Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Heart

...

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

Heart

Yes, some of my very ambivalent experiences with trans people have been damaging. The individuals were acting as individuals. No one should expect each member of a minority to represent that minority in all their actions. That said, all transwomen have spent at least part of their lives being socialised as male. Aj has written about this eloquently in another thread, but I don't have the patience to find it. She spoke about many small ways in which she was privileged over her sister while growing up because she was a boy. She acknowledges the obvious, which is that she benefitted from this, and probably continues to benefit a bit from that early boost, whether or not she wanted to be a boy. (Apologies for the paraphrase.)

As I wrote previously, my experiences with transwomen who have been socialised as male, who, unlike Aj and my friend A who I mentioned previously, have never questioned their history of privilege, who continue to use male-centric power dynamics they've learned over their lifetimes to gain advantages in personal and business matters, who have always lived by a 'power-over' model rather than a feminist universal empowerment model, are very VERY visible when they enter women's space. Those are the transwomen that make my friend A cringe, and that cause her to fear that she will be judged based on others' bad behaviours.

Denying the reality that some transwomen who haven't questioned their conditioning and socialised behaviours can make other women uncomfortable in what's supposed to be women's space, is painful and erasing for women like myself who rely on women's space for it's relative safety. When I'm told that I must not say the above because it's allegedly transphobic, I hear that my sense of safety is secondary to the safety of people who are acting 'like men'. Their oppression as transpeople is more important than my oppression as a woman, etc.

In real terms that means that when I'm at a women's sex/play party and a crossdressing man exposes his naked dick tied up in a bow, women who know he doesn't belong there don't feel empowered to challenge his invasive presence. That man with all the sensitivity of a tree stump felt emboldened to circumvent my playmates' efforts to shield me from a sight they KNEW I didn't want to see. More than a year later I still think about my anger and feelings of being invaded instead of the lovely scene I was having before Mr. Dick-in-a-bow stuck it in my face. He claimed to be trans. His safety was more important than mine.

...it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces...

We lesbians have the most to lose when we lose women's space. Because issues of trans inclusion have proved difficult, the trend is to dismantle women's space altogether in favor of queer space. Eliminating the language means eliminating the problem, right? Not on my watch.

[Heart]

What you just posted Cheryl is eloquent in the ways it illustrates how we cannot avoid patriarchal history, (built upon racism/sexism/classism), as individuals or as communities, no matter how inclusive and correct we want to be.

I did not ask for help with the person following me around in that space because I feared, a) that I would be seen as transphobic by others, and b) because I questioned myself for having a reaction to her behavior.

In some ways b. is even more insidious than a. It's a classic internalized self-blaming/blame-the-victim reaction women are specifically trained to have, so as to keep accountability off perpetrators. That particular conditioning, as a woman, may not be something I share with my trans sisters who grew up male.

Heart

[Heart]

On the other hand -- the transwomen that I know personally grew up living in fear. They were not socialized as girls, they had access to boy/male privilege, but because of their internal wiring, they knew early that they were "counterfit" and therefore at risk. And they also internalized self-blame, not in the same way as girls, but as "others," as queers, as being different. It's not easy to belong to the privileged class (boys/men), and know that you don't "measure up," especially when you know that the consequences for that can be harsh, (for a large group of transwomen, that translates as rape). This feels important to me, in part because of the work I have done with transwomen survivors.

But. It doesn't mean that one should not be held accountable for their actions. One of the problems with individualizing these issues (i.e. some people are just jerks, there are assholes in every group, etc) is that when someone is called out on their inappropriate behavior, they evoke their status as part of an oppressed group, and then become untouchable. They shift the focus away from their behavior and onto others' behavior as "oppressors." Classic. And dangerous. I see too much of that. And I tend to agree with Cheryl, that women and lesbians stand to lose the most in that game.

What it brings me back to is something I've talked about before -- the importance of coalescing around shared values and goals, rather than just shared identities.

Heart

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.
Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not. Heart

Yes, heartbroken sums it up for me. And an unwillingness to participate in any way with something that matters to me, but just cannot do it any longer. the cost is far too high.

[dreadgeek]

Cheryl:

Up until you posted the other day, I honestly thought I was a minority of one. As it turns out, maybe I'm in a minority of two.

Reading the part about the transwoman who was nude in a woman's space makes me cringe and makes me sad. It also makes me sad that NO ONE can have this conversation without being accused of transphobia. The older I get the more I see that the queer community has tried to have the right ethic but implemented it crudely. The ethic that no one should be judged for what they are has been transmuted into one where no one should be judged BECAUSE of what they are. Here's the difference:

Judged by what you are = Because Aj is a transwoman she is...

Not judged because of what you are =
Someone: "Aj, you know that thing you did that just annoyed me..."
Me: "The only reason you are criticizing me is because I'm..."

Both statements are equally ridiculous. In the first, I stand in simply for some label 'transwoman'. Everything I do is filtered through the lens of 'transwoman' and whatever the speaker thinks of when they use that term.
In the second, no matter how open or friendly the speaker may be, I'll deploy my being trans as a shield.

If I should not be judged harshly because I'm transgendered, then I should not be judged loosely based on that criteria. However, it goes beyond that. That is what I would hope to receive from the spaces I move through. That's only half of the contract. The other half is my behavior.

Yes, I need to be aware of my background. I need to be *especially* aware of my background when the question comes round to issues of space and privilege. I need to be hyper-alert to it and err on the side of caution. It means that feminism and taking feminist ethics seriously is non-optional. I'm going to go so far and say that it is non-optional for transwomen. By non-optional, I mean it two senses; I think that transition is hard. At least it was 20 years ago and I doubt that it is significantly easier today. If one is going to transition successfully then I think one must go into the process with a feminist sensibility. If one doesn't then one is going to be blind to male privilege and will drag it around with one. I am not going to say that there are NO vestiges of male privilege in my life. Certain head starts I receive can't be undone.
That means I have something to keep my eye on, something I need to self-monitor throughout my life.

