Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Heart

But back to lesbian pride: If you express pride in being a lesbian and/or honor that history/experience, I don't need to take an inventory of who you've slept with or even what your genitals look like to stand with you under the banner of lesbian pride.

Heart

Yes, this....thank you Heart.

I know I've said this here and there in various threads....but I truly, deeply wish that we could all just define ourselves and let everyone else do the same.

I don't need to understand how Julie or Snow or Kobi or Bulldog or Dapper or anyone else here defines themselves in order to respect them and their own definition.

If I choose to call myself lesbian or queer or dyke or femme or bisexual...then I am. I happen to know someone who defined herself as a lesbian for years, even though she was a virgin who had had no intimate relationships with anyone. Is she a lesbian to me? Yes, because she claims it.

I agree that language carries weight and has meaning...but I think we use it too often to fracture and splinter and poke and prod.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by JustJo

If I choose to call myself lesbian or queer or dyke or femme or bisexual...then I am.

Yes, language is important -- which is why I chose the words I did: I will stand with anyone under the banner of lesbian pride -- because pride is about community, as well as individuals, and for me pride doesn't have to be about sameness.

But... I am not ready to agree that anyone is whatever they wish to call themselves. I've thought about this over time... I don't control what others say they are, and I don't police it, but that doesn't mean I see whatever they tell me to see. Someone who has no claim to any Native American Tribe, but decides that they want to call themselves Native American is not identifying, they are appropriating.

Heart

[BullDog]

Thanks to Martina, Julie, Dapper, Heart and others for pointing out that lesbian is as much a cultural, social, spiritual and political orientation and identity as it is sexual orientation.

Lesbian is my sexual orientation. I am also a stone butch and there is zero conflict for me in being a stone butch and lesbian. Lesbian is also very much a part of the social and cultural world that I came of age in. I knew I liked girls from the age of five if not younger. Growing up I heard the terms gay and lesbian. I did not know about queer or terms like female identified butch until I came online- neither one of those terms have much personal meaning to me. They are not a part of my history or culture. However for others those terms do resonate with them on a personal level.

I moved to Santa Cruz, California when I was in my early twenties- which is like Lesbianville, USA (one of them) and was totally immersed in lesbian culture and feminism. Lesbian is very much about my personal history, culture and politics as much as who I am attracted to. Not everyone has that same history or connection that I do. Others have a different connection with the word lesbian. Some may have a more narrower interpretation of what lesbian means than I do. That's ok as long as you don't impose your own personal meaning onto others.

I speak out often about what I see as lesbian bashing, the perpetuation of lesbian stereotypes, and narrow definitions of what lesbian is or can be in butch femme circles. It makes it tough to speak out when some BF lesbians seem to be imposing these same narrow definitions back onto people.

[apretty]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Thanks to Martina, Julie, Dapper, Heart and others for pointing out that lesbian is as much a cultural, social, spiritual and political orientation and identity as it is sexual orientation.

Thanks for reiterating this--My politics have always been lesbian.

I have to say, I want space here and I want space elsewhere and it would be hard to choose where to align myself if I had to make that choice.

(Not to BullDog, specifically) Also, what's with the qualifiers--Why explain that you don't touch vagina but you're still a lesbian? That for me, feels like qualifying your space in *here* and that for me, feels like discomfort.

*I am speaking to the Stonefemmes because if feels like for me, that "stone" is frequently used in threads about ..well, anything and in here, in particularly it seems if not dismantling, at least divisive.

[BullDog]

I think the reason I bring up stone butch and lesbian together is because lesbian sex/sexuality gets very stereotyped in BF land. I always hear Stones saying the reason they are stone is because they aren't lesbian. Kinda bugs me.

Re-reading my post it probably wasn't all that relevant to what I was saying, other than Stone is central to my sexual orientation as is being a lesbian. Also, being a lesbian is more than my sexual orientation.

[Kobi]

Having caught up on the recent posts, there are a few things I want to address.

Bulldog, you asked why I was so disappointed and suggested you didnt understand the intent of this thread.

