Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[CherylNYC]

Thank your for all your posts, Aj. Like Kobi, I missed 'once male' altogether. I didn't understand the reference, and giddy with the joy of FINALLY reading posts by and for lesbian feminist butch-femme women, instead of reading posts about how far butches can push themselves towards maleness on the spectrum(sic), I didn't bother to sort out the meaning of the term.

I've been excited about a seeming resurgence in lesbian pride. As much as I wish we were not talking about the acceptance of transwomen in our community instead of lesbian pride, clearly we're not done yet.

Your post has made me thoughtful about my own history. I have a baaad history with men. I've been the object of a lifetime of very invasive, not to mention criminal behaviour. The reason I'm far more wary of men, even though I've also been financially and sexually abused by a woman, is that my issues with men are current and ongoing. I may be pushing 50, but they still sniff up my butt like a pack of dogs. No, there's nothing flattering about it. I would be a fool and a victim if I didn't maintain a VERY guarded posture with most men. For me, safety is relative and the safest space is women's space. Like many feminists of my era, I treasure and guard women's space because it's very meaningful to me.

This is relevant because many lesbians have felt, just as you pointed out, that transwomen are really men who have come to invade women's space. I certainly felt that way for a long time. A close friend, A, changed that view. She's a woman. Period. I don't care that A has a long history as a man prior to her transition. Like you, she holds her head high, carries herself with dignity, and holds herself to a very high standard of conduct. I'm quite certain that she did that before she transitioned, too.

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet.

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting, and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As far as I know, here in NYC my friend is no longer in danger of being disrespected or made to feel unwelcome in any part of our communities. MWMF is the only event from which she's excluded. I've observed her getting the fish-eye in straight settings, but according to her she hasn't felt or heard any anti-trans actions or words directed towards her from anyone in our LGBT, BDSM, or women's communities. Ironically, she has been vilified by other trans people because of her views about what it means to be a woman. My friend can happily come and go to women's groups and events in safety because there's been such a strong push towards trans acceptance here in NYC.

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.)

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off.

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Kobi:

Thank you for explaining your position. You may have noticed that pretty much the *minute* MWMF was invoked, I backed off the conversation and went silent. That is because I *knew* that it was only a matter of time before something was posted where transwomen would be portrayed as 'not really women' or 'not really belonging to the lesbian community'. At that moment, the space--not just this thread but this entire site--became unsafe for me. Now, I don't really expect the world to be a safe space. I would not have made it into middle-age as a black lesbian if I expected the world to welcome me with open arms. I do, however, strongly prefer to be in spaces where I won't be subject to reading things that explicitly state--for reasons entirely beyond your control, you do not belong here. But it goes farther than that. Yesterday, as I wrestled with saying something in response, a question crossed my mind: is there any amount of time or effort a transwoman could spend in the lesbian community that would allow her to not be thought of as an interloper and to be brought into the circle of 'sister'. My gut instinct is that for anyone who uses the term 'once-males' to refer to transgendered women a million years wouldn't be half enough time. I also get the feeling--and I may be wrong--that if a transwoman carried not just her own weight but the weight of the next 10 women around her, those contributions would *still* not be enough.

So what I read was that transwomen had no legitimate place and in that moment, as I said before, this place became deeply 'unsafe'. So why am I still here? Why did I not leave? Because before I was a queer, I was already black. I know unsafe space. I know how to maneuver around unsafe space. My neighborhood was unsafe space--in the way that being the only black kid in your class from kindergarten to sixth grade can be. At some point in between being subjected to the tender mercies of elementary school children picking on the kid who looks most different to the experience of coming out and promptly being told that I was a race traitor (yes, I have had people say that to me) for being queer, I realized that if someone holds a prejudice against me, there is very little I can do to change their mind. I can, however, decide that I will hold my head high, that I will carry myself with dignity and that I will hold to a very high standard of conduct. My logic is that the bigot will still think me low, undeserving or an interloper but I will, in the fullness of time, make that bigot look like a fool. How? By being a shining star. By being honorable, intelligent, erudite, kind, expansive, friendly and hard-working. What could do more damage to any of the myths that people might have about me because I'm black, queer, etc. than to be the kind of woman you could proudly take home to mother?

