Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

That's close, but Heart gave a far better explanation.
"Being cisgendered implies alignment with one's assigned gender, and while I was assigned "woman," and do not disagree with that assignment, being gendered as a woman is not a privilege in the context of patriarchy. That is the crux of the argument. Further, being assigned woman and being a lesbian and/or being visibly queer/butch further reduces the privilege of living as one's assigned gender of woman, adding homophobia to the misogyny/sexism that we live with every day.

Living as a woman (queer, straight, etc) is a risk, and the prefix "cis" can feel like it erases that reality by implying that if we are congruent with our gender, then all is well and we can sail forth without concern. That's pretty much a gross erasure of sexism and misogyny."

Calling me cisgendered, meaning that my gender conforms to the gender I'm expected to exhibit, might pass muster in a simplistic way even though I detest the term. Calling any of my butch partners or girlfriends cisgendered is laughable. I may have been a tomboy as a child, but I was never mistaken for a boy. I may have deliberately put myself in unsafe positions by coming out, but my girlfriends never had that luxury. They were out whether or not they would have chosen it. Their presentation and their masculine energy made them targets and kept them from fitting in. They weren't like other girls. They weren't like other women. Many perceive their gender as butch. That's why calling them cisgendered is offensive. It erases butch women.

Heart did such a great job explaining why it erases us as lesbians that there's no need to further elaborate. I really resent that somehow this problematic term has suddenly gained so much currency.

My apologies. I interpret cisgender to mean an individual who does not experience body dysphoria. That is my context. To me, identity along the butch/andro/femme spectrum is a completely different kettle of fish. It isn't my place to dictate how others interpret the term.

I do not intend to sit here and insist one of us is right and one is wrong because i don't think it's that clear cut. Thank you to Heart for explaining your position, thank you to you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

My apologies. I interpret cisgender to mean an individual who does not experience body dysphoria. That is my context. To me, identity along the butch/andro/femme spectrum is a completely different kettle of fish. It isn't my place to dictate how others interpret the term.

I do not intend to sit here and insist one of us is right and one is wrong because i don't think it's that clear cut. Thank you to Heart for explaining your position, thank you to you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1] Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2]

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

SA you seem to be speaking of cissexual, while others are speaking to the definition of cisgender. Not unlike transsexual and transgender.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1] Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2]

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

SA you seem to be speaking of cissexual, while others are speaking to the definition of cisgender. Not unlike transsexual and transgender.

Thank you for pointing that out. I see I was mistaken in my terminology.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I've always known the term to be used in a cissexual way then, when I left the dash site and didn't involve myself in North American gender politics for quite a while. I see it's changed somewhat.

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

I'm sorry... but pardon? I feel like I've grown stupid in the last four years of my life (that's actually true, I do feel that way) but I have no idea how that's supposed to fit very many people. A match between an individual's gender idenitity (so take for example an individual gender - for someone who feels their gender is not described by anyone else and I know a Bucket load of people like that - and the behaviour or role (ok still following) considered appropriate for one's sex. ok at that point I'm lost. considered approriate by whom exactly? My family? my community? my sub-culture? my wider culture? my boss? Which country and what subculture and what community am I in? Jesus you could turn from cis to non-cis in a matter of 15 minutes depending on the people you are standing with. I'm sorry, that too subjective a term for me to really agree with. That would be like considering my gender, femme, to be based on whether my mom and my boss agree it exists as a gender or something absurd like that. and I'm only femme depending on what other people think. In that case, according to my point of view, a lot of trans are actually cisgendered - which seems to have defeated the point of making a word for non-trans people. I'm sorry but I think the term was invented in some kind of subcultural vaccuume.

Good try though. It does bring up the issue of a women's gender(s) being decided by others (if the community decides one is allowed to be a woman or not). Which is extremely degrading and fucked up and happens to a lot of women due to their journeys. So I see the point of trying to achieve a term.

[ScandalAndy]

Hit the nail on the head, love.

I feel I should point out that if we want to bring in the younger generation of queers and activists who are still concerned with equal rights for all, we are going to have to find a way to accept and have dialogue with those who use this word. Not for nothing, four years of gender studies and a minor in the subject, and not once was any terminology other than this used.

Do i still find it imperfect? Sure, but what system of language isn't?

SO how do we get back to being proud of all the members of our community if we disagree with the current language being used/taught?

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

I've always known the term to be used in a cissexual way then, when I left the dash site and didn't involve myself in North American gender politics for quite a while. I see it's changed somewhat.



