Men with boobs.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Heart

I don't think each and every personal story and id necessarily takes precidence over cultural expressions of sexism, misogyny, and homophobia towards butch women. And that's how this reads to me. If nothing else, Nixon's language was careless and dismissive towards masculine women, whether her partner identifies as male or female, (and as far as I know, she ids as female), is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by betenoire

....
And for the record - none of us know how this person self-identifies. There's nothing to indicate that Nixon's lovah identifies as a Butch.

So, I'm going to pick on Bete's comment first, because I like her and because it is part of our relationship that we constantly antagonize one another with delicious malice aforethought. So, in short: CRAP. And to all other posters who said essentially the same thing.

Heart's comment is really the uh, heart of the issue. Regardless of whether one doesn't mind being called a 'short man with boobs', the larger concern is the language (and through it, the thought) that engenders the ongoing belittlement of of masculine WOMEN, because, ya know, it's all RELATIVE to the individual and their own identity.

One's own identity is never (or should never be) the paramount concern in any 'community'. The idea of a community itself implies that its larger than any one individual. As long as we, as a community, continue to use (or condone) language that has the essential power to demean others because we're afraid of being 'judgemental' or similar happy horseshit, we demean the entire community, and consequently, ourselves.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Bob

So, I'm going to pick on Bete's comment first, because I like her and because it is part of our relationship that we constantly antagonize one another with delicious malice aforethought. So, in short: CRAP. And to all other posters who said essentially the same thing.

Heart's comment is really the uh, heart of the issue. Regardless of whether one doesn't mind being called a 'short man with boobs', the larger concern is the language (and through it, the thought) that engenders the ongoing belittlement of of masculine WOMEN, because, ya know, it's all RELATIVE to the individual and their own identity.

One's own identity is never (or should never be) the paramount concern in any 'community'. The idea of a community itself implies that its larger than any one individual. As long as we, as a community, continue to use (or condone) language that has the essential power to demean others because we're afraid of being 'judgemental' or similar happy horseshit, we demean the entire community, and consequently, ourselves.

Thank you Bob!

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Bob

Heart's comment is really the uh, heart of the issue. Regardless of whether one doesn't mind being called a 'short man with boobs', the larger concern is the language (and through it, the thought) that engenders the ongoing belittlement of of masculine WOMEN, because, ya know, it's all RELATIVE to the individual and their own identity.

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

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

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

[BullDog]

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

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

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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

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

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

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

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

[Medusa]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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

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

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

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

Good discussion.

[BullDog]

I am not the one speculating how she identifies.

This is way beyond frustrating for me. Good day.

[Random]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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

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

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

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

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Random

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

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

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

[Random]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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

You think so?

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

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

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

Random..

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

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Random

You think so?

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

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

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

Random..

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

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

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

[Heart]

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

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

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

Heart

[Random]

Originally Posted by Heart

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

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

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

Heart

That's fine..

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

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

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

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

[Random]

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

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

[Bob]

Originally Posted by betenoire

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

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

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

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

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

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Bob

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

Yes. Thank you.

That's my point.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by Bob

One's own identity is never (or should never be) the paramount concern in any 'community'. The idea of a community itself implies that its larger than any one individual. As long as we, as a community, continue to use (or condone) language that has the essential power to demean others because we're afraid of being 'judgemental' or similar happy horseshit, we demean the entire community, and consequently, ourselves.

I disagree wholeheartedly

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

And to which community do they belong?

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

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


Dylan