Lets review. This is what Kobi said way back when:
-----
"When I started this thread, I hoped it would not turn into a debate of terminology, or who owns what words, or who has the current rights to whatever.

I am a freakin lesbian - one of those relic women who wants to be with women who want to be with other women.

I am tired of feeling invisible in my own community. I am tired of feeling like a guest in my own community.

I just wanted a place to be where others like me can get together and say "hey yea we are still here and we are still ok and we still have a voice and we're not going away."

Is that too much to ask?"
--------
So, this was supposed to be a thread by and for female, lesbian, feminists, like me, who identify as that "outdated" concept of a female homosexual who are feeling invisible in their own community.

Is there some part of this that is or was unclear? If you dont identify as this, why is this discussion any of your concern?

I even said, several times, that I did not want this to deteriorate into a discussion on terminology and linguistics. Yet that is exactly what happened.

Several of you have taken issue with what you perceive as a narrow definition of what a lesbian is because you favor a broader more inclusive one. I am sure that a broader view suits your purposes and realities just as my narrower view suits my purposes, my reality, and the purpose of this thread.

I promise not to impose my reality on you and would appreciate if you would stop inflicting yours on me. We are both entitled to our own and neither should be negating the other.

Someone mentioned transphobia in here and I saw red. This discussion is about female, lesbian, feminists for female, lesbian, feminists. It has nothing to do with transpeople. The transpeople here have been nothing but supportive, kind, understanding, and respectful to me as a female, lesbian, feminist.

I wish I could say the same for other women. The biggest weird stuff I see on this thread and even in other lesbian threads, is women taking issue with other women. Women negating other women. Women baiting other women. It is women against women. And, from where I stand, that smacks of misogyny, sexism, and big time homophobia. And that just is not acceptable.

And it is women going after other women, in effect silencing their voices. Take this thread as a prime example. The purpose was clear but folks who didnt fit the id had to come in and turn it into something else. Take the leaping thread and its discussion on BV. Women who hadnt had the need to leap in ages, suddenly develop the need to leap in and effectively stopped the discussion. And when their behavior is pointed out to them, they respond with righteous indignation. Huh?

So, the question begging to be asked, is why are women so threatened by female, lesbian, feminists having serious discussions about issues that affect women, lesbians and feminists? The only reason to consistently and systematically shutdown serious discussions like these is fear. So, what is so threatening that it provokes the need to sabotage other women?

This is the stuff behind the linguistics that really needs to be aired. Serious stuff about females, women, using their voices, being heard, being respected, being seen, being appreciated, being understood, being treated as valuable, contributing members of this community by other women.

There are many regressions occuring out there in the big world. But we cant even begin to address the regressions out there until we deal with the regressions of members of our own community directed at other members of our own community.

And it really irks me, when I see women who take up everyone elses causes, writing pages and pages of support and outrage, finding all kinds of candle vigil pictures, advocating for protests and emails and petitions. And yet when it comes to the causes of other women in this community, all we can do is infighting, rude vulgaries, and negating? That is pretty fucking sad.

And Martina, those are MY words you used. You referred to ME as "this person". Wow, gee, thanks. That makes me feel really visible and validated. And rather than ask me why I felt invisible, you went ahead in an inflammatory way and made assumptions and presumptions. Homophobia and misogyny....the gifts that just keep on giving. I wish I could say I am surprised but I am not. This kind of bullshit has become par for the course. And it is a fine example of the bullshit women do to other women.

I may have a different reality than some of the rest of you. I am very thankful for it. Nothing like being around supportive people who dont have the need or desire to tear anyone else down.

Maybe, someday, it will happen here.

[BullDog]

Well Kobi I am a lesbian, have been for over 30 years. I am a woman attracted to women, so I do fit your definition.

I often feel invisible or disrespected in BF circles as well- it's due to the stereotypes and narrow conceptions of lesbian that get thrown out- no matter who is saying them.

There are quite a number of lesbians that are part of this community who do partner with male identified/male people. They are lesbians as well. They are human beings- not linguistic debate or terminology.

