Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[little man]

Originally Posted by Jess

Not trying to make a stink here, but what is OED? I am familiar with the definitions Cheryl gave. Please show me what you are talking about.

the oxford english dictionary.

[citybutch]

The origin of woman is wif-man in Old English as it states in the Oxford English Dictionary. Wif in Old English meant woman. It also indicated how a female made a living. A fish-wif was a female who sold fish. Wif-man evolved into wife-man and then into woman.

I take language very seriously. I identify strongly as female and not as woman. Now, given, this is directly from the OED and you may find other explanations elsewhere. But I take the OED at it's word and it describes itself as the "definitive record of the English language"

Ever listen to that show A Way With Words? Love it!

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

According to Websters:

Definition of WOMAN
1
a : an adult female person

Definition of FEMALE
1
a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs (2) : pistillate

b (1) : composed of members of the female sex <the female population> (2) : characteristic of girls or women <composed for female voices> <a female name>

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

If one identifies proudly as female, then what is it about "women" that one is rejecting?

I have great pride in being female, lesbian and a woman as a butch. coalescing as one (growing together with my female masculinity) as defined.

However- many butches do have issues with woman, I think, due to life long battles with the societal definitions (norms) and expectations put upon women within our patriarchal structures. Including all of the oppression and discrimination toward women in US society. But, I can't speak for others on this really.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

many butches do have issues with woman, I think, due to life long battles with the societal definitions (norms) and expectations put upon women within our patriarchal structures. Including all of the oppression and discrimination toward women in US society. But, I can't speak for others on this really.

But it's not just butches that have issues with the definitions and expectations put upon women by patriarchy. It's all sorts of women - queer, straight, trans, butch, femme, andro, etc. One of my main points here is that woman itself is transgressive in the context of patriarchy.

So, feminism sets out to reclaim the meaning of "woman" and empower what it means to be a woman.

Gender theory sets out to deconstruct the concept of binary gender altogether.

Both movements have made contributions and both have blind spots.

It's no secret that I am inclined towards the re-defining/reclaiming camp.
One of the concerns I have with the gender theory camp (I am simplifying for the sake of discussion), is that deconstructing the gender binaries of man/woman has not changed or prevented the over-valuing of male/masculine gender constructs/identities, and the under-valuing of female/feminine ones. Sexism/misogyny is still rampant and unexamined, and the lack of feminist analysis makes that dangerous, (which was one of my main concerns about Butch Voices).

Heart

[Jess]

Warning this is kind of long, so if you get bored, skip it..LOL...


I had really hoped when I saw this thread appear, it would not become as Kobi stated early on "yet another argument about definitions/ terminology" ( I paraphrased, sorry, not a direct quote). Of course, it did. Of course, just about every discussion on this site ( or other similar sites) will become a breaking down of terms, as our language keeps changing/ evolving/ whatever it is doing, to give a medium to "new" ways of looking at things.

To my understanding, "gender theory" came from the feminist movement to
help folks who weren't clearly and happily 100% feminine or masculine as defined by today's standard dictionaries and societal descriptions. It was a tool to give a voice to folks who were being oppressed by the nature of their differences. It became a commonplace addendum to Women's Studies courses nationwide. I think somehow along the way, it began to usurp women's studies, when it began to redefine "man", "woman" and all of the words that have previously defined "what" as human beings, we are.

Chazz made a list early on that while I think was a pretty good basic list of parts of speech was not exactly clear as to "female/woman":

"
female/woman (noun) = sex/biology
male/man (noun) = sex/biology

lesbian (noun) = a woman of same sex, sexual orientation

feminine/masculine (adj.) = gender

femme (noun) = female lesbian
butch (noun) = female lesbian who expresses female "masculinity"

transgender (verb) = moving along a gender continuum.

transgender person (noun) = a person of either sex, who may be lesbian, gay or straight. "

Now, for ME, the only difference I see is that Man= Adult Male , Woman= Adult Female.

The language of sex/ biology does not change. A Man IS Male. A Woman IS female. They may or may not be masculine or feminine, this part I get and it has been so since time began.