Years ago, when I came out and first discovered that there were two groups within the queer community--particularly the lesbian community--that were considered once and for all time outside the circle of sisterhood; bisexuals and transwomen. The blatantly racist or anti-Semitic statement had no place and any woman fool enough to utter it in public would have the wrath of Sappho herself visited upon her. But bisexuals could be spoken of in terms of being vectors of disease contaminating what would otherwise have been an ostensibly disease-free lesbian community. At least bisexuals were not thought to be intentionally volunteering to be disease vectors while transwomen were thought to have truly evil intent--although this being the 90s and post-modernism being what it was, no one used the term evil. Rather, it was couched in terms of transwomen having some nebulous, shadowy but nefarious intent to do undermine the lesbian community from within. At the time, I was writing for every gay or lesbian newspaper or magazine that would publish me. I stumbled across a question that was relevant in 1991 and is relevant 20 years later, what are we in this for? By this I mean the Movement for the rights of queer people to live their lives as full citizens with agency. Are we in it because--as I believe--that it is simply wrong for individuals to be discriminated against in either law or custom because of some arbitrary characteristic OR are we in this because such discrimination is happening to *us*. This is a non-trivial difference. If you believe that bigotry and prejudice are wrong then one would hope one would spread that net as far as possible. It goes beyond the discrimination that happens to me, it is the discrimination I make others the target of. If, on the other hand, one believes that the discrimination that happens to one's own group is wrong but not that bigotry or prejudice are generally wrong, then one need not look to the plank in one's own eye. All that matters is that the other person standing on one's foot get the hell off your foot. IF the queer movement is against bigotry or prejudice based upon arbitrary characteristics of gender or sexual orientation, then our movement cannot give much quarter to a form of bigotry that says "I don't care, nor do I have to care, how long ago you transitioned you will always be, in my eyes, whatever your chromosomes say you are". If, on the other hand, we are concerned only with the more limited question of "lesbians and gay men are subject to injustice because they are gay or lesbian" that allows for the community to have a space for bigotry against bisexuals or transsexuals or transgendered people or, for that matter, butches and femmes.

Twenty years ago, I cast my lot in with that part of the community that believed that the discrimination that happens to bisexuals or transsexuals *within* the queer community is no better than discrimination that happens against all queer people. I would have preferred that gender theory were not the vehicle by which transgendered people gained a greater level of acceptance because I think that post-modernism, upon which gender theory is based, is deeply and profoundly broken because it is incoherent. I almost feel guilty at having benefited from gender theory and its ancestor, post-modernism, because I would be quite happy putting the final nail in the coffin of that ideology.

Cheers
Aj

[Martina]

i thought the Daryn thing was annoying. i appreciate that the mods acknowledge they could have handled it better. He also made a snipe on another thread about Japanese lesbian feminists or something like that. Maybe he was angry after the big reaction he got. But i didn't see his participation as particularly well-intentioned.

i also think that whether it crops up frequently on this site or not, there is a lot of lesbian bashing still common in our community. i have heard it. i get way tired of it. And sometimes you know what someone is saying even if they stop short of saying something that one could report.

That said, i think this thread has bordered on transphobia off and on throughout. i tried to make that point, but was every so gently shown the door. Maybe i didn't make it well.

Talking about pure feminism is a dangerous discourse. It suggests an other, an impure feminism (gender theory?). Also talking about what it used to be like to be a lesbian compared to now suggests to me that people feel displaced, unrecognized, not valued for their contributions. The context of the Butch Voices controversy makes it pretty clear who the other is, the other whose voice is supposedly heard and valued more. Framing the conversation this way requires that it be understood as either-or, as a conflict.

Reclaiming from whom? is the question.

As i said to someone in PM, even the great gender outlaw posts seem to be trying to reclaim a status that was lost or has lost cache. If we are saying we were the original badasses, we're clearly also talking about who is now considered to be a gender outlaw. i am just saying that there has been an invisible other present throughout, and to my mind, it is at least in part the transperson.

Interesting that instead of a transman, the eruption of bigotry was that older anxiety, the presence of transwomen in our communities.

i am going to be offline for a couple of days. i have a new smart phone that should allow me to see stuff, but i don't know if i can use it well enough yet.

[BullDog]

Medusa I don't think you are an agent of the patriarchy and I do think you are supportive of lesbians, but I super bummed that you think having a Lesbian Zone is going to create a "militant, separatist and unwelcoming" space for those who don't i.d. as lesbians.

There are lesbians calling for more inclusive space, there are lesbians speaking out against transphobia, there are lesbians being supportive across the gender spectrum. I get that lesbians can post in any thread from 'What's For Dinner" to Racism to Gender theory threads. I also see a clear need for lesbian visibility and don't get why having a Lesbian Zone would be more potentially divisive than say a Trans Zone or Butch Zone or Femme Zone. I am seriously bummed.

