Masculine of Center -- the term

[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.

[Corkey]

I think people are still trying to understand. Folks have said that they don't agree with the term being used for them, and I take them at their word. However when the term is used loosely with out a context that is agreed upon, (center), it muddies the field and yep we slip all over the place. So I'm in it to learn, not make pronouncements on anyone else's gender identity. My best read of the thread so far.

[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?

[aishah]

Originally Posted by Martina

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?

well, the term was coined by a butch woman. so...? i guess it is inclusive of butch women who identify with it and some butch women do not identify with it? because many butch women of color do id as masculine of center, i don't think the term is meant to be exclusive of butch women.

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?

the pdf i linked to from brown boi talks a bit about why they choose specifically to focus on masculinity as a characteristic (because masculine id'ed folks of color face specific challenges that they feel need to be addressed and they work to address that). i am guessing that might give more context to why b. cole chooses to specifically use the word masculine.

to be honest, i am not going to lose any sleep over the fear of white butches being "limited" if the term gains currency. i don't think poc queer culture or our language is in any way a threat to the mainstream white queer culture.

edited to add - from the pdf -

We believe that the policing of masculinity is literally killing us. It drives boys of color to violence
as a means of securing power and manhood. Its
historical root though goes much deeper. The
control of people of color for many centuries has
been possible through the regulation of gender—especially the control of women’s bodies.
From massacres of Native American women to
prevent future generations,
to sterilization of one-third of all Puerto Rican women of child
rearing age, limiting the movement of Asian
immigrant women to join their families,
and the countless forms of violence Black women
endured during slavery—controlling women has
been a profoundly effective tool in controlling all
of us. These efforts while historical in nature are
directly tied to current repeated assaults on bodies of women of color around their reproductive
health and wellbeing. Part of our organizational
purpose as is to leverage our masculinity to make
a positive contribution to interrupt this cycle.

By controlling femininity in negative ways, society has
been able to consolidate power and wealth in the hands
of those with privilege around gender and race. It also
unearths the truth about how we perceive women with in
this society, the deepest embodiment of femininity. Thus
the greatest threat to masculinity is to strip it of power,
to feminize it. This is the root of homophobia.
19
Reversing
this tide is essential if our communities are going to
thrive. We understand deeply how our masculine privilege can become a wedge in our communities—pitting
racial justice fights against gender justice. Yet we have
been able to bridge these efforts in a way that strengthens boys of color, giving them access to masculinity
without shame or negativity. Our core ethos is to let
your first act of resistance be one of self-love; and your
second accountability for your privilege. We have built a
model that allows for both.

We work for Gender Justice by re-envisioning the power imbalance between traditional
notions of masculinity and femininity. We hold institutional systems, other masculine people,
and ourselves accountable for masculine privilege. Our work draws on a gender inclusive
framework that shapes non-oppressive masculinity rooted in honor, community, and collaboration with feminine identified people, especially women and girls.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by aishah

to be honest, i am not going to lose any sleep over the fear of white butches being "limited" if the term gains currency. i don't think poc queer culture or our language is in any way a threat to the mainstream white queer culture.

I wasn't thinking of white butches. I didn't say white. You did.

I think a LOT of African American butches of my generation wouldn't resonate at all.

Re your last sentence I am not defending white queer culture. Wow. That's a leap.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by aishah

well, the term was coined by a butch woman. so...? i guess it is inclusive of butch women who identify with it and some butch women do not identify with it? because many butch women of color do id as masculine of center, i don't think the term is meant to be exclusive of butch women.



the pdf i linked to from brown boi talks a bit about why they choose specifically to focus on masculinity as a characteristic (because masculine id'ed folks of color face specific challenges that they feel need to be addressed and they work to address that). i am guessing that might give more context to why b. cole chooses to specifically use the word masculine.

to be honest, i am not going to lose any sleep over the fear of white butches being "limited" if the term gains currency. i don't think poc queer culture or our language is in any way a threat to the mainstream white queer culture.

I don't think anyone is threatened, except by a term that is trying to include identities that some do not want to be used to describe who they are. Like I said I have no problem with anyone claiming MoC for themselves, it's the inclusion of people who do not wish to be included that is the issue. I wish I could talk to b. Cole to understand this better.