Please bear with me here, as I am trying to just process all of this:

I hate the term CIS. I do not understand the continued use of the term "trans" after a person has transitioned. I don't comprehend how a lesbian is no longer a woman/ female who partners with women/ females. I don't know when transsexual became transgender, but I see it used this way a lot. I don't know why some transgendered folks get mad at that term while others use it freely. I don't know why some folks see the origin and "ownership" of the term butch as now belonging to men, when the only time I have heard men use it in reference to one another is in a descriptive ( and usually objectifying) way "he's so butch". They don't use it like lesbians do, in relation to dynamics or as is often done here, as a gender preference. I have honestly never heard men use "femme/ fem" to describe another man, so I guess that one is safely ours.

This thread/ discussion/ semantics gymnastics has given me a lot to think about and a lot of headaches. I had hoped we would get to the point where we could just be proud of where we are today as lesbians/ dykes. Women who love women. Females who love females. We are butches/femmes/andros/tweeners and feminist based or not. We are not men or male. We are not men haters, we just ain't them.

We got a lot of shit during the "womens movement". They ( hetero women) saw lesbians/ homosexual women as a threat to their validity. B-F lesbians got shit from other dykes who saw the masculine female as a threat to "their" validity, a portrayal of heterosexuals. Gay men, by and large just didn't care one way or another, because women, generally speaking, were not a form to be contended with either as a mate or as competition. Heterosexual men just assume we are in need of the right man or at some point the object their sexual desire or hatred.

So, at least for me, I do have pride today in being a butch lesbian. I have stuck out all of these "wars" and am still here. Still butch/ masculine female/woman. Still a woman loving women. I have allies today. I AM an ally today and it does not threaten me. I do not have to change the English language to make it all make sense to me. It's a simple practice called live and let live.

I have read all of this and this discussion spilled over into other threads: gatekeeping and the redefining queer community threads. I see folks express outrage at the WBW policy of MWMF and I wonder what would it look like if that had become the norm instead of "cis" and "trans".
WBW = women born women
WBM= women born men
MBW= Men born women
MBM= men born men

For me, it would mean that transwomen would be welcome at womens events. Transmen would be welcome at mens events. For me, it's more about who we are than whom we were/are perceived to be.

The enormity of "gender theory" with all of its nuances and ramifications is far too great to take on without the commitment to years of study and discussions like this one. Without the equal footing of a classroom environment, on going education, with each "new" theory being tossed out equally to each participant, I don't see it being given justice in forums like this. That doesn't mean we don't talk about it. It simply means we give one another space and time to process it all while trying to digest how it affects "me" ( each of the "mes" engaging) and how it in turn affects "US". The greater US, the community and then how we affect the world at large whom we are trying to engage with for the ultimate result hopefully being an end to the "oppressions" of sex and gender. Isn't that the goal?

We will never be a united front as long until we clearly define what those oppressions are. We will never define them if we continually change the language. I think that is what Chazz may have meant when she stated that "somewhere the patriarchy is chuckling". Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. It is also, the most effective.

I think this in part is why the reaction to "owning" Lesbian as women who love women is so important. When WE don't know who/ what we are, how can we defend ourselves against our opprsessors who very clearly deny us equality regardless of who/what we are ? We are the big group of "them" in their eyes. Them who keep arguing among themselves and pose no real threat.

I think it important to own who we are and what our needs are. I am a lesbian. I want to be allowed the same rights and privileges as heterosexual people. I am a woman. I want equal pay and equal treatment to men. I wear mens clothes. I want to be able to dress appropriately for any given situation ( ie: sporting events where men wear pants... why should a woman wear a skirt to play the same sport?) I keep my hair short, in a traditionally male hairstyle. Why should that matter? Why should I have to change the language of who I am because of a haircut or clothes or whether I prefer power tools to blowdryers? I want to be able to proudly say, I am a woman, I am a lesbian, I wear these clothes and this hairstyle and like saws. AND I deserve by the very breath I take to be treated equally in the eyes of the laws of this country to a man who is allowed to dress appropriately for his task, to love women ( cause they rock) and to comb his hair any fucking way he wants. I want equal power to fuck whom I want and equal pay for the work I do. That woman over there... she likes hello kitty and stilhettos. SHE deserves equal pay for the work she does and btw, she ALSO gets to choose whom and how she fucks.

This conversation started as soon as women and men could speak to one another. There has always been eniquity. There has always been a "difference". There has always been more power and more space taken by men. Men, afterall, were the "stronger" of the sexes. This however is becoming an increasingly moreso case by case than an overall statement.

