Quote from: Sarah7 on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PM
I really wasn't talking about trans issues re: lesbian feminism, but the repurposing of the term lesbian as a platonic political identity. It was kind of an interesting thing if you are into language and whatnot.
I wasn't saying that you or Butler are arguing that the word "lesbian" should be erased or lose meaning. I was saying that there is an inevitable tension with every word between including everything you want to include and having the word still mean anything at all. Words are symbols used to represent ideas. If a trans guy is identifying as a lesbian, in order to include that identity... what does the word lesbian now mean, what does it represent? Because if I go and define it as "a woman who is attracted to other women" that would be a problem, no? See the issue? It isn't a question of desire or intention, just the way language works. Sorry, I'm kind of into language and live in that world and sometimes I skip steps in talking about it.
I guess it's different focuses on language, too. To me language and having this "fluidity of meaning" just for the sake of it shouldn't come in the way of evolving identities. Because nothing human is ever static. And when I was talking earlier about this expansive understanding of lesbian (this is, imo, becoming more common) acting more of a "threat" to patriarchal ideals than second wave separatism, I was thinking of it in the Donna Haraway sense of patriarchy's focus on "perfect communication/language" when in actuality, with human beings, there can be no perfect communication.
Quote from: Sarah7 on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PMI certainly wasn't arguing in favour of policing peoples' identities. I did try to make that clear at both the beginning and the end of the post. But that isn't to say that there aren't side effects to people broadening the terms to include disparate individuals. And that choosing to identify a specific way doesn't have an impact. Because it just does. We live in a society with moving parts, and certain kinds of perception issues and when a lesbian screws a bloke on TV, continuing to ID as a lesbian... it does have repercussions. Do those repercussions mean the person can't ID as lesbian? No, of course it doesn't. But I get why some lesbians find that frustrating or depressing (to be perfectly honest, I find it a little depressing). The rather rare representations of that sexuality tend to end in ways that don't include "and the two ladies walked off into the sunset together." And yes that sucks and is alienating. We don't live in a vacuum; we share a society, you know?
Depends on the lesbian, I suppose. I definitely see the issue with the cismale-driven porn industry's infatuation with pseudo "lesbian" porn, lesbians sleeping with men and how that creeps its way into mainstream television. I 100% take issue with that. But I see a clear difference between straight cismen trying to force themselves into either lesbian dynamics or lgbtq dynamics, and lesbians sleeping with transmen. And frequently those transmen have a history within the lesbian community or the butch/femme community (for example, before coming out as trans I was only really into lesbian/queer femmes but never identified as lesbian myself. I would see that as a queer body within that particular community, rather than one that is specifically gendered/sexed), or continue to identify as lesbians, or in some way have that connection to that community and lesbian spaces. I understand why some transguys don't want to date lesbians. No one is telling them to, just as I won't date straight-identified women and dislike when someone tries to tell me otherwise. But a lot of the transguys who end up with lesbians aren't straight-identified transguys. Its often not the transguys who would be worried about the identity of their lesbian partner and what the implication would be for their identities as men. A lot of times its transguys who date queer and/or lesbian women who actually don't want to be seen as the same as cisguys though not as female either. So I feel like there's this conflict between transguys who want their partners to see them as no different than cisguys post-transition (which is where the issue of how a lesbian partner would see them comes in), vs. transguys who identify as transguys and don't just see the "trans" part as something that exists only until after "transition."
Quote from: Sarah7 on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PMI guess I should ask if you think there are limits. Is there a point where it stops being personal identity and becomes appropriation? Thinking, like, Grey Owl now for like the most complicated/grey case in the history of ever. Or past that point?
Yeah, I agree that obviously there are some instances where...there's a heck of a big grey area, like with Grey Owl. With him I also see it hard to say. In some ways I do see it as appropriation since it all began as a fascination with First Nations culture, it almost seems like cultural fetishisation. I think appropriation is definitely about power and social privilege more than anything. For example, as a "white" transguy, I would never go and claim to be a trans person of colour or begin to claim as though I know the experiences of trans people of colour. But at the same time, even that shouldn't be policed, because there are people of colour who "look white" and who have their own experiences because of social standards of what "this" looks like and what "that" looks like. So the experience of invisibility some POC can face within their own communities and outside of them as well. So I would be careful in calling out appropriation. Some (often white) people tend to get insane with calling out appropriation only to make complete idiots of themselves because they still have certain preconceptions themselves about race.
