Is She or Isn't She?????

...but on the other hand, if they didn't come out and make a bold statement then the media would have dug around trying to make out she had something to hide. I agree that tokenism in politics sucks.
 
I don't see why she couldn't have been a lesbian at the time. Sexuality isn't fixed. The problem with articles like this is that it's completely irrelevant to the new mayor's work, and they should leave her private life out of it.
 
Personally I don't see how Chirlane could have hidden from the press. She's very political, she's a feminist, at one time in love with another woman and a member of the Combahee River Collective, an important black lesbian feminist group.

I don't believe either Chirlane or her husband even brought the issue to the forefront but being it was public they both needed to respond. Knowing New York politics, in my opinion, de Blasio was going to get the LGBT, feminist and progressive vote regardless and yes part of him getting that vote has to do with Chirlane but not because of her orientation.

Obviously she isn't a lesbian and since I don't believe as Etoile does that orientation is fluid I'd have to say she never was. I do think the fact her sexual experiences were with other women, along with being in love with a woman and becasue of her lesbian and feminist activism she did feel she was a lesbian. If that love would have worked out and they were still together would any of us question her being a lesbian?
 
^^This keeps coming up in discussions in LGBT and I still find myself scratching my head over it. I really want to understand - please believe I'm being provocative - by I can't see how lesbianism is such a black and white issue. Is a persons' sexuality defined at birth or puberty or at a point before their first sexual experience? It sounds a dogmatic, fundamentalist approach - "You're either in or out" as though someone were being defined by a blood group rather than through a conscious development process.

As you'll appreciate by own sexual orientation is will of the wisp right now but given time, I think I'll figure it out - I just have more pressing needs. All the same, I do understand an unequivocal complete conviction about gender identity - so is it like that for you?

I suppose if it were then I see where you coming from, even if I don't 'feel' that myself, yet. When I first began to understand my own dysphoria I started out being rigid in my thinking "I hate my genitals, what testosterone is doing to me - here is what I need to do to escape the prison I'm in" and I couldn't understand anyone else thinking differently. TBH I'm still perplexed when I hear about trans women who are actually happy with their penis and I admit I have to fight a tiny reflex thought that says "then they're not proper trans women" but the more trans women I've met, the more I have come to realise it isn't 'my way or the highway'.
Maybe I think that way because I expect cis-gender people to respect me and my values, so I've learnt it is a trade off or maybe I just think the world isn't black and white. I don't know - really I don't know. A big part of my transition is letting my understanding evolve.

Any thoughts?
 
^^This keeps coming up in discussions in LGBT and I still find myself scratching my head over it. I really want to understand - please believe I'm being provocative - by I can't see how lesbianism is such a black and white issue. Is a persons' sexuality defined at birth or puberty or at a point before their first sexual experience? It sounds a dogmatic, fundamentalist approach - "You're either in or out" as though someone were being defined by a blood group rather than through a conscious development process.

As you'll appreciate by own sexual orientation is will of the wisp right now but given time, I think I'll figure it out - I just have more pressing needs. All the same, I do understand an unequivocal complete conviction about gender identity - so is it like that for you?

I suppose if it were then I see where you coming from, even if I don't 'feel' that myself, yet. When I first began to understand my own dysphoria I started out being rigid in my thinking "I hate my genitals, what testosterone is doing to me - here is what I need to do to escape the prison I'm in" and I couldn't understand anyone else thinking differently. TBH I'm still perplexed when I hear about trans women who are actually happy with their penis and I admit I have to fight a tiny reflex thought that says "then they're not proper trans women" but the more trans women I've met, the more I have come to realise it isn't 'my way or the highway'.
Maybe I think that way because I expect cis-gender people to respect me and my values, so I've learnt it is a trade off or maybe I just think the world isn't black and white. I don't know - really I don't know. A big part of my transition is letting my understanding evolve.

Any thoughts?


Okay, let me start... (and this might be a multi-part comment).

First of all I believe, and I'm only expressing MY beliefs here, people are born straight, bi or homo. That is who and what we are both physiologically and psychologically. That IS pretty black and white.