Men are now in what was traditionally the gay womens community. (* Which I don't see as a "bad" thing and which is why I do not see this as a lesbian website, sorry, I just disagree with that sentiment. I also still do not approve of men in women only space, however.*) I see this clearly as a Queer community in the very definition of queer. We are an odd bunch. AND, we are an odd bunch who are trying to maintain peace and understanding in a time where even our definitions of ourselves and nomenclature is up for grabs. Of this, I am proud. We will not always see eye to eye, but we will keep trying.

Whew. Deep breath.... In with the love... outtttt with the jive.. I can understand why so many females may not like the Oxford/ Male/ Biblical centric definitions of "woman". I don't like it either. I get it. What I also get, is that without reclaiming power in their words, we can not show them the errors they have made. They will continue to look at us and in a glance sum us up as ... "hmm.. female.. adult... woman.. weaker.. should be in a dress.. barefoot/ pregnant." While we can and will SHOW that we are... "at a glance" ... "female.... adult... grown ass woman... strong.. wearing whatever or nothing at all... teaching children.... building houses... running organizations.... getting elected... a force that is equal..."

A lot has changed since Oxford or the bible defined woman. We are still women even if we aren't wives, so that definition holds no weight any longer. Just like men are still male even in a dress ( until and unless they no longer are). Hell, everyone wore dresses until pants were invented.

I think I am more clear on the arguements regarding masculine and feminine and who these gender qualifiers should and should not be owned by, than the breaking down of Man/Male and Woman/ Female. I see everyone on this planet exhibiting qualities that are traditionally feminine or masculine at some point in time, which to me is PERFECTLY NORMAL.

Being a proud lesbian means being a proud woman/female. A proud woman/female who loves other women/females. For me, it is just that simple. The rest of this, for me, is another conversation. One I have been involved with on different levels and will continue to be involved with. I have no investment personally in how an individual defines or labels themselves unless they fall into the three F rule. ( Feeding me, Fucking me or Financing me). I will continue to support my allies in whatever aspect of oppression they are facing. I will not however, change the definition of lesbian to include women/ females who love men. I am sorry, that is a leap this old dyke just ain't ready to take.

I am hoping this came across without being judgeymental because I'm really not. I am just trying to get it.

Peace.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by citybutch

The origin of woman is wif-man in Old English as it states in the Oxford English Dictionary. Wif in Old English meant woman. It also indicated how a female made a living. A fish-wif was a female who sold fish. Wif-man evolved into wife-man and then into woman.

I take language very seriously. I identify strongly as female and not as woman. Now, given, this is directly from the OED and you may find other explanations elsewhere. But I take the OED at it's word and it describes itself as the "definitive record of the English language"

Ever listen to that show A Way With Words? Love it!

Without having a subscription to the OED and not owning a copy, what is the current definition of "woman". I am aware that the OED gives probably the most accurate origins of words and you have given a good historical definition/ origin. I am curious and perhaps you could help me, with what they use as the current definition.

Thanks.

[ScandalAndy]

I am a woman who loves with transmen, genderqueers and butch lesbians and still identifies as a lesbian. Do I belong here? I don't know, and there seems to be a lot of emotion and opinion surrounding it. I thought I did, but from this thread and other conversations I've had, I'm starting to get the impression that I do not. Am I welcome here?

I want to be a proud lesbian, so who do I ask for permission?

[Slater]

I may try to circle back later to talk more about language because I find it interesting. But for the moment I want to say that ScandalAndy's question is one that has been bouncing around boards like these, either spoken or unspoken, for many years.

I understand the desire for clear-cut, absolute, entirely predictable definitions but I think we you are talking about things as decidedly non clear-cut, absolute and predictable as identity and sexuality you have to allow for some wiggle room. I have seen femmes who choose to identify as queer rather than lesbian because they date transmen and I've seen femmes who continue to identify as lesbian because it is part of them. I think both make sense and it comes down to a matter of how the individual femme relates to her own identity.

I don't see that it hurts our community identity or our struggle for equal rights to allow for this wiggle room.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I am a woman who loves with transmen, genderqueers and butch lesbians and still identifies as a lesbian. Do I belong here? I don't know, and there seems to be a lot of emotion and opinion surrounding it. I thought I did, but from this thread and other conversations I've had, I'm starting to get the impression that I do not. Am I welcome here?

I want to be a proud lesbian, so who do I ask for permission?

You get to ID however you choose and however you define it. We all do. Do you really need me or anyone else to give you permission? I hope you're being sarcastic.

