Male lesbian concept / problem with body/facial hair / post-30yo-masculinization

[violet_owl]

Hello,

I have read Gilmartin's male lesbian definition and it totally fits me.
The problem I'm now having is, I am quite comfortable beeing male,
but I being 30 of age now, masculinization is pushing forward more and
more, of late my beard is beginning to spread to the cheeks etc. I like
seeing myself as androgyne, boy-like and I am starting to suffer more and
more from the hair-problem, I am already having a hard time shaving etc the ->-bleeped-<-
off all the time on my whole body. (my body is model-slim and I look rather
androgyne (face-wise), so the hair is the main male problem that I have been
hating since I was I dont't know 10 or so, when it begun growing). I also
suffer from the hair becoming even stronger and general masculatization that
occurs after age 30. Of course I know of electrolysis etc., my question however
is a different one: I have decided that once my facial hair have become so
much/strong that they really bother me, I'll have some of them removed through
those means -- however, as I see it, part of the development that is now
taking place (as I said I'm 30) is, to my knowledge, due to hormone levels.
I am wondering if there is a possibility to work against those hormone
levels WITHOUT becoming female, but "just" not to become MORE MALE in the
course of higher hormon levels and general aging-related maleness. As for
the hair problem, I am particularly wondering if there is a need for action
now: I.e., would it be better to NOW have hair electrolyzed (e.g. because
follicels will become stronger and stronger) / NOW do whatever hormone
intervention (e.g. because hormone-induced transformations are difficult
to revert), and not when I'm e.g. 35. I suppose things will stay bearable
until then, but I guess at 35 it will be time for action and I don't want
to curse myself for having started earlier (the fact that electrolysis (or blend
method whatever)/ takes some time to do as such because of the amount of hair,
is not the problem, because I don't need quick results and also just want
to keep the status quo or slowly revert it to a 25-years-old level).
So basically, this threat is about "male lesbians"/male androgynes who primarily
hate their male body hair, but other than that can easily pass as somewhat
feminine heterosexuals.

thanks

the Violet Owl (how's that for a stupid nick ? )

ps. I'm not a native speaker, sorry for mistakes in the above.

[CaitJ]

I have read Gilmartin's male lesbian definition and it totally fits me.

It's also totally misogynistic - and appropriating an identity that does not belong to you.
'Lesbian' is very specific in meaning. If you do not identify as female, you cannot be a lesbian.

[cynthialee]

I identified as a man-dyke for years.

I even married a couple of women who were lesbian identified when we first met.

(granted I am MTF and I really am a lesbian but I think it is possible to be a male-lesbian)

[Adabelle]

I am wondering if there is a possibility to work against those hormone
levels WITHOUT becoming female, but "just" not to become MORE MALE in the
course of higher hormon levels and general aging-related maleness.

Early in my transition I went to a gender therapist, and then endocrinologist with these exact same concerns. In my case I wasn't ready to address full HRT, but I definitely saw my masculine features setting in around my early 30's, and my libido even seemed higher for some reason, increased facial and body hair growth, receding hairline etc.

In my case my doctor put me on "Avodart". With this drug alone I noticed a slight softening of my skin, less body hair, and the receding hairline was stopped in its tracks. It did little to "feminize" me, and didn't lower my libido much, but in my case it did do what I wanted it to do in terms of slowing down the effects that long-term T was playing on my body. This isn't the only drug that can do this, there are others. There may be risks to taking Avodart for extended periods and so you definitely should not do this on your own without monitoring from your doctor, but it has worked well for me during the last 18 months or so. The only issue with Avodart is that it's not available as a generic in the US, so I must have my doctor send the prescription to a Canadian pharmacy to have it filled in order for me to afford it. I have since added Spiro to the mix and that too made a difference.

Basically I'd recommend you talk to your doctor about this because it certainly is possible to achieve close what you want with a relative degree of safety (if you are under a doctor's care).

As for facial hair there really isn't much you can do other than electrolysis or laser. Facial hair doesn't seem to be affected by lowering T (except that you might have no "new" areas sprouting).

[violet_owl]

Hi to all.

@Madelyn: your post has been really, really helpful. Thanks a lot. I will be doing some research on this
before potentially returing to this thread. I am already taking Finasteride (been taking this for 5 years) to
prevent hair loss, and I have of course heard of Dutasteride but decided in favor of Finasteride for safety
reasons. Again, thanks.

@Vexing, what terminus would you propose that would better fit? Why exactly do you think it is misogynistic?
Please read Gilmartin's definition if you haven't yet done so. see his book on "love-shyness", available for
free on the internert. Gilmartin is somewhat confused, but the definition he's giving has practical value in
that it accurately describes my feelings.