I spoke out in this thread about things that I saw as exclusionary, I spoke out against the transphobia. I am not coming from a "purist" or separatist state at all.

[Medusa]

Wait a minute.

Let's be clear. I did not say the zone *is* going to create a separatist environment.

"Is" is an action verb and would mean that I think that is occurring right now. I don't.

I said "has the potential to create". That is me expressing my own personal fears. Me expressing a fear is very different than labeling something as "this is occurring as we speak".

I'm sorry if that wasn't more clear.

I have read and posted in this zone multiple times. It has existed on this site for well over a year. None of the conversations here have ever been redirected, renamed, or moved. My support of this zone is clear given that it scares me but that I work to overcome that fear by participating in and digesting the discussions here that sometime make me cringe or want to pull my hair out (and that isn't specific to the LZ, it has happened in multiple threads and zones on these forums).

I'll say it again: I support the Lesbian Zone.

[ScandalAndy]

I have a confession to make.


I need to thank everyone who stood up and said "you are excluding your transfeminine sisters".

I consider myself a huge trans ally and activist. I don't want to quantify my contributions, but I do a lot of work in the field with organized groups, as well as helping individuals who are in my life as friends, partners of friends, etc.

I never stopped to think about transgendered lesbians in this discussion, and my privilege as a cisgendered woman blinded me to them. I am sorry to all of the women I inadvertently excluded because of that. This has been a giant kick in the pants that I needed.

Now I am stuck in a dilemma. I do not want to "sweep it under the rug", but I am terribly frustrated because I've just recognized this massive gap in my support and don't know how to fix it. I don't want to have had this epiphany and do nothing with it.

There are a lot of ruffled feathers going on here, and I think maybe I'm not the only one who is a little ashamed at not seeing something happening, or not speaking up, or whatever it is that is causing such discomfort. I hope we can all come full circle and get back to supporting each other.




Also, to all of you talking about current gender theory, I'm a student of that new school and i support it wholeheartedly. That being said, I agree that there are issues that arise when no clear cut boundary lines are drawn. I feel it's very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. This causes even MORE frustration for me, which tends to make me withdraw from the conversation and I'm sorry for that. I just don't do well with confrontation and the passion on the threads lately has been off-putting and frightening to me. I don't want to get caught in the crosshairs.

[BullDog]

Medusa, I put potentially divisive in my second paragraph, I neglected to do so in my first paragraph. I still don't understand your take, but I will just try to chill.

[Kobi]

Angie,

I appreciate you sharing this. I had asked repeatedly early on what was so threatening about lesbians, like me, having a space like this thread was meant to be. More and more pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together.

I think I have distanced myself from the anger and the hurt caused by these words to the point where I can now address this in a respectful manner. My hope is that by doing so, a dialogue can develop to address some stuff. It is not to make your life difficult. Nor mine. Trust me, I would much rather be sailing the Atlantic today taking my chances on being lunch meat for the great white sharks than doing this. But. it's important. So here I am.

I apologize for the format here. It wouldnt let me multiquote, so I have to cut and paste.

And, let me add, to respond to some of your points, I have to deal with things like the patriarchy. I want to be clear I am not ranking on the transmen here. These are patriarchal society issues.

You said: I have said 100 times that a Lesbian zone on this website is redundant. To make a "zone within a zone" on a website where the core/essence/foundation is Lesbian is redundant and has bothered me since day one.

Perspective is everything. Your intent is clear. The fact that lesbians kept pushing for their own zone indicates that their experience wasnt matching your intent. The fact that it keeps cropping up is probably as annoying for you to hear as it is for me to have to speak to it.

Sometimes when things keep coming up over and over, we have to ask why. We have to put our own stuff aside, and look at something with a different set of eyes and ears. If I didnt have faith in you to be able and willing to do this, I wouldnt even bother writing this. But I do. And, I know if I can put my shit aside and begin to see racism in a different light, and grapple with trans issues that I am beginning to understand, I know this can be done as well.

You said: "My "begrudging" implementation of the "Lesbian" zone is not because I'm an agent of the Patriarchy and am wanting to deny the voices of Lesbians. It's because I was and am super fearful of creating a space that has the HUGE potential to become militant and separatist and unwelcoming to Transwomen, Transmen, and even BUTCHES based on my own experiences as an out Lesbian of 20 years." Is that Lesbian-phobic? Remember, I'm a Lesbian.