I'm sorry... but pardon? I feel like I've grown stupid in the last four years of my life (that's actually true, I do feel that way) but I have no idea how that's supposed to fit very many people. A match between an individual's gender idenitity (so take for example an individual gender - for someone who feels their gender is not described by anyone else and I know a Bucket load of people like that - and the behaviour or role (ok still following) considered appropriate for one's sex. ok at that point I'm lost. considered approriate by whom exactly? My family? my community? my sub-culture? my wider culture? my boss? Which country and what subculture and what community am I in? Jesus you could turn from cis to non-cis in a matter of 15 minutes depending on the people you are standing with. I'm sorry, that too subjective a term for me to really agree with. That would be like considering my gender, femme, to be based on whether my mom and my boss agree it exists as a gender or something absurd like that. and I'm only femme depending on what other people think. In that case, according to my point of view, a lot of trans are actually cisgendered - which seems to have defeated the point of making a word for non-trans people. I'm sorry but I think the term was invented in some kind of subcultural vaccuume.

Good try though. It does bring up the issue of a women's gender(s) being decided by others (if the community decides one is allowed to be a woman or not). Which is extremely degrading and fucked up and happens to a lot of women due to their journeys. So I see the point of trying to achieve a term.

[Heart]

And there you have it. "Behavior and role appropriate for one's sex" reeks of patriarchal assumptions.

And as far as body dysmorphia: again, it's impossible to be female in a patriarchal culture and not have body dysmorphia, considering the objectification and violence routinely done to women's bodies.

Odd, how gender-studies terminology has managed to side-step the historical realities of living as a woman (whether born that way or not), in favor of a very narrow focus on trans vs non-trans. I get awfully tired of the rareified Ivory Tower approach to gender and "North American gender politics," as HB so aptly put it.

Women transgress rigid and limited gender definitions all the time in order to survive. I'm not talking just about queers, I'm talking globally, about women. Read the book in my sig line. As for young activists -- the book in my sig line should be required reading.

Heart

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Hit the nail on the head, love.

I feel I should point out that if we want to bring in the younger generation of queers and activists who are still concerned with equal rights for all, we are going to have to find a way to accept and have dialogue with those who use this word. Not for nothing, four years of gender studies and a minor in the subject, and not once was any terminology other than this used.

Do i still find it imperfect? Sure, but what system of language isn't?

SO how do we get back to being proud of all the members of our community if we disagree with the current language being used/taught?

well I see your point but I have to be honest and say that under that definition, cisgendered really means next to nothing to me. it's so other-subjective that I've lost any inclination to bother trying to figure it out. It sounds very othering - as I'm sure the precurser "trans" feels to many women. Perhaps that's the point, to wear a shoe that doesn't really fit to gain perspective. But I'd have no idea how to have a conversation with someone applying cisgendered to me if they had no idea who I was or how I felt about my own gender and all they saw was feminine gender presentation and a female body. they wouldn't know my self concept, nor my gender "role" with my parter, nor how I fuck, nor how I work, nor what pronouns I prefer.

But I'm pretty sure that's how many women feel about the qualifyier "trans" as well. Heart is right, the dichotamy is false and misleading. And frankly I'd have a hard time thinking of when I'd actually use either one in my daily life unless someone told me they self-identified that way. When the fuck do I ever refer to my women friends as trans or cis? never. that's like saying "my butch friend" which to me sounds a bit odd. It's my friend Bill, or Hilary or Seven. I dunno maybe it's only purpose is defining boundaries of inclusion. Like if someone was putting up a dating add. And frankly my local community is lucky enough not to have to use those. Perhaps it's a position of privilege not to have to find further qualifiers.

and yeah, heart, body dysphoria is a pretty awful thing in women - I've had it for YEARS, most of my life. It is different in target than my partner but the pain is quite similar. Learning to live with it has certainly been a challange but being able to claim things without shame has helped, and as I discover more things about myself, the more controllable it gets. It do think it's ultimately about control over one's own body, in the end, in all cases.

And I am interested in that book. Which I oddly never read.

[ScandalAndy]

But Heart, I'm not using it with any consideration of behaviors and roles that are appropriate for one's sex. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks is "appropriate". So what does that make me?

I think it is quite a broad statement you've made regarding dysphoria. Do you not agree that all women, butch/andro/femme/whatever have objectification and violence practiced upon them in some form or another under patriarchal values?

