Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Well since I said it was surprising to me, feel free to get out the markers and color yourself amazed. This was the first time I have come across the term being offensive....



... These two statements are redundant but you have a point. The concept of eliminating gender is the only thing I will take from this so-called conversation...

SA,
It's been my experience that most people who use the term 'cis' are very surprised to learn that someone finds it offensive. Like you, they've learned that it's a way to acknowledge the struggles that trans people face, and the alleged lack of similar struggles that people who have never been trans supposedly get to avoid. We've spent quite a bit of time discussing the real problems such a term brings up, (Heart, will you run for President?), and the way some of us have felt ambushed by the rapid, community-wide adoption of this term that feels quite erasing to us. We didn't get to consent to this. To complete the erasure, many of us who object to the term have been repeatedly silenced by others who tell us that makes us transphobes. No wonder you haven't heard anything about 'cis' being offensive thus far. The power of being labeled a transphobe is so great that it took the establishment of a lesbian zone on a website catering to butch/femme people, the vast majority of whom ID as women who partner with women, for us to feel safe enough to have a discussion about the offensiveness of 'cis'.

Like most of us here, I would like to get back to the important topic of lesbian pride. As it has in many other parts of our community, arguments about trans inclusion have diverted us. We can't seem to keep from letting those arguments divert our attention in this thread any better than we can in the lesbian community at large, or so I perceive it.

Like many, I deeply resent that feminist thought, which I hold as my touchstone, has been dismissed and derided in favour of gender theory in academic circles. That brings me to the second of your statements which I quoted. This is the very crux of the problem I perceive with current gender theory getting in the way of my lesbian pride. I understand that this statement about eliminating gender came up in the context of an acrimonious argument between you and Chazz, but it's telling.

My understanding of gender theory is that it seeks to undermine binary gender by simply declaring that there is no such thing. The world isn't made up of women and men, the world is made up of millions of beings of indeterminate gender. Those beings should be allowed to declare whatever gender they understand themselves to be at any point in their lives, or not, and that designation may change many times over their lives. Current gender theory holds that it's inherently oppressive to name a baby's gender based on her or his genitalia and chromosomal make-up, and that birth designation should no longer be practiced. There, now. We've eliminated gender.

I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

[*Anya*]

Cheryl, thank you for brilliantly verbalizing what I have been unable to state, and even if I had attempted; would not have done so articulately and eloquently.

[Heart]

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

[Slater]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

SA,
I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

Cheryl,

A couple of thoughts. First I would like to point out that it was Chazz and not ScandalAndy who argued that all genders are constructs of the patriarchy, are therefore invalid, and should be eliminated. In your remarks, you seem to be speaking as though this argument came from SA. I apologize if I am misreading you.

I wonder though, why you don't think it would work to talk about sexism in terms of sex instead of gender. In your paragraph about feminism why couldn't 'woman' be replaced with 'female'? What do you think would be lost? Same for your definition of lesbian. I'm not arguing, as Chazz did, that genders are inherently bogus. I'm just curious why you think, in this particular context, making the same points with respect to sex instead of gender does not work.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

Cheryl,

A couple of thoughts. First I would like to point out that it was Chazz and not ScandalAndy who argued that all genders are constructs of the patriarchy, are therefore invalid, and should be eliminated. In your remarks, you seem to be speaking as though this argument came from SA. I apologize if I am misreading you.

I wonder though, why you don't think it would work to talk about sexism in terms of sex instead of gender. In your paragraph about feminism why couldn't 'woman' be replaced with 'female'? What do you think would be lost? Same for your definition of lesbian. I'm not arguing, as Chazz did, that genders are inherently bogus. I'm just curious why you think, in this particular context, making the same points with respect to sex instead of gender does not work.

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

[Jess]

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

[*Anya*]

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

Got it. Yes, I understand that a person can ID as butch as a gender. But how does that equate to being a genderless lesbian?

[citybutch]

Actually it is very different.... One can identify as female and be very proud of that... and not identify as woman. Check the OED... two completely different definitions.

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

Woman does equal an adult female. Is this really in question now?

Honestly....

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Actually it is very different.... One can identify as female and be very proud of that... and not identify as woman. Check the OED... two completely different definitions.

