Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[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.

[Martina]

Lots of lesbians have slept with men -- by choice -- pretty much as long as we've been free to live as lesbians.

Sexuality is like that. People do the unexpected where sex is concerned. Trying to argue about who people will fuck and what that means is not going to get us far.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by 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.

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Well lets see. I said:

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

I dont see any mention of sleep partner.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Yes, I do wonder what it is that Kobi sees as flip-flopping. I actually have no problem with people re-inscribing their identities any number of times in any number of ways. I never said I did. In fact, I asserted in this thread that I think people can and should self-identify, and I accepted SA's self identifying as a lesbian regardless of who she was sleeping with (transmen, etc). So I don't see where I flip-flopped. I think Kobi must have had some expectation or assumption about my lesbian identity that I did not fulfill. But that's not my problem.

There is one thing though that I will cop to just to be very clear about where my focus lies. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit for Kobi: What agitates me is not whether a lesbian sleeps with a man. What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.

So, having said that as clearly as I can, I realize that its not about the thread topic of "lesbian pride," and I will bow out so as not to derail further.

Maybe I'll start a thread.

Peace,
Heart

[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

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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....

A man who IDs as a snake is never going to be allowed to live in the reptile enclosure at the zoo. No, I don't feel compelled out of politeness to humour that man, or the man who IDs as a lesbian. Why would I? Why should I?

As Kobi explained above, there are real repercussions to us, (lesbians), when we allow the word that describes us to become meaningless. Go ahead and call me a bigot.

[Jess]

I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

This makes sense to me. I get it. I honor it. I respect it.

What is beginning to bother me a great deal, is that all of the sudden I feel like being bisexual is bad. Or being queer is bad or pansexual. Why not use the words already there? What is wrong with being bisexual?

I don't have issue with how anyone else decides to id themselves. I ain't sleepin with ya, so why should I care? Except, in the realm of issues Kobi mentioned above. On a personal level, call yourself avacado if you so desire, but on a political level, can we please decide on which version of the English language we are going to use? It would just help in the long run.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Jess

I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

This makes sense to me. I get it. I honor it. I respect it.

What is beginning to bother me a great deal, is that all of the sudden I feel like being bisexual is bad. Or being queer is bad or pansexual. Why not use the words already there? What is wrong with being bisexual?

I don't have issue with how anyone else decides to id themselves. I ain't sleepin with ya, so why should I care? Except, in the realm of issues Kobi mentioned above. On a personal level, call yourself avacado if you so desire, but on a political level, can we please decide on which version of the English language we are going to use? It would just help in the long run.

Heh. I've called myself everything. When I was sleeping with gay men, I called myself a fag hag. When I was sleeping with straight girls and guys, I called myself bi, when I was married, I called myself straight, now I sleep with butch women so I'm a dyke and a femme. What do I call myself when I'm not sleeping with anyone? A celibate?

I do not get why any of these labels, based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism. In fact, my id as a lesbian is in part, a political choice, an assertion of my political alliances, as much as who I fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate in my post #430.

Heart

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Heart

Heh. I've called myself everything. When I was sleeping with gay men, I called myself a fag hag. When I was sleeping with straight girls and guys, I called myself bi, when I was married, I called myself straight, now I sleep with butch women so I'm a dyke and a femme. What do I call myself when I'm not sleeping with anyone? A celibate?

I do not get why any of these labels, based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism. In fact, my id as a lesbian is in part, a political choice, an assertion of my political alliances, as much as who I fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate in my post #430.

Heart

K... Got it. You changed how you ID based upon what your ( then ) present situation reflected. I get that. I am way cool with that. I am also cool with and comprehend that our life circumstances do change and most of us adopt whatever new term most closely defines whom we are then.

The part I highlighted in red, I don't quite understand. If one one hand whom we sleep with should have no bearing on politics ( which I disagree with 1000% see christian right wings who hate homo-SEXuals), then why would you align yourself sexually for a political reason?

Just trying to follow. Thanks!

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Jess

I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

I hope it's okay that I post here for a moment.

I really think it's more complicated than "actively have sex with other women". I mean, honestly, if that were all it took then I would be a Lesbian. I mean, maybe functionally I am - but functionality doesn't count for shit with me.

I have been sleeping with, and exclusively with, my lawfully wedded wedded person (who, incidentally, is a woman) for I think 6 years now. Historically, prior to getting together with my spouse, I slept with both men and women. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that I will ever sleep with a man again (presuming that my current relationship lasts the rest of my life). However, I am still not a Lesbian. I have slept with far more women than I have men, but I'm still not a Lesbian.

It's got to be about more than just fucking. It's got to be about intent, and political alignment, and intentional political alignment. Do you feel me?

(Also - big ups to Heart. I liked where she asked (to paraphrase) "If I'm not sleeping with ANYBODY - what am I?")

Sorry for crashing in on your party, peoples. I do that on occasion.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

A man who IDs as a snake is never going to be allowed to live in the reptile enclosure at the zoo. No, I don't feel compelled out of politeness to humour that man, or the man who IDs as a lesbian. Why would I? Why should I?