Now, imagine the added burden of feeling the physical body you are contained within does not represent the gender of your mind and thought patterns. Gender dysphoria is a struggle that is added to the experience of trans men and women. Trans women then take on the burden of objectification of and violence against women. Trans men struggle with the scars of that burden and how to address it throughout their transition.

I don't think gender studies is side stepping the reality of living as a woman. It is very much stressed that there is still a deep inequality there. However, that is being taught alongside the assertion that there are multiple gender presentations and identities that deserve to be recognized and supported just as much. This is not a trans. vs. non-trans thing, here. Please do not mistake me as someone who is supportive of a binary system. Cissexual and cisgender ARE being used interchangeably because you can identify with your sex, or you can not, or you can sometimes identify with it. The roles you identify with, the behaviors, the way you dress, walk, act, and talk? Those can change in a heartbeat and are not the same for everyone.

Put me next to my friend C*, we are both femme lesbians. We both like computers, play nerdy games, have long hair, swear by black mascara, enjoy volleyball, have fantasy football teams, and change the oil in our cars. We have similar behaviors which do not clearly fit into any sort of role. We are both women who struggle against the pay difference in our field. We both have complaints about dating. The difference is that she was tormented and fired from her previous job because the name and gender on her birth certificate did not match the name on her resume.

She needs language to describe and validate that struggle, which I have never had to go through. It is not fair for us to deny her that language and invalidate her experience either.

Since I am using cisgender and cissexual interchangeably, I would go so far as to state that butch lesbians could be cis or trans gendered, it is the behaviors they choose for themselves, wardrobe, and introspection that dictate the butch identifier. Only the individual has the right to choose their label, anyone else trying to label is just overstepping their bounds. I do not intend to overstep my bounds and tell someone what word they should use to describe how they identify with their sex. I just attempted to put forth an example of how someone who does not share the same issues with the terminology could use them to describe themselves.

I respect that there are some butches and femmes who vehemently disagree with me. Thank you for your disagreement, you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. We are all correct.

You are correct, women transgress gender restrictions all the time, whether it be out of necessity or inclination. I am happy to applaud my sisters who challenge everything we know about gender and it's so-called boundaries. Without brave women throughout history, we wouldn't have the redefined view of what it means to be a woman today.

Originally Posted by Heart

And there you have it. "Behavior and role appropriate for one's sex" reeks of patriarchal assumptions.

And as far as body dysmorphia: again, it's impossible to be female in a patriarchal culture and not have body dysmorphia, considering the objectification and violence routinely done to women's bodies.

Odd, how gender-studies terminology has managed to side-step the historical realities of living as a woman (whether born that way or not), in favor of a very narrow focus on trans vs non-trans. I get awfully tired of the rareified Ivory Tower approach to gender and "North American gender politics," as HB so aptly put it.

Women transgress rigid and limited gender definitions all the time in order to survive. I'm not talking just about queers, I'm talking globally, about women. Read the book in my sig line. As for young activists -- the book in my sig line should be required reading.

Heart

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

well I see your point but I have to be honest and say that under that definition, cisgendered really means next to nothing to me. it's so other-subjective that I've lost any inclination to bother trying to figure it out. It sounds very othering - as I'm sure the precurser "trans" feels to many women. Perhaps that's the point, to wear a shoe that doesn't really fit to gain perspective. But I'd have no idea how to have a conversation with someone applying cisgendered to me if they had no idea who I was or how I felt about my own gender and all they saw was feminine gender presentation and a female body. they wouldn't know my self concept, nor my gender "role" with my parter, nor how I fuck, nor how I work, nor what pronouns I prefer.

But I'm pretty sure that's how many women feel about the qualifyier "trans" as well. Heart is right, the dichotamy is false and misleading. And frankly I'd have a hard time thinking of when I'd actually use either one in my daily life unless someone told me they self-identified that way. When the fuck do I ever refer to my women friends as trans or cis? never. that's like saying "my butch friend" which to me sounds a bit odd. It's my friend Bill, or Hilary or Seven. I dunno maybe it's only purpose is defining boundaries of inclusion. Like if someone was putting up a dating add. And frankly my local community is lucky enough not to have to use those. Perhaps it's a position of privilege not to have to find further qualifiers.

and yeah, heart, body dysphoria is a pretty awful thing in women - I've had it for YEARS, most of my life. It is different in target than my partner but the pain is quite similar. Learning to live with it has certainly been a challange but being able to claim things without shame has helped, and as I discover more things about myself, the more controllable it gets. It do think it's ultimately about control over one's own body, in the end, in all cases.