I was not discussing identity. I should have made that clear.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I'm puzzled about your first question since I don't think I suggested that SA made any specific arguments about gender constructs with which I disagree. Was I unclear? I freely admit that I deliberatively made some reductive statements about gender theory for the sake of brevity. I connected those to SA because her field of study was gender theory.

As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

As for the other part, I misunderstood you. You were addressing SA, but arguing against a position put forth explicitly by Chazz and I simply misunderstood your intent.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Slater

Well one thing it does for me is allow for the possibility of females having a gender other than woman. And I wasn't really arguing for one nomeclature or the other. I was just uncertain why you thought, for instance, that the lesbian identity couldn't exist just fine without gender (by using a sex instead). I'm not arguing for the elimination of genders, I just couldn't see what you felt would be lost in those specific circumstances and wondered what I was missing.

What I'm missing is why anyone would claim a genderless lesbian ID. I don't get it.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

SA,
It's been my experience that most people who use the term 'cis' are very surprised to learn that someone finds it offensive. Like you, they've learned that it's a way to acknowledge the struggles that trans people face, and the alleged lack of similar struggles that people who have never been trans supposedly get to avoid. We've spent quite a bit of time discussing the real problems such a term brings up, (Heart, will you run for President?), and the way some of us have felt ambushed by the rapid, community-wide adoption of this term that feels quite erasing to us. We didn't get to consent to this. To complete the erasure, many of us who object to the term have been repeatedly silenced by others who tell us that makes us transphobes. No wonder you haven't heard anything about 'cis' being offensive thus far. The power of being labeled a transphobe is so great that it took the establishment of a lesbian zone on a website catering to butch/femme people, the vast majority of whom ID as women who partner with women, for us to feel safe enough to have a discussion about the offensiveness of 'cis'.

Like most of us here, I would like to get back to the important topic of lesbian pride. As it has in many other parts of our community, arguments about trans inclusion have diverted us. We can't seem to keep from letting those arguments divert our attention in this thread any better than we can in the lesbian community at large, or so I perceive it.

You're right, these arguments do keep coming up, and that is worth examining, but I want to get back to lesbian pride too.

Like many, I deeply resent that feminist thought, which I hold as my touchstone, has been dismissed and derided in favour of gender theory in academic circles. That brings me to the second of your statements which I quoted. This is the very crux of the problem I perceive with current gender theory getting in the way of my lesbian pride. I understand that this statement about eliminating gender came up in the context of an acrimonious argument between you and Chazz, but it's telling.

My understanding of gender theory is that it seeks to undermine binary gender by simply declaring that there is no such thing. The world isn't made up of women and men, the world is made up of millions of beings of indeterminate gender. Those beings should be allowed to declare whatever gender they understand themselves to be at any point in their lives, or not, and that designation may change many times over their lives. Current gender theory holds that it's inherently oppressive to name a baby's gender based on her or his genitalia and chromosomal make-up, and that birth designation should no longer be practiced. There, now. We've eliminated gender.

I'll admit that it's an interesting intellectual exercise, to a point. Then the Emperor's New Clothes moment happens and I laugh my head off. SA, I understand that gender theory is your field of study and that you're attached to complex ideas that I've just reduced to very broad brush strokes. Please don't imagine that I'm dismissing you for any reason, especially not for your age. You're clearly sincere. So am I.

I live in a world where that intellectual exercise of pretending that there's no such thing as gender erases the real struggles of actual oppressed people. Those people are called women, and when gender theory is discarded for the next hot theory in future academic circles, women will still be oppressed, raped, sold, disrespected and, at best, paid less than men. In my world, the work of stopping rape and sexual slavery, domestic violence and the systemic oppression of half the world's population, has been accomplished by feminists devoted to the betterment of the condition of all women. That feminist model of universal empowerment is my personal model.

What does all this have to do with stepping on my lesbian pride? My definition of a lesbian is a woman who partners romantically and sexually with women. If there's no such thing as gender, and 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, where do lesbians fit in? If 'woman' is a suspect societal construct, what happens to women's space? To make the argument stone simple, if you strive to eliminate gender, you strive to eliminate lesbian identity.

Cheryl: I think some things have gotten jumbled up here and I would like to do my best to handle them as gently and respectfully as I am able.