Now, before anyone says that it shouldn't be that way--I agree. It *shouldn't* be that way. I *shouldn't* have a Y-chromosome. Certainly, I didn't ask for it and if I could give it up and have actually gotten to give birth to my son I would do so in a heartbeat. You could even take my one good eye in the bargain! But I don't get to have everything I want in this life, in the time frame that I want it, delivered in the manner I prefer and in the color I like. I just don't and all the exclamations of 'that's not fair' don't change it.

There are always trade-offs, there are always costs. We can try to pretend that there are not but they will still be there and the longer we pretend that there are no costs, no matter what decision path we follow, the more we spin our wheels in these conversations where people go off feeling that they are being accused of bigotry--sometimes even when they are not.

It isn't in the adjectives, it is a bit in the pronouns, but ultimately it is in how we treat people as individuals and how we take responsibility for ourselves. Part of me wants to apologize, on the part of the transwomen who 'get it' but that is not my apology to make. It has not been my path. I have tried to model the idea and to 'spread the gospel of feminism', if you will forgive the phrase, so that transwomen who are just starting their journey will have an easier time of it and transwomen who have been at it for a while and keep wondering why certain kinds of things keep happening will have some reference for what they might want to consider.

We can debate whether people are less 'harmed' by the use of the termed 'colored' or the use of the term 'people of color' (which, by the way, POC strikes me as 'colored people' met coming the other way, just so you know). Or we can decide that adjective games don't help people, treating people as human beings--full human beings capable of agency--helps people.

Honestly, I'm done with identity politics. I was suspicious of it 20 years ago but thought I lacked both the intellect and education to perhaps understand it in its subtlety. Two decades and a lot of pages and discussions and panels and workshops later, I return to where I started but more confident than ever that my first impression of identity politics was right. This emphasis on identity, this idea that *as a black woman* I have certain rights is the wrong way to achieve a noble goal. If bigotry is saying that *because* I am a black lesbian that I am less deserving of certain rights, responsibilities and opportunities anti-bigotry is NOT stating that *because* I'm a black lesbian I deserve those very things. My rights are my rights as a human being *regardless* of whether I am a member of this or that group. Until we decide that you and me and that woman over there are all entitled to a certain level of civility and, perhaps, maybe even the benefit of the doubt and thus are all required to treat one another civilly we will get nowhere.

Do I have a right to be treated civilly. Yes, I would argue I do. But the price of being treated civilly is treating others civilly as well. My being a black, transgendered lesbian does not exempt me from either.


Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Yes, some of my very ambivalent experiences with trans people have been damaging. The individuals were acting as individuals. No one should expect each member of a minority to represent that minority in all their actions. That said, all transwomen have spent at least part of their lives being socialised as male. Aj has written about this eloquently in another thread, but I don't have the patience to find it. She spoke about many small ways in which she was privileged over her sister while growing up because she was a boy. She acknowledges the obvious, which is that she benefitted from this, and probably continues to benefit a bit from that early boost, whether or not she wanted to be a boy. (Apologies for the paraphrase.)

As I wrote previously, my experiences with transwomen who have been socialised as male, who, unlike Aj and my friend A who I mentioned previously, have never questioned their history of privilege, who continue to use male-centric power dynamics they've learned over their lifetimes to gain advantages in personal and business matters, who have always lived by a 'power-over' model rather than a feminist universal empowerment model, are very VERY visible when they enter women's space. Those are the transwomen that make my friend A cringe, and that cause her to fear that she will be judged based on others' bad behaviours.

Denying the reality that some transwomen who haven't questioned their conditioning and socialised behaviours can make other women uncomfortable in what's supposed to be women's space, is painful and erasing for women like myself who rely on women's space for it's relative safety. When I'm told that I must not say the above because it's allegedly transphobic, I hear that my sense of safety is secondary to the safety of people who are acting 'like men'. Their oppression as transpeople is more important than my oppression as a woman, etc.

In real terms that means that when I'm at a women's sex/play party and a crossdressing man exposes his naked dick tied up in a bow, women who know he doesn't belong there don't feel empowered to challenge his invasive presence. That man with all the sensitivity of a tree stump felt emboldened to circumvent my playmates' efforts to shield me from a sight they KNEW I didn't want to see. More than a year later I still think about my anger and feelings of being invaded instead of the lovely scene I was having before Mr. Dick-in-a-bow stuck it in my face. He claimed to be trans. His safety was more important than mine.

...it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces...

We lesbians have the most to lose when we lose women's space. Because issues of trans inclusion have proved difficult, the trend is to dismantle women's space altogether in favor of queer space. Eliminating the language means eliminating the problem, right? Not on my watch.

[ScandalAndy]

I think I have a lot to learn from all of you here, there are plenty of people who have been fighting these battles long before me.

I still have trouble figuring out how to have a safe space for women while respecting everyone's gender identity. There MUST be a way to do it, but I'll be danged if I can figure it out. I think at the end of the day it will come down to sticking to your guns and repeating that it isn't about excluding, it's about making a safe space, and that the boundaries are there for protection. There will be other events that will not have as stringent of boundaries, but those that are strict should be respected instead of vilified.

Does that sound like othering? Is there a better way to go about delineating what is acceptable in a safe space without being exclusionary? Is there a good way to enforce rules about safe spaces without being vilified as a phobic person?


I think proud lesbians can coexist with proud transpeople. I am proud of my lesbian identity, but I am also proud to be a trans lover and trans ally. All of these things live together in me, so I cannot understand why I am struggling so much to find a way for them to coexist in our community as a whole.