First off, if I was 30 years younger, the thought of being seen as a potentially dangerous, militant, separatist kind of thing would be invigorating and kind of sexy. At my stage of life, the biggest threat I pose is the loss of bladder control when laughing.

Seriously tho, I understand your fear. Once started, some things are difficult to control. But, I dont and I havent heard anyone else say anything like we must overcome, revolt, protest, and other such stuff energy depleting stuff. I am saying and hearing others say, we have issues. We want to be heard in a way that we feel heard, understood, appreciated for the unique people we are amongst other unique people. We want our issues given the same weight as others issues are. If we felt this was happening, I doubt it would keep coming up over and over.

You are not lesbian-phobic. But, we both know queer folk can be homophobic and women can be misogynistic and sexist. Belonging to the group doesnt always stop the dynamic from occuring.

From my perspective, what I see happening is what is called overcompensation. This is defined as a defense mechanism that conceals ones undesirable shortcomings by exaggerating desirable behaviors. It is understandable. In this case, one is representing and working to create a community of diverse peoples who have been and continue to oppressed. It is hard to find a balance and to serve everyone equally. I understand the fear and apprehension. I even understand the overcompensation.

The fact that people have been addressing or trying to address what is seen as an inequity of sorts, means they are experiencing a different reality. It doesnt make their reality any less real or any less pertinent. When we have stuff going on like was/is occuring at BV, when we have lesbians saying their ids are being hijacked, when we have lesbians saying they are feeling marginalized, like guests in their own community, and like there is a push to make them extinct.....that is or should be seen as very powerful stuff. And the fact that these feelings are not the result of what is going on out there but from what is going on within our own umbrella community, should be a HUGE red flag for every single member of this community. And it is not just butches. We have femmes saying they have issues as well.

And, there have been supportive allies here as well saying yeah, I see that. So on the reality check scale, I know what I am seeing and feeling is not a figment of my imagination. It is a reality.

To remain silent, is to be untrue to oneself. To speak up is to be self respecting, self advocating, and to be put under a microscope at the same time. It is an incredibly uncomfortable reality for me. And, if it wasnt important, I sure as heck wouldnt invite this drama, the stress it provokes, the anger it provokes and the pain it provokes into my life. It IS or should be important to this site, this community, and ALL the people who use it.

One of the things that triggers me about having separate Lesbian space on a Lesbian site is that it pushes so many of my personal buttons about identity fencing. It becomes easy to discount voices as "Patriarchy" even if those same voice share our history.

I think we can celebrate our shared Lesbian herstory and listen to the voices of those who do share, will share, and have shared that path, even if those voices are now deeper.

With all due respect Angie, we disagree on a very pertinent issue here. We have a mixed group of people here. We have males and we have females. To say that patriarchal issues are not present here would be untrue. We have women speaking to sexism, we have women speaking to male privilege, we have a transmen thread about male privilege, we have the BV stuff. It is wasn't here, there would be no reason for these topics or discussions to be had. We wouldn't ask POC to ignore racism nor would we ask transperson to ignore transphobia. So, why would we ask women to ignore the manifestations they see of sexism and misogyny and lesbians to ignore what looks like and feels like homophobia?

We don't want to sanitize the negative aspects of the women's movement and how we discriminated against groups of our own people. We don't want to sanitize the issues of how lesbians, like me, were oppressive to other groups in gay rights. We don't want to sanitize history. I hear you. I agree with you. Then, we shouldn't want to sanitize the patriarchy on the grounds of dna profiles either. That's not transphobia. That's applied logic.

From my perspective, we shouldn't be trying to sanitize the present day stuff either. It sucks the big one and its ugly. But, should that mean we don't step out of our comfort zones and deal with it head on? Does it mean we have to sweep it under the rug and hope it will go away? Does it have to mean people cant discuss things that impact them on very deep levels because it pushes our own buttons? I have more faith in us than to believe that needs to be the case.

You started this site for a reason. And you had a vision for how you wanted it to be. It's a good site. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think so. But, we cant stick our collective heads in the sand ad infinitum. It might work for a while, but somewhere another BV is going to be brewing, and it will come back to smack us in the face again. Life is funny that way.

Not dealing with stuff creates a lot more, slightly below the surface, resentment. That resentment makes it very hard to be open to listening to others when you (generic you) feel others aren't listening to you. Resentment breeds anger. Anger breeds hatred. Hatred makes our lives miserable.