Where the obscurity comes in is the people who , due to societal & family pressures and expectations, fear and/or a multitude of other reasons either don't realize or purposely ignore who they really are.

A good example of this is "situational lesbians". They may be "Until Graduation" lesbians, "I Kissed a Drunk Frat Girl" lesbians, "I'm really bisexual, but I wanna get laid so I'm gonna say I'm a" lesbians or as I believe in the case of the new NYC Mayor's wife, "To Fit In With A Certain Power Group" lesbians. In reality NONE of them are. They just either say they are or worse self-delude themselves into actually believing it.

To this group add the chicks who didn't realize what the feeling they were feeling really were (this are the sistas who "come out" in their fourties) and the "I know I'm queer, but I'm going to fight it tooth and nail" ones and you have a major convolution of identities.

So I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't a "Your out or your in" thing, it's more of a "realizing that you are already in" thing.

Does that make ANY sense????
 
Thanks SB and yes, it makes sense :)
I always knew folks were born with a predisposition and sure - people can repress feelings or discover them later in life as you point out. So it's self-proclaimed lesbians who change their mind and take up with a man: they were never lesbians ( they only thought they were )? Over here we call them Lipstick Lesbians and I know plenty girls who call themselves lesbians but are probably bisexual - maybe not even that if they never go past kissing.

I still don't see why 'proper' lesbians are so hard on those women who change their mind - it just seems like indignation. If it is because they put themselves up as political figures ( as you said power groups ) with a lesbian tag, does it mean that they are incapable of sincerely representing lesbian causes? That seems a bit narrow-minded. If it's just an indignation to the bare-arsed cheek of it, then fair enough.

I hate to see bigotry in any group - I find it upsetting.. but we never argued at home *shrug*. I prefer to see the similarities between people rather than their differences and go forward from there. Maybe ask me again in ten years and I won't be so fluffy about it all...
 
Thanks SB and yes, it makes sense :)
I always knew folks were born with a predisposition and sure - people can repress feelings or discover them later in life as you point out. So it's self-proclaimed lesbians who change their mind and take up with a man: they were never lesbians ( they only thought they were )? Over here we call them Lipstick Lesbians and I know plenty girls who call themselves lesbians but are probably bisexual - maybe not even that if they never go past kissing.

I still don't see why 'proper' lesbians are so hard on those women who change their mind - it just seems like indignation. If it is because they put themselves up as political figures ( as you said power groups ) with a lesbian tag, does it mean that they are incapable of sincerely representing lesbian causes? That seems a bit narrow-minded. If it's just an indignation to the bare-arsed cheek of it, then fair enough.

I hate to see bigotry in any group - I find it upsetting.. but we never argued at home *shrug*. I prefer to see the similarities between people rather than their differences and go forward from there. Maybe ask me again in ten years and I won't be so fluffy about it all...


You are still making it sound like a "choice', hon. It ain't!

Where the annoyance comes in, and again I am speaking ONLY for myself here, is when:

a.) I am disappointed because I see someone harming themselves by disavowing their true sexuality simply to placate society.

or

b.) I see people say they are things they are not. "Bisexual lesbians" fall into this category. By claiming to be something they are not they are in fact lying to me. That is NOT okay and it makes for a LOT of contention. Then when you add in their using this mis-identification to gain access to some perceived power or "insider" group or person that is just plain irritating.




BTW, aren't you being a bit condescending and "so hard on" with the use of "proper"???

We DO get to make our own choices without being lied to or deceived and we DO get to feel bad for people who are lying to themselves. If you got a problem with that then the problem is YOURS not ours.
 
Last edited:
If it sounded condescending it wasn't intended but yea, my clumsy use of the word 'proper' was wrong and I apologise for that.
I don't see it as a choice - it's probably just being surrounded by women students at Uni who are basically out to party hard and experiment. I suppose I've lost my compass along the way - that's why discussing things here is helpful.

a.People being denied or denying their own sexuality - totally with you, especially when 'big society' tries to stick its nose in. Injustice makes me see red and always has done.

b. Well ok, we'll agree to disagree. I think people promise things everyday that they are later unable to deliver, despite being certain of their own integrity. At the time, they really are convinced of their sexuality, so maybe big events in their life changes that? If they've been knowingly deceitful then sure - kick their butt
 
Last edited:
First Stickygirl I wasn't at all upset with your use of the word proper in referring to lesbians. I took it just like I'd take 'he was a proper gentlemen' or 'she was a proper lady'. I understood you meant those of us who happen to be lesbian as opposed to those who happen to think they have a right to call themselves lesbians when they aren't.