And I am interested in that book. Which I oddly never read.

I can see why that definition would not hold very much meaning for you. I think my point is getting lost here, and that is something I am trying very hard to avoid.

I do not think that anyone other than the individual should be identifying anyone other than themselves.

I believe that there are different struggles faced by different individuals that are radically influenced by sex and behavior and physical appearance. I think these experiences need to be shared and we are constantly inventing and adapting language as an imperfect vehicle to help us share these stories and create dialogue, address social injustice, and enact change.

I think you bring up a good point with "boundaries of inclusion". I did not think that my personal boundaries of inclusion could be construed as exclusionary, but upon further examination i see that, under certain interpretations, they could be.


I am glad that you and Heart are bringing up these points, they are important for me to examine. I may not always agree with you both, but I appreciate your willingness to explain where you are coming from and the importance of your point of view as well as mine.

I do not want to put forth the impression that I am not fully aware of the inequality of women in the world. Being a woman still sucks. There are still rules in place to keep women from positions of power, that encourage violence against them, and, ultimately, keep women in subservience and pain. This is terrible behavior and it is wrong. I just don't want to exclude anyone who could be a valuable community member or ally because the way they describe their experience doesn't fit into what we think is okay.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Put me next to my friend C*, we are both femme lesbians. We both like computers, play nerdy games, have long hair, swear by black mascara, enjoy volleyball, have fantasy football teams, and change the oil in our cars. We have similar behaviors which do not clearly fit into any sort of role. We are both women who struggle against the pay difference in our field. We both have complaints about dating. The difference is that she was tormented and fired from her previous job because the name and gender on her birth certificate did not match the name on her resume.

She needs language to describe and validate that struggle, which I have never had to go through. It is not fair for us to deny her that language and invalidate her experience either.

I see your point. I think where my brain was at was the use of trans or cis as applied by others, to others. Cause I've seen a heap of that, especially online. it's a very casual use of a descriptor. I've done it online, though I do make an effort to avoid it as much as possible. If someone self identifies, fab. But just like the "just me's" who ask what the name is for those who don't ID as butch or femme, because having a dichotamy infers only two choices - what is there for those who don't feel cissticks properly? Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. I personally don't think I'd fit into that - femme fits me because for me, it is it's own gender - therefore I can do anything with it and I don't need anything else.

I wouldn't want to remove terms from those who have a home in them. I'm quite attached to mine, so I know the feeling.

I guess I don't really have certain kinds of conversations any more in my flesh life, even though I hang out with mostly genderqueer people of various different shades than I ever did on the west coast. I wonder why that is. I never ask people how they define any more, I honestly don't care. However if they want to talk to me about it, I'm perfectly happy listening. I'm happy talking about all kinds of ID they have in regards to sexuality (pan, bi, lezz, heteroflexible wotever...) or gender, but I only really debate it much when I come *here* to this sight. Not that it's a bad thing, but slowly, it's getting more and more foreign, I think.

I dunno perhaps my brain just stalled about five years ago and the damp has set in.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

I see your point. I think where my brain was at was the use of trans or cis as applied by others, to others. Cause I've seen a heap of that, especially online. it's a very casual use of a descriptor. I've done it online, though I do make an effort to avoid it as much as possible. If someone self identifies, fab. But just like the "just me's" who ask what the name is for those who don't ID as butch or femme, because having a dichotamy infers only two choices - what is there for those who don't feel cissticks properly? Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. I personally don't think I'd fit into that - femme fits me because for me, it is it's own gender - therefore I can do anything with it and I don't need anything else.

I wouldn't want to remove terms from those who have a home in them. I'm quite attached to mine, so I know the feeling.

I guess I don't really have certain kinds of conversations any more in my flesh life, even though I hang out with mostly genderqueer people of various different shades than I ever did on the west coast. I wonder why that is. I never ask people how they define any more, I honestly don't care. However if they want to talk to me about it, I'm perfectly happy listening. I'm happy talking about all kinds of ID they have in regards to sexuality (pan, bi, lezz, heteroflexible wotever...) or gender, but I only really debate it much when I come *here* to this sight. Not that it's a bad thing, but slowly, it's getting more and more foreign, I think.

I dunno perhaps my brain just stalled about five years ago and the damp has set in.