The second half of my quote was my response to Chazz's suggestion that we eliminate gender altogether. Whether that suggestion was made in jest or not, I am not sure. However, it was an option I did not consider so my comment that it was all i was taking from the conversation was meant to imply that it was the idea I intended to take some time to think about. I apologize for not being clearer about that, I can see how that might have been misinterpreted to mean something else.

I feel the need to point out that gender studies was one of my two minors. I don't know what happened that made you believe it was my field of study, but I'm sure I mentioned it somewhere so I"m sure it was just an honest mistake. No biggie, I spent four years taking the classes and debating with others, writing my papers, being praised, and being criticized just like everyone else in my class. I don't claim to be an expert, just a normal person who learned some stuff that made me think critically about some things.

Originally Posted by Heart

Bravo Cheryl, Bravo.

I didn't continue to engage in this thread because I have little heart and energy left. But SA, you directed a post to me earlier and I'm sorry I didn't respond. At some point it gets repetitive. That's not meant as a dismissal, it's just self-preservation. I'm sorry to see you personalize what Chazz is saying because regardless of the tone, it hits many crucial notes.

Heart, I'm sorry this conversation is so draining on you. I can sympathize with that feeling, as I'm not feeling particularly buoyant about this exchange, myself. To be quite frank, I'm not here to argue, that's not who I am, and not what I am about. I don't want to be the bad guy here. I feel I have worked very hard to present my points without insult and in a calm manner.

What you individually mean with the use of the term "cis," is not the issue. I'm sure you don't hold with something as reductive as "appropriate gender behavior." The point is that in breaking down gender binaries/identities conceptually and theoretically, much of gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny. Feminism is the movement that addressed not only oppressive concepts, but also oppressive institutions. Which is why it's so important, IMO, for gender/queer theory to be fully grounded in feminism.

Your description of what trans men and women may experience via gender dysphoria combined with misogyny and violence is poignant, and actually reinforces my point about the importance of under-girding gender/queer/trans theory with feminism, but it strikes me that you are the one creating an oppression olympics by implying that transfolks somehow experience the pinnacle of oppression. Maybe, maybe not. How would you compare the experiences of a white transman with a lesbian of color? Not that we should compare, but do you see my point?

I think I am finally beginning to understand where the disconnect is happening here. You are correct, I did say that trans people experience dysphoria "on top of" the rampant misogyny of a patriarchal society. That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I could see how it can be viewed as erasing language. I did not mean at all to imply that this is the pinnacle of oppression, I just didn't take the time to reinforce all of the things that lesbians and women go through. That was an oversight on my part and you were right to remind me of that. Maybe I've gotten so used to carrying that burden around that I forget to acknowledge that it's there. I will continue to keep this in the back of my mind, but for now I don't think I can say much more that would be coherent as I am still processing it.

I get that cutting edge scholarship is about multiple gender presentations and identities being recognized and I think that's valid, I just wish it had not been so separated from feminist theory. I don't disagree that an individual has the right to choose their label, (one of the central tenets of gender theory), but asserting that continues to miss the point (that I think I tried to make) of what a privileged position it is to self-label. Why am I saying that? Not to dismiss self-identity, but to remember that the extraordinary majority of women do not have that option, in fact do not have any options with regard to any kind of self-actualization, including who or if they will marry, and whether or not they will control their own reproduction.

Until that changes, gender theory has a whiff of privilege that makes it suspect to me. For me, activism needs to be directed at the institutional subjugation of women as a group. I just can't get too excited about parsing gender identity while millions of women, regardless of their self-identity, are being sold, raped, enslaved, and murdered.

Heart

Again, you have a very valid point here. I have to repeat what I've said before, it is possible that I can't see the forest for the trees. There are many things that are important to me and women's rights is most assuredly one of those things. I got off on a tangent, sure, but I have more than enough passion to fight for more than one thing.




I also hope (as do you and Cheryl) that we can bring this back around to lesbian pride, as that's what I made such a big fuss over in the first place. I was the first to complain about getting off topic, and now I've gone and derailed it myself. For that i apologize not only to you both, but to everyone who came to this thread and was disappointed by what they found. I hope I've responded to your concerns in a way that works for both of us and will help us get back to what we originally came here for.