The classic definition of lesbian is a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females. As usual, not everyone agrees, of course. If you need to give yourself permission, ask yourself where you fit into that definition.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I am a woman who loves with transmen, genderqueers and butch lesbians and still identifies as a lesbian. Do I belong here? I don't know, and there seems to be a lot of emotion and opinion surrounding it. I thought I did, but from this thread and other conversations I've had, I'm starting to get the impression that I do not. Am I welcome here?

I want to be a proud lesbian, so who do I ask for permission?

You know.... maybe it's valid to ask oneself if one is appropriating or co-opting an identity.

But what is it in the discussion that leads you to think you're not "allowed" to identify however you choose? How are you being "unwelcomed" here? You seem miffed. Why? Because the discussion challenges constructs that are important to you? Your post sounds accusatory, like someone here is oppressing you. Is someone actually doing that? How is it about you personally, or about who you love or sleep with?

I know dykes who have sex with men. They're still dykes. I'm so over terminology gymnastics. What I'm interested in is that women, which more than half the world still identify as, (or are identified as), get a fair shake at life and liberty and aren't so easily and routinely subjected to systemic control. I'm talking about all women, regardless of orientation, looks, role, race, class, size, age, status, etc.

As Chazz, Cheryl, Jess, and others have pointed out, one of the consequences of the ascent of gender theory, (which yes, does emerge from women's studies), is a loss of focus on the actual needs of women as an oppressed class of people. In the sphere of gender theory, woman becomes an out-dated identity. That further erodes needed action as feminism, the movement that address these needs, is considered passe.

Brings me back to that old saying: I'll be post-feminist (and post-woman) in the post-patriarchy. This is the crux of the matter to me. I'm less concerned really with pride, labels, dictionary definitions, theories, etc than I am with action. Action does have to grounded in an analysis, but you don't have to be a woman or identify as a woman to identify and stand with women. That's something I think we've lost sight of.

Heart

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

You get to ID however you choose and however you define it. We all do. Do you really need me or anyone else to give you permission? I hope you're being sarcastic.

The classic definition of lesbian is a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females. As usual, not everyone agrees, of course. If you need to give yourself permission, ask yourself where you fit into that definition.

My question wasn't even close to sarcastic and that's the sad part.

I took a whole bunch of crap for how I choose the words I use to define myself. To some people, according to their definitions, I don't have any right to be here. So what do we do? Do we look at each other across the table? Do we pretend the other isn't there? To some people, according to their definitions, I'm just as much a lesbian as anyone else here.

I don't fit the classic definition of a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females 100% of the time. So what does that mean for how welcome I am in the community and how much weight my thoughts and opinions are given?

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

No, I am not a white woman claiming to be a POC, but I am a queer who is claiming to be a lesbian. Now that we've got the example that has been tossed around in conversation standing right in front of us, how are we going to handle it?



These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

Good grief - I didn't say you were doing that, I said it was a valid question that one might ask oneself, meaning over the course of their life journey. Identities aren't fixed, they do evolve. I still don't get why you are personalizing this. Cheryl offered a "classic" or mainstream definition, I didn't see her suggest that you aren't allowed to id as a lesbian.

I also edited my last post for clarity in terms of what I feel is important in this discussion and I mentioned that I know dykes who sleep with men. But how we each arrive at our own personal labels and who agrees with our labels and who doesn't, is actually not what's important to me in this discussion.

But maybe I'm talking to myself. It's been known to happen.

Heart

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Heart

Good grief - I didn't say you were doing that, I said it was a valid question that one might ask oneself, meaning over the course of their life journey. Identities aren't fixed, they do evolve. I still don't get why you are personalizing this. Cheryl offered a "classic" or mainstream definition, I didn't see her suggest that you aren't allowed to id as a lesbian.

I also edited my last post for clarity in terms of what I feel is important in this discussion and I mentioned that I know dykes who sleep with men. But how we each arrive at our own personal labels and who agrees with our labels and who doesn't, is actually not what's important to me in this discussion.

But maybe I'm talking to myself. It's been known to happen.

Heart

My question wasn't "can I ID this way", my question is "if I choose to ID this way, will it be accepted".

I took your suggestion that one could ask oneself that question, and applied it to myself. Am i co-opting or appropriating the identity? I don't believe I am, but how do I know for sure since I don't adhere to the classical definition?


Is my adherence to that definition of lesbian necessary for inclusion in this thread? Now we are stuck with the exact sticky situation of language that we've all been dancing around.