As Safe_Bet pointed out "Bisexual lesbians" just doesn't work, either you're a lesbian or bisexual it's impossible to be both. Worst yet "lesbians who like dick" or "Lesbians who date men" I get sick of bisexual women who happen to like and love other women more so then men but still fuck men calling themselves lesbians. It doesn't matter to me if the women they're with don't care if they fuck men it's their problem but I don't think you'll find many of us who'd tolerate that type of behavior even if we happened to be in love with a bisexual woman.

The truth is orientation isn't even about sex, it's about our whole life. I've written this before, "Having sex with other women doesn't make me a lesbian, I have sex with other women because I am a lesbian".

Why do we as lesbian seem to you as intolerant.

1) We want a choice of whom we become involved with and labeling oneself as a lesbian when she's not takes that choice away.
2) We don't want to be lied to and lying about your orientation is the worst lie you can tell me.
3) More importantly and this does apply to Chirlane McCray, when a person claims to be lesbian and isn't, choosing a man over a woman, she's only fueling the hate speech, it only emboldens those who claim we have a choice and we're evil sinners. Those who claim to be able to pray away the gay.

I didn't choose to be a lesbian I just am. I didn't make a choice but I'm so happy I am a lesbian, if I believed in a deity I'd lay prostate on the ground and thank her for blessing me this way.
 
The truth is orientation isn't even about sex, it's about our whole life. I've written this before, "Having sex with other women doesn't make me a lesbian, I have sex with other women because I am a lesbian".

I think I'll be using that as quote elsewhere - I like that!

Why do we as lesbian seem to you as intolerant.

1) We want a choice of whom we become involved with and labeling oneself as a lesbian when she's not takes that choice away.
2) We don't want to be lied to and lying about your orientation is the worst lie you can tell me.
3) More importantly and this does apply to Chirlane McCray, when a person claims to be lesbian and isn't, choosing a man over a woman, she's only fueling the hate speech, it only emboldens those who claim we have a choice and we're evil sinners. Those who claim to be able to pray away the gay.
...and perpetuate the myth that a lesbian will 'change her mind' if only she meets the right man. Yup
I didn't choose to be a lesbian I just am. I didn't make a choice but I'm so happy I am a lesbian, if I believed in a deity I'd lay prostate on the ground and thank her for blessing me this way.
:rose:

I've always preferred the company of women to men and couple of my mates at Uni are 'proper' lesbians ;) I wouldn't wish the pain of coming out on anyone. I envy you - I envy the clarity with which you regard yourself.
 
b. Well ok, we'll agree to disagree. I think people promise things everyday that they are later unable to deliver, despite being certain of their own integrity. At the time, they really are convinced of their sexuality, so maybe big events in their life changes that? If they've been knowingly deceitful then sure - kick their butt

I don't think we are actually in disagreement then. I don't think anyone has a problem with women who, due to family or social expectations, have initially convinced themselves that they are kinda, sorta straight (but she STILL makes me wet) and then realize the truth. As D said so well, it's the "knowingly" liars and users that get our disdain.



I didn't choose to be a lesbian I just am. I didn't make a choice but I'm so happy I am a lesbian, if I believed in a deity I'd lay prostate on the ground and thank her for blessing me this way.

The rest of us are happy about it too! ;)


We DO need to talk about this who deity thing though... there are MUCH better things to do while laying prostrate. LOL
 
Last edited:
tumblr_mw59fxcBxO1qjdpmso1_250.gif
 
I forget who I've already had this conversation with, so apologies if this is something you've heard from me before.

3) More importantly and this does apply to Chirlane McCray, when a person claims to be lesbian and isn't, choosing a man over a woman, she's only fueling the hate speech, it only emboldens those who claim we have a choice and we're evil sinners. Those who claim to be able to pray away the gay.