You know, that's a good question. Why don't we have these conversations anymore? Is there a shift in what is considered important? Am I overlooking something? Have you evolved past wanting to pick apart these things? Is it okay that I am still knee deep in wanting to know why and how and throw myself into all the experiences I can because I want to know how it feels and how I can help? Will I some day be able to leave this crazy turmoil of having to defend my opinion?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I thank you for inspiring me to take a closer look. Maybe I am getting too bogged down and failing to see the forest for the trees.

[DapperButch]

Not that I actually know the history, but.....

I think it rolled just like it did with the terms transgender and transsexual.

People mean transsexual when they say transgender.

People mean cissexed when they say cisgender.

The difference is we have accepted that when someone says transgender they actually mean transsexual. When it comes to cissexed/cisgender, some people are still wanting to hold onto the actual definitions of the terms (and good for them!)

Personally, it still annoys the fuck out of me that people use the terms transsexual and transgender interchangeably. But, that's just me.

ETA: What I meant by the above. I think what has happened here in the past is that people have used the term cisgender when what they meant was cissexed. Folks who don't know what the term (cisgender) means looks it up. The reader becomes frustrated because what they read is that the term cisgender means a person who fits society's gender expectations in looks and behaviors. They cry foul b/c that doesn't fit for many here. As well they should. The speaker was referring to people who don't have gender dysphoria (cissexed). If the speaker had used the correct term to begin with (cissexed), all would be well.

Just my opinion as to what I have seen.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

You know, that's a good question. Why don't we have these conversations anymore? Is there a shift in what is considered important? Am I overlooking something? Have you evolved past wanting to pick apart these things? Is it okay that I am still knee deep in wanting to know why and how and throw myself into all the experiences I can because I want to know how it feels and how I can help? Will I some day be able to leave this crazy turmoil of having to defend my opinion?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I thank you for inspiring me to take a closer look. Maybe I am getting too bogged down and failing to see the forest for the trees.

There's a bunch of interesting tangents going on in this thread. I'm going to try to tackle them one(ish) and time.

Perhaps the conversations aren't happening as much anymore because it feels like the terrain has gotten too complicated, the language so diverse and usage so idiosyncratic that it becomes difficult to even have a conversation that gets much beyond "This is what I mean by that term, what do you mean by it?" "I don't use that term anymore, I use this other one." So although these conversations are still possible, I think it's more challenging.

There may also be an element of been-there-done-that for some people. I'm a total wonk for this kind of stuff though, so I'm content to go there and do that again and again.

I do think there is still desire to have these conversations, as evidenced by the popularity of events like the Femme Con and the Butch Voices Conference. I just would like to see an organization that does not focus so much on a big once-a-year thing that winds up reaching only a tiny fraction of the community. I'm hoping Butch Nation will do things differently, and Jeanne Cordova indicated to me that she was going to take my butch org wish list to the BN planning committee, but given that they have already annouced a big national conference for next year, I'm inclined to think that it will be more of what we already have.


And ScandalAndy, maybe don't think of it as defending your opinion, so much as explaining it. All you have to do is try to be thorough in your thought processes, clear in your explanations, and be open to hearing other perspectives and rethinking things if need be. Now, if you are in a discussion with someone who is not entering it with similar intentions, then a different strategy might be called for. But even that would be about protecting yourself rather than defending your opinions, per se.

Honeybarbara, I totally know what you mean about feeling like the brain has been in mothballs for awhile. A couple months ago, I was looking through old threads on "dash" and I found myself thinking, among other things, "Cripes, I used to be so smart. What happened?"

[lettertodaddy]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

You know, that's a good question. Why don't we have these conversations anymore?

I've tried. Most of the queer folks I know (1) don't really ID with the queer community as a whole, or (2) seem to have moved past it. But then again, I don't really have a queer circle of friends here, and the last time we had a discussion about it, we were all three sheets to the wind and it was about 3 am.

I tried bringing it up with my ex, but conversations like this bored her. She knew who she was, was happy with it, end of story. She wasn't interested in theory (and she also thought she wasn't smart enough to talk about it in detail) -- she, to quote her, was "just living (her) life the only way (she) knew how."

I miss discussions like this.

[Slater]

Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1] Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2]

Cisgender ( /ˈsɪsdʒɛndər/) (or cisgendered) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1]

Before we break out the stone tablets and enshrine what Wikipedia offers up as the definitions, let's acknowledge that these are not "official" definitions and may or may not reflect actual usage all that well.