I truly believe in the vision you have. It is a good vision that can benefit a great many people. There is stuff maybe you didn't think would come into play when you started it. But, like it or not, it found its way to your doorstep. And you don't have to do it alone. This is a community. And it is a community that is no stranger to oppression, to opposition, to controversy, to struggle, to muddling its way thru to the other side. And when we get there, we are wiser, stronger, more respectful of the struggles of one another, more peaceful and more harmonious.

We can make that happen, if we want to, if it is important to us, if we understand that it benefits all of us. Cuz if there is one thing our collective histories/herstories should have taught us, is when one of us hurts, we all feel the pain. When one of us gets cut, we all bleed. When one of us gets pushed around or pushed aside, it could happen to us as well.

The process of getting stuff in the open isnt likely to be pretty. But, it can be done respecfully I think. People do have to be able to say what they need to say and how it makes them feel. It might sting sometimes but others have said worse to us and about us in hatred and out of fear.

Being human, it isnt going to be a smooth and flawless undertaking. Mistakes will be made. Errors in judgement, a poor choice of words, and stuff is likely to happen. We dont need a 2x4 or a baseball bat to address it, for the most part. Paying closer attention and a heads up would be nice tho.

To me, even tho we will likely never know the entire story of what happened over at BV, we have seen what happened as a result of people feeling unheard. Is splintering the answer? Can something new and never tried before be created? Does it have to be one way or the other? I dont have the answers or an agenda for where something should go. What I do know is not talking about it isnt the answer.

The question that should be on the table is do we want to deal with it or do we want to lift the rug and get a broom again?

[BullDog]

I have to say I agree with quite a bit of what Kobi is saying- and I am not shy about disagreeing with her.

Why do many lesbians keeping asking for a Lesbian Zone or wanting a Lesbian Zone if it is completely redundant? I think lesbians have spoken to some of those desires to those who read the threads.

Why are lesbians so suspect?

I think women need to be a hell of a lot more militant than they are now in this world for us to finally get somewhere.

There are lesbians that are transphobic, there are transmen who are misogynist, there are people of every gender persuasion that are bigots. I think it's great that we have a Trans Zone, but I have seen things written there that I didn't care for. Why is it the Lesbian Zone that is questioned and disparaged? Why is it the Lesbian Zone in particular seen as having HUGE potential for being unwelcoming?

Again why are lesbians in particular so suspect?

Why are lesbian stereotypes so difficult for people to distinguish between what are supposedly people's personal truths, when other isms seem to be more recognizable as perpetuating stereotypes? Just a few of the questions that I have.

Edit: And to be clear the Lesbian Zone keeps getting questioned over and over again. My response is not just to one post made by Medusa.

[AtLast]

My main reason for requesting a specific zone for lesbianism (which I know Angie knows) was due to it being a sexual minority and to help educate members about lesbian-phobic attitudes. Other sexual minorities such as BDSM had a zone, so it seemed appropriate for there to be a lesbian zone. Although a part of me understands the "redundancy" factor in theory, not all members are lesbian, just as not all members are trans, non-trans, etc. Since I joined online B-F sites, I have noticed lesbian-phobic attitudes.

I would not condone the use of the lesbian zone as a vehicle for any kind of bigotry against any other group or population represented on the site or to serve as a wedge between any of the populations that call the Planet home. Nor rallying some kind of divide among us. That would run contrary to the entire mission of the site which, I truly believe has the spirit of consciousness and awareness at its heart (lesbian-phobic remarks are also covered in the site's TOS and can be grounds for moderation). Having a specific lesbian zone in which the recognition of lesbianism as a sexual minority (which it is in all literature in the study of human sexual behavior) that can be stereotyped negatively and has resulted in discrimination on the Planet is much appreciated by lesbian members. And no zone represented here should ever promote division among all of the groups that make up this community.

Personally, I feel like there is a lot of effort on the Planet to promote space for all of us to be represented fairly. I, too, have read things in other zones that I felt were negative toward other groups here, even bigoted- that is what the report button is for.

I appreciate having this zone, but if comments were made that were transphobic, racist, etc., I would report the posts the same as I would in any other zone.

I hope this doesn't sound too clinical or stiff- that isn't my intent- I'm trying to show appreciation, explain why I (and others) asked for a lesbian zone in which our issues could be addressed in the context of a sexual minority and also state that I don't want it to ever be used for divisive agendas. LOL… and I know I have been redundant!! Sorry, its late!

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

My main reason for requesting a specific zone for lesbianism (which I know Angie knows) was due to it being a sexual minority and to help educate members about lesbian-phobic attitudes. Other sexual minorities such as BDSM had a zone, so it seemed appropriate for there to be a lesbian zone. Although a part of me understands the "redundancy" factor in theory, not all members are lesbian, just as not all members are trans, non-trans, etc. Since I joined online B-F sites, I have noticed lesbian-phobic attitudes.