[dreadgeek]

SA:

I think that the way forward has two parts. One part is public--spaces being open to people. The other part is personal--people holding themselves accountable. As a community (and here I'm talking about the queer community) I think we've focused on the former at the detriment to the latter. What I would LIKE to see is that we put some emphasis on the former but that is going to require breaking the spell that we cast on ourselves perhaps a quarter century ago--one manifestation of that spell is this idea that if you are a member of an oppressed group, your moral slate is not just wiped clean but remains forever a tabula rosa. This cannot continue because *until* we break that spell there can be no accountability.

Regardless of one's gender identity one should not be given a free pass. I would go further than that, though--much further. One cannot use one's gender identity (or kink or sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or religion, etc.) as an excuse to abandon feminist ideas. This means that if, for instance, a trans-woman claims that she could never have had male privilege because she never identified as a boy, we call bullshit on it. Because, in fact, OTHER people identified her as a boy and treated her as such. She might have felt survivor's guilt (which is how I experienced it) but she still had the male privilege. It is her task, as a woman *becoming* a woman--and Simone Beauvoir wisely said "one is not born a woman one becomes one--to be vigilant about male privilege. In the same way, trans-men don't get a free pass either. If a trans-man behaves in a way that is sexist, that does not take women seriously or acts in a manner consistent with throwing his male privilege around it simply should not matter whether that person lived everyday before that very day as a woman. What matters is how that person behaves.

Does that mean we cannot understand context? No. It means that in this minefield, there are costs. If we are going to have a community that errs on the side of openness (and I think we should strive for that) then we as individuals are going to have to err on the side of accountability, self-reflection and taking the hard path when called for. What does that look like? It looks like trying to have consistent standards of what is and is not considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other form of bigotry we might care to mention. That means that we abandon this idea that when a trans-man behaves in a sexist manner it isn't really sexism because he's a transman. It means taking the words that the individual in question may have just uttered and putting it in the mouth of some heterosexual white male and then asking the question of how we would take it. IF, as I suspect we would in most cases, we would call that man out on his sexism then we call ALL men out for the same behavior. All men. All men includes trans-men.

Is that fair? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is fair. Is it respectful? Actually, yes, it is in fact MORE respectful than what we've been doing. It is taking trans-men at their word that they are men. When my son was growing up, I tried to explain to him what I meant by 'when you grow up, I want you to be a good man'. One of the components of that was self-reflection and being accountable. I look at my trans-brothers and if I love and support them, I will think that they should be accountable. Why? Because they are men and part of how we designate a man from a boy--at least in the black community--is whether or not he is accountable. The same applies to our trans-sisters and for the same reasons.

I am talking about a very different kind of community than what we've built so far. I don't think we need tear it all down and start from scratch but what we have been bequeathed by our foremothers and forefathers is kind of a fixer-upper of a community. It's pretty, the lawn could use some work, definitely needs some new paint, some roofing, electrical work and it probably wouldn't hurt if we stripped and redid the hardwood floors while we're at it. Heart mentioned a community based less on identity and more on shared values and goals. I think that is a stronger basis upon which to build community and while I'm sure it has pitfalls of its own, it will certainly avoid the pitfalls that have brought us to this place.

What are those values? What are those goals? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Back when I first came out, I recognized a weakness in the queer community. At the time I thought I might either be wrong or I might not have understood. As an older woman now, I realize that my instinct was right. What is that weakness? We lack generational transmission of our values and goals. Growing up as a black child, I was immersed in a set of values, goals and expectations that were handed down to me by my parents who received them from their parents who received them from their parents before them. It was automatic and just happened in a very organic fashion. The queer community, because the vast majority of us come to it in or near adulthood, has not yet developed a mechanism for transmitting those values, goals, expectations and lessons from one generation to another. If we are a community--as opposed to merely a temporary conglomeration of identity groups--then part of what a community does is transmit that which has been learned and that which is necessary.

We have the potential to do this, but first we're going to have to unlearn much that we thought we knew. We will have to break the spell and in doing so, move forward.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I think I have a lot to learn from all of you here, there are plenty of people who have been fighting these battles long before me.

I still have trouble figuring out how to have a safe space for women while respecting everyone's gender identity. There MUST be a way to do it, but I'll be danged if I can figure it out. I think at the end of the day it will come down to sticking to your guns and repeating that it isn't about excluding, it's about making a safe space, and that the boundaries are there for protection. There will be other events that will not have as stringent of boundaries, but those that are strict should be respected instead of vilified.

Does that sound like othering? Is there a better way to go about delineating what is acceptable in a safe space without being exclusionary? Is there a good way to enforce rules about safe spaces without being vilified as a phobic person?


I think proud lesbians can coexist with proud transpeople. I am proud of my lesbian identity, but I am also proud to be a trans lover and trans ally. All of these things live together in me, so I cannot understand why I am struggling so much to find a way for them to coexist in our community as a whole.

[ScandalAndy]

AJ, I like where you're going with this and I agree with you. I want to find a way to turn this back toward the lesbian pride this thread was created for, too, since I consider that one of the values that, while I wasn't raised with it, has become something very important to me. Pride in who I am.

I have an overwhelming sense of right and wrong, and i get very prickly when that feels threatened or another person I interact with tells me it isn't functioning properly according to their beliefs. I want very much to hang on to the values I have, but I also want to be open to the re-examining the principles I built those values on.

I began identifying as bisexual as a way to shield myself from the brunt of the absue in high school, but along the way changed that to identifying as a lesbian. Now I choose to identify as queer, but I still want to hold on to my lesbian identity. Is that contradictory? I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

SA:

I think that the way forward has two parts. One part is public--spaces being open to people. The other part is personal--people holding themselves accountable. As a community (and here I'm talking about the queer community) I think we've focused on the former at the detriment to the latter. What I would LIKE to see is that we put some emphasis on the former but that is going to require breaking the spell that we cast on ourselves perhaps a quarter century ago--one manifestation of that spell is this idea that if you are a member of an oppressed group, your moral slate is not just wiped clean but remains forever a tabula rosa. This cannot continue because *until* we break that spell there can be no accountability.

