Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Slater

I think it is.... 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.

It is more than a complication....

I-identity politics is a claim to a particularistic form of victimization by patriarchy and the redress of same by patriarchy. Seeking acceptance or redress by patriarchy, does not change patriarchy. Nor does it do anything to better the lot of the still oppressed by patriarchy.

I-identity gender politics reinforces the false authenticity of gender constructs - "yours", mine, everyones. It doesn't matter how good or bad, alternatively or faithfully, we perform a construct.... it doesn't matter if we willing or knowingly or not comply with a construct.... it's still a construct authored, more or less, by patriarchy.

As you say, Slater: "....in a DIY era where boundaries and definitions are constantly in flux", what does identity even mean anymore?

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

Coalescing around "shared paths or experiences." and shared oppression, what a novel concept ! (Said ironically, not sarcastically.)

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

Apparently, it is impossible for some to make that leap.

I think the term is "cisgendered woman". A term many lesbians, myself included, find insulting and an erasure of our lived experience under patriarchy. Nonetheless, it's a term that is used constantly. It falsely casts women as privileged (compliance is not privilege), and it inaccurately casts lesbians as gender congruent. Why do that? Really why? And, why use terms that offend many lesbians while arguing against language that offends others? Where is the consistency or ally-ship in that?

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

The "cis/trans axis of marginalization exists" not because of WBW/lesbians, it exists because of patriarchy.

Why is it permissible to call out the patriarchal messages absorbed by some, but not others? ....And before someone chimes in - NO they are not equally called out. In many cases the privileged behaviors of trans. are overlooked, even ignored, because a false (albeit patriarchal) hierarchy of oppression has been erected in the "big tent". This too is a byproduct of I-gender politics.

Originally Posted by Slater

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.

Slater, you may call it "autonomous organizing" - I call it by it's philosophical/post-modern name: Subjective relativism.

Originally Posted by Heart

But that can obscure the fact that as a group men commit the bulk of both public and private violence and oppression. The vast bulk. Men hold the institutional power (like white folks do) and that changes the game when it comes to enacting oppression.

Yes, it does.... It also changes the dialog when some people are more invested in claiming oppression than excavating it within themselves.

Originally Posted by Heart

I too am the mother of a son. He's a decent, thoughtful, respectful young man. I work with numerous feminist male allies. One of the things that makes them allies is that they know they carry male privilege. Without that awareness, they cannot be allies.

I'm the mother of a daughter - a Black African-American/Cuban-Chinese daughter. The straight males friends that I count as some of the best human beings on the planet get it, too. The people who don't get it, but claim to be just like me, are the ones I worry about.