Masculine of Center -- the term

[Medusa]

I'd like to submit too that "mascunlinity" may not define some Butch women who view their way of being, not as "masculine", but just as a Butch brand of Feminine.

[Parker]

I dont like it.

Part of that is from what others have stated - the whole, "what is the 'center'?" arguments, as well as the inclusion/exclusion arguments; and, of course, the hierarchy of it butch - that's been around forever.

But mostly, I really hate when people try to label me or tell me who I am.

I get that enough from straight people who dont understand what or who a butch woman is - hell, I was labeled as "whatever" just the other day by a woman in the store who first said, "that woman" then changed her answer to "that man" and then just decided on "whatever" - that feels lovely, let me tell you.

So whether it is masculine of center, cis, he/hy, etc., or even "whatever," I dont like when someone else thrusts a label onto me for any reason; and that's what this feels like: someone other than me describing who I am.

Parker no likey.

[aishah]

some background on the term and about b. cole, the woman-identified butch who coined it:

http://oaklandlocal.com/article/quee...wn-boi-project

[Corkey]

Still no enlightenment on what "center" means in this context.

[aishah]

this article by sinclair sexsmith has some background on how butch voices came to use the term, including a diagram of one way to understand "center":
http://www.sugarbutch.net/2011/08/a-...omment-page-1/

The word “masculine of center:”

My understanding is that the Butch Voices revised mission statement includes this word as an umbrella term, to encompass a myriad of identities. Also from the mission statement: “Masculine of center (MoC) is a term, coined by B. Cole of the Brown Boi Project, that recognizes the breadth and depth of identity for lesbian/queer/ womyn who tilt toward the masculine side of the gender scale and includes a wide range of identities such as butch, stud, aggressive/AG, dom, macha, tomboi, trans-masculine etc.”

The term is meant to be more inclusive than a term like “butch,” which is loaded for many people, and which has historically been predominantly adopted by white folks.

This isn’t the first term to come around that has attempted to encompass these many masculine queer identities—remember transmasculine? That was a hot one for a year or so there, but was declared too problematic to keep using, particularly in the ways that it wasn’t inclusive enough of trans women.

Maybe this begs the question of whether or not an umbrella term is necessary at all. As someone who writes about this stuff frequently, my opinion is that yes, it is important to have a term. Not only that, but it’s important to see the connections between us, to look at the places where we overlap, and to use those to build bridges and build stronger community activism and connection around our shared oppression. Because all of us within these individual identities, we may or may not date the same type of person, we may or may not have the same spiritual beliefs, we may or may not identify as feminist, we may or may not wear the same type of underwear, but there is something that unites us: our masculinity.

(I would argue that our masculinity is intentional, though I know there’s some disagreements about that. I’ve also heard, lately, people arguing that they are “butch women,” and therefore “not masculine,” but I’d like to challenge that there is a fundamental difference between male and masculine, and that a woman can be masculine and still be women.)

Having something to unite us is powerful, and most of the words that this world has come up with to use as an umbrella term haven’t been far-fetched and uniting enough. Is this term? I don’t know. Personally, I like the term “masculine of center.” I wouldn’t use it in a sentence to describe myself, like I wouldn’t introduce myself by saying, “I identify as masculine of center,” but I would absolutely say that I identify as butch and that I believe butch falls under that umbrella, just like it is a sort of trans-ish identity, sometimes, for me, as well. I wouldn’t correct someone if they said I was masculine of center. I also don’t tend to identify myself as a “lesbian,” I’m much more likely to call myself a dyke, or, even more so, queer, but I wouldn’t correct someone if they called me that. It’s not my identity word of choice, but it is accurate.

Holding so tight to one singular identity word and no others gets us into such rigid places. When one word and only one word is an accurate description of one’s self, then of course a larger umbrella term will feel bad. And of course one will only feel good about being connected to and associated with other people who identify with that term. The problem is, I think, that the term itself is just a starting place. It’s just the thing that starts these deeper, elevated conversations, the invitation to say, “Okay, what does that mean for you? How did you come to that word, that identity? How does that identity play out in your daily life?”

Because, like Dacia reminded me when we talked about this last week, the map is not the territory. Even if we have mapped something out with language, what matters is the application to our daily, minute-by-minute lives. And what matters is, to me, the connections that we make, the interconnectivity we find with others who are struggling through similar issues that we are, and what we do about it to move ourselves forward.

I know identity politics are incredibly loaded—fuck, the words I call myself have been vastly important to me, I’m not trying to belittle that struggle. It is huge. The act of naming one’s self, especially in the face of oppression and marginalization, is complicated and powerful. I just hope that we can have more looseness in some of these discussions, as they go forward.