So in a way, appropriation itself is something that's a lot about personal responsibility (which in the case of Grey Owl, is where things get fishy, imo). If I suddenly go around claiming to be a trans person of colour, I'm completely ignoring not only my own white privilege based on how society perceives me, but my own history as someone with white privilege rather than as someone who isn't actually "white" but tends to be perceived that way because of skin tone etc. Even if I recognise race and racialisation as largely a social creation, I also understand that we live in a society where to claim that it "doesn't exist" only further perpetuates racism. In that case I would be using my power as a person deemed "white" in a white-dominant society to claim an identity that speaks to people with a completely different experience with discrimination. And that is more my responsibility in being honest about my own experiences and history than anything else, I think. So yeah...things can be shady, I agree.
So in that case, yes, if you have a cisman with no history in queer/trans communities who walks in off the street and claims to be a lesbian, you again have a person using their own social privilege to invade another community and the safe spaces made for that community. When power shifts like that, it's usually very obvious.
But where transguys fit in and how transguys using "lesbian" or lesbians dating transguys is appropriation...I don't think it can be, to be quite honest. Transguys who identify as lesbians typically don't do so out of the blue. They have a history within that community, and I think its really screwed up and rendering someone invisible to say that "oh well, you 'decided' to transition, so you don't get to claim lesbian anymore." You can't ask someone to abandon their whole life experience and their community and their own self-perception. Same with transguys who continue to date lesbians after coming out. I have a history in the lesbian community and the butch/femme community. I'd sooner die than give up that history. I never was able to identify as a lesbian (but just queer instead), but that doesn't change that that is the community I grew comfortable in and experienced so much in. To suddenly tell lesbian women I date that they aren't lesbians anymore or that they aren't seeing me as a "real man" (whatever the hell that means) if they continue to identify as lesbians, is ignoring both our histories and experiences. It's not as though we're two people out of the blue who were like "well, today I'm going to date lesbians" or "I like sleeping with guys, but today I'm going to be a lesbian." That is different than when you're dealing with people who have specific histories and experiences.
Quote from: Sarah7 on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PMI also don't think it's fair to bring it down to "just so other people feel more secure about themselves and their 'identity labels.'" Because that argument cuts both ways you know. If it's no big deal why not drop the "lesbian" identity label? The truth is, identity labels ARE a big deal. And people get really really super special attached. Which is why you even have people in a relationship with a trans guy still ID'ing as lesbian.
I see a difference for sure. Especially when it comes to straight-identified people because "heterosexuality" is an identity that has historically always depended on
not being anything else. It also comes with heavy restrictions on what is acceptable for men and women to wear, to say, to do, to want in bed/be turned on by within the confines of heterosexuality. Basically, its something that needs to be heavily maintained (and that was something that was most obviously in the British colonial era, the way indigenous people were treated, those who were allowed to migrate to the colonies, those who were deemed mentally ill or "unfit" to represent Britain etc.) The oppressive nature of heteronormativity is a huge driving force behind the politicisation and claiming of queer/lgbtq identities. Its why some cismale/cisfemale couples in the BDSM scene claim queer identities rather than straight identities...because straight carries with it so much restrictive baggage and identifies itself with "not being this or that."
Labels like lesbian and gay, and these days with other identities like queer and pansexual, these identities (or the naming of them) rose out of the need to identify one's self within a heteronormative/heterosexual-dominant society. That's also why queer is a word that's increasingly used as well, since it moves away from the genders of the partners and a focus on non-normative desire. There are fewer boundaries available to be policed by those who might want to police.
But there are some lesbians who don't think that they should have to change their identities/histories as lesbians in order to love whoever they want to love.
