Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[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.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think anyone here fits any particular stereotype nor do I think one needs to fit them in order to have a place within a community. I don't fit the stereotype of either a lesbian or a black lesbian. Yet, I claim lesbian as part of my identity. This discussion illustrates the problem with identity politics. In fact, it illustrates both problems with IdPol and why I would love to see the queer community abandon it. the first problem is that identity politics, whatever utility it might have, is an invitation to a kind of hair-splitting, micro-parsing of language that obfuscates more than it illuminates. What I'm seeing happen now is that *because* identity has been used to exclude, we've decided that now identity (labels) are the problem. The issue, of course, is that we don't really abandon labels or qualifying our views based upon this or that sociological category. So in pursuit of not being boxed in by labels we've gone the other direction. It's not just 'lesbian doesn't encompass me' (if that is the stance one is taking) but "as a fat-positive, female-identified, black, butch geekgirl, I find labels restricting so I reject <insert label I've decided I don't want applied to me here>." The problem with this is that it is incoherent as I've tried to point out. If our identities are so fluid that anyone can assert any identity they wish and everyone else is obliged to simply go with it out of a misguided sense of 'respect' then we have no basis for claiming that Rush Limbaugh has no business critiquing this or that aspect of black American life--unless we're going to just drop all pretense to fairness and admit that identity is fluid and self-claiming unless, of course, the person claiming an identity is someone we dislike or disagree with or otherwise find disagreeable. If we're going to do that--and to take the strong form of 'your identity is what you say it is' you pretty much have to--then we should at least be willing to be honest that our position is just as bigoted as that which we rail against with all justification. Anything else pretty much falls apart of its own weight.

The second problem with identity politics is that it invites us to engage in oppression Olympics. By that I mean that if Heart and I disagree whichever one of us hits the "you're being oppressive" button fastest wins the argument. For not-entirely-bad reasons, four or five decades ago, the idea was put forth that if a white man and a black man were talking about race in America, fair-minded listeners could prove their fair-mindedness by giving more weight to the black man than the white man. The downside--the unintended consequence--is that now whichever speaker gets to "you're the oppressor" first wins the argument. It doesn't matter if their actual argument is so full of holes that Swiss cheese looks like a block of granite in comparison, if I get there first then you lose. So even in this discussion, we see a jockeying to determine which group is being oppressed. We are all so concerned about being labeled the oppressor that we--as a community--have avoided conversations that, quite honestly, have needed to be brought out into the open for the better part of a decade.

A number of lesbians--on a site named Butch Femme Planet, mind you--have expressed feeling like outsiders or strangers in their own community. When a butch lesbian, on a site ostensibly about building community around butch and femme identity--feels like an outsider or a stranger in her own land, then we should all probably stop and take notice. It means that somehow, in some way, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. Like some other women-identified butches have expressed, I feel like a stranger in my own land. As I've put it to my wife on a number of occasions, I feel like woman-identified butches are viewed as children of a lesser goddess. Yet to say so is to invite accusations of transphobia--even though such an accusation would be, in my case, patently ludicrous.

I do not have a solution for this, I'm simply trying to point out the uncomfortable dynamics at work.

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I don't think anyone here fits any particular stereotype nor do I think one needs to fit them in order to have a place within a community. I don't fit the stereotype of either a lesbian or a black lesbian. Yet, I claim lesbian as part of my identity. This discussion illustrates the problem with identity politics. In fact, it illustrates both problems with IdPol and why I would love to see the queer community abandon it. the first problem is that identity politics, whatever utility it might have, is an invitation to a kind of hair-splitting, micro-parsing of language that obfuscates more than it illuminates. What I'm seeing happen now is that *because* identity has been used to exclude, we've decided that now identity (labels) are the problem. The issue, of course, is that we don't really abandon labels or qualifying our views based upon this or that sociological category. So in pursuit of not being boxed in by labels we've gone the other direction. It's not just 'lesbian doesn't encompass me' (if that is the stance one is taking) but "as a fat-positive, female-identified, black, butch geekgirl, I find labels restricting so I reject <insert label I've decided I don't want applied to me here>." The problem with this is that it is incoherent as I've tried to point out. If our identities are so fluid that anyone can assert any identity they wish and everyone else is obliged to simply go with it out of a misguided sense of 'respect' then we have no basis for claiming that Rush Limbaugh has no business critiquing this or that aspect of black American life--unless we're going to just drop all pretense to fairness and admit that identity is fluid and self-claiming unless, of course, the person claiming an identity is someone we dislike or disagree with or otherwise find disagreeable. If we're going to do that--and to take the strong form of 'your identity is what you say it is' you pretty much have to--then we should at least be willing to be honest that our position is just as bigoted as that which we rail against with all justification. Anything else pretty much falls apart of its own weight.