I am happy to discuss my points of interest in a different lesbian thread if this really is so upsetting to you.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Kobi

And it is women going after other women, in effect silencing their voices. Take this thread as a prime example. The purpose was clear but folks who didnt fit the id had to come in and turn it into something else. Take the leaping thread and its discussion on BV. Women who hadnt had the need to leap in ages, suddenly develop the need to leap in and effectively stopped the discussion. And when their behavior is pointed out to them, they respond with righteous indignation. Huh?

Okay, so I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread...but now find that I can't.

Kobi...regarding the part that I put in red....since you're referring to me, among others.

I was not silencing anyone. I was having my own conversation in a thread that does not have a single directed OP. It's an open thread, and has a light-hearted title.

My "righteous indignation" (which it wasn't, by the way)...was at MY being silenced by another member who felt the need to come in and play thread police.

If you feel silenced by others having their own conversation or having fun, then I'm sorry.

I will also honor the fact that you clearly don't want anyone here who doesn't specifically agree with you...and leave.

And, by the way, I'm a lesbian.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Heart

Yes, language is important -- which is why I chose the words I did: I will stand with anyone under the banner of lesbian pride -- because pride is about community, as well as individuals, and for me pride doesn't have to be about sameness.

But... I am not ready to agree that anyone is whatever they wish to call themselves. I've thought about this over time... I don't control what others say they are, and I don't police it, but that doesn't mean I see whatever they tell me to see. Someone who has no claim to any Native American Tribe, but decides that they want to call themselves Native American is not identifying, they are appropriating.

Heart

I have to echo this because, in fact, I think words do have meaning. My oldest friend is a cis-gendered, heterosexual white man. I love Jeff as my brother. If Jeff EVER were to do the "I'm a lesbian too, we both love women, yuk yuk" schtick it would go hard on him. NOT because I think someone must have two X chromosomes to be a lesbian but because him saying that he's a lesbian would stretch the definition of lesbian far beyond its breaking point. He would be appropriating the term and I would take a dim view of that. So while it is emotionally satisfying to say that people are whatever they say they are, not only is that not what we actually mean it would be incoherent if it were!

If it were the case that all one had to do to be, say, black in America would be to say "I'm black" then saying that there are black people would be meaningless. Since I've met you, Heart, I'm going to use you as an example (with the caveat that I KNOW you would never do this). If you were to roll up on me and say "what's up my n---er?!" by way of greeting and then, when I looked at you with my "you might want to explain yourself real quick" look and you discoursed on how you 'identified' as black and therefore you were using the 'n-word' black person to black person, I would probably place you in front of the nearest mirror and ask you to look at the two of us until you'd worked it out. What I *wouldn't* do is just accept that you get to say you are black and know what it is like to be black in America. Now, to be clear, if someone who *is* black comes up and greets me with the n-word it's still not going to go well for them but for completely different reasons. Well, mostly completely different--I find it the height of hypocrisy for us in the black community to use that word with one another while at the same time bristling when a white person uses the word. But that's a different conversation entirely and not one I'm having here.

That said, consistency matters. The next time someone reading this thinks that someone is whatever it is they say they are, imagine the likes of a Rush Limbaugh claiming that he is a lesbian and AS A LESBIAN can speak about what lesbian lives and loves are like. Imagine then that he launches on some virulently homophobic diatribe all under the cover of loving critique of the lesbian community which he claims as his own. Does Rush Limbaugh have any place to talk about lesbian lives, claiming that his identity as a lesbian gives him a place at the table and a voice? I'm sorry but I would have to say that it doesn't. If it does, then 'lesbian' is an empty word signifying absolutely nothing. That is an erasure I am not willing to stand by for nor could I make an argument in favor of standing by for it. If, however, we are going to deny Mr. Limbaugh the right to identify himself as a lesbian because he is a cisgendered, heterosexual male then we need to at least be willing to consider that lesbian might have meaning, that it might form a boundary of sorts, and that just as my wife--who I love dearly--has no claim to a black identify, people who are not within that boundary have no claim to lesbian identity. That doesn't mean that they are bad people or that they have no legitimate identity of their own, simply that for them to claim a lesbian identity is meaningless. And it has to be (or at least should be) based upon something that can be fairly applied instead of "well, of course, Rush Limbaugh has no right because I dislike/disagree with him". That's not a solid enough case.