[Simone Louise]

Finasteride I have some experience with. It is prescribed at two different levels. I took the higher dosage (for prostate problems). I, and another poster on this forum, had some breast growth. Apparently, most don't have lasting breast growth, though. The nipples became very pleasantly sensitive to the touch. I had a feeling of excitement and euphoria. I can't speak to long term effects since I only took it for a matter of months. When I stopped the prescription, my body returned to its previous state. Pity.

S

[CaitJ]

@Vexing, what terminus would you propose that would better fit? Why exactly do you think it is misogynistic?
Please read Gilmartin's definition if you haven't yet done so. see his book on "love-shyness", available for
free on the internert. Gilmartin is somewhat confused, but the definition he's giving has practical value in
that it accurately describes my feelings.

The term 'passive male' would fit better.
It's misogynistic because it's a male appropriating female specific terminology for his own use. If you can't understand that as misogyny, then it's pointless trying to further educate you.

[cynthialee]

I can understand the mysoginy angle.

But I am not so sure that 'passive male' exactly works.

I know using my mtf self as a referance fails but its all I have to work with. I couldn't say back in man-dyke days I was passive.

Just lesbians have a certain mindset that is not found anywhere else in society. What could one call a male who lives in that mind set?

[Jaimey]

The term 'passive male' would fit better.
It's misogynistic because it's a male appropriating female specific terminology for his own use. If you can't understand that as misogyny, then it's pointless trying to further educate you.

How about just not replying then?  You aren't answering the OP's question, so why bother posting?  If that is the term that the OP wants to use, that's their business, not yours.  There's no reason to go out of your way to be snotty.  That last sentence was absolutely unnecessary.

And violet_owl, I'm sorry, but I don't know much about hair removal.  A couple posts on this thread just got under my skin.  Pay no mind to the term police.  I'll get off my soapbox now.


Now back to the OP's original question...

[CaitJ]

How about just not replying then?  You aren't answering the OP's question, so why bother posting?

Because I have just as much right to express an opinion?

If that is the term that the OP wants to use, that's their business, not yours.  There's no reason to go out of your way to be snotty.  That last sentence was absolutely unnecessary.

I couldn't care less what term they use. They could call themselves an Anarcothermiplexitorian. If that term was misogynistic, I'd probably still point that out.

[violet_owl]

Hello,

sorry to say so, but 'passive male' certainly does not convey the main point. I do respect it if
others dislike the label "male lesbian", however for lack of anything better I will continue
to refer to these individuals by <<so-called "male lesbians">>. One might be able to think
of better terminology, but I won't waste time on this.

@Vexing: Well, I'm willing to try to understand your POV. Answers to the following questions
will likely "educate" and illuminate me: Do you think the term "female gay" misandric? If not,
I can't see consistency in your logic. Do you also disapproveof the terms girl->-bleeped-<- / guydyke?
In any case, speaking from a male POV, I would never even think of a women who refers
to herself as "female gay" as misandric. (I do think there is equally a lot of misandry and misogyny
in Western society.) I'm out of this discussion, though, if you are biased within the
feminism/masculism spectrum. I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere in that case.
I also find some irony how men who wish they were lesbians and totally adore women find
themselves being labeled as misogynic. I have heard of this happening though, and I'm really
curious on what's going on here. (Also, are male-to-female transsexuals misogynic if they
call themselves "women" after transition? Do they also "appropriate female specific terminology
for their his own use"/"appropriating an identity that does does not belong to them"?)
I really don't know much about feminst theory, but I guess it might be along these lines:
Masculism and feminism are not symmetrical since discrimination against men works
differerently than it does against women (domination). So this explains why "female gay" is
not seen as misandric, while "male lesbian" is seen as misogynistic, as one could see a
domination aspect because a man is using a dedicatedly female term. In contrast, men do
not feel dominated when a women takes the word "gay". Did I get these interpretations right?
But the interesting point is this: Men who are *weaker* then women naturally cannot dominate
them. Hence my POV is, when a normal heterosexual researcher coins the term "male lesbian",
I can well see misogyny to it. However, when a self-identified "male lesbian" chooses this
term so refer to himself, I see no misogyny to it, but rather I see misandry on a women's part who
fails to see how power is distributed here, and who fails to see the huge variance between men
and this individuals mindset in particular.
I am really interested in understanding the misogyny point, since this does not seem to
be just Vexing's view - I have also heard s.o. else point out that in fact one should expect "lesbians
will *hate* men who self-identify that way. I wasn't able to understand that, and I still have
difficulties -- which makes me courious. Especially since this is not a side-remark, but in fact
Vexing wrote *TOTALLY misogynistic". That's just too much not be curious if such a thought
initially would never have come to my mind.
Other points: thinking of it, "passive male" is just as much an insult. Beeing passive is in
no way a conditio sine qua non for the "male lesbian" identity. Worse, it negates the core
point of suffering within these individuals and lets me question whether you really have
read and understood the concept.
I am aware I might be feeding a problematic discussion here, but I still want to understand the misogyny
angle.