The second problem with identity politics is that it invites us to engage in oppression Olympics. By that I mean that if Heart and I disagree whichever one of us hits the "you're being oppressive" button fastest wins the argument. For not-entirely-bad reasons, four or five decades ago, the idea was put forth that if a white man and a black man were talking about race in America, fair-minded listeners could prove their fair-mindedness by giving more weight to the black man than the white man. The downside--the unintended consequence--is that now whichever speaker gets to "you're the oppressor" first wins the argument. It doesn't matter if their actual argument is so full of holes that Swiss cheese looks like a block of granite in comparison, if I get there first then you lose. So even in this discussion, we see a jockeying to determine which group is being oppressed. We are all so concerned about being labeled the oppressor that we--as a community--have avoided conversations that, quite honestly, have needed to be brought out into the open for the better part of a decade.

A number of lesbians--on a site named Butch Femme Planet, mind you--have expressed feeling like outsiders or strangers in their own community. When a butch lesbian, on a site ostensibly about building community around butch and femme identity--feels like an outsider or a stranger in her own land, then we should all probably stop and take notice. It means that somehow, in some way, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. Like some other women-identified butches have expressed, I feel like a stranger in my own land. As I've put it to my wife on a number of occasions, I feel like woman-identified butches are viewed as children of a lesser goddess. Yet to say so is to invite accusations of transphobia--even though such an accusation would be, in my case, patently ludicrous.

I do not have a solution for this, I'm simply trying to point out the uncomfortable dynamics at work.

Cheers
Aj

Thank you for answering. I get what you are saying.

Maybe having these discussions makes us feel left out. For myself, maybe I am a bit bitter from all the discussions and expectations over the years.

My question here is....why are we only upset that Butch Lesbians don't feel accepted of like they have a place? I agree 100% its been a problem for a long time (maybe always) and I am not trying to play Opression Olympics.

I want to feel proud.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by 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.

There are stereotypes about every ethnic, racial, cultural and sexual ID. Most are untrue, and some of those stereotypes exist in opposition to other, equally well known stereotypes. For instance, Jewish people have often been stereotyped as cheap skinflints. Conversely, Jewish people are also stereotyped as giving large sums of money to causes important to them. Are either or neither of these things true? Are either of these stereotypes more true of Jews than of any other minority? Most importantly, do Jews regularly disavow their heritage if they don't fit into known stereotypes?

Why is it so easy for us to say, 'Well I/she/they can't be lesbian because I/she/they don't wear flannel and Birkenstocks/hate men/ride a motorcycle to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, etc.? (Full disclosure- I've never owned Birkenstocks, but I have once ridden my motorcycle to Mich-fest. It was the year that the Seps tried to oust the Leatherdykes, but that's another post.) Why do we allow others to define this essential part of who we are based on a collection of stereotypes which may or may not be outdated and irrelevant? Is there some perfect andro-lesbian with an, ummm, magic wand, running around conferring twoo lesbian status on the anointed few who fit every stereotype?

Of the lesbians in my circles who are not b-f or leatherdykes, each and every one of them still fail to conform to the perfect lesbian stereotype in at least one way. Do they also have to question whether they're a twoo lesbian? And why do we care whether or not another lesbian thinks we're lesbian enough anyway?

Why are we, seemingly alone amongst all the other minorities, so ready to throw each other and ourselves out of the lesbian club? These questions have been bothering me for the 28 or more years that I've been an out lesbian.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

There are stereotypes about every ethnic, racial, cultural and sexual ID. Most are untrue, and some of those stereotypes exist in opposition to other, equally well known stereotypes. For instance, Jewish people have often been stereotyped as cheap skinflints. Conversely, Jewish people are also stereotyped as giving large sums of money to causes important to them. Are either or neither of these things true? Are either of these stereotypes more true of Jews than of any other minority? Most importantly, do Jews regularly disavow their heritage if they don't fit into known stereotypes?

Why is it so easy for us to say, 'Well I/she/they can't be lesbian because I/she/they don't wear flannel and Birkenstocks/hate men/ride a motorcycle to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, etc.? (Full disclosure- I've never owned Birkenstocks, but I have once ridden my motorcycle to Mich-fest. It was the year that the Seps tried to oust the Leatherdykes, but that's another post.) Why do we allow others to define this essential part of who we are based on a collection of stereotypes which may or may not be outdated and irrelevant? Is there some perfect andro-lesbian with an, ummm, magic wand, running around conferring twoo lesbian status on the anointed few who fit every stereotype?

Of the lesbians in my circles who are not b-f or leatherdykes, each and every one of them still fail to conform to the perfect lesbian stereotype in at least one way. Do they also have to question whether they're a twoo lesbian? And why do we care whether or not another lesbian thinks we're lesbian enough anyway?

Why are we, seemingly alone amongst all the other minorities, so ready to throw each other and ourselves out of the lesbian club? These questions have been bothering me for the 28 or more years that I've been an out lesbian.

Point taken !!!

I have never fit in and its dumb that I expect to now.

Am I a Lesbian yes. Am I proud I love Women? Hell yes!

ps. I am confused about what we are and are not supposed to be discussing here, so if this is not it it is because I am confused.