I take this more as an illustration of why "we don't have a choice" is the wrong argument. I can see the appeal, but it's harmful to people who don't fit tidily into the narrative, and I don't think it's actually that persuasive to people who don't already believe.

Some women honestly ID as lesbian at one point in their life and later on find themselves attracted to a guy. We can call that "sexuality is fluid for some people" or "lesbian with an exception" or "she didn't realise she was bi, just THOUGHT she was lesbian" - not being telepathic I can't tell for sure how anybody else's sexuality works, and I'm prepared to believe it's different for different people. But however we frame it, I think we're all agreed that one way or another it does happen - and of course there are also women who KNOW they're bi and are honest with their partners about it.

To me, standing heavily on the "born this way, can't change" argument erases those people and treats their relationships as less worthy of respect. "Okay, you can marry your same-sex partner, but only if you convince us that you've exhausted all other options for being happy." It still treats same-sex attraction as something that needs to be excused; even for hardwired 100%-gay folk who can honestly make that excuse, I think it's a losing gambit.

The "best" possible outcome there is to persuade the Religious Right to treat homosexuality less like a moral failing and more like an incurable disease... but then, there's no such thing as "incurable" in the Bible. Hello, "ex-gay" movement.

The more likely outcome is that they just convince themselves that it's still always a choice. People are very very good at finding reasons to believe what they want to believe.

(On a side note: if people arguing for LG rights stand on a narrative that excludes fluid/bi people from their platform, they don't get to say "you're letting the side down" when a fluid/bi person does something that happens to undermine that narrative. If you want people to pull together with you, first you need to let them into the boat.)

I see a very similar situation with trans rights, where there's this stock narrative of "I hate my current body, I identify as 100% $GENDER, and I'll be unhappy forever if I'm not allowed to transition." I'm sure it's true for a lot of people, but I also know several trans folk who don't fit neatly into that narrative, and they tend to get dumped on from both sides.
 
I forget who I've already had this conversation with, so apologies if this is something you've heard from me before.



I take this more as an illustration of why "we don't have a choice" is the wrong argument. I can see the appeal, but it's harmful to people who don't fit tidily into the narrative, and I don't think it's actually that persuasive to people who don't already believe.

Some women honestly ID as lesbian at one point in their life and later on find themselves attracted to a guy. We can call that "sexuality is fluid for some people" or "lesbian with an exception" or "she didn't realise she was bi, just THOUGHT she was lesbian" - not being telepathic I can't tell for sure how anybody else's sexuality works, and I'm prepared to believe it's different for different people. But however we frame it, I think we're all agreed that one way or another it does happen - and of course there are also women who KNOW they're bi and are honest with their partners about it.

To me, standing heavily on the "born this way, can't change" argument erases those people and treats their relationships as less worthy of respect. "Okay, you can marry your same-sex partner, but only if you convince us that you've exhausted all other options for being happy." It still treats same-sex attraction as something that needs to be excused; even for hardwired 100%-gay folk who can honestly make that excuse, I think it's a losing gambit.

The "best" possible outcome there is to persuade the Religious Right to treat homosexuality less like a moral failing and more like an incurable disease... but then, there's no such thing as "incurable" in the Bible. Hello, "ex-gay" movement.

The more likely outcome is that they just convince themselves that it's still always a choice. People are very very good at finding reasons to believe what they want to believe.

(On a side note: if people arguing for LG rights stand on a narrative that excludes fluid/bi people from their platform, they don't get to say "you're letting the side down" when a fluid/bi person does something that happens to undermine that narrative. If you want people to pull together with you, first you need to let them into the boat.)

I see a very similar situation with trans rights, where there's this stock narrative of "I hate my current body, I identify as 100% $GENDER, and I'll be unhappy forever if I'm not allowed to transition." I'm sure it's true for a lot of people, but I also know several trans folk who don't fit neatly into that narrative, and they tend to get dumped on from both sides.


Uhhhh, no.

Perhaps my sisters at the Lesbian Mafia will make it clearer when they say,

The Lesbian Mafia: because Lesbians are not bisexual. Learn it b*tches. Leeearn it! We love our bi friends but Lesbians are NOT.