[CaitJ]

I really don't know much about feminist theory

Clearly.
I strongly suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

[fwagodess]

OMG!

It's also totally misogynistic - and appropriating an identity that does not belong to you.
'Lesbian' is very specific in meaning. If you do not identify as female, you cannot be a lesbian.

I do unfortunately, fall in that "biological male lesbian category." I always knew from the time I was 12, I was going to be a lesbian of some kind and I never really knew about this until now that I identify as a woman named "Ava". This is obviously a very controversial topic.

I identified as a man-dyke for years.

I even married a couple of women who were lesbian identified when we first met.

(granted I am MTF and I really am a lesbian but I think it is possible to be a male-lesbian)

Man-Dyke? Oh, dear me. If memory serves me correctly, I've heard of the really offensive term term dyke (I remember being called that when I was bullied in middle school).

Clearly.
I strongly suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

I have to agree with Vexing on this part.

[violet_owl]

Hello Vexing and Aeverine Zinn,

you have a point in criticizing my musings on this, since I indeed should have re-read
re-read some basic articles on feminism and feminist theory beforehand to rule out any core
misunderstandings on my part. I have done so in the meantime (no, I have not read whole
*books* in the meantime, but I hold that it is possible to discuss this without such prequisites - do
you at least agree at least on this part?)
As I understand it, one point of feminism is criticism of how language and terminology are
implicitely derived from a masculine basis/perspective as the "default", and feminity as a secondary
instance. (FWIW, as a side note, regarding the termini Guydyke/Girl->-bleeped-<-, not being a native speaker,
I didn't immediately see how these are more than problematic, so pls ignore my mentioning of them.)

Despite my efforts to find any, I still, after some more reading on feminism, cannot see core
misunderstanding and "cluelessnesses" in my previous posts. Since both Vexing and Aeverine Zinn
agree that I don't get it, may I ask you to either take the time to point out what I'm missing. I
have done my part and put some effort into this, but I find it rather intelectually disrespectful
leaving me guessing and simultaneously throwing disrespectful side-remarks at me. So
please go somewhat into detail and pls help me to grasp the problem and point out the errors in
my previous posts. I really want to understand this. This also applies to core misunderandings of
feminism. Please write a few lines. I'd really appreciate.
Thanks for your efforts.

re terminology: "'Lesbian' is very specific in meaning. If you do not identify as female, you cannot be a lesbian." Well, one can *to some extent* identify as female (agreed?), so one can also *to some extent* identify as lesbian. And, how about "would-be translesbian"?

[sfem]

Violet, good luck getting something useful from asking for an explanation of the objection to the term male lesbian. The reaction has the distinct flavour of having touched a personal nerve. I would wonder if the objector even knows why they feel strongly enough about it to be denouncing your comments here. Their posts about it just feel combative to me. I think your use of the label "male lesbian" is fine.

[violet_owl]

Hi sfem,

I am aware of the personal nerve aspect! Still I'm interested WHY this nerve has been hit, and
I also think there's s.th. to learn here. I have read some of Vexing's other posts, which were fine,
and it would be naive of me just to forget about this. Also, I am not used to being denounced
intellectually to such an extent. In fact, I'm feeling intelectually intimidated. This makes me
curious and I want to resolve this strange thread. I'm have given up internet discussions
long ago, but here I'm making an exception since both Gilmartins concept and an
understanding of feminism, and an understanding of unexpectedly hitting personal nerves
nerves are important to me. That's just too much to ignore.

[Sean]

Hi Violet,

I'm going to *try* and explain a bit about the term, even though I am not as well-read on feminist theory as many of the other posters here.

Lesbian is an identity word that is only used by women. Putting a modifier like "Male" in front of it denigrates the powerful female identity of lesbians & women in general.

Let me give another example. Imagine that someone is a member of another minority group. For example, the person could be Jewish or maybe black (e.g., "African-American" in the States).

If you tell someone, well, I'm a believing Christian, but I feel like I'm *also* Jewish, and you go around calling yourself a Christian Jew, that would really tick off a lot of Jews. Because it denigrates what their identity is by not understanding that for hundreds to thousand(s) of years, Jews have been oppressed for being Jewish and *not* Christian. Even groups like "Jews for Jesus" are very controversial and upsetting to the Jewish community, because being for Jesus is incompatible with all denominations of Judaism.