If the answer is yes, then that is perfectly fine with me. I will politely relinquish that right in this thread only, and be a very supportive ally on the sidelines. Just because this isn't my space doesn't mean I won't be supportive.

If the answer is no, then I am happy to know that, as a community, our definition of lesbian is flexible enough for me to participate. I will be a supportive and active participant.


These are open questions, I am not directing them solely at you.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

But it's not just butches that have issues with the definitions and expectations put upon women by patriarchy. It's all sorts of women - queer, straight, trans, butch, femme, andro, etc. One of my main points here is that woman itself is transgressive in the context of patriarchy.

So, feminism sets out to reclaim the meaning of "woman" and empower what it means to be a woman.

Gender theory sets out to deconstruct the concept of binary gender altogether.

Both movements have made contributions and both have blind spots.

It's no secret that I am inclined towards the re-defining/reclaiming camp.
One of the concerns I have with the gender theory camp (I am simplifying for the sake of discussion), is that deconstructing the gender binaries of man/woman has not changed or prevented the over-valuing of male/masculine gender constructs/identities, and the under-valuing of female/feminine ones. Sexism/misogyny is still rampant and unexamined, and the lack of feminist analysis makes that dangerous, (which was one of my main concerns about Butch Voices).

Heart

No, not just butches have issues with the definitions and expectations put upon women by patriarchy- I was implying that at all. I was simply responding as a butch that embraces both female and woman.

We both have some of the same problems with gender theory and binary deconstruction (which I don't see as really happening at all) as changing much in terms of the over-valuing of male/masculine gender constructs/identities, and the under-valuing of female/feminine ones.

In fact, I see the danger you point to as ever rising with a wall of denial never seen before within the queer communities and literature. I don't feel that we are "seeing the forest for the trees" to put it simply. I have also felt a need to distance personally with much of the B-F/Trans, etc. communities I have had years of association with.

[Dominique]

I'm not diluting anything that has been written here. If,nothing else, these
deep and evolving conversations have been an excellent teaching tool for those who may have never been exposed, and also given opportunity to think differently. I know I, have given tremendous thought to many segues. I love learning, and I love those who teach!

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

My question wasn't even close to sarcastic and that's the sad part.

I took a whole bunch of crap for how I choose the words I use to define myself. To some people, according to their definitions, I don't have any right to be here. So what do we do? Do we look at each other across the table? Do we pretend the other isn't there? To some people, according to their definitions, I'm just as much a lesbian as anyone else here.

I don't fit the classic definition of a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females 100% of the time. So what does that mean for how welcome I am in the community and how much weight my thoughts and opinions are given?

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

No, I am not a white woman claiming to be a POC, but I am a queer who is claiming to be a lesbian. Now that we've got the example that has been tossed around in conversation standing right in front of us, how are we going to handle it?



These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about.

OK, you want permission to be here. Who, exactly do you think is going to grant or rescind that permission? Last I checked, we're all humans of equal rank sitting at computers, typing words. Are you taking a poll? If there are 50 participants how many of them have to welcome you here? 30 out of 50? 45? Do you need all 50 to welcome you into the lesbian sisterhood? Is that how you want us to "handle it"? While I sometimes think it might make negotiating this site a bit easier, we haven't elected an Amazon Queen or King who gets to make these decisions in the absence of a democratic vote, so you'll get none of the above.

Am I cranky? Why, yes I am. Why? Because the topic of the thread is Lesbian Pride. The OP stated from the start that she hoped the thread wouldn't get mired in endless discussions about terms and definitions. We've also already spent quite a bit of energy on trans inclusion. Many of us, including you, agree that we would like to refocus on lesbian pride. At which point you wrote yet another post about terms and definitions based on trans inclusion and identity.

"These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about."

If you aren't really looking for an answer, why do you continue to drag the conversation towards definitions and trans issues?

[Heart]

[QUOTE=ScandalAndy;409393]My question wasn't "can I ID this way", my question is "if I choose to ID this way, will it be accepted".

Accepted where? In this thread? By other individuals? By a lesbian separatist community? What's your standard for "acceptance?" I am sure there are those who agree with and accept your definition and those who don't. So what? There are people that don't accept me as a Jew because I'm not observant. There are people that don't accept me as a lesbian because I was married to a man for a decade. There are people that don't accept me because they don't like me. None of that is really my business and I can't possibly establish my sense of self based upon others' decisions to accept me or not. I go where its warm.