After decades of media and porno assault on Lesbian identity and culture, if anyone male, female, gay, bi or otherwise gets the simple truth above twisted then they are homophobic misogynists and need to GO. We understand that nothing in life is black or white and there are a myriad of reasons women end up living heterosexual lives…internal or external homophobia, bad relationships, economic concerns, religion, kids etc., but for the most part it’s reeeeeally simple…if a woman enjoys sleeping with dudes she’s NOT a Lesbian. The End. She may be primarily attracted to women and “Lesbian identified” or whatever the frack, but sorry, she ain’t Lez if she’s doing it with dudes and gets hot for dudes, that’s called bi or queer. Learn it!

They go on about their beliefs, all of which I STRONGLY subscribe, here:

http://www.thelesbianmafia.com/home/manifesto/
 
Last edited:
Uhhhh, no.

Perhaps my sisters at the Lesbian Mafia will make it clearer when they say,



They go on about their beliefs, all of which I STRONGLY subscribe, here:

http://www.thelesbianmafia.com/home/manifesto/

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that conflicts with what I said above.

I'm well aware that some folk, including yourself, consider "lesbian" as an always-or-never thing and believe that using it for anything else is a misuse of the word. I'm aware that some other folk consider that a person can be "lesbian" at one stage in their life and "straight" or "bi" or "asexual" at another point in their life. I'm not arguing for or against either of those positions.

My comment there was about women who in all honesty believe themselves to be lesbian at one stage in their life, but later on discover that they're attracted to a guy. I took no position on whether those women actually were "truly lesbian" at the time - I specifically acknowledged several different ways of interpreting that situation, including "was actually bi and didn't realise it".
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that conflicts with what I said above.

I'm well aware that some folk, including yourself, consider "lesbian" as an always-or-never thing and believe that using it for anything else is a misuse of the word. I'm aware that some other folk consider that a person can be "lesbian" at one stage in their life and "straight" or "bi" or "asexual" at another point in their life. I'm not arguing for or against either of those positions.

My comment there was about women who in all honesty believe themselves to be lesbian at one stage in their life, but later on discover that they're attracted to a guy. I took no position on whether those women actually were "truly lesbian" at the time - I specifically acknowledged several different ways of interpreting that situation, including "was actually bi and didn't realise it".


... and my point is that they can believe whatever they want... There are people who believe they are Napoleon, the Easter Bunny and Joan of Arc, but that don't mean they really are.
 
Bramblethorn I really don't understand why you or anyone else has a problem with how the vast majority of those of us who are lesbian define ourselves. Not just define ourselves but are.

The I thought I was, the maybe I was, the I fuck men but I'm in love with a woman group are not nor ever have been lesbian. I may be a little more liberal than Safe_Bet in allowing for women like Chirlane McCray but the real truth is, she never was a lesbian and she had to have always known she was attracted to men. This I'm lesbian today but I'm straight/bi tomorrow is just bullshit.

Your wrong about the religious right, if they can define being lesbian or gay as a sinful, evil choice and use women like Chirlane McCray to prove it, in the good old U.S. of A we have enough wishy washy Christian that are going to be afraid they'll go to hell if they vote for our equal rights and we may never be really equal.

Uhhhh, no.

Perhaps my sisters at the Lesbian Mafia will make it clearer when they say,


They go on about their beliefs, all of which I STRONGLY subscribe, here:

http://www.thelesbianmafia.com/home/manifesto/

I just love this,
The Lesbian Mafia: because Lesbians are not bisexual. Learn it b*tches. Leeearn it! We love our bi friends but Lesbians are NOT.

After decades of media and porno assault on Lesbian identity and culture, if anyone male, female, gay, bi or otherwise gets the simple truth above twisted then they are homophobic misogynists and need to GO. We understand that nothing in life is black or white and there are a myriad of reasons women end up living heterosexual lives…internal or external homophobia, bad relationships, economic concerns, religion, kids etc., but for the most part it’s reeeeeally simple…if a woman enjoys sleeping with dudes she’s NOT a Lesbian. The End. She may be primarily attracted to women and “Lesbian identified” or whatever the frack, but sorry, she ain’t Lez if she’s doing it with dudes and gets hot for dudes, that’s called bi or queer. Learn it!