Regardless of one's gender identity one should not be given a free pass. I would go further than that, though--much further. One cannot use one's gender identity (or kink or sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or religion, etc.) as an excuse to abandon feminist ideas. This means that if, for instance, a trans-woman claims that she could never have had male privilege because she never identified as a boy, we call bullshit on it. Because, in fact, OTHER people identified her as a boy and treated her as such. She might have felt survivor's guilt (which is how I experienced it) but she still had the male privilege. It is her task, as a woman *becoming* a woman--and Simone Beauvoir wisely said "one is not born a woman one becomes one--to be vigilant about male privilege. In the same way, trans-men don't get a free pass either. If a trans-man behaves in a way that is sexist, that does not take women seriously or acts in a manner consistent with throwing his male privilege around it simply should not matter whether that person lived everyday before that very day as a woman. What matters is how that person behaves.

Does that mean we cannot understand context? No. It means that in this minefield, there are costs. If we are going to have a community that errs on the side of openness (and I think we should strive for that) then we as individuals are going to have to err on the side of accountability, self-reflection and taking the hard path when called for. What does that look like? It looks like trying to have consistent standards of what is and is not considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other form of bigotry we might care to mention. That means that we abandon this idea that when a trans-man behaves in a sexist manner it isn't really sexism because he's a transman. It means taking the words that the individual in question may have just uttered and putting it in the mouth of some heterosexual white male and then asking the question of how we would take it. IF, as I suspect we would in most cases, we would call that man out on his sexism then we call ALL men out for the same behavior. All men. All men includes trans-men.

Is that fair? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is fair. Is it respectful? Actually, yes, it is in fact MORE respectful than what we've been doing. It is taking trans-men at their word that they are men. When my son was growing up, I tried to explain to him what I meant by 'when you grow up, I want you to be a good man'. One of the components of that was self-reflection and being accountable. I look at my trans-brothers and if I love and support them, I will think that they should be accountable. Why? Because they are men and part of how we designate a man from a boy--at least in the black community--is whether or not he is accountable. The same applies to our trans-sisters and for the same reasons.

I am talking about a very different kind of community than what we've built so far. I don't think we need tear it all down and start from scratch but what we have been bequeathed by our foremothers and forefathers is kind of a fixer-upper of a community. It's pretty, the lawn could use some work, definitely needs some new paint, some roofing, electrical work and it probably wouldn't hurt if we stripped and redid the hardwood floors while we're at it. Heart mentioned a community based less on identity and more on shared values and goals. I think that is a stronger basis upon which to build community and while I'm sure it has pitfalls of its own, it will certainly avoid the pitfalls that have brought us to this place.

What are those values? What are those goals? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Back when I first came out, I recognized a weakness in the queer community. At the time I thought I might either be wrong or I might not have understood. As an older woman now, I realize that my instinct was right. What is that weakness? We lack generational transmission of our values and goals. Growing up as a black child, I was immersed in a set of values, goals and expectations that were handed down to me by my parents who received them from their parents who received them from their parents before them. It was automatic and just happened in a very organic fashion. The queer community, because the vast majority of us come to it in or near adulthood, has not yet developed a mechanism for transmitting those values, goals, expectations and lessons from one generation to another. If we are a community--as opposed to merely a temporary conglomeration of identity groups--then part of what a community does is transmit that which has been learned and that which is necessary.

We have the potential to do this, but first we're going to have to unlearn much that we thought we knew. We will have to break the spell and in doing so, move forward.

Cheers
Aj

[DapperButch]

I loved your whole post, dreadgeek, especially the part about NO ONE being given a free pass on what we expect in terms of behavior. I do believe that this has been overlooked in our community.

Additionally, I think that you pointing out that it is actually BETTER for the person themselves to be held accountable, is an important point. Being held accountable is how we grow as individuals. How we grow our community into being a healthy place.

(nod to our mods here at the Planet)

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

SA:

The queer community, because the vast majority of us come to it in or near adulthood, has not yet developed a mechanism for transmitting those values, goals, expectations and lessons from one generation to another. If we are a community--as opposed to merely a temporary conglomeration of identity groups--then part of what a community does is transmit that which has been learned and that which is necessary.

Cheers
Aj

The above reminds of how "back in the day", butches and femmes would take on mentoring new members to the community. You hear about the "butch code", where one would not date a friend's ex-girlfriend, for example.

Although I believe that the mentoring of the "baby butches" happened more often by both butches and femmes, I do believe that this was true for some femmes in the community as well (I have read less about this, however).

[Chazz]

I'm not sure how to have a discussion about lesbian pride without discussing issues that drain me of my lesbian pride.

Perhaps I made a mistake in thinking that a thread about lesbian pride was an appropriate place to address that drainage. It is what I had in mind when I was approached by the OP about starting this thread. This thread did evolve out of the thread about BV changing the definition of butches, after all.

It never occurred to me that this was suppose to be a kumbaya retrospective of the not so glorious lesbian/Feminist past. My bad, I guess.... I did anticipate it would be a difficult discussion, but a necessary one for many of the reasons Heart and Cheryl have touched upon in their posts.

The LGBTQ "community" is seething with resentments that foster both transphobia and lesbianphobia. The mostly well intentioned response to those resentments has been denial, kumbayaism, magical thinking, and when all else fails, censorship. That may have perpetuated the "big tent" mythology, but in reality it has not served anyone well. It's fragmented and depoliticized the "community"; it's allowed parallel phobias to fester....

Sequestering ourselves in endogenous (online or off) "communities" and going la, la, la, la, is avoidance - not something to take pride in. Genuine ally-ship is about engaging in a heuristic, facing hard truths and conflict, not wishing, or dear me-ing, them away.

