Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[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