I would not condone the use of the lesbian zone as a vehicle for any kind of bigotry against any other group or population represented on the site or to serve as a wedge between any of the populations that call the Planet home. Nor rallying some kind of divide among us. That would run contrary to the entire mission of the site which, I truly believe has the spirit of consciousness and awareness at its heart (lesbian-phobic remarks are also covered in the site's TOS and can be grounds for moderation). Having a specific lesbian zone in which the recognition of lesbianism as a sexual minority (which it is in all literature in the study of human sexual behavior) that can be stereotyped negatively and has resulted in discrimination on the Planet is much appreciated by lesbian members. And no zone represented here should ever promote division among all of the groups that make up this community.

Personally, I feel like there is a lot of effort on the Planet to promote space for all of us to be represented fairly. I, too, have read things in other zones that I felt were negative toward other groups here, even bigoted- that is what the report button is for.

I appreciate having this zone, but if comments were made that were transphobic, racist, etc., I would report the posts the same as I would in any other zone.

I hope this doesn't sound too clinical or stiff- that isn't my intent- I'm trying to show appreciation, explain why I (and others) asked for a lesbian zone in which our issues could be addressed in the context of a sexual minority and also state that I don't want it to ever be used for divisive agendas. LOL… and I know I have been redundant!! Sorry, its late!

ALH,

It was late when you wrote this. I am still working on my first cup of coffee.

So, I am going to ask you to clarify something that I am not sure I understand. Forgive me if I use the wrong words here cuz meanings have been modified over the years and I am far from current on the changes.

You referred to lesbianism as a sexual minority like BDSM. I dont understand what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

Also I had to go check but I dont see a BDSM zone here. I see the Lesbian Zone listed under the Gender and Identity category. I see a BDSM entry under the Love category. Am I missing something or am I just not following your train of thought?

I agree with you that bigotry isnt acceptable behavior here nor should it be anywhere else.

I am not sure if you and I are on the same page when it comes to divisiveness. From my standpoint, the queer umbrella is huge. We are a diverse people. Diversity implies differences. Sometimes those differences are easy to negotiate. Sometimes the roots of those differences run so deep and are so complex they are not easily overcome.

Ideally, we should be able to transcend differences, perhaps in creating a new and different reality. Realistically, we are evolving humans who have a way to go on the journey to ideal.

As a community we are a system. As you know, changes to one part of the system impacts other parts of the system, sometimes in unexpected ways. How we deal with it, if we deal with it, effects the final (currently final) outcome. Outcomes are processes too.

What you have said feels different to me. Does it feel different to you? Or am I not reading you correctly?

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

My main reason for requesting a specific zone for lesbianism (which I know Angie knows) was due to it being a sexual minority and to help educate members about lesbian-phobic attitudes. Other sexual minorities such as BDSM had a zone, so it seemed appropriate for there to be a lesbian zone. Although a part of me understands the "redundancy" factor in theory, not all members are lesbian, just as not all members are trans, non-trans, etc. Since I joined online B-F sites, I have noticed lesbian-phobic attitudes.

I would not condone the use of the lesbian zone as a vehicle for any kind of bigotry against any other group or population represented on the site or to serve as a wedge between any of the populations that call the Planet home. Nor rallying some kind of divide among us. That would run contrary to the entire mission of the site which, I truly believe has the spirit of consciousness and awareness at its heart (lesbian-phobic remarks are also covered in the site's TOS and can be grounds for moderation). Having a specific lesbian zone in which the recognition of lesbianism as a sexual minority (which it is in all literature in the study of human sexual behavior) that can be stereotyped negatively and has resulted in discrimination on the Planet is much appreciated by lesbian members. And no zone represented here should ever promote division among all of the groups that make up this community.

Personally, I feel like there is a lot of effort on the Planet to promote space for all of us to be represented fairly. I, too, have read things in other zones that I felt were negative toward other groups here, even bigoted- that is what the report button is for.

I appreciate having this zone, but if comments were made that were transphobic, racist, etc., I would report the posts the same as I would in any other zone.

I hope this doesn't sound too clinical or stiff- that isn't my intent- I'm trying to show appreciation, explain why I (and others) asked for a lesbian zone in which our issues could be addressed in the context of a sexual minority and also state that I don't want it to ever be used for divisive agendas. LOL… and I know I have been redundant!! Sorry, its late!

