multiple threads and zones on these forums).

I'll say it again: I support the Lesbian Zone.

[ScandalAndy]

I have a confession to make.


I need to thank everyone who stood up and said "you are excluding your transfeminine sisters".

I consider myself a huge trans ally and activist. I don't want to quantify my contributions, but I do a lot of work in the field with organized groups, as well as helping individuals who are in my life as friends, partners of friends, etc.

I never stopped to think about transgendered lesbians in this discussion, and my privilege as a cisgendered woman blinded me to them. I am sorry to all of the women I inadvertently excluded because of that. This has been a giant kick in the pants that I needed.

Now I am stuck in a dilemma. I do not want to "sweep it under the rug", but I am terribly frustrated because I've just recognized this massive gap in my support and don't know how to fix it. I don't want to have had this epiphany and do nothing with it.

There are a lot of ruffled feathers going on here, and I think maybe I'm not the only one who is a little ashamed at not seeing something happening, or not speaking up, or whatever it is that is causing such discomfort. I hope we can all come full circle and get back to supporting each other.




Also, to all of you talking about current gender theory, I'm a student of that new school and i support it wholeheartedly. That being said, I agree that there are issues that arise when no clear cut boundary lines are drawn. I feel it's very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. This causes even MORE frustration for me, which tends to make me withdraw from the conversation and I'm sorry for that. I just don't do well with confrontation and the passion on the threads lately has been off-putting and frightening to me. I don't want to get caught in the crosshairs.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things [B]BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting [hence my reference to 'once men'] , and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, [hence my reference to once men] but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.) [This happens a lot. I've been at several explicitly lesbian "parties" where this has happened.]

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

If my response is in any way threatening or violates the TOS for the site, I welcome the mods to contact me about it so that i may modify my behavior accordingly.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.


Chazz,

I felt and feel uncomfortable with this particular part of your post. It's feels like you're wanting to have this conversation using slurs? Yet transfolk are not allowing you? It seems oogy it feels oogy am I misreading you?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.

I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

Coming after????

Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.



No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.

I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.



Coming after????

Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.




I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.



You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.



You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.

I respect that you maintain my opinion about your motives is incorrect. Thank you for letting me know that I was mistaken in that respect, I feel better knowing you are only speaking for yourself. I apologize for my error in attempting to guess your motives and appreciate that you took the time to answer my question directly.

Is your use of quotations around the word "policing" intended to be sarcasm? I can assure you, the only reason I directly called you out on continuing to use the phrase in question is because it was already deemed inappropriate by an admin, and I take direct offense to it. I am not afraid to call you out on something that bothers me, and I believe I am within my rights to do so, just as you are within your rights to respond or not as you see fit.

I asked who you were "coming after" because you quoted Cheryl's post, posted comments in red which appeared to be you agreeing with her points (albeit in a, to me, inflammatory manner), then proceeding to respond below in such a way that accused her friend of "not genuflecting enough" (more sarcasm?) then implying that she is a lesbianphobe. That seems contradictory and accusatory to me, which is why i brought it up. I may be incorrect in this thought as well, so I pose the following question: For what purpose did you quote Cheryl's post if not to agree or disagree with it?

Finally, I would like to make sure I am not misinterpreting your last paragraph in response to me. Are you implying that I am wearing blinders and am so inundated with trans ideology that I am incapable of critical thinking? I hope not, since I spend a large amount of time questioning why I feel the way I do, and whether it is beneficial and inclusive (or exclusionary) to do so. I know I am not required to justify myself, but in this case I feel it can only help.

You have repeatedly said you are questioning ideology, politics and behaviors. Please direct me to where, in a trans discussion/space, you have stated what specific ideology/politics/behaviors you take issue with and why you do so. If those specifics were pointed out in a lesbian space, or have yet to be addressed, I hope that they can be moved to a trans specific area where they can be pulled apart and discussed in depth so that I may better understand you and your deep feelings about this subject. I also hope that you understand how, in my personal opinion, they have no place in a lesbian discussion since it is not the politics of being a lesbian that you take vehement opposition to.

It is clear that you are proud to be a lesbian, like the title of this thread states. I hope you will not leave the thread in which you have invested much experience and dedication. That would be a great loss indeed.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by Chazz

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

The use of the term "once men" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Admin

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

[Of course you had multiple reports.... It's not me who had propagated the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma. I'm just pointing at it from this lesbians perspective as some one who has felt increasingly marginalized by trans/gender ideology within the "community".]

The use of the term "once women" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

[It could be because I take no pride in what has/is happening to lesbians within the community.... But because you mentioned it.... I, in no way, trashed the "trans experience". Nor was I aware that it was a one size fits all "experience".]