But what I am really interested in is, if possible, stepping back from these words as identities and trying to nail down exactly what work we want this language to accomplish and then seeing how close or far it is from accomplishing that. Because I think this language was essentially rushed out into common and academic usage while it was still in the beta-testing stage and not all of the bugs had been worked out yet. Basically, it's a linguistic Windows Vista.

I realized though that this thread is probably not the place for that, so I'll poke around in the other forums looking for a suitable home.

[loremar]

Yes, people should have the right to free thoughts and enjoy there life the way they want it to live. You can't bar someone's freedom unless you have good reasons to do so. Lesbians have nothing against other innocent people, they just want to be lesbians, so let them be lesbians.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you)

I'm afraid I don't view the world the same way you do, as I am not dividing into "cis and non-cis". There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer, and every flavor combination therein. I detest binary systems, and this is probably a failing on my part that I did not communicate that, when I personally use nomenclature that defines the opposite ends of a spectrum, that I am including all identities within that spectrum.

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it nicely.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when, in fact, I'm the recipient of unearned white privilege?

This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and in some cases, an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière about how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere over this.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Thank you for letting me know that you find that term offensive. I would like to find a universally acceptable term that I may use around the site that will not offend any of the members. If you have any suggestions, that would be great. Until then, though, I hope I may ask for a bit more of your patience as I still would like to describe my identity with a term.

ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

....I wasn't aware of the discussions regarding the terms that were happening here. I believe my main misunderstanding here was that I am not content with using the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy, therefore I do see the privilege experienced by women whose path does not include the same gender introspection that transgendered women experience. I do agree with you that all women, regardless of gender journeys, under a patriarchal system, are oppressed.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender - it makes of us, gender consumers.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I apologize if I implied that women who identify with their birthassigned gender can sail forth without concern. That was not my intention as that is not at all my belief. All women face many struggles in defining themselves and holding their own in the world.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz: I am very sorry to hear that I do not warrant any of your time, as I have taken my time to respond to your post and ask questions. It hurts me quite a bit that you see fit to dismiss me so readily as someone of no consequence to you.

I asked you to explain identity politics because I cannot address your statements unless I know how you see it. I'm sorry your response was "go look it up", or at least, that's how it felt to me.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation of my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Please feel free to report my post for using the term you find offensive.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not....

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Cheryl: Okay, what I understand from your post is that you believe using the term "cisgendered" forces a binary system, and that prohibits using the term butch as a gender descriptor. Is this correct? (I have a lot more questions but do not want to misinterpret you)

I'm afraid I don't view the world the same way you do, as I am not dividing into "cis and non-cis". There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer, and every flavor combination therein. I detest binary systems, and this is probably a failing on my part that I did not communicate that, when I personally use nomenclature that defines the opposite ends of a spectrum, that I am including all identities within that spectrum.

You don't have to do the dividing, use of the term "CIS" does it for you.

As to: "There is, to me, trans, cis, and everything in between, including transmasculine, transfeminine, genderqueer"....

Those terms - except for "CIS" - are not the terms I have difficulty with. People are free to label themselves - I'm free to buy into those labels or not. It's one thing to label oneself, it's another thing entirely to label others as in the case of "CIS".

Where it gets offensive for me is when people start hijacking other people's identities - identities that are at once personal and political - and redefining them, and doing so for reasons that have not, yet, been fully examined or parsed.

I've knocked around LGBTQ communities for a long time, it seems that not all identities are afforded equal protection under queer theory. Can you imagine if I started claiming to be a WOC when I'm not? This "CIS" business, among other things, is divisive and an intentional attempt at obfuscation. Claiming that "CIS" and other queer neologisms are attempts at deconstructing the gender binary are convenient justifications, except that they don't remotely do that. Such terms only have meaning within a gendered culture, particularly, CERTAIN quarters of the LGBTQ community. The overwhelming majority of the human race could give a rat's derrière how "we" label ourselves, or to what extent some of us are marginalized and invisiblized. Patriarchy is chuckling somewhere because of this.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Thank you for letting me know that you find that term offensive. I would like to find a universally acceptable term that I may use around the site that will not offend any of the members. If you have any suggestions, that would be great. Until then, though, I hope I may ask for a bit more of your patience as I still would like to describe my identity with a term.

ScandalAndy, you are at liberty to define yourself anyway you wish. It's when you presume to label others or redefine the meaning of their labels that it gets offensive.