I took your suggestion that one could ask oneself that question, and applied it to myself. Am i co-opting or appropriating the identity? I don't believe I am, but how do I know for sure since I don't adhere to the classical definition?

I don't adhere to the classical definition of a lesbian either, or a Jew, for that matter, yet I am both.

Is my adherence to that definition of lesbian necessary for inclusion in this thread? Now we are stuck with the exact sticky situation of language that we've all been dancing around.

Obviously the answer to this question is "no," since you are here in this thread. And so am I. What are we dancing around? -- it does feel like you're trying to set some kind of trap by accusing others in this thread that they are excluding you. Or are you really looking for reassurance that you are accepted?

If the answer is yes, then that is perfectly fine with me. I will politely relinquish that right in this thread only, and be a very supportive ally on the sidelines. Just because this isn't my space doesn't mean I won't be supportive.

That's nice and I completely agree that being an ally is important.

If the answer is no, then I am happy to know that, as a community, our definition of lesbian is flexible enough for me to participate. I will be a supportive and active participant.

That's nice too.

I still am not getting who it is you think should be answering your question about whether you are accepted here or not. Personally, I accept you as a lesbian and welcome your inclusion in this discussion.

I'd rather get back though to talking about the relative benefits, obstacles, and challenges in gender vs feminist theory as it relates to multiple identities in the context of patriarchy. I admit that the topic of lesbian pride per se is sorta narrow for me.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

OK, you want permission to be here. Who, exactly do you think is going to grant or rescind that permission? Last I checked, we're all humans of equal rank sitting at computers, typing words. Are you taking a poll? If there are 50 participants how many of them have to welcome you here? 30 out of 50? 45? Do you need all 50 to welcome you into the lesbian sisterhood? Is that how you want us to "handle it"? While I sometimes think it might make negotiating this site a bit easier, we haven't elected an Amazon Queen or King who gets to make these decisions in the absence of a democratic vote, so you'll get none of the above.

Am I cranky? Why, yes I am. Why? Because the topic of the thread is Lesbian Pride. The OP stated from the start that she hoped the thread wouldn't get mired in endless discussions about terms and definitions. We've also already spent quite a bit of energy on trans inclusion. Many of us, including you, agree that we would like to refocus on lesbian pride. At which point you wrote yet another post about terms and definitions based on trans inclusion and identity.

"These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about."

If you aren't really looking for an answer, why do you continue to drag the conversation towards definitions and trans issues?

I wrote a post about terms and definitions in relation to a lesbian: me, not a post about trans inclusion, actually. I wrote a post based on my own life. My own experiences. The reality of what someone who IDs as a lesbian might look like, and the questions that I am asking myself and maybe others are asking themselves, or should be. I didn't come here to be patronized by anyone.

It isn't so very easy to take these things we've been talking about and apply them to a real, flesh and blood human being, and then stand behind our convictions. I put myself on the chopping block to see what we all would do when this becomes reality instead of a discussion about words. I want to be proud to be a lesbian, pure and simple. If i'm going to get judged for that, I'll go elsewhere.

I won't take 100% of the blame for the discussion of terminology here, and I won't accept your insinuation that I am dragging anything anywhere by asking the things that I am in the manner in which I presented them. I'm not asking about trans issues, i'm asking about my own life.

Respectfully, Cheryl, get off my ass. You want me to leave because you don't think I'm a dyke? I will. You want me to leave because you think I'm annoying? Too bad.

I wanted an answer to a question posed, respectfully, to a community because, let's face it: I can identify as a lesbian all I want, but if I'm the only one who accepts it, it's pretty much useless and a community of one is powerless.







Actually, I'm so frustrated with this whole thing that I concede. You're right, I constantly derail the thread with my constant carrying on about terminology, gender, and trans rights. Sorry for ruining your constructive conversation and the headway being made about the patriarchy. It won't happen again.

[Heart]

Okay, maybe this is really between Cheryl and SA and I should butt-out, but... I get suspicious when a conceptual discussion turns towards "this is my life, my truth, my experience" because it's apt to be a red herring.

That's not to dismiss your personal experiences SA, but if we want to go that route, I'm sure each and every one of us here has a story to tell. There are as many stories as there are raindrops and individually they will tell us very little. You gotta look for the patterns, the larger themes.