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

I'm out of the conversation. So........

[Heart]

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

Heart

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Heart

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?


Heart

I personally feel heartsick by what I read in this thread.

Heart, I, too feel despair at reading them.

My bottom line is that I do not want my own woman-identified lesbian identity erased by anyone. Anyone.

Aren't the other posters also stating that nor do they want their own identity: butch/femme/trans, however they ID; erased or discounted either?

That each identity is fiercely protected by those that have claimed their own identity?

Am I reading correctly?

There is enough division out in the "real world", do we need to do it to each other too?

Do we all have to agree with each other?

Can we not respect each other without attacking each other?

Must this go on?

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Heart

...

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

Heart

Yes, some of my very ambivalent experiences with trans people have been damaging. The individuals were acting as individuals. No one should expect each member of a minority to represent that minority in all their actions. That said, all transwomen have spent at least part of their lives being socialised as male. Aj has written about this eloquently in another thread, but I don't have the patience to find it. She spoke about many small ways in which she was privileged over her sister while growing up because she was a boy. She acknowledges the obvious, which is that she benefitted from this, and probably continues to benefit a bit from that early boost, whether or not she wanted to be a boy. (Apologies for the paraphrase.)

As I wrote previously, my experiences with transwomen who have been socialised as male, who, unlike Aj and my friend A who I mentioned previously, have never questioned their history of privilege, who continue to use male-centric power dynamics they've learned over their lifetimes to gain advantages in personal and business matters, who have always lived by a 'power-over' model rather than a feminist universal empowerment model, are very VERY visible when they enter women's space. Those are the transwomen that make my friend A cringe, and that cause her to fear that she will be judged based on others' bad behaviours.

Denying the reality that some transwomen who haven't questioned their conditioning and socialised behaviours can make other women uncomfortable in what's supposed to be women's space, is painful and erasing for women like myself who rely on women's space for it's relative safety. When I'm told that I must not say the above because it's allegedly transphobic, I hear that my sense of safety is secondary to the safety of people who are acting 'like men'. Their oppression as transpeople is more important than my oppression as a woman, etc.

In real terms that means that when I'm at a women's sex/play party and a crossdressing man exposes his naked dick tied up in a bow, women who know he doesn't belong there don't feel empowered to challenge his invasive presence. That man with all the sensitivity of a tree stump felt emboldened to circumvent my playmates' efforts to shield me from a sight they KNEW I didn't want to see. More than a year later I still think about my anger and feelings of being invaded instead of the lovely scene I was having before Mr. Dick-in-a-bow stuck it in my face. He claimed to be trans. His safety was more important than mine.

...it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces...

We lesbians have the most to lose when we lose women's space. Because issues of trans inclusion have proved difficult, the trend is to dismantle women's space altogether in favor of queer space. Eliminating the language means eliminating the problem, right? Not on my watch.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.
Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not. Heart

Yes, heartbroken sums it up for me. And an unwillingness to participate in any way with something that matters to me, but just cannot do it any longer. the cost is far too high.

[Chazz]

I'm not sure how to have a discussion about lesbian pride without discussing issues that drain me of my lesbian pride.

Perhaps I made a mistake in thinking that a thread about lesbian pride was an appropriate place to address that drainage. It is what I had in mind when I was approached by the OP about starting this thread. This thread did evolve out of the thread about BV changing the definition of butches, after all.

It never occurred to me that this was suppose to be a kumbaya retrospective of the not so glorious lesbian/Feminist past. My bad, I guess.... I did anticipate it would be a difficult discussion, but a necessary one for many of the reasons Heart and Cheryl have touched upon in their posts.

The LGBTQ "community" is seething with resentments that foster both transphobia and lesbianphobia. The mostly well intentioned response to those resentments has been denial, kumbayaism, magical thinking, and when all else fails, censorship. That may have perpetuated the "big tent" mythology, but in reality it has not served anyone well. It's fragmented and depoliticized the "community"; it's allowed parallel phobias to fester....

Sequestering ourselves in endogenous (online or off) "communities" and going la, la, la, la, is avoidance - not something to take pride in. Genuine ally-ship is about engaging in a heuristic, facing hard truths and conflict, not wishing, or dear me-ing, them away.

Perhaps it was naive of me to dare addressing these issues, here. I could limit my expenditure of time and energy to communities that reinforce my beliefs. You know, places that are preaching to the already converted. That isn't my understanding of "community" building.