[Chazz]

De-obfuscation 101

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

SEXISM = discrimination based on sex

GENDER BIAS = discrimination based on sex-typed social construction; stereotyping based on sex

GENDERISM = a neologism used to illustrate a myth, and/or reinforce it, as the case may be.

GENDER INCONGRUENCY = not complying with sex-typed, constructed gender roles

Originally Posted by Slater

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same.

This is completely inaccurate.... Just because people sometimes wrongly conflate gender with sex doesn't make it ontologically accurate. Conflating the two and knowing better, is a deliberate attempt to confuse people and issues. It happens all the time

I write and edit professional stuff for a living, I assure everyone that sex and gender have never been used interchangeably in literate, literary or scientific circles. It is an ontological error to do so.

Conflating sex with gender is a recent phenomena owing, in large part, to gender theory. It is being vigorously addressed, and excised, in scholarly and scientific journals. There is no place for I-politics, of any kind, in scientific research.

This conflation IS NOT BENIGN. It's taken a generation-plus for Feminist scholars to expose/critique/exorcise, if only just barely, sexist bias from science and literature. Now, that work is being undone by subjective relativists. This is devastating for precisely the reasons Cheryl stated: "Gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny...." I would have excluded the word "seems" because the facts are before us. ....Butches as "masculine of center", etc., etc. ! ! ! !

Originally Posted by Slater

But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

HOLY COW ! ! ! ! In one swipe of lexical incohesion, I lost my butch womanhood.

Gender is NOT biology. Adult females ARE woman. Gender presentation does NOT change ones sex. Why do these simple, observable facts have to be argued over and over again? HMMMM ? ? ? ?

Gender theory DOES promote a binary system. It "sanctions" going from point A on a binary scale to point Z. Everything in between is a matter of gender constructed degree.

No, Slater.... Adult females will always be women.

It doesn't matter if a gender system is binary or not. Gender mythology is the issue. Having 10,000 variations of a myth doesn't change the fact that it's a myth, especially when it comes to patriarchy. (Patriarchy is very adaptable.)

Originally Posted by Slater

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

Tightly "interwoven" by patriarchy - not women or lesbians.... Feminists have been trying to strip gender constructs from sex long before gender theory became the cause célèbre of the day. It's tough, arduous work, but women have been doing it, and doing it well. Women's lives depend on that being successful. (So do trans and intersexed people's lives.)

To the extent that gender theorists get in the way of that work by continuing to conflate sex with gender, it's anti-woman/lesbian/Feminist, and anti-gender incongruent people of all stripes - including trans and intersexed people.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

....As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Originally Posted by Jess

Why should I have to change the language of who I am because of a haircut or clothes or whether I prefer power tools to blowdryers? I want to be able to proudly say, I am a woman, I am a lesbian, I wear these clothes and this hairstyle and like saws.

'Cause according to many genderists, Jess, that's guy stuff. ....Hence, women/lesbian/butches/anti-gender incongruent people stay endlessly trapped in gender constructed mythology.

Aint' subjective relativism grand ! ! ! !

Originally Posted by Jess

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

When you stop being confused, be concerned.

[Cin]

I remember a thread on another forum about if a man has the right to identify as a lesbian, a male lesbian. I believe I posted something or other about how I believe everyone has a right to identify however they chose.

If someone, who looks like just some guy to me, says he identifies as reptilian and believes he is a python then I guess I will try to honor that, although I won’t understand it since he doesn’t appear to me to be a snake at all.

But I think when people embrace an identity, yet do not fit the definition of that identity, then it is okay to ask them why they believe that identity is valid for them. When a group of people assign an identity to another different group and the definition of the assigned identity clearly doesn’t ring true to the defined group then I think it is okay to ask questions.

My experience has been that people don’t really care for that. It feels intrusive I guess. But adopting an identity that isn’t a traditional fit can feel invasive to some who share that identity. Just like insisting on giving others, despite their protests, an identity that doesn’t work feels, at the very least, dismissive. I don’t think an explanation is too much to ask. I think it is okay to wonder and to ask why someone feels a particular identity encompasses them when they do not fit the traditional definition as with lesbian. I think it is logical to ask why someone will insist on defining you using an identity that does not work for you as with cis-gendered. And clearly insisting that Adult females ARE woman erases and discounts the identities of those who FEEL differently.