Or let's say you feel like you identify with the struggles or beliefs or feelings of people of a minority race. You can say, "I'm a white African-American" (or use another accepted slang term), and people will be offended or insulted. Someone with white privilege can feel symapthy with or similar to someone of a minority race, but you can't just take their identify terminology and modify by an experience that is the antithesis of what it means to be that identity without ruffling feathers. Yes, there is a concept of a white n*****, but so far as I can tell, this is not a flattering term, and it's developed as it's own distinct term.

In a nutshell, the phrase "male lesbian" is taking something - male privilege - that is the antithesis of the experience that lesbians have (as women), and as a result, it can be offensive to many. I'm not going to comment of the other terms you mention, because I don't know how they are viewed by others and in what context they are used.

Other people might say that this is all semantics and why should we get bogged down in talking about terminology. But words matter. Terms matter. There is a reason people get up in arms about being called a f****t or around here the T word. I think it's important to understand that just because you don't find a term to be offensive, that doesn't mean other people won't. Also, please note that it's been a struggle for many transwomen to find acceptance in the lesbian world, and that there is still a lot of education going on about what gender identity is. They are struggling to find acceptance both as trans and as lesbian. Using terms like "male lesbian" can give fodder to lesbians who want to reject transwomen and claim they are still men, so I understand why people may be protective or want to make sure that the language being used in a trans support community is non-offensive and accurately representing what both the trans identity is and the lesbian identity is. 

Also, some of what you are saying, though, sounds like a standard trans experience. If you are asking: what do you call someone who is born male-bodied, but thinks that she is more like a woman and not a man and attracted to women, then the answer is: That's a lesbian. But there is nothing male about it!

[Adabelle]

Putting a modifier like "Male" in front of it denigrates the powerful female identity of lesbians & women in general.

Is this also the basis for radical fems saying that using the modifier "transgender woman" or "transsexual woman" also somehow denigrates women? Or that someone labeled "male" at birth and therefore (the radical feminist would say) "experienced in male privilege" adopting the label "woman" (even without the modifier) is also denigrating women in a similar way a white person calling themselves black would? It seems a very similar line of thought to me and I don't entirely understand the distinction (other than one being about race, the other about gender, but the lines of thought feel similar). What would be our response to that in the trans context?

Please know I am asking this as a sincere question. I haven't had a lot of exposure to trans nor radical fem philosophy and I very much want to understand more. To be honest I don't have a full understanding of all this (but I would like to think it's still worth educating me about it).

[Sean]

Is this also the basis for radical fems saying that using the modifier "transgender woman" or "transsexual woman" also somehow denigrates women? Or that someone labeled "male" at birth and therefore (the radical feminist would say) "experienced in male privilege" adopting the label "woman" (even without the modifier) is also denigrating women in a similar way a white person calling themselves black would? It seems a very similar line of thought to me and I don't entirely understand the distinction (other than one being about race, the other about gender, but the lines of thought feel similar). What would be our response to that in the trans context?

I think the same argument is being applied when people object to "transsexual woman" - that there is something about transsexual that is inappropriate when added to woman. I think the logic is the same, I just think it's misapplied (or erroneous) when used to prevent trans women from claiming the identity of woman.

From the perspective in which gender identity is accepted as distinct from biological sex, the two situations are clearly different. In one case ("male lesbian"), the modifier MALE is directly in opposition to the identity of LESBIAN. Men are not women. Lesbians are women. In the other case ("transsexual woman"), the modifier TRANSSEXUAL is *not* directly in opposition to the identity of WOMAN. Transsexuals can be women. In fact, many trans women rightfully object to the term "transsexual woman" because the modifier of transsexual implies that they are different from "women" who don't need a modifier at all. [Personally, I think the modifier of trans CAN be useful sometimes, but it depends on the context. Sometimes it IS relevant, just as it is relevant to mesh the identity of black with woman or Jewish with woman to form a combined identity unit of "Black Woman" or "Jewish Woman" that means something DIFFERENT than just being the sum of the parts of different identities.]

Anyway, those radical feminists who object to the term 'transsexual woman' are denying that transsexuals are actually entitled to claim the identity of woman altogether. I find those objections illegitimate, because they stem from a point of view that denies the reality of gender identity as a concept altogether, which is inconsistent with what we know scientifically.

[CaitJ]

Lesbian is an identity word that is only used by women. Putting a modifier like "Male" in front of it denigrates the powerful female identity of lesbians & women in general.

This. This x 9000.
Having struggled so long and hard to claim an identity - a powerful female identity - it is galling that a male identified person decides to pluck this term out from under the noses of lesbians and use it to describe himself. The whole point of claiming the identity was to empower women to feel strong and liberated; to give them a solid, female only identity to stand behind, to rail against Patriarchal mores and oppression, to prevent men from taking anything more away from these women.
And then a man comes along and claims this incredibly important, female only, identity.
If you, Violet Owl, can't see what's problematic about this, then I cannot educate you any further.