If this is the first time anyone has heard that the use of the term "CIS" as offensive to many, many lesbians, color me amazed.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Heart: Thank you, I wasn't aware of the discussions regarding the terms that were happening here. I believe my main misunderstanding here was that I am not content with using the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy, therefore I do see the privilege experienced by women whose path does not include the same gender introspection that transgendered women experience. I do agree with you that all women, regardless of gender journeys, under a patriarchal system, are oppressed.

Most lesbians don't use the definition of "woman" as defined by the patriarchy".

When referring to lesbians, how about using the definitions most lesbians prefer? As in, "lesbian", "femme", "butch" and leaving it at that....

Because it needs to be excavated.... There is a clear bias inculcated in your above statement, ScandalAndy.... There's also an implied hierarchy of "gender introspection".... Many straight women - not to mention lesbians - do heaps of "gender introspection". Being heterosexual or lesbian does NOT automatically confer gender mindlessness or the absence of gender introspection. ALSO, there is a difference between self-preoccupation and introspection. Patriarchy keeps people preoccupied with gender. I think of this as gender consumerism.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I apologize if I implied that women who identify with their birthassigned gender can sail forth without concern. That was not my intention as that is not at all my belief. All women face many struggles in defining themselves and holding their own in the world.

I don't think you "intended" to be offensive. I think the presumptions about gender evinced by gender theory - which are creeping into many people's lexicon and consciousness - are offensive. They have depoliticized, hyper-personalized and reauthorized gender constructs.

"In the act of performing the conventions of reality, by embodying those fictions in our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary. By enacting conventions [even with a twist], we do make them "real" to some extent (after all, our ideologies have "real" consequences for people) but that does not make them any less artificial...." - Dino Felluga

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz: I am very sorry to hear that I do not warrant any of your time, as I have taken my time to respond to your post and ask questions. It hurts me quite a bit that you see fit to dismiss me so readily as someone of no consequence to you.

I asked you to explain identity politics because I cannot address your statements unless I know how you see it. I'm sorry your response was "go look it up", or at least, that's how it felt to me.

Oh, please.... Just because I don't have the time or the inclination to launch into a lengthy explanation about my understanding of I-politics doesn't mean you're being dismissed. This is a dynamic conversation, I'm trying to stay abreast. My understanding of I-politics is folded into my comments.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Please feel free to report my post for using the term you find offensive.

I don't report posts. I respond to them, or not.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I am a scientist, and when I see the word trans, I see a molecule with two reactive groups, one on each side of the molecule. When i see cis, i see a molecule with both reactive groups on the same side. Thank you biochemistry. I am able to apply that scientific knowledge to gender theory and see that for some, like myself, it makes sense. Since there appeared to be a need for transgendered individuals to use the word "trans" to describe themselves and their gender journey, it made sense to me to use "cis" to describe myself and aspects of my journey. I admit this system does not work well for everyone.

I'll leave you to your molecules and, instead, say: When I see terms like "CIS" or "trans", I see people, not molecules. But then, I'm a scientist, too, but of a different order (Human Services). I spend 60+ hours a week trying to disavow teenage girls of their misbegotten notions of gender. Notions that are contributing to their being exploited, abused, impregnanted and infected with STDs and HIV. Notions that keep them depressed and abusing their bodies ("cutting", eating disorders, substance abuse, etc.). Their modern day hero(in)es keep them gender, self-preoccupied, too; it's often fatal. It doesn't matter which gender construct or deconstruct one buys into, it still keeps the myth of gender constructs alive. We're all gender consumers under patriarchy. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs - it simply re-envisages constructs.

Lesbians/women like me, who's life's work it is to keep young women from being systematically (systemically?) murdered by gender constructs, find the self-preoccupation with labels and gender identity maddening.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Perhaps the best solution would be to get rid of trans and cis altogether, but then would we have adequate language to describe ourselves and our experiences? I am not so sure.

Here's a thought.... How about dropping the concept of gender altogether? Constructed or deconstructed, it's still all about gender.... Everyone is a gender consumer under patriarchy. There's no escaping it. Reinterpreting gender and performing it with a twist, doesn't eradicate gender constructs. The myth of gender has to go.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Perhaps the best solution would be to get rid of trans and cis altogether, but then would we have adequate language to describe ourselves and our experiences? I am not so sure.

How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Slater

Yes gender is a construct. Culture is a construct. Values, ideology. And all of it exists with a patriarchal systems and is inevitably influenced by that system. If that renders identity and identity politics inherently meaningless, then it renders all of culture inherently meaningless.