Perhaps it was naive of me to dare addressing these issues, here. I could limit my expenditure of time and energy to communities that reinforce my beliefs. You know, places that are preaching to the already converted. That isn't my understanding of "community" building.

Originally Posted by Heart

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Respectfully Heart, this has always been going on. It's not new to the BV controversy. It's what I've been trying to speak to from my perspective. It's what keeps getting driven underground.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

That's how it go.... However, the merits of a point of view should not turn on who has the weight of numbers on their side (as in the number of people agreeing with them). Nor should the worthiness of a discussion be evaluated prematurely, before issues have been excavated and clarified.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

Wanting ally-ship, solidarity and coalition is good stuff - BUT - those things do not come without sustained effort by people committed to the process. The neoLGBTQ "community" has not made that commitment or investment. Instead, it's fragmented into different camps. When one of us wanders into a different camp and tries to talk about it.... well, you see what happens.

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

It's the things you mention and more.... See the quote below.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

You're welcome, Heart.... As to my adding to "the endless loop of erasure", this kind of characterization holds no meaning for me until AFTER the airing of the issues of a conflict is achieved. Conflict resolution is a process. Skipping steps because they're uncomfortable sabotages the process.

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I've seen the same thing and been illuminated, too.

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Some of it IS individual, but not all of it. It isn't consistent to say, on the one hand, that certain attitudes are culturally induced, pervasive, a byproduct of patriarchal indoctrination.... and, on the other hand, dismiss them away as "individual" jerkiness. Sexism, misogyny, classism, bigotry, etc., often gets played out in one-on-one encounters. These things need to be excavated, deconstructed, argued not dismissed as individual anomalies.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

But this is precisely what has happened - i.e. performing inclusiveness as if everyone started with a clean slate.

Heart

“Now if you learn philosophy in a given language [gender vs. Feminist theory], that is the language in which you naturally philosophize, not just during the learning period but also, all things being equal, for life. But a language, most assuredly, is not conceptually neutral; syntax and vocabulary are apt to suggest definite modes of conceptualization.... If that philosophy was academically formulated in English [or, gender vs. Feminist theory] and articulated therein, the message was already substantially westernized [both gender and Feminist theory are painfully westernized - it's just that too few of us are willing or brave enough to look at that]….
- Kwasi Wiredu, African Studies Quarterly

[Kobi]

I keep reading yesterdays postings over and over. Each time, I see something different in them. They all, in one way or another, speak to me and for me.

In another thread, Aj referred to something which seems very pertinent to this one. She said something like, we need to apply the abstractions/theories to the real life experiences of people who have tried to live by them.

Abstractions have their benefits but they sometimes obscure the real life implications and experiences of those who are trying to apply them. Heart also spoke to how our life experiences and our socializations also affect our current realities and perceptions. It rings so true to me.

I am very thankful to all these women for beginning to identify the elephant(s) in the room. I'm not sure if it is one elephant with many parts or many elephants, each with its own issues. Hard for me to sort out at this point. I have few answers but many many questions.

Personal safety is something, I think, we can all agree is an individual thing and a right of sorts. Safety comprises a lot tho. It means physical, psychological, emotional, identity and more that is just not coming to mind right now. It refers to internal safety, external safety, and the interplay between the two. Complicated stuff. But, who gets to make the decisions about it?

I had an experience I'd like to share that falls in the same kind of categries that have been discussed here about safety. I was on another site not long ago, having a wonderful chat with a transman in his 20's about sports. It was nice even if he was a Yankee fan.

At some point, the conversation went from nice to internal warnings sprouting all over. It became very uncomfortable for me because boundaries were being challenged and crossed. This was posing a dilemma I would rather not have had to deal with.

The process was like this.... if I looked at it with my butch glasses I was both annoyed and amused i.e. I am a lesbian and a butch, what part of these was confusing him? And why?

If I looked at it with my female glasses, I felt threatened and my personal space felt violated. I was also doing that internal dance of what vibe am I giving off that would make him think this was an okay thing to do? Is it me or is it him?

If I used my lesbian glasses, I was thinking things like what kind of messages might this guy be getting and from where to think lesbians are fair game for him? There was a definate sense that he was entitled to do it because he was a transman and that made it different even tho his behavior, to me, was just plain male privilege and attempts to dominate.

His behavior isnt indicative of all transman or even all men. It was an individual thing which just had a lot of implications and reprecussions from where I stood and from the experiences of my life.

From here, the issues became a little more general in my head. How and IF I was going to address this was a problem. Is my establishing boundaries going to be perceived as a phobia or an ism? Is it a phobia or an ism? Have I become so socialized to be mindful of phobias and isms that I really need or have to second guess my gut feelings and initial assessments everytime something potentially conflictual arises? Do we use phobias and isms to correct actual trangressions or are we using them to obscure something else?

In the same arena is woman's space and lesbian space. I am a big advocate for both. Does this make me a separatist or someone looking to exclude or a phobic? Or am I just someone who believes I am entitled to define my space and who all is invited into it and when? Sometimes, it feels like some force outside of me is trying to coerce me into believing I, as a woman and a lesbian, should not feel entitled to my own spaces. Here, to me, is when the abstract and the reality clash big time.

As I said I dont have answers or even suggestions. I am even hesitant to try and define the issue(s) as being indicative of this or that. Seems to me we are just beginning to explore this stuff and the ways in which it affects us. Deciding what it is and where it might come from seems prudent. Recognizing it is a process which is unfolding is paramount. Listening to one another, talking to one another, validating one anothers experience(s) can be nothing other than helpful.

I am just hesitant to rush to potential solutions without better understanding of what is actually happening and why it might be occuring.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

I loved your whole post, dreadgeek, especially the part about NO ONE being given a free pass on what we expect in terms of behavior. I do believe that this has been overlooked in our community.

