In Celebration of Butch Femininity

[C0LLETTE]

Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks, Lenin vs Trotsky, Marat vs Sade vs Robespierre, Jefferson vs Hamilton, MLK vs Malcolm X...etc. Seems all "movements have these schisms .
So my question is, Butler vs ?. Is there anyone within this community who cogently presents an antithetical view but is still accepted within the community? It's a small question but I am curious.

[stargazingboi]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks, Lenin vs Trotsky, Marat vs Sade vs Robespierre, Jefferson vs Hamilton, MLK vs Malcolm X...etc. Seems all "movements have these schisms .
So my question is, Butler vs ?. Is there anyone within this community who cogently presents an antithetical view but is still accepted within the community? It's a small question but I am curious.

I believe there are. However, with any group of people debating one often sees support of each side being debated. Therefore, I have yet to see an opinion so different that a person had no support and alone and ultimately not accepted.

Then again...I could be misreading and not answering your question correctly

[C0LLETTE]

Thanks stargazingboi. My q is a straightforward one. I was just wondering if someone had a name of one or two writers/thinkers/academics etc on this topic who present a view different than Butlers on the subject of inclusion/exclusion but were still respected in this community. I'm not presenting a pov just asking for info.

[C0LLETTE]

ok, thanks Martina.

[stargazingboi]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Thanks stargazingboi. My q is a straightforward one. I was just wondering if someone had a name of one or two writers/thinkers/academics etc on this topic who present a view different than Butlers on the subject of inclusion/exclusion but were still respected in this community. I'm not presenting a pov just asking for info.

Ahhh gotcha...when it comes to academics I cant think of anyone off the top of my head that are not respected overall. Perhaps, by individuals that I know but not as a community.

I have to be honest though....I still haven't read anything that was so out there in their view points that the community at large would turned their back.

For me it's the same thing I have heard over and over for years with different words

[Paradox]

This is a great thread because it illustrates the complexity of humanity with the sub category of this community.

There are recent posts where I agree with some and others not at all. However that would be the same for other members as well. It would be difficult for me to provide my opinion without stirring up contention. One main reason to this is how text can be interpreted. The drawback of cyber world.

A concern I have with no boundaries’ policy is leaves too many things up in the air and the lose of meaning. Live and let live yes, as long as no harm is done to another (as in regard to situation with absolutely no choice EX. family one is born into, medical condition, ethnicity etc). This I totally agree. However even with that, I think people forget or do not understand or realize there is price to pay (not necessarily in monetary terms) for every choice you make. Meaning people will not always like or agree with your decisions or chooses and they don’t have to. There is no free ride.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by Paradox

A concern I have with no boundaries’ policy is leaves too many things up in the air and the lose of meaning.

There isn't a lot of meaning to many identity categories. I read a great book a long time ago about African American identity. The only thing all -- or even most -- African Americans have in common is having experienced the particular form of racism that is directed against African Americans in the United States. Every other thing that one might associate with the identity was not shared by a relatively significant portion of the group.

But being subject to racism does create a shared experience and a bond. On that happy day when there is very little racism against African Americans in this country, what will there be to create the identity African American? Nothing. Individual groups of African Americans will share interests, history, etc. But for the entire group, the only thing they'll have in common is that they chose to check the African American box on a form.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Martina

There isn't a lot of meaning to many identity categories. I read a great book a long time ago about African American identity. The only thing all -- or even most -- African Americans have in common is having experienced the particular form of racism that is directed against African Americans in the United States. Every other thing that one might associate with the identity was not shared by a relatively significant portion of the group.

But being subject to racism does create a shared experience and a bond. On that happy day when there is very little racism against African Americans in this country, what will there be to create the identity African American? Nothing. Individual groups of African Americans will share interests, history, etc. But for the entire group, the only thing they'll have in common is that they chose to check the African American box on a form.

I completely agree for that one point. Expanding ... which resonates for 95% of people of African Descent (or of darker skin tone) - regardless of country. As the example with Polish. Unless someone says there are Polish, I wouldn't know. They would be under the sub category of Caucasian. Times of changed a few more interracial mixes, but no matter what there are meaningful categories that still remain as such Black/African ...., some based upon regional ancestry but more base on what is 'seen', easily recognizable, by appearance where perceptions and assumptions rise. I could be a third generation American of African descent or a visitor from Sierra Leone. Most people will pre-judge (from stereotypical viewpoints etc). Pre-Judgeing happens from either side but more often than not towards those of African descent.

Labels in general carry a double edge sword. Be too specific and risk alienating. Be too broad loose sense of 'standards' (not the exact word I wanted to use - my mind just went blank).They are important, however can be misused or ill defined.

Appearance is variable that can make or break a label for many. Within the LGBT community is no exception.. From my experience I've been tagged butch soley on the way I 'look'. I have been criticized a few times for not 'behaving' butch enough. And my reply would be 'you made the assumption I was or should act butch based on my appearance. Not on who I am as a person'.

I use the term butch sparingly now - with an added disclaimer

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Thanks stargazingboi. My q is a straightforward one. I was just wondering if someone had a name of one or two writers/thinkers/academics etc on this topic who present a view different than Butlers on the subject of inclusion/exclusion but were still respected in this community. I'm not presenting a pov just asking for info.

I pulled some books off my shelf and did a quick google search. I couldn't find anyone in direct opposition. What I came across was others' works that is similar in thought.

If you are interested in gender, you may appreciate Judith Halberstam's Female Masculinity.

[C0LLETTE]

thank you Dapper Butch.It's much appreciated. I intend to do some reading. TY again.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Butler vs ?. Is there anyone within this community who cogently presents an antithetical view but is still accepted within the community?

Kobi?

She is presenting like an old-fashioned identity politics feminist right now - although she has a post in which she talked about running into some hard core anti-trans essentialist ones and did not like what she found.

Trying to think who else. The Taliban? I am being facetious, but why would anyone want to reclaim identity politics? They don't make sense. I don't know. I am sure there are people. But the social construction of race and gender are pretty widely accepted, sort of a bedrock social theory.

Maybe biologists and psychologists who study the biological basis of sex and gender? For race, no. There is no other accepted theory.