Hi Kobi-

lesbianism as sexual minority is about it being part of sexual minority (status) curriculum in our colleges and universities and studied in terms of discrimination. Lesbians are part of a minority group that has (like others) been discrininated against as well as been subjected to hate crimes.

I have been both raped and physically beaten up by multi-offenders in my life as a lesbian as well as been subjected to unfair employment practices as many other lesbians have. How often are our trans members called lesbos, dykes, etc. when victims of a hate crime? They are often perceived to be lesbian... no matter their actual gender status.

It is part of our unfortunate array of "Isms" in our society. Does this help?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

The part that's problematic is that I've met many transwoman who do not. So has A. The half dozen transwomen I knew before I met A had been fully socialised as men, and it showed. They fulfilled all my worst expectations by using typically male power grabs in meetings of our women's groups. Some felt that the loudest voice always prevails. One bullied and abused her tiny wife. One was very adept at conspicuously throwing her money around with the expectation that it would purchase agreement. Yes, I know that women sometimes do these things. I'm talking about people who do these things [B]BECAUSE it's part of their socialised male behaviour patterns. Did these transwomen look like invading men to me? You bet. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

My good friend A actually never blamed me for those feelings when I confessed them to her. She told me that she's been equally horrified by male socialised behaviours she sees some transwomen exhibiting [hence my reference to 'once men'] , and she worries that others will judge her based on their poor behaviour. She calls it "privilege in a dress".

As Aj wrote, the ticket to that acceptance has been current gender theory. The part that both A and I find mind boggling is that current gender theory is erasing of women, lesbians, and our lesbian feminist history. We both feel strongly that there's a difference between women and men, [hence my reference to once men] but that makes us hopeless dinosaurs. Oh, and it makes us transphobes, too. She has been called a transphobe and a token by women who have never been trans. True story. Out of respect for A's wishes I didn't kick anyone's ass, but I'm still seething about it.

Because I need safe space, because I'm a lesbian and a feminist, because I care about our culture and our hard-won space, I'll continue to guard it. That means that when I encounter men claiming to be women I'll question their presence in my women's groups. (A very tall and large man who wore the same clothes he always did, went to the same barber he always did, and changed NOT ONE SINGLE THING about himself to signal to the world that he might be trans, or anything other than a man, while claiming that he felt like a woman. He demanded access and got it. A was chagrined, as was I.) I don't want male crossdressers, who are now claiming to be trans, at my women's sex parties. (Ask me how I felt about the crossdresser with his otherwise naked dick tied up in a bow, who had to get in my face while I was in a compromised position at a women's play party last year.) [This happens a lot. I've been at several explicitly lesbian "parties" where this has happened.]

The reason that the man who claimed to be a woman could do so is because current gender theory tells him that he's any gender he wakes up feeling on any given day. He maintained that he was a woman if he said he was one, and no hormones, surgery, or changes in any part of his outward body or dress were necessary for him to have access to women's space. That really pissed me off. [Hence my reference to 'once men'.]

The reason that the very male crossdresser who came to the women's play party was allowed to remain was because he said he was trans. The party organisor is a committed trans advocate, and she was pretty irritated by this man's presence. Even though she felt strongly that he didn't belong, she told me that she feared backlash from the trans community for excluding anyone who said he was trans. That really pissed me off, too.

I want my safety to be as important as the safety of people with penises. Why is that so hard?

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

If my response is in any way threatening or violates the TOS for the site, I welcome the mods to contact me about it so that i may modify my behavior accordingly.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.


Chazz,

I felt and feel uncomfortable with this particular part of your post. It's feels like you're wanting to have this conversation using slurs? Yet transfolk are not allowing you? It seems oogy it feels oogy am I misreading you?

[Admin]

Originally Posted by Chazz

It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.

Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.

I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.

Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.

How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)

What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?

It's about: I D E O L O G Y

You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.

This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

The use of the term "once men" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.

I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.

No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.

I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.

Coming after????

Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?

I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.

You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.

You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Admin

Chazz -

I have multiple reports about this post. All of the reports I have received are from Butches and Femmes who feel that this type of posting is not only ugly and incendiary, but super unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't buy into the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma.

[Of course you had multiple reports.... It's not me who had propagated the "Lesbians over HERE, Transpeople over THERE" dogma. I'm just pointing at it from this lesbians perspective as some one who has felt increasingly marginalized by trans/gender ideology within the "community".]