I'll wager that if we do that, there's a damn good chance that you and I and Cheryl and City and Jess and Chazz and Kobi and Slater and dreadgeek, etc would find enough commonalities that we would be able to stand with each other in solidarity as queers, as women, as lesbians, as gender transgressors, as feminists, as concerned citizens, as warriors. Would we each call ourselves a lesbian? I don't know. Would we each define the other as a lesbian? As long as you're standing with me, I could give a rats ass.

Again, what I'm saying is that the individual identity, including that of "lesbian," does not concern me as much as the broader issues of what happens to those of us that the patriarchal world sees as lesbians or even more broadly, as women. The heart and pride of my activist community comes from those shared concerns, not from our very individual identities, journies, and labels.

Heart

[Chazz]

De-obfuscation 101

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)

SEXISM = discrimination based on sex

GENDER BIAS = discrimination based on sex-typed social construction; stereotyping based on sex

GENDERISM = a neologism used to illustrate a myth, and/or reinforce it, as the case may be.

GENDER INCONGRUENCY = not complying with sex-typed, constructed gender roles

Originally Posted by Slater

But it is also used as a gender identity. At one time, and still pervasively, sex and gender were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same.

This is completely inaccurate.... Just because people sometimes wrongly conflate gender with sex doesn't make it ontologically accurate. Conflating the two and knowing better, is a deliberate attempt to confuse people and issues. It happens all the time

I write and edit professional stuff for a living, I assure everyone that sex and gender have never been used interchangeably in literate, literary or scientific circles. It is an ontological error to do so.

Conflating sex with gender is a recent phenomena owing, in large part, to gender theory. It is being vigorously addressed, and excised, in scholarly and scientific journals. There is no place for I-politics, of any kind, in scientific research.

This conflation IS NOT BENIGN. It's taken a generation-plus for Feminist scholars to expose/critique/exorcise, if only just barely, sexist bias from science and literature. Now, that work is being undone by subjective relativists. This is devastating for precisely the reasons Cheryl stated: "Gender theory seems to minimize the impact of institutionalized patriarchy/misogyny...." I would have excluded the word "seems" because the facts are before us. ....Butches as "masculine of center", etc., etc. ! ! ! !

Originally Posted by Slater

But if you allow for a non-binary gender system, then you have to allow for the possibility that there will be adult females who are not women, who are, for instance, butch.

HOLY COW ! ! ! ! In one swipe of lexical incohesion, I lost my butch womanhood.

Gender is NOT biology. Adult females ARE woman. Gender presentation does NOT change ones sex. Why do these simple, observable facts have to be argued over and over again? HMMMM ? ? ? ?

Gender theory DOES promote a binary system. It "sanctions" going from point A on a binary scale to point Z. Everything in between is a matter of gender constructed degree.

No, Slater.... Adult females will always be women.

It doesn't matter if a gender system is binary or not. Gender mythology is the issue. Having 10,000 variations of a myth doesn't change the fact that it's a myth, especially when it comes to patriarchy. (Patriarchy is very adaptable.)

Originally Posted by Slater

The language of sex and gender has been so tightly interwoven, so tightly tied to a binary system, that trying to pull them apart can create these sorts of usage stumbling blocks.

Tightly "interwoven" by patriarchy - not women or lesbians.... Feminists have been trying to strip gender constructs from sex long before gender theory became the cause célèbre of the day. It's tough, arduous work, but women have been doing it, and doing it well. Women's lives depend on that being successful. (So do trans and intersexed people's lives.)

To the extent that gender theorists get in the way of that work by continuing to conflate sex with gender, it's anti-woman/lesbian/Feminist, and anti-gender incongruent people of all stripes - including trans and intersexed people.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

....As for the difference between woman and female, I don't usually make that distinction in my own life. Neither do rapists, violent criminals, sex traffickers, or people in positions to hire or negotiate salaries. Sure, go ahead and replace 'woman' with 'female'. What does that do for you?

Originally Posted by Jess

Why should I have to change the language of who I am because of a haircut or clothes or whether I prefer power tools to blowdryers? I want to be able to proudly say, I am a woman, I am a lesbian, I wear these clothes and this hairstyle and like saws.

'Cause according to many genderists, Jess, that's guy stuff. ....Hence, women/lesbian/butches/anti-gender incongruent people stay endlessly trapped in gender constructed mythology.

Aint' subjective relativism grand ! ! ! !

Originally Posted by Jess

I may be wrong, but isn't the definition of "woman" adult female? Girl= juvenile/ non-adult female?

I am more confused than ever.

When you stop being confused, be concerned.