I think lesbian for someone who sleeps with women as well as men fits better than cis-gendered fits for someone like me. At least they encompass part of the definition of lesbian. I have no clue what it would be like to live in a place where my gender is remotely similar to, or congruent with, society’s definition.

I really don’t believe anyone can or should try to define someone else. But it happens. However, I think if we chose an identity for ourselves or for others (as in the case of cis) that doesn’t really fit the widely accepted definition and/or upsets the other you are naming then we should take responsibility for explaining our choices. We should also be willing to listen to what the other has to say about how your decision effects them.

It seems that people often feel it is an imposition to explain themselves. Some feel they have a right to never be challenged. When asked why, I notice people often give some version of “because” for an answer. The version of “because” people most often use is “it’s my opinion”. People seem extremely adverse to explanations, especially ones that are, at least partially, rooted in fact or reality. And it is even worse when the challenging questions are directed at an oppressed group or a member of an oppressed group. If one chooses to go there, one risks the likelihood that one will be accused of being some sort of -phobe or bigot.

To me reality does matter and facts are important. A common language and a shared understanding of what a word means is necessary for communication. If we want to change that, such as claim for ourselves a not so traditional definition for lesbian, define an entire group of people as cis and paint them with the same brush, decide we are female but not woman, or appropriate an identity such as reptilian, then we are responsible for explaining our choices. Conversations may seem endless but dialogue in cases such as these are invaluable. Words are all we have to make our actions and beliefs comprehensible to others. To stop talking, to cease explaining ourselves, our reasons, our feelings, is to close the door on understanding.

I also think that explaining things brings a degree of clarity to the person doing the explaining as well. It’s a form of self-exploration I think. Unfortunately people are not always interested in engaging in that way. They may feel they have done it enough already or just don’t trust the process or, and perhaps especially, the person questioning them. Or maybe they don’t even trust the question. Sometimes they think there is no answer it just is what it is. I encountered this quite a bit when I try to engage people who identify as female but not as women. I want to understand what it is about woman that is so different from female. What is it about female that is more acceptable, more palatable? Is it society’s definition of woman that makes it so hard to own? Or is it something else?

Attempting to understand others’ reasons for how they feel about an identity, whether it ends in clarity or not, shouldn’t negate anyone’s right to identify how they chose or to define an identity to their own personal satisfaction. Attempting to understand others is always priceless no matter the result. I think of attempting to understand others or putting oneself in someone else’s place and imagining how it feels, to be the sort of thing that one gets better at with practice. I think of understanding and empathy as muscles that are directly connected to our ears and indirectly to our hearts and like most muscles grow proportionally to the exercise they receive.

[Kobi]

The individualization of identity is a very complex thing. Yet, it has an impact on a broader scale. That concerns me greatly because the potential political ramifications are frightening.

I am a lesbian i.e. a female homosexual. I dont think even OED has changed that definition. If people who do not fit "female homosexual" start claiming lesbian, it impacts my personal identity as well as lesbians in general. It renders lesbian to mean essentially nothing.

And that is supposed to be ok with me? I dont care who anyone sleeps with but when what it is called impacts me, I care a lot.

Part of why this bothers me is, it is someone else's circumstances that have changed not mine. But, there is the presumption that I have to make adjustments to accomodate their changing circumstances. In essence, to me, it is someone else deciding they have the right to change things to suit themselves without regard as to how it affects others. I have a real problem with this kind of thinking.

On a larger scale, gay rights, in part, has used the paradigm that our gayness is an inherent part of who we are. Our minority status is from our gayness being something we have no control over. It is not a choice per se, it just is.

Now we are muddying the waters by saying we are lesbians who sleep with men? Either we have control and make a conscious decision or we dont. And there is no political implications to this?

Another part of gayness being something we have no control over is the fight we have with religious fruitcakes ( ok bad choice of words) who say we can change our behavior and become unsinners. They can deprogram us. Well, lesbians sleeping with men gives them a wee bit of ammunition on that one.

Someone posted somewhere that in Iran or Iraq, they would rather perform sexual reassignment surgery than have homosexuals in their midst. Do you really think this doesnt matter?