One more thing about masculine of center … I’ve read a few places, in response to this Butch Voices/Butch Nation stuff, that the word “masculine of center” reinforces the binary, and that gender is more complex than a linear spectrum, etc etc.

Funny, I never think of “masculine of center” as implying a linear, 2D scale, with masculine on one side and feminine on the other. All sorts of shapes have centers, and I tend to think of the gender map as a 3D circle, a galaxy even (though that is much harder to map), or perhaps a shorthand of a 2D circle if I’m trying to simplify it a little more.

I ran across this on Tumblr not too long ago, and it’s stuck with me:


From the creator:

Because it’s already established, I have put F, standing for Feminine gender, as red, and M, standing for Masculine gender, as blue. Going nicely with the pansexual flag colours, I have put O for Other gender (though part of me feels I should have put Third gender) as yellow. … Each gender/colour fades down to centre, where I have put A for Agender. … With this wheel, you can say “I am somewhere between masculine and other, but it’s not a really gendered gender” and it makes sense, because you point at light green (which looks like turquoise, but this was the best wheel I found). You can say “If I’m anything, I’m feminine” and it makes sense, because you point at light pink. And bigender? Sometimes *here* and sometimes *here*. Genderqueer is anything that isn’t red or blue, I think.
I think there are more genders than just this, but I also think it’s a pretty good place to start. Definitely a vast improvement from the linear spectrum, and I like the idea of all those gradient colors.

So my point, if I have one, is that I like the word “masculine of center,” and I think it’s useful for trying to unite many, many folks who struggle with a masculine identity in the queer worlds. As I’m continuing to be a part of building a better understanding of female masculinity and butch identity in this world, I think it is incredibly important to be talking to other people who have overlapping or complimentary experiences to my own, and to swap theories and survival tactics, to share war stories over beers, to have some respite before we go back and fight the good fights.

[Corkey]

Ok I can find an understanding in this as I use the circle as my way of thinking how I perceive gender fluidity. The Agender though, huh? What pray tell is Agender. Sorry I do not know this.
My circle, the way I perceive gender has no beginning and no end, therefore no hierarchy, no one is greater than the whole.

[aishah]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Ok I can find an understanding in this as I use the circle as my way of thinking how I perceive gender fluidity. The Agender though, huh? What pray tell is Agender. Sorry I do not know this.
My circle, the way I perceive gender has no beginning and no end, therefore no hierarchy, no one is greater than the whole.

http://hellyeahagender.tumblr.com/faq

What does it mean to be agender? What do agender people feel? How does someone know if they’re agender?
The prefix a- means without, lacking, or not, which means that the word agender means ‘without gender’ or ‘lacking gender’. When a person is agender, it basically means that they don’t have a gender—or, in some cases, it means that they feel gender-neutral. A person knows that they’re agender just like a person with any other gender identity knows what they are—it’s how you feel inside. This best descriptor for being agender I’ve seen is this: gender is a language that agender people don’t speak.
Do agender people experience dysphoria? Do agender people want to transition? Do agender people have preferred pronouns? Are all agender people androgynous? Are all agender people asexual? Are all agender people also neutrois?
All of these things vary from person to person and there isn’t one set standard for all agender people. Some agender people experience dysphoria, while some do not. Some agender people have preferred pronouns, while some do not. Some agender people want to transition, some do not. Some agender people are androgynous, some are not. Some agender people are asexual, some are not. Some agender people also identify as neutrois and some do not.

neutrois is also helpful to research... http://neutrois.com/

[aishah]

okay, i lied, one more quote...

And here is one of the biggest problems I see: in many white spaces of resistance, the focus becomes a question of naming something and how proximate that name is to the core of what is being named. The prioritization of the name/naming does not allow for a meaningful engagement with the work that is actually being done under that name. This is one of the most insidious products of (middle class) white culture, the desire to name people and communities in a way that speaks for itself, without having to see what has led to the naming and what are the effects of the actions of those named. It is with this logic that major multinational corporations can carry mantras of “do no evil” and “spreading progress” while simultaneously wreaking economic, political, and social havoc across the globe. There is so much more than what’s in a name.

The term “masculine of center” (MoC) was coined in a progressive, social justice-oriented community of color that seeks to find sustainable and ethical representations and practices of alternative masculinities that can contribute to the empowerment of marginalized genders (including women, girls, young boys, and transpeople). Mincing words between maleness/masculinity/center/margins/etc. distracts from the work that goes on under the label of MoC. o do so takes away from the effects of the groups who take on this label, and the ramifications are especially harmful when such careless speech comes from a respected queer theorist. Additionally, identity and labeling in many communities of color do not usually take on the same priority that labeling takes on in white spaces I’ve observed. It appears to be an epistemological priority of whiteness to be able to identify, categorize, and manage expectations accordingly. Even trying to break identities apart is something that can only be fully carried out in white spaces, where intersections are not something that are necessarily viscerally acknowledged and understood on the day-to-day level (making the statement “masculinity is not the most important vector” an incomprehensible thought in many POC spaces, as it requires imagining that parts of ourselves must always reign supreme over others). To fixate on language, on finding the best and most perfect way to describe something, is to play into dynamics of truth and knowledge production that often marginalize and delegitimize the complicated relationships to resistance that exist within communities of color.

from the article that was posted in the race and racism thread (this is the part directly following the part martina quoted).