The use of the term "once women" is not ok in this context or space. I understand you are trying to explain your position and I appreciate that but you have proven yourself to be highly articulate and capable of critically thinking around this issue and I am quite certain you can make your point without dragging out that tired-ass, marginalizing verbiage. And mind you, it isn't the words I have a problem with, it's the disrespect to the Transwomen who have/do/will frequent this thread.

You can question Trans or Gender ideology all you want. That isn't off limits here or anywhere else on this site but if you need to employ disrespectful language or ideas to do so, then you might want to check yourself.

I am not sure why you think we can't have a meaningful conversation around Lesbian Pride without trashing the Trans experience or Trans women who don't have either the money or inclination to have surgery but it IS possible. We do not need to shred someone else's identity to celebrate our own. I know you know this. Employ it.

[It could be because I take no pride in what has/is happening to lesbians within the community.... But because you mentioned it.... I, in no way, trashed the "trans experience". Nor was I aware that it was a one size fits all "experience".]

I will agree with you that there is an elephant in the living room but I think we disagree on what that elephant is. I hope you understand why questioning/dismantling Trans Gender Theory in a "Lesbian" space is potentially dangerous. It would be potentially dangerous for the same reason that dismantling Lesbian Feminist Theory would be in a completely "Trans" space. If the intent is to draw a straight line from "your oppression" to another person's diametrically-opposed identity, then I would suggest that the elephant in the living room is that there is either some phobia or some ignorance that needs to be unpacked.

Either way, feel free to have a Lesbian Pride discussion in this thread but do so with respect and good will and refrain from employing words and thought processes that feel ugly and unwelcoming to the people on this site. That includes ALL Butches, Femmes, and Transfolks of every identity and gender presentation.

Thanks,
Admin

I'm out of the conversation. So........

[Heart]

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?

I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.

Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."

I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).

I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.

Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not.

Heart

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.



No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.

I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.



Coming after????

Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.




I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.



You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.



You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.

I respect that you maintain my opinion about your motives is incorrect. Thank you for letting me know that I was mistaken in that respect, I feel better knowing you are only speaking for yourself. I apologize for my error in attempting to guess your motives and appreciate that you took the time to answer my question directly.

Is your use of quotations around the word "policing" intended to be sarcasm? I can assure you, the only reason I directly called you out on continuing to use the phrase in question is because it was already deemed inappropriate by an admin, and I take direct offense to it. I am not afraid to call you out on something that bothers me, and I believe I am within my rights to do so, just as you are within your rights to respond or not as you see fit.

I asked who you were "coming after" because you quoted Cheryl's post, posted comments in red which appeared to be you agreeing with her points (albeit in a, to me, inflammatory manner), then proceeding to respond below in such a way that accused her friend of "not genuflecting enough" (more sarcasm?) then implying that she is a lesbianphobe. That seems contradictory and accusatory to me, which is why i brought it up. I may be incorrect in this thought as well, so I pose the following question: For what purpose did you quote Cheryl's post if not to agree or disagree with it?

Finally, I would like to make sure I am not misinterpreting your last paragraph in response to me. Are you implying that I am wearing blinders and am so inundated with trans ideology that I am incapable of critical thinking? I hope not, since I spend a large amount of time questioning why I feel the way I do, and whether it is beneficial and inclusive (or exclusionary) to do so. I know I am not required to justify myself, but in this case I feel it can only help.

You have repeatedly said you are questioning ideology, politics and behaviors. Please direct me to where, in a trans discussion/space, you have stated what specific ideology/politics/behaviors you take issue with and why you do so. If those specifics were pointed out in a lesbian space, or have yet to be addressed, I hope that they can be moved to a trans specific area where they can be pulled apart and discussed in depth so that I may better understand you and your deep feelings about this subject. I also hope that you understand how, in my personal opinion, they have no place in a lesbian discussion since it is not the politics of being a lesbian that you take vehement opposition to.

It is clear that you are proud to be a lesbian, like the title of this thread states. I hope you will not leave the thread in which you have invested much experience and dedication. That would be a great loss indeed.

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Heart

I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.

Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.

My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?


Heart

I personally feel heartsick by what I read in this thread.

Heart, I, too feel despair at reading them.

My bottom line is that I do not want my own woman-identified lesbian identity erased by anyone. Anyone.

Aren't the other posters also stating that nor do they want their own identity: butch/femme/trans, however they ID; erased or discounted either?

That each identity is fiercely protected by those that have claimed their own identity?

Am I reading correctly?

There is enough division out in the "real world", do we need to do it to each other too?

Do we all have to agree with each other?

Can we not respect each other without attacking each other?

Must this go on?