Feminism is predicated at its simplest level on a male versus female paradigm. Gender theory, at its simplest level is masculine versus feminine. Wow, that blows the binary to pieces eh? There are very real, very everyday implications inherent in this for every single female and women. And our response to this is to argue about the definition of woman? Does that strike anyone as odd?

Sometimes I read this thread and I dont know which is worse...the flashbacks to Anita Bryant's antigay stuff or the ones of Phyllis Schafly arguing against the ERA.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Kobi

The individualization of identity is a very complex thing. Yet, it has an impact on a broader scale. That concerns me greatly because the potential political ramifications are frightening.

I am a lesbian i.e. a female homosexual. I dont think even OED has changed that definition. If people who do not fit "female homosexual" start claiming lesbian, it impacts my personal identity as well as lesbians in general. It renders lesbian to mean essentially nothing.

Hmm. This kind of reminds me of the right-wing arguments against same-sex marriage. If gays can marry, they say, that changes the definition of marriage and therefore impacts their straight marriages. Same logic going on.

[Heart]

Kobi - I'm a lesbian because I sleep with women, but I have also had erotic and sexual relationships with men. So, as I've been told, I'm not a "goldstar" lesbian. In your view, in order to be able to identify as a lesbian without somehow muddying the waters or detracting from your lesbianism, or threatening gay rights, does one have to be "goldstar?"

Also, I don't happen to be one of those that essentializes my lesbian identity. Meaning, its not as simple as "I was born this way." I think I was actually born with the capacity for a fluid orientation and I have landed on lesbian at this point in my life for a whole host of reasons. (And I don't happen to think that it not being a choice will in any way protect us from religious fanatics or anti-gay zealots). So, in order to support your status and rights as a lesbian, does one have to believe that it's not a choice?

I see that I am now basically asking the very same question that SA asked. "Am I lesbian enough for you?" Ironic.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Kobi

The individualization of identity is a very complex thing. Yet, it has an impact on a broader scale. That concerns me greatly because the potential political ramifications are frightening.

I am a lesbian i.e. a female homosexual. I dont think even OED has changed that definition. If people who do not fit "female homosexual" start claiming lesbian, it impacts my personal identity as well as lesbians in general. It renders lesbian to mean essentially nothing.

And that is supposed to be ok with me? I dont care who anyone sleeps with but when what it is called impacts me, I care a lot.

Part of why this bothers me is, it is someone else's circumstances that have changed not mine. But, there is the presumption that I have to make adjustments to accomodate their changing circumstances. In essence, to me, it is someone else deciding they have the right to change things to suit themselves without regard as to how it affects others. I have a real problem with this kind of thinking.

On a larger scale, gay rights, in part, has used the paradigm that our gayness is an inherent part of who we are. Our minority status is from our gayness being something we have no control over. It is not a choice per se, it just is.

Now we are muddying the waters by saying we are lesbians who sleep with men? Either we have control and make a conscious decision or we dont. And there is no political implications to this?

Another part of gayness being something we have no control over is the fight we have with religious fruitcakes ( ok bad choice of words) who say we can change our behavior and become unsinners. They can deprogram us. Well, lesbians sleeping with men gives them a wee bit of ammunition on that one.

Someone posted somewhere that in Iran or Iraq, they would rather perform sexual reassignment surgery than have homosexuals in their midst. Do you really think this doesnt matter?

Feminism is predicated at its simplest level on a male versus female paradigm. Gender theory, at its simplest level is masculine versus feminine. Wow, that blows the binary to pieces eh? There are very real, very everyday implications inherent in this for every single female and women. And our response to this is to argue about the definition of woman? Does that strike anyone as odd?

Sometimes I read this thread and I dont know which is worse...the flashbacks to Anita Bryant's antigay stuff or the ones of Phyllis Schafly arguing against the ERA.

[Women’s] authority is effective only so long as [she] identifies wholly with [her male] sponsors’. What happens for the feminist is that she somehow discovers her own authority, and comes to understand herself as authorized by her own knowledge of right and wrong to assume the agency of the judge, director, instructor, planner, policy maker, administrator [and namer of her own reality]. - Marilyn Frye