As Kobi explained above, there are real repercussions to us, (lesbians), when we allow the word that describes us to become meaningless. Go ahead and call me a bigot.

Call you a bigot, nah. Maybe you’re an ophidiophobe. Maybe you're Indiana Jones for all I know.

Seriously though I just find it impossible to tell someone they can’t be who they feel they are. It makes me feel bad. That’s all I meant. And that’s just me. Nobody else needs to feel that way.

I don't think a word always becomes meaningless when it is stretched a tad. Maybe it's just me, but my identity as a lesbian has more meaning for me than just who I sleep with. It is not just a sexual identity. It has political connotations and deep herstory. At least for me.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

A man who IDs as a snake is never going to be allowed to live in the reptile enclosure at the zoo. No, I don't feel compelled out of politeness to humour that man, or the man who IDs as a lesbian. Why would I? Why should I?

Good point; it's something I think about a lot. Who's perceptions, intuitions, reality is allowed to prevail in an interaction? Mine, or another person's?

Humoring people is the politically correct thing to do these days. When you don't perform the mandated "politeness", or when you step on someone's theology/theory/beliefs, you run the risk of getting bashed, labeled and/or censored. It's anti-liberation, for some, but not all.

This is an essential issue for women because we have been forced/coerced into adopting other people's "ethic(s)" against our best interests since, well, since forever.

What are the contemporary, overt/covert ethical mandates in the culture, and the "community"? Do the mandates of the culture and the "community" differ, really, really? ....Are the community's mandates biased in favor of gender theory over Lesbian Feminism? ....Are the community mandates coercive? Do they force (some) lesbian women to self-censor, walk on eggshells, relinquish personal agency, shut-up and go away? Who's perceptions, intuitions, and reality are lesbian women suppose to embrace? Theirs or other people's? What are they to do when their's don't comport with the PC mandates? (Become "separatists", I suppose.)

These are not small issues. They're core Feminist issues.... There can be no Lesbian Pride without excavating them.



I just read a really interesting article about patriarchy's ever evolving mandates for "good girlism". It was illuminating.


"[W]hat I understand of the history of ethics in the modern period seems to fit with this [imposed standard for "good" and "evil"]. It [the cultural standard] was evolved by male citizen-administrators, working in a deep historical context of patriarchy, to enable their governing. It all makes me wonder if instead of seeking to create a Lesbian Ethics, we might consider learning to do without ethics entirely.

And I think that it may turn out that this is what Sarah’s [Sarah Lucia Hoagland's] book [Lesbian Ethics: Toward New Value] will help us accomplish. [Sought to accomplish, anyway.]

She is shifting from the language of the modem tradition of ethics: from knowing what is right to deciding what to pay attention to. And her last section is about meaning, the creation of meaning, not about “ethics.” - Marilyn Frye

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

As Kobi explained above, there are real repercussions to us, (lesbians), when we allow the word that describes us to become meaningless. Go ahead and call me a bigot.

Nah..... I'll call you smart and incisive. You're just not being a "good girl".

For the life of me, I don't know why people get so testy when issues like "good-girlism" are brought up. For real, I really don't.... I, for one, am really committed to excavating the remnants of whatever patriarchal "good girlism" continue to reside in me. SHRUG

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Chazz

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

Ummm, no. Nowhere did I say that the identity of butch woman was not also valid. This One True Way thing is your mindset not mine.

Originally Posted by Chazz

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

If all the word "woman" means is adult female, then yes an adult female is always a woman. But the word woman is used to describe a gender/gender role. For instance, why would Cheryl and Heart have been concerned earlier in this very thread that the elimination of genders would eliminate the category of women entirely.

I would argue that the what makes it seem like adult female = woman is that gender roles were so strictly and inexorably tied to sex that they were regarded as equivalent. The words sex and gender are used interchangably in society as though they are the same. How many forms ask for gender when really what they are asking for is sex? I can not even begin to imagine how you can suggest that the conflation of sex and gender is a recent development.

Your worldview is as nonsensical and unpersuasive to me as mine is to you. Neither of those seems likely to change.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Slater

Ummm, no. Nowhere did I say that the identity of butch woman was not also valid. This One True Way thing is your mindset not mine.




If all the word "woman" means is adult female, then yes an adult female is always a woman. But the word woman is used to describe a gender/gender role. For instance, why would Cheryl and Heart have been concerned earlier in this very thread that the elimination of genders would eliminate the category of women entirely.

I would argue that the what makes it seem like adult female = woman is that gender roles were so strictly and inexorably tied to sex that they were regarded as equivalent. The words sex and gender are used interchangably in society as though they are the same. How many forms ask for gender when really what they are asking for is sex? I can not even begin to imagine how you can suggest that the conflation of sex and gender is a recent development.

Your worldview is as nonsensical and unpersuasive to me as mine is to you. Neither of those seems likely to change.

And your use of the English language.....well, never mind.

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

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