Cheers
Aj

[Jess]

one of these lesbians ain't like the other one...

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I have to echo this because, in fact, I think words do have meaning. My oldest friend is a cis-gendered, heterosexual white man. I love Jeff as my brother. If Jeff EVER were to do the "I'm a lesbian too, we both love women, yuk yuk" schtick it would go hard on him. NOT because I think someone must have two X chromosomes to be a lesbian but because him saying that he's a lesbian would stretch the definition of lesbian far beyond its breaking point. He would be appropriating the term and I would take a dim view of that. So while it is emotionally satisfying to say that people are whatever they say they are, not only is that not what we actually mean it would be incoherent if it were!

If it were the case that all one had to do to be, say, black in America would be to say "I'm black" then saying that there are black people would be meaningless. Since I've met you, Heart, I'm going to use you as an example (with the caveat that I KNOW you would never do this). If you were to roll up on me and say "what's up my n---er?!" by way of greeting and then, when I looked at you with my "you might want to explain yourself real quick" look and you discoursed on how you 'identified' as black and therefore you were using the 'n-word' black person to black person, I would probably place you in front of the nearest mirror and ask you to look at the two of us until you'd worked it out. What I *wouldn't* do is just accept that you get to say you are black and know what it is like to be black in America. Now, to be clear, if someone who *is* black comes up and greets me with the n-word it's still not going to go well for them but for completely different reasons. Well, mostly completely different--I find it the height of hypocrisy for us in the black community to use that word with one another while at the same time bristling when a white person uses the word. But that's a different conversation entirely and not one I'm having here.

That said, consistency matters. The next time someone reading this thinks that someone is whatever it is they say they are, imagine the likes of a Rush Limbaugh claiming that he is a lesbian and AS A LESBIAN can speak about what lesbian lives and loves are like. Imagine then that he launches on some virulently homophobic diatribe all under the cover of loving critique of the lesbian community which he claims as his own. Does Rush Limbaugh have any place to talk about lesbian lives, claiming that his identity as a lesbian gives him a place at the table and a voice? I'm sorry but I would have to say that it doesn't. If it does, then 'lesbian' is an empty word signifying absolutely nothing. That is an erasure I am not willing to stand by for nor could I make an argument in favor of standing by for it. If, however, we are going to deny Mr. Limbaugh the right to identify himself as a lesbian because he is a cisgendered, heterosexual male then we need to at least be willing to consider that lesbian might have meaning, that it might form a boundary of sorts, and that just as my wife--who I love dearly--has no claim to a black identify, people who are not within that boundary have no claim to lesbian identity. That doesn't mean that they are bad people or that they have no legitimate identity of their own, simply that for them to claim a lesbian identity is meaningless. And it has to be (or at least should be) based upon something that can be fairly applied instead of "well, of course, Rush Limbaugh has no right because I dislike/disagree with him". That's not a solid enough case.



Cheers
Aj

Wow. This is powerful, validating, and illuminating. Thank you.

( I am so psyched. I actually understood this without having to look anything up. )

[Martina]

i agree that ID's have some content, but it's often not what we say it is. .

There is a point at which labels lose meaning, but what we should do, IMO, is to positively describe ourselves, and not try to create a totally coherent, unique, or prescriptive ID. Know that the ID is porous. Think of it as a loose description.

Think of how gay male identity has changed. Even though there is a genetic component, the stylized acts -- i think that is the judith butler term -- that mark gay men change over time. How gay men enact their gay male identity actually changes over time. It's a construct overlaying some basic behaviors not common to all members, some of which are genetically influenced.