Originally Posted by Heart

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Respectfully Heart, this has always been going on. It's not new to the BV controversy. It's what I've been trying to speak to from my perspective. It's what keeps getting driven underground.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

That's how it go.... However, the merits of a point of view should not turn on who has the weight of numbers on their side (as in the number of people agreeing with them). Nor should the worthiness of a discussion be evaluated prematurely, before issues have been excavated and clarified.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

Wanting ally-ship, solidarity and coalition is good stuff - BUT - those things do not come without sustained effort by people committed to the process. The neoLGBTQ "community" has not made that commitment or investment. Instead, it's fragmented into different camps. When one of us wanders into a different camp and tries to talk about it.... well, you see what happens.

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

It's the things you mention and more.... See the quote below.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

You're welcome, Heart.... As to my adding to "the endless loop of erasure", this kind of characterization holds no meaning for me until AFTER the airing of the issues of a conflict is achieved. Conflict resolution is a process. Skipping steps because they're uncomfortable sabotages the process.

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I've seen the same thing and been illuminated, too.

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Some of it IS individual, but not all of it. It isn't consistent to say, on the one hand, that certain attitudes are culturally induced, pervasive, a byproduct of patriarchal indoctrination.... and, on the other hand, dismiss them away as "individual" jerkiness. Sexism, misogyny, classism, bigotry, etc., often gets played out in one-on-one encounters. These things need to be excavated, deconstructed, argued not dismissed as individual anomalies.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

But this is precisely what has happened - i.e. performing inclusiveness as if everyone started with a clean slate.

Heart

“Now if you learn philosophy in a given language [gender vs. Feminist theory], that is the language in which you naturally philosophize, not just during the learning period but also, all things being equal, for life. But a language, most assuredly, is not conceptually neutral; syntax and vocabulary are apt to suggest definite modes of conceptualization.... If that philosophy was academically formulated in English [or, gender vs. Feminist theory] and articulated therein, the message was already substantially westernized [both gender and Feminist theory are painfully westernized - it's just that too few of us are willing or brave enough to look at that]….
- Kwasi Wiredu, African Studies Quarterly

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Heart

I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think it is (as you alluded to in another post) a complication inherent in organizing around identity instead of issues or ideology, and especially in organizing around sexual and gender identity in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux.

We need to let of the notion that every single event or grouping has to be for everyone all the time. Maybe the key is in understanding that sometimes it’s not just about shared identity but shared paths or experiences. Being a woman-identified person who was born into a female body is a different experience than being a woman-identified person who was born into a male body. They are different paths to womanhood and each comes with its own (sometimes overlapping and sometimes not) set of challenges and wounds and triumphs.

I don’t think it’s hard for most people to see how transwomen (in this example) might in some circumstances want and need space that is exclusive to those who have that shared experience and path. But it’s a harder leap for some to make that it would be reasonable and valid for the other group of women (for which there is no specific name that I am aware of that neither casts them in an oppressor role nor is offensive to transwomen – but I may just be behind on the lingo) to want and need the same. This is the failure point. This is where the standard conceptual model we use around autonomous organizing breaks down and doesn’t quite fit the situation.

In our standard model, there is a marginalized or oppressed group that exists within a larger group, e.g. lesbians of color in a lesbian organization and then there is the dominant group, e.g. white lesbians. It’s pretty clear in a situation like this when and how autonomous organizing should work. I think the problem stems from trying to apply this exact model to groups of women; it doesn’t quite work. Yes, the cis/trans axis of marginalization exists and is a factor. But it doesn’t negate sexism. The women-who-must-not-be-named still face, in our society, mountains of shit specifically around being women. And the mountains of shit may sometimes be the same or similar as those faced by transwomen but sometimes they will be very different. <<disallowed word>>It is also not unreasonable to think that during the portion of their lives that transwomen were seen as male they absorbed some of the messages of male privilege. There are incredibly powerful and pervasive forces that are brought to bear upon us all from birth, basically. It would be naïve to think they don’t have an impact.

So maybe instead of using that conceptual model of autonomous organizing, we need to use a different one. I know the analogy I’m about to use is profoundly imperfect, it doesn’t fit exactly, and I know that even making these kinds of analogies is tricky at best. It’s simply meant to present a different frame of reference than the one that is typically used in this situation. <<disallowed word>>But what it brings to mind are times when I have seen, within PoC groups, organizing that coalesces around specific racial groups. Because although these groups are all affected by racism, their experiences are different. Being African American is not the same as being Asian American and neither of them is the same as being Native American.

As I said, it’s not a perfect analogy. But my thought is that if we approach these situations differently than we have been, if we can agree that the model we have been trying to use doesn’t fit, then maybe we can see our way clear to occasions of autonomous organizing that don’t feel oppressive or erasing, that don’t rely on policing identity, and that do feel supportive and respectful of our different experiences and paths.