[Corkey]

I don't want to judge or label, just understand. In communication there has to be a definition that people can understand. ''Center' has yet to be explained in a way that meets a logical understanding of the word, for me.

[aishah]

i don't have any good explanation for the word "center," personally, except for the fact that in the past gender has been understood as a spectrum, with masculinity on one end and femininity on the other, and some people still understand it that way. even if they acknowledge that it's imperfect. when we do gender 101 at the lgbt muslim retreat, we use the "genderbread" man, which makes heavy use of spectrum imagery to explain sex, gender, presentation, orientation, and all other sorts of things. assuming that everyone is on a spectrum, or occupies only one place on a spectrum, or isn't off in the abyss somewhere, is highly problematic. yet it is also primary way that sexual orientation and gender identity are communicated in the dominant euro-american culture.

while i was washing dishes, an analogy occurred to me. i don't know if this is helpful or not for folks who are resistant of any space they interact in being labeled "masculine of center." but...i hate the term "bisexual." i detest it. i think it is biologically essentializing and it marginalizes trans people. i don't feel that it describes me at all and i don't want it anywhere near me and it makes me feel 1000 different kinds of gross.

at the same time, i am a femme who is attracted to more than one gender. in that way, i share the lived experience with bisexual-id'ed people of being attracted to more than one gender. i share the lived experience of being labeled slutty, confused, not gay enough, not straight enough. in the lgbt acronym, i don't really feel all that included, but i understand more or less that the "b" is supposed to be inclusive of people like me. many of the main resources, publications, etc. about people who share my lived experiences use the term "bisexual." i may hate it and think it is a shitty descriptor, but if i want to interact with people who have similar lived experiences in mainstream spaces, "bisexual" is a commonly accepted descriptor, so i've learned to deal with it and try not to cringe too much.

from my understanding, the term "masculine of center" originated from the belief that butches, studs, transmen, aggressives, bois, etc. share similar lived experiences of transgressing gender boundaries and being marginalized because they present in ways traditionally understood as masculine but were assigned female at birth (and many still identify as female/woman). there are also many differences between them, but they share some commonalities.

i think it's also relevant to point out that the butch voices conference is called BUTCH voices, and the first identity listed under "what identities is this conference for" is BUTCH. not "masculine of center." so i don't really understand the freak-out over butch voices being taken over by the term "masculine of center." they didn't change the name to masculine of center voices...? they just attempted to be more inclusive by adding a term that has currency among butches/studs/aggressives/bois of color.

to me, building solidarity with other people who share similar struggles and lived experiences is more important than worrying about which label is used. i agree with the quote from the piece that was posted in the race thread that abstract battles over labels can sometimes get in the way of doing meaningful solidarity work. i don't think that we should never problematize labels. but...it seems like this battle has gotten in the way of building connections between predominantly white butch communities and masculine-of-center communities of color.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by aishah

i don't have any good explanation for the word "center," personally, except for the fact that in the past gender has been understood as a spectrum, with masculinity on one end and femininity on the other, and some people still understand it that way. even if they acknowledge that it's imperfect. when we do gender 101 at the lgbt muslim retreat, we use the "genderbread" man, which makes heavy use of spectrum imagery to explain sex, gender, presentation, orientation, and all other sorts of things. assuming that everyone is on a spectrum, or occupies only one place on a spectrum, or isn't off in the abyss somewhere, is highly problematic. yet it is also primary way that sexual orientation and gender identity are communicated in the dominant euro-american culture.

while i was washing dishes, an analogy occurred to me. i don't know if this is helpful or not for folks who are resistant of any space they interact in being labeled "masculine of center." but...i hate the term "bisexual." i detest it. i think it is biologically essentializing and it marginalizes trans people. i don't feel that it describes me at all and i don't want it anywhere near me and it makes me feel 1000 different kinds of gross.

at the same time, i am a femme who is attracted to more than one gender. in that way, i share the lived experience with bisexual-id'ed people of being attracted to more than one gender. i share the lived experience of being labeled slutty, confused, not gay enough, not straight enough. in the lgbt acronym, i don't really feel all that included, but i understand more or less that the "b" is supposed to be inclusive of people like me. many of the main resources, publications, etc. about people who share my lived experiences use the term "bisexual." i may hate it and think it is a shitty descriptor, but if i want to interact with people who have similar lived experiences in mainstream spaces, "bisexual" is a commonly accepted descriptor, so i've learned to deal with it and try not to cringe too much.

