Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Martina]

Originally Posted by Linus

[Posting as a member]

I'm not sure where an association of claiming an identity automatically means that you're against something.

It does not. Of course. Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples.

Let's look at this quote -- from Kobi, whom i did not mean to offend by not using her name.

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.

Who MIGHT be making her feel like a guest in her OWN community? Perhaps someone NOT a "woman who wants to be with other women?" i am guessing. The possibilities of people who choose to ID as lesbian but are not women loving women are somewhat limited. i speculated.

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking. But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Martina

It does not. Of course. Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples.

Let's look at this quote -- from Kobi, whom i did not mean to offend by not using her name.



Who MIGHT be making her feel like a guest in her OWN community? Perhaps someone NOT a "woman who wants to be with other women?" i am guessing. The possibilities of people who choose to ID as lesbian but are not women loving women are somewhat limited. i speculated.

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking. But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

I can't speak for Kobi, but I can say unequivocally that when I use the word 'lesbian' to identify myself I have been met with some hostility from people who, in another time and place, would have certainly been called lesbians, and probably would have called themselves lesbians. In some circles, including b-f communities, calling oneself a lesbian is considered uncool, a relic from former times, and a word associated with people who would choose to oppress those who don't fit into a narrow definition of what it means to be a woman who has sex with and partners with other women. There have been lesbians who claim I can't be one because I'm a stonefemme, because I'm a leatherwoman, and because I partner with butch women. I very powerfully, emphatically, and crankily claim the label LESBIAN because I am one. F.U. to anyone who attempts to tell me otherwise.

There have been plenty of straight POCs who attempt to police the behaviours of LGBT POCs. Some have claimed that gayness is a white disease. Does that make LGBT POCs disavow their connection to their communities? Not usually, and yet that's a common response amongst those who might once have called themselves lesbians. Because some lesbians have attempted to police their (b-f, trans, leather), IDs, they eschew the use of the label. Some of the not-very-bright people who have challenged my lesbian ID have done so because they assume it must mean I'm a transphobe.

The reason I'm hammering this point with you Martina, is that there is not one place in my general definition or in my self ID that has anything to do with males or transphobia. You brought that accusation into the thread spuriously, and you have yet to support the accusation with any quote. You merely assert that feeling defended around the use of this, in my opinion, embattled ID, must have something to do with transphobia. This is inflammatory because in my experience, unsupported accusations of transphobia are sometimes used to shut down conversations about lesbian ID.

I'm a prickly, argumentative person when I get riled up. Attempts to shut me down don't work very well, but others who are not as verbally aggressive as I am will walk away from those conversations where their lesbian ID has been mocked or denigrated feeling disempowered and invalidated. This is the reason why 'Lesbian Pride' is a topic of importance to me. Unless one is foolish enough to personally challenge my ID, there's nothing "dangerous" about this discourse.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

This is inflammatory because in my experience, unsupported accusations of transphobia are sometimes used to shut down conversations about lesbian ID.

i have seen that too. Or about any issue around women. It was not my intent to shut down discussion of lesbian identity or to divert it to a discussion of transphobia. i probably could have made all my points without saying that. i am sure it is part of the mix of motivations for some folks who use this rhetoric because it is explicitly said. Not here. i agree with you.

i am not saying that there aren't many other reasons to experience lesbian ID as challenged. i hate defending myself, but on the dash site, i spent a lot of time and energy trying to end the lesbian bashing that was tolerated for so long there.

In any case, i agree with the moderators that parsing this out is probably the work of another thread.

Re the assumption of lesbian = woman loving woman, i gotta say that on this site, that IS excluding folk. i guess we know that.

[BullDog]

I do agree that the focus of lesbian threads should be on women. However within the context of our community there are also a significant number of lesbians partnered with males/male identified people. I think lesbian needs to be discussed and understood within this broader context. They are women, so the focus is still on women. Also many males/male identified persons do have ties to the lesbian community. It is part of their herstory/history.

[Jess]

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

i have seen that too. Or about any issue around women. It was not my intent to shut down discussion of lesbian identity or to divert it to a discussion of transphobia. i probably could have made all my points without saying that. i am sure it is part of the mix of motivations for some folks who use this rhetoric because it is explicitly said. Not here. i agree with you.

i am not saying that there aren't many other reasons to experience lesbian ID as challenged. i hate defending myself, but on the dash site, i spent a lot of time and energy trying to end the lesbian bashing that was tolerated for so long there.

In any case, i agree with the moderators that parsing this out is probably the work of another thread.

Re the assumption of lesbian = woman loving woman, i gotta say that on this site, that IS excluding folk. i guess we know that.