Additionally, I think that you pointing out that it is actually BETTER for the person themselves to be held accountable, is an important point. Being held accountable is how we grow as individuals. How we grow our community into being a healthy place.

(nod to our mods here at the Planet)



The above reminds of how "back in the day", butches and femmes would take on mentoring new members to the community. You hear about the "butch code", where one would not date a friend's ex-girlfriend, for example.

Although I believe that the mentoring of the "baby butches" happened more often by both butches and femmes, I do believe that this was true for some femmes in the community as well (I have read less about this, however).

This was what I was thinking of when I wrote that post. There was once a time when an older butch would feel comfortable taking a younger butch under her wing and saying "listen to me, young pup, you got the swagger, you got the attitude, you got the recognition nod down pat but there's more to being a butch than just that. I've been around the block so stick with me, kid, because someone has to give you this teaching and those of us in the life are the only ones who give enough of a damn about you to do it". I would like to see us return to that idea.

When I first came out, there was a group of women who had a D&D group that met every Friday. For three years, we got together, broke bread and rolled dice and generally geeked out. Those women taught me so much. When I needed a shoulder and advice, one of them was there for me. When I needed a kick in the ass, one of them was there for that as well. They routinely said things to me that would, today, have them excoriated for being ---ist or --phobic. Yet, that wasn't the place they were operating out of. They were operating out of a sense of love, tenderness and a sense that as older, wiser lesbians they had a responsibility to help me find my way in the world as an adult, queer woman.

To me, that WAS community and it was as strong a sense of community as I'd had sense leaving home.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

I read about these communities but haven't experienced one. While I was in college a group of butches who were seniors did attempt to recreate that by having Sunday potluck dinners and inviting all us young bucks over. Unfortunately they were all fighting over the same femme, who took me aside and patiently explained to me that while i looked great in drag, I wasn't actually a butch. It fell apart after a while because their libido got in the way of the drive for community, and i ended up just as lost and confused as when I got there, albeit with a new wardrobe.


Why don't these things exist anymore? Is this online community the only place where I can find something like that? Am I supposed to be mentoring the young queers? Who is going to mentor me? I have lots of questions!

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This was what I was thinking of when I wrote that post. There was once a time when an older butch would feel comfortable taking a younger butch under her wing and saying "listen to me, young pup, you got the swagger, you got the attitude, you got the recognition nod down pat but there's more to being a butch than just that. I've been around the block so stick with me, kid, because someone has to give you this teaching and those of us in the life are the only ones who give enough of a damn about you to do it". I would like to see us return to that idea.

When I first came out, there was a group of women who had a D&D group that met every Friday. For three years, we got together, broke bread and rolled dice and generally geeked out. Those women taught me so much. When I needed a shoulder and advice, one of them was there for me. When I needed a kick in the ass, one of them was there for that as well. They routinely said things to me that would, today, have them excoriated for being ---ist or --phobic. Yet, that wasn't the place they were operating out of. They were operating out of a sense of love, tenderness and a sense that as older, wiser lesbians they had a responsibility to help me find my way in the world as an adult, queer woman.

To me, that WAS community and it was as strong a sense of community as I'd had sense leaving home.

Cheers
Aj

[BullDog]

I think we value individualism (with lack of accountability) over community far too much. It is all well in good to have freedom of expression to identify in way(s) that we feel suit us. However, the isms we face are value and institutionally based. The strength of feminism is the critique and deconstruction of these values and structural inequities. I am not sure some of the gender theories that seem to be in vogue now speak to this.

I can't stand being talked down to by men. I can't stand it when men take up too much space. I can't stand when men feel all knowing about women's experiences. This is what I face as a woman out in the world. I also feel that I face it here at times. I believe in listening to our youth, but I also believe in respecting one's elders and that years and years of life experience do account for something- particularly when it comes to being part of specific communities and social circles. When this happens to me in this community and I voice these frustrations I am charged with being transphobic and/or anti-youth. Where is the accountability for being a male in a predominantly female community? I take transmen seriously as men. I speak out time and time again against transphobia. When I do that I am praised and get lots of reps. When I speak out as a lesbian or butch woman the response is much more mixed or non existent.

I went to bed last night feeling that it isn't possible for me to speak as a butch woman without being accused of being transphobic and/or racist and not being willing to be part of the "big tent." I feel the message over and over again is that I must accommodate and be subsumed under the big tent all for a greater cause. My identity is no more important than any other, but I feel at times that we asked to sacrifice far more for the "greater good." It leaves me feeling frustrated and empty. Perhaps the solution, as some have said, is to get away from identity and back to values. It's just that I already feel I am being redefined on others' terms and being asked to go quietly into the night. Today I woke up feeling a bit better, so who knows.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

[COLOR="Navy"]

I keep reading yesterdays postings over and over. Each time, I see something different in them. They all, in one way or another, speak to me and for me.

In another thread, Aj referred to something which seems very pertinent to this one. She said something like, we need to apply the abstractions/theories to the real life experiences of people who have tried to live by them.

Abstractions have their benefits but they sometimes obscure the real life implications and experiences of those who are trying to apply them. Heart also spoke to how our life experiences and our socializations also affect our current realities and perceptions. It rings so true to me.

Yes, we have to do that hard work because all our theories about gender or how society might be organized in a different manner ultimately will effect the lives of people. Not idealized human beings but actual people--who are a mixed bag on a really good day. We need to take all of the assumptions that have become part of our language and way of thinking about identity and space and community and ask can they stand up under their own weight. I do not think that gender theory--as currently formulated--passes that test.

It doesn't because it gives cover to some rather misogynistic behavior coming from within the queer community that would never be tolerated if it were coming from a cisgendered heterosexual men from outside of the community. Never. If we would call for the head of a cisgendered man should he behave in manner X then we cannot make any argument that lets a transgendered man off the hook for the same behavior.