from my understanding, the term "masculine of center" originated from the belief that butches, studs, transmen, aggressives, bois, etc. share similar lived experiences of transgressing gender boundaries and being marginalized because they present in ways traditionally understood as masculine but were assigned female at birth (and many still identify as female/woman). there are also many differences between them, but they share some commonalities.

i think it's also relevant to point out that the butch voices conference is called BUTCH voices, and the first identity listed under "what identities is this conference for" is BUTCH. not "masculine of center."

to me, building solidarity with other people who share similar struggles and lived experiences is more important than worrying about which label is used. i agree with the quote from the piece that was posted in the race thread that abstract battles over labels can sometimes get in the way of doing meaningful solidarity work.

I'm totally down with the work, it's always the details that are the problem. I don't think using a descriptor that is vague at best is abstract. *shrugs* I don't know what the answer is, or will be, but I'm open to the work of inclusion for all Humans. Thanks for the attempt at enlightening me.

[Kelt]

This conversation has made me think today.

To be honest, I rarely think about labels and identities. I think that may be because the only place in my life where there seems to be any need for it is here. I am sure others have occasion to identify themselves as some specific label out in the world. I simply do not. When I am here (on this specific website) I find it is easier from a conversational point of view to have for myself, and to see in others, what general area of the gender spectrum they see themselves. If someone specifies a gender pronoun preference, I respect that and the rest of the time just leave gender out of it.

Beyond conversation in a BF online community, I have not needed it. I walk down the street wearing my face and chosen clothing style and it seems that to the degree needed, folks figure out what they will think and do so. If someone is labeling me in their own mind it could include many things, I cannot change their assessment of what they see. They will also categorize my race, age, height, etc. No one is forcing an identity on me beyond what they see visually, and how they process that through their own filters. When they get to know me, their assessments may change and include variations of gender. I never know.

Offline, in the 'real' world, I have never felt the need for a highly refined label. I suppose if I went to an event of some sort and someone slapped a "Hello - I'm a __________" on my lapel without asking if I wanted that; then maybe it would matter to me and I could take it off. Maybe that is what this is about. It is interesting to think about though.

Sorry, no insight here. Just an observation.

[Martina]

I remembered when I learned that a lot of gay men in Detroit -- and elsewhere I am sure -- ID'd as homosexual, but not gay. This was in the 90's. Even after the early days of HIV and the organizing around it -- and the contact that created between privileged white gay men and everyone else -- a lot of African American gay men had no sense that they belonged in the gay community. And I mean out, exclusively homosexual men. My best friend back home is an African American gay man. He ID's as gay. He has white gay friends, but over time his community became more African American -- and gay or homosexual. But the more contact I had with his world -- I'd always had a fair amt of contact with white gay men -- the more I realized how much fucking WORK it is for Black men to deal with gay white men and their world. It's tiring. And it's just not home for many of them. So I had a lot of respect for the men who didn't ID as gay. One had a Ph.D. and was a professional queer -- ran an agency. So he had had extensive contact with white institutions. But he still did not ID as gay. Again, totally respect that. White gay male culture just wasn't a fit. Wasn't home. Had never been welcoming to many African American men.

So I get that. I get not feeling a strong pull toward identifiers that maybe never worked for you. I have no problem with anyone ID'ing or self-describing any way they want.

And truly I am not interested in BV politics.

But MoC is put forward as an umbrella term to INCLUDE butch women and other folks. If they don't fit under the umbrella, are they no longer included?

ANd if it's OK with you to not include specific groups, yer making a statement, moving your politics and your community in a particular direction -- deliberately.

But all that aside, my objections to the term do not come from an attachment to other terms. For one thing, I am not butch. I think that foregrounding gender presentation, and calling it masculine, is highly questionable, even without the idea of a spectrum or a center.

It's not just that it excludes people. It makes masculinity the defining characteristic of members of the group. Well, guess what, sometimes I am masculine. I do not ID as MoC or butch or any of the things in those lists. And sometimes my masculinity is not just how I dress, but something deeply internal. Why is masculinity the province of someone else? And have those same people abjured femininity? If so, what kind of sexist consequences are we gonna see from that??

And come on, seriously, isn't creating a gender label called masculine anything and using the word "center" putting oneself on the male side of the conventional binary without problematizing it? Isn't it then reinforcing the binary? To pretend otherwise is naive, in my opinion. Some people won't find that a problem. That's cool. But others will. And if they do not feel comfortable being described as MoC, does that limit their presence in the community if the term gains currency?