The leap to meaningless is, well, quite a leap.... But no, it doesn't render anything meaningless. It does render it open to discussion.

Originally Posted by Slater

Suffice to say you and I have different ideas about identity politics, about how they work and what purpose they can serve. Similarly, we see autonomous organizing quite differently as well. Given how dismissive you were when ScandalAndy asked you to elaborate on your ideas about identity politics, I don’t feel inclined to try to pursue that particular matter any further, so I’ll leave it that.

Different ideas about identity politics and how they work are good, that is, until they don't work for everyone.

I already responded to my being "dismissive" of ScandalAndy in a prior post.

Originally Posted by Slater

I agree that the cis- terminology is problematic. I think it has utility in talking in general terms about transphobia. And clearly it is an identifier that works for some people. I don’t think it works well as a broad identifier because it is oversimplified and binary, which is why I didn’t use it in that context.

The utility of the term "CIS" doesn't serve lesbian women. In this thread about lesbian pride, I'm arguing for those it doesn't serve - lesbians.

Originally Posted by Slater

I’m not sure where you thought I was suggesting that lesbians or women had created it. Of course it is all tied up with sexism, just as homophobia is all tied up with sexism.

I didn't think you were "suggesting that lesbians or women had created it".

Originally Posted by Slater

Oppression hierarchies are hardly limited to gender politics.

Yeah, I know....

Originally Posted by Slater

They come up whenever you have populations that face multiple kinds of oppression. I will say that I think the way that transphobia intersects with and interacts with sexism is a bit different than the relationships among other oppressions and that’s why trying to use the same sorts of conceptual structures that we often use with other combinations of oppressions has not worked well.

I agree that trans identity politics "intersects and interacts" with sexism differently than other oppressions. In fact, I'm arguing that very point in my way.

What gets overlooked in most identity politics, especially when ally-ship is expected (demanded?) of other groups, is the need for excavation.

Not all identity "conceptual structures" carry equally well. Especially, when they dilute another groups identity politics and/or carry forward the seeds of the system's oppression they presume to challenge. The sexism within the Black Panther Movement by luminaries like Carmichael, Cleaver, Newton and most recently Malik Zulu Shabazz is well documented. And then, there's the lesbianphobia, racism and class privilege of many 2nd Wave Feminists to consider.

A claim to oppression even when valid, does not ensure an absence of horizontal oppression.

Originally Posted by Slater

I suppose I could go on and try to explicate the differences you and I have in how we see trans oppression as functioning in society, but as nothing in the tone of your responses suggests that you have interest in actual dialog, I’m not sure anything would be served by it.

Someday, perhaps, some linguistic wizard will clarify how "tone" is conveyed in posts and text messages. Until then, I'll consider "tone" a feature of perception based in unanimity of thought.

[Chazz]

It's just been pointed out to me that not everyone is familiar with certain terms and concepts. Thank you to the person who graciously pointed this out to me without jumping to the conclusion that I'm being "dismissive".

It's difficult to have discussions of complex issues that require years of accumulated knowledge, lived experience and herstory.

It's not possible for me to always qualify what I'm saying for a number of reasons. I IMAGINE this is how POC feel while having discussions about racism and white privilege. They can't always set aside what they are doing in a conversation to impart their meanings, perspectives and accumulated information to others.

Thanks to the person who gave me the heads up.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

And there you have it. "Behavior and role appropriate for one's sex" reeks of patriarchal assumptions.

And as far as body dysmorphia: again, it's impossible to be female in a patriarchal culture and not have body dysmorphia, considering the objectification and violence routinely done to women's bodies.

Odd, how gender-studies terminology has managed to side-step the historical realities of living as a woman (whether born that way or not), in favor of a very narrow focus on trans vs non-trans. I get awfully tired of the rareified Ivory Tower approach to gender and "North American gender politics," as HB so aptly put it.

Women transgress rigid and limited gender definitions all the time in order to survive. I'm not talking just about queers, I'm talking globally, about women. Read the book in my sig line. As for young activists -- the book in my sig line should be required reading.

Heart

"What is required for the hegemony of heteronormative [patriarchal] standards to maintain power is our continual repetition of such gender acts in the most mundane of daily activities (the way we walk, talk, gesticulate, etc.).... That style [of gender performance] has no relation to essential "truths" about the body but is strictly ideological. It has a history that exists beyond the subject who enacts those conventions...." Dino Felluga