So, if lesbian does not mean 'woman loving woman' then what does lesbian mean? Does lesbian include an FTM who loves women? Does it include a cisgendered male who loves women? If the term includes the former then why does the term not include the latter? Does it include a cross-dressing man who 'feels like a woman' when convenient but keeps his heterosexual male identity for career purposes? Does it include a homophobic cisgendered heterosexual man who says "I'm a lesbian, we both love women, yuk yuk"? If not, why does it include the FTM but not any of the cisgendered men?

I fear that this construction points us toward "well, if I like what you stand for then your identity is what you say it is but if I don't like what you stand for then your identity isn't what you say it is". It might just be me but I think that kind of stance lives in the same ethical neighborhood as plain old-fashions, down-home bigotry.

Cheers
Aj

[Reader]

SNIP

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I can't speak for Kobi, but I can say unequivocally that when I use the word 'lesbian' to identify myself I have been met with some hostility from people who, in another time and place, would have certainly been called lesbians, and probably would have called themselves lesbians. In some circles, including b-f communities, calling oneself a lesbian is considered uncool, a relic from former times...

SNIP

I could not help but recall the term "Lavender Menace" after reading this.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Martina

It does not. Of course. Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples.

Let's look at this quote -- from Kobi, whom i did not mean to offend by not using her name.



Who MIGHT be making her feel like a guest in her OWN community? Perhaps someone NOT a "woman who wants to be with other women?" i am guessing. The possibilities of people who choose to ID as lesbian but are not women loving women are somewhat limited. i speculated.

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking. But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

"The rheotoric of oppression. Poor me stuff. SOUND like victims."

Wow powerful stuff. Sends a big message. In the midst of what is going on here, it is plain and simple deflection. And, it is further evidence of misogyny, sexism, and homophobia being alive and well in our own community.

Lesbians, like me, have a reason or many reasons to feel the way we do. The danger is in remaining silent thereby being complicit in our own victimization.

There are kids out there, like me. Who will speak for them? Who will be role models for them? Who will help them forge their identities and their pride and their heritage?

I dont have to take away from another or be in opposition to another just to be who I am. But I will be damned if I will stand by silently while other groups are doing it to me.

Funny things those semantics huh?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Martina

....Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples....

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking....

If it's a "normal way of thinking", and research verifies it, what's the problem?

What you're sayng, here, is simply not logical or accurate. It's a false conflation. Defining oneself differently is not oppositional. It does not equate to a disavowal.

If I say: I am me, you are you, that's not disavowing you (or anyone else). It's simply saying You're not me. When did it become NOT okay to say You're not me?

ANSWER: When objectivity (demonstrable fact) caved to subjectivity (feelings), that's when. Yes, some "facts" are proven wrong over time, but proving them wrong never makes feelings facts.

(BTW, there hasn't been even a whiff of anybody disavowing anyone/or group in this thread. It's simply been lesbians saying: As a lesbian I feel marginalized in the community . Yes, that means someone or some group has been doing the marginalizing. That isn't a disavowal - it's a call for reflection.)

Originally Posted by Martina

But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

EXCEPT when straight women ARE, demonstrably, "less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity" as they strive to fit a patriarchal paradigm.

Originally Posted by Martina

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

What, then, are you calling the lesbians in this thread who do feel marginalized? "Dangerous" discoursers???? If so, I'm down with it.

Originally Posted by Kobi

"The rheotoric of oppression. Poor me stuff. SOUND like victims."

Wow powerful stuff. Sends a big message. In the midst of what is going on here, it is plain and simple deflection. And, it is further evidence of misogyny, sexism, and homophobia being alive and well in our own community.

Maybe about the "misogyny, sexism, and homophobia" stuff, maybe.... Then again, maybe it's just post-modern/gender theory hermeneutics. You know, the discourse of it's okay when I do it, you, not so much because everything is relative and subjective until I say it's not.

Really Kobi , ya gotta get down with the post-modern semiotics or you're not going to see the big picture, or be welcome in the big tent.

Originally Posted by Kobi

.....Funny things those semantics huh?

I'll say.

[Kobi]

Per wikipedia:


Semiotics, also called semiotic studies or (in the Saussurean tradition) semiology, is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which, for its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. Semiotics is often divided into three branches:

Semantics: Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata, or meaning
Syntactics: Relations among signs in formal structures
Pragmatics: Relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication.[citation needed] However, some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science. They examine areas belonging also to the natural sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics or zoosemiosis.

Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[1] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences."[2] Charles Morris adds that semantics deals with the relation of signs to their designata and the objects which they may or do denote; and, pragmatics deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, that is, with all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning of signs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

My "wtf does this mean/now I have to figure it out dont I?" chore of the day. Thanks Chazz LOL.

[Chazz]

Sorry, Kobi.

It's just that a misspoken word, a poor turn of phrase, can result in page after page of gender warfare.

My use of the term "Semiotics" was me balancing on one toe as I walked on eggshells. Successful or not, I strive for clarity. I also try and show that words have meaning and that some words are more meaningful than others.