You can't even say that much about race. There are no basic behaviors. There is no genetic history that is shared by all people who ID as African American. It may LOOK like it. But it's not there. There is no cultural or class content that is common to all. What is common to all is the experience of racism against African Americans in the U.S. That is not how the ID is understood, of course. We act as if we believe that there is a shared cultural and genetic content even if we know better.

So, yes, we do have to have ID's that are useful and do exclude some people. But it is important to acknowledge that on the level at which they are useful to us, the level of coherence, they are cultural constructs.

And creating coherent identity categories is full of pitfalls. We do it because it's useful and it's how humans think. But we should do it mindfully. We should not define ourselves in opposition to others. And we should not try to create prescriptive identities.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

i agree that ID's have some content, but it's often not what we say it is. .

There is a point at which labels lose meaning, but what we should do, IMO, is to positively describe ourselves, and not try to create a totally coherent, unique, or prescriptive ID. Know that the ID is porous. Think of it as a loose description.

I don't think that ID is all-encompassing--no particularly interesting sociological category you might know about me will give you anything like a complete picture. It won't even give you substantially accurate picture of me.

You can't even say that much about race. There are no basic behaviors. There is no genetic history that is shared by all people who ID as African American. It may LOOK like it. But it's not there. There is no cultural or class content that is common to all. What is common to all is the experience of racism against African Americans in the U.S. That is not how the ID is understood, of course. We act as if we believe that there is a shared cultural and genetic content even if we know better.

Actually, this is only partially accurate. There is now far LESS cultural continuity in the black community than when my parents were born in the first quarter of the last century. That said, I stand by my statement that if my partner--who is only a second generation American, her grandparents having come over in the 30s--were to start claiming that she is black and trying to explain to me how I needed to move through the world as a black woman, based upon her extensive experience, I would take a very dim view of that.
I would even go so far as to say that class is a powerful mitigating factor with racism. What racism looks like to me is *fundamentally* different than what it looks like to my cousin's on my father's side who grew up much poorer than my sister and I.

So, yes, we do have to have ID's that are useful and do exclude some people. But it is important to acknowledge that on the level at which they are useful to us, the level of coherence, they are cultural constructs.

And creating coherent identity categories is full of pitfalls. We do it because it's useful and it's how humans think. But we should do it mindfully. We should not define ourselves in opposition to others. And we should not try to create prescriptive identities.

Let's use my Rush Limbaugh example. Personal distaste for him notwithstanding, why should we be suspicious of Mr. Limbaugh if he were to launch into some diatribe about black lesbians if he were to state, beforehand, that his self-identity is that of a black lesbian and that any critique that he is putting forth is coming from a place of love and concern? This might be me, but I believe that as a black woman, I have room to offer necessary critiques of things happening within the black community that would NOT be welcome coming from someone who was, say, white. Now, if we are not creating prescriptive identities and if we're granting that these are just so many cultural constructs with no objective reality--and I don't think that this buys us what we might believe it does--then why should Mr. Limbaugh's critique NOT carry the same weight as mine since we are both claiming black and lesbian as our arbitrary, culturally constructed identities? Yet, most of us reading this thread would argue that if Mr. Limbaugh offers some critique about blacks or queers, it is more likely to be coming from a racist or homophobic place than if I offer a critique about one or both of those groups?


Cheers
Aj

[Martina]

Great stuff. i would love to continue, but am taking off for the day.

[Apocalipstic]

Being a Lesbian has always been pretty confusing for those of us who do not fit the stereotype.

I would say the same thing for Femme. I am expected to be a certain way and can't live up to all that.

I want to reclaim Lesbian proudly, but Lesbians have never really claimed me, unless I was sleeping with them.

Have I only ever slept with Lesbian identified Women? No.

Do I like pussy? Oh Yeah!!!

Do I fit all the stereotypes? No.

Whats funny is with my straight friends I would say "Hell yeah I am a Lesbian! Out and Proud". Here? I get confused. I have so many things inside me and who I am attracted to is ever evolving. I don't want to feel like I need to be a certain way to be accepted.