I've always felt that true in my bones but one day I had an epiphany that told me I needed to be vigilant because the 'identity = victim and victim = blameless' equation led me to this. It was the 2008 election, near the end-game and I made an off-hand comment about 'crackers'. My wife, who is white, turned on me and said "really? Crackers? Really?" And in that moment I realized what I had done wrong. I used a racial slur. I spoke *as a racist would speak*. If my wife could not use racial slurs, then neither could I. I did not earn the right to use racial slurs because my parents couldn't vote until they were forty-five. I could not justify using racial slurs for the years ancestors of mine were held in bondage. I had no excuse. I apologized, she forgave me but I held myself accountable for that. Since then, I hope that I have never again used a slur like cracker. I don't believe that I have.

I'm not holding myself up as a paragon of accountability but I offer that anecdote as an example of consistency even when it is hard. ESPECIALLY when it is hard. It would have been easier to mumble some words about how, as a black woman, I can't be racist because I don't have power but neither my wife or I would really believe that. We would both be engaging in an illusion. If I would ask for the head of any white person who used the 'n-word' in my presence, then I have no business calling people crackers (unless I am using it in the old-school sense that hackers would use to separate themselves from those who hacked for crime as opposed to those who hacked for curiosity).

THAT ethic I can defend and I can do so robustly because I'm perfectly happy to have that rule applied universally--I won't use racial slur X, if you don't use racial slur Y because using racial slurs is wrong. Wrong for you, wrong for me, wrong for people not yet born.

How much of the ethics of our community can stand under its own weight? Can "I'm a <fill in list of oppressed group membership here> and therefore I should be held to a lighter standard than others" stand on its own? No, it can't. The incidents that several women have shared with us--uncomfortable as that must have been and I thank you, sisters, for doing so--show the *inherent* weakness of the dominant ideology of the queer community of the last two decades. That ideology is if you are oppressed you are a victim and if you are a victim, you are *incapable* of moral blemish. It falls apart under the weight of a person with a penis whipping it out in a women's play space and making all the other women there uncomfortable. It breeds resentment and, quite honestly, makes it harder on women like Cheryl's friend A or myself because WE are seen in that same light.

The trans-woman in Cheryl's anecdote should have been escorted out. It would have been ideal if some older (meaning been on the path longer) transwoman should have, forgive the term, boxed that woman's ears (metaphorically of course) and said "what the HELL were you thinking?! You are invited in, you are given a seat in the room and then you piss all over the carpet? What the hell kind of woman are you trying to be?" At that point, it's on the woman who took the action to ask herself "was that feminist?" or "can I defend that same action if I were a cisgendered woman?" But we haven't given her a language to ask those questions in and we have, even worse, told her that for anyone--ANYONE--to raise the issue is for her to be victimized. The women in that space, who were *also* victimized, were lost in the shuffle. That is how they are paid for being open, inclusive and welcoming? Does anyone here think the organizers would be willing to be so open the next time? I don't. They would be entirely within their rights to NOT be welcoming.

Again, that is not about a transgendered woman being in a lesbian play space. It is about a transgendered woman behaving in a manner indicative of her not having sufficiently questioned the ways in which male privilege operates. The only OTHER reading is that the person DID question, came up with the answer that was comfortable for them which was that they would be damned if they were giving it up. Ignorance or not giving a damn, take your pick but those are pretty much the only ways that situation came to pass. Neither one is pretty and neither one recommends the dominant ideology that has held the queer community in thrall almost all the days I've been out.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

Does anyone with better forum skills than I want to do me a solid and link the "Rethinking Queer Community" thread here to redirect traffic?


I'm busy standing in the road waving my pride flag like a fool and overflowing with loving thoughts for all of you.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Heart

I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think it is (as you alluded to in another post) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dude]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

SA:

Regardless of one's gender identity one should not be given a free pass. I would go further than that, though--much further. One cannot use one's gender identity (or kink or sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or religion, etc.) as an excuse to abandon feminist ideas. This means that if, for instance, a trans-woman claims that she could never have had male privilege because she never identified as a boy, we call bullshit on it. Because, in fact, OTHER people identified her as a boy and treated her as such. She might have felt survivor's guilt (which is how I experienced it) but she still had the male privilege. It is her task, as a woman *becoming* a woman--and Simone Beauvoir wisely said "one is not born a woman one becomes one--to be vigilant about male privilege. In the same way, trans-men don't get a free pass either. If a trans-man behaves in a way that is sexist, that does not take women seriously or acts in a manner consistent with throwing his male privilege around it simply should not matter whether that person lived everyday before that very day as a woman. What matters is how that person behaves.

Does that mean we cannot understand context? No. It means that in this minefield, there are costs. If we are going to have a community that errs on the side of openness (and I think we should strive for that) then we as individuals are going to have to err on the side of accountability, self-reflection and taking the hard path when called for. What does that look like? It looks like trying to have consistent standards of what is and is not considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other form of bigotry we might care to mention. That means that we abandon this idea that when a trans-man behaves in a sexist manner it isn't really sexism because he's a transman. It means taking the words that the individual in question may have just uttered and putting it in the mouth of some heterosexual white male and then asking the question of how we would take it. IF, as I suspect we would in most cases, we would call that man out on his sexism then we call ALL men out for the same behavior. All men. All men includes trans-men.

Is that fair? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is fair. Is it respectful? Actually, yes, it is in fact MORE respectful than what we've been doing. It is taking trans-men at their word that they are men. When my son was growing up, I tried to explain to him what I meant by 'when you grow up, I want you to be a good man'. One of the components of that was self-reflection and being accountable. I look at my trans-brothers and if I love and support them, I will think that they should be accountable. Why? Because they are men and part of how we designate a man from a boy--at least in the black community--is whether or not he is accountable. The same applies to our trans-sisters and for the same reasons.