I think it also depends on how you see identities, too. When I talk to a lot of straight-identified people, they have this view of sexual identities as really scientific. Like if you are a woman who enjoys having sex with other women, then automatically that must mean you're a lesbian even without you claiming that identity for yourself. Or if you're a woman who enjoys sleeping with both women and men, then you're bisexual without claiming that identity for yourself. But when I talk to a lot of people within my own queer community, they don't see it that way...as far as who you like to sleep with automatically meaning that you have "this" identity. They see it as something you claim, rather than something you simply "are." I think the difference is worth noting, because originally the label "homosexual" was originally a diagnosis for men who were perceived as "mentally ill" for sleeping with other men. It didn't exist before it was created as a psychiatric diagnosis. Then, through social marginalisation and the need to create a community or sub-culture, it grew out of necessity into an identity.
[Edit]Also, I just wanted to add that I do recognise how queer sexual preferences can also be restrictive. But I see that as often really politicised. For example, I am mostly into queer and/or lesbian women who tend towards the femme side, though not exclusively. But even though I've never really felt the attraction to a cisguy or a transguy, I don't claim that that could never happen. But with cisguys I also see my hesitance to ever get involved with one as also really political and social. A person's politics as well as personal experience definitely plays into whether or not I'd ever consider sleeping with them. I know some lesbians who feel similarly. Some feel repulsed by cismen because of the way society is and what being raised cismale in this society often results in as far as attitudes towards women. Others just don't feel safe around them. And so other things do come into play than just the raw physical stuff. I feel like my sexuality or my own perception of my sexuality has changed since coming out as trans. Like I understand my lack of attraction to cisguys as more than just purely physical, and my broadening attraction to all female identities as more than just purely physical. So just thought I'd add that to say that, yeah, obviously identities and maintaining them are important to people, but I think they're a lot more complicated than just "belonging" to something or whatnot.[/Edit]
What I also find interesting is that we're discussing the degree to which a person's identity is reflective of their sexuality vs. other people's perception...but we aren't talking as much about gender. Like, I identify as a queer transguy...but when I say that to certain straight-identified cispeople, their response will always be "no, you're a woman. You can change this and that as much as you want, but you will always be a woman, and if you like women you're a lesbian." Despite that I am not nor have ever identified as a woman nor as a lesbian. Those people will always just see me as delusional. So why should a person have the ability to determine their sex/gender within a trans community more than their sexuality? We're all living within societies that
force labels on us that we don't identify as. And for many of us, we find that really oppressive. Why is sexuality any different? Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Quote from: Sarah7 on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PMAlso... I'm not sure I agree either. Which is why I find it an interesting thing. If I'd already fixed a position in my head, I wouldn't find it worth talking about much. And I tend to come down on the "personal identities are inviolate" side. But... I do think there are side effects and it isn't simple.
I agree it's hardly simply
I guess for me, I definitely feel that my position is pretty strongly that personal identity is everything (as long as it doesn't become appropriation, but even then claiming something is appropriation in a lot of instances can be difficult...and has more to do with personal responsibility than being able to be an outsider who calls someone else out for appripriation...imo). Society and society's decisions on the meanings of identities has created so many screwed up situations, that I just prefer to see people as how they tell me to see them. If you tell me you're a lesbian, then that's what you are, even if you decide to have sex with someone who's genderqueer or a transguy or whatever. Who you sleep with won't change my perception of your sexuality, because who would know better than you?
I just prefer to see people as the authorities of their own identities, and I think the only time that becomes a problem is when the whole social rigidity of identity rears its ugly head. Like with your example about cismale porn or media portrayal of lesbians "falling for" cismen. The problem for me, in that case, is not a lesbian sleeping with a transguy she likes, the problem there is cismale-dominant society itself, the way women's bodies are objectified and portrayed and women's sexuality is policed and always maintained as cismale-centric.
But even though I'm pretty set in that direction, I like discussing it anyways because...well...we're all human. You bring up ideas that challenge my own ideas and that makes me need to think about my own ideas and maybe even adopt some of yours that make sense to me or I can relate to or whatnot...and that's the joy of discussion, imo, is thinking about something in a different way even if it doesn't necessarily change a person's mind.