Cheers
Aj

I loved your entire post and hated to snip out any of it but did, so I could focus on what I wanted to post.
In my 20's I had the very good fortune of knowing long term, butch femme couples in their 40's and 50's who I very much looked up to. They had what I wanted and I paid attention. The Butch's were never sexist ( or frat boyish) in their behaviour and always treated their femme partners with respect.

Fast forward to online things that I have witnessed.
Butch's, Tg's ,Ftm's (and other id's I may have left out) behaving badly and being excused ,coddled and many times encouraged by femme's to continue
their sexist behaviour.

I remember seeing a post recently by an Ftm who denied having any male privilege and wonder how that computes in their mind. I chose to go off on my grumbly way and think about it rather than try to respond. Sometimes
it's exhausting to get involved in any of these gender community conversations. Accountability can also be exhausting on a daily basis and
maybe that's why some people choose to not delve too deeply..


I work with a transman who shared with me that the hr woman at work reported him for touching her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable.
He is a touchy guy and touched me prematurely as far as chums go too, so
she may very well have had a valid complaint that was not a personal beef at all about him being a transman.(but a man rubbing her shoulder and neck, much like he did mine)
If you are seen as male there is a lot of accountability that needs to go with that in this world.

Again, I thank you for your post ,AJ.

Off to work on my own fixer upper and try to make it feel
like mine again.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by June

I don't think it's contradictory at all. When we "out" ourselves as Femmes to co-workers, family and friends, we, or at least I do not say "I'm a Queer Femme" because most people in the heterosexual world don't have a clue what that means. Usually, it's more subtle than that, I make a reference to my partner, which leads them to the conclusion that I am a Lesbian. When you get right down to it, that's what I am. I am in a Lesbian relationship.

I am proud of many things in my life, being a mother is foremost followed by being able to create and maintain long-term relationships of both the friend and lover types. I am not necessarily "Proud" of being a Lesbian, it is simply, or perhaps intricately, part of who I am.

What I am proud of, is to be part of a community that has historically done a lot of the really hard work in building networks of Social Services aimed at making the lives of others better. Increasingly now, we are being joined by men who have been raised with a more evolved social consciousness. I see this as forward movement in the evolution of us as a Human Species, and not as interloping, as some do. It is better to work together, we get more done.

I have worked alongside some amazing, dynamic women over the course of my life. I have also been appalled at the behavior of some women in positions of leadership. Being a Lesbian does not automatically attach a halo to your noggin. We're all still bound by the personal narratives and lived experiences that make us operate in certain ways, both good and bad.

I do believe that women can make better, more compassionate leaders in general, even though it may take longer to achieve the desired goals because of the more thoughtful processes we tend to have. "How are you feeling about that?" - "How does it work for you?" more often than "We're doing it this way", although that also has its place in the process.

I keep reading fear from a few of you that I don't understand. If you are living your life as a Lesbian, however you define that, how can you be erased? How does someone else living their lives in the way they choose negate your own? What exactly is it you're fighting for?

I don't feel the need to carve my space out of anyone elses flesh. I am not threatened by anyone elses identity. (I spoke about one of my personal processes in the Gatekeeping thread).

With that said, I do understand that Butch Women are feeling under-represented and pushed aside by the false masculine hierarchy that is present in our community, but don't we share that struggle as Lesbians? Don't you see me and many, many others standing up to say "Woman/Female is not less than you bastards!" -- Okay, sometimes we're more subtle than that.

It feels sometimes that those of us whose idea of community is more inclusive ARE seen as traitors by some, as though we have abandoned our Lesbian and feminist roots and have actually become "Tools of the Patriarchy". I see this much differently. Just as I want to be accepted for all the facets of who I am, in order for me to be whole, I have to extend that to others. Everyone gets judged on their own merits as a human being first, their sexual orientation and gender are secondary to me.

June,

I have spent the better part of 2 hours trying to figure out why this post bothered me so much. I think I have it now tho I am not sure I can get my point across here.

You came into a discussion where folks are trying to, little by little, speak to the things which are problematic for us. And, it does have to be done little by little cuz we go forward a step and then have to address our right to have feelings and experiences and why we need to speak to them again and again and again.

It bothered me to see a post where you readily admit this isnt a problem for you, the abstract works in your reality, you have had both good and bad experiences with women in different capacities, and only apparently good ones with men "who were raised with a more evolved social consciousness."

I dont know what your intent was here but to me, this said, I am dismissing the concerns others have raised because it isnt my reality.

I have a hard time believing if a POC or a transperson came into a thread talking about difficult experiences they were encountering, that the response would be - well that isnt my experience. My experience is x,y,z and as a matter of fact I have had awesome experiences with white people who "were raised with a more evolved social consciousness".

Can you really picture yourself saying that to a POC? Do you really believe saying this to a POC is going to make them feel heard, understood, validated, and as an accepted member of this diverse community? If you wouldnt do this to a POC, why is it ok to do it to other women and lesbians? What message do you think this sends versus the message you meant to send? Or maybe this was the message you meant to send.

And after you got finished with telling us of your experiences and what works for you, and how you expect is should or could work for everyone else, THEN you ask questions? Felt to me like you were already saying , 'I have told you I am not buying this but I will give you the opportunity to convince me'. That really stung. Again, I doubt this is the approach that would be taken if it was a POC or a transperson. But, it is the approach you chose to take with women and lesbians.

You are asking good questions tho. We have begun to answer exactly what you asked. You hearing it or being open to hear it, is another matter altogether.

In another thread, the question was asked why is it when a woman says something, it will go unnoticed. But if a man comes along and says the exact same thing, there is a totally different response? Something to think about. And I believe the person who asked was Aj.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Does anyone with better forum skills than I want to do me a solid and link the "Rethinking Queer Community" thread here to redirect traffic?

http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/foru...ead.php?t=3734