I may just hang it on my living room wall. While I do agree with most of the manifesto, not all. I don't think we can disengage politically.

I thought you might find this interesting it was published in the Seattle YWCA's magazine Pandora in 1970. How things don't seem to change.

For as long as women have been struggling against the male-domination prevalent in our society, lesbians have been the niggers of the women’s movement. Women’s liberation has been running scared in fear of the labels ‘lesbian’ and ‘dyke’ hurled by men trying to quell the rise of self-determination among women. And, for the most part, women have reacted defensively, and have put down their gay sisters in order to appear valid in men’s eyes. But our common goal, as women, must be to write our own definition of woman and womanhood.

As they begin to get themselves together to understand one another on a human, personal basis, gay women will want to establish contact with other women’s groups in the Seattle area. Our goals as women may not be identical, but we have enough in common to warrant communication and common rallying points.
 
Bramblethorn I really don't understand why you or anyone else has a problem with how the vast majority of those of us who are lesbian define ourselves. Not just define ourselves but are.

I have no problem with the way you define yourself. Equally, I have no problem with those who consider themselves "lesbian" and define the word differently. It's one of the many words in the language where different people use it in different ways. My preferred approach is to be aware of differences in usage and interpret the speaker accordingly, and to clarify if I think my usage might mislead them.

But if somebody asserts that their usage is the only correct usage and anybody who uses it in a different way is wrong... well, how did that rule come into being? There's no Divine Source Of Truth about what words mean. All we have is "some people use it this way and some people use it that way."

Some people still hang on to the original meaning - "of or relating to the Isle of Lesbos" - and object to ANY use of "lesbian" as a descriptor of orientation.

she had to have always known she was attracted to men.

How are you so certain of that? None of us are telepathic. Short of getting hold of her secret diaries, the best we can do is "well, I would've known, so she must have known".

And that's a very risky assumption. Different people think differently. I've been with my partner for 15 years, we finish one another's sentences, and there are STILL plenty of things that are obvious to her but not to me & vice versa. The fact that we have gay people and straight people and bi people should suggest that not everybody experiences attraction in the same way.

Your wrong about the religious right, if they can define being lesbian or gay as a sinful, evil choice and use women like Chirlane McCray to prove it, in the good old U.S. of A we have enough wishy washy Christian that are going to be afraid they'll go to hell if they vote for our equal rights and we may never be really equal.

OK, let's suppose Chirlane McCray isn't on the radar. Let's erase everybody with a trace of ambiguity from view, leaving only life-long 100% gold-star LG folk. While we're at it, let's sanitise it even further, until we're down to nice non-threatening butch-femme couples who go to church and aspire to marriage and a white picket fence and have a note from the APA explaining why they can't help but be gay.

Do you think that would be enough for the Religious Right? Would they turn around and say "oh, I guess you guys are okay, you can have your rights now" to however-many queer folk are left in the picture?

Me, I doubt it. The RR aren't interested in considering whether it's OK for people to be queer. They've already decided that it's not; the rest is just rationalisation. If there's somebody like McCray around, sure, they'll use that for material. But if there's not, they'll create one (brainwash some poor sap with a few weeks of "ex-gay" therapy and get a sound bite of them declaring themselves "cured" before reality catches up with them). Or just make shit up.

It's appeasement politics, and we know how effective that is.
 
Then I guess we're back to the old labels/language dilemma and will end up chasing our tails because language is only a shorthand for expression.
I think we shouldn't see the word as a barrier or, as the people with religious or political agendas do, use it to divide us or belittle our status. Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that we have so much in common and feel empowered by our diversity and throw their BS back in their vinegar faces?

Then I've realised I've been saying 'our' and 'we' and so stepped out of line. :rolleyes: I guess I'm not lesbian or I would just 'know' and TBH I do have feelings for men as well as women, so I'm not phased by being bi. But I have so much to learn and benefit from sharing my life with lesbians and we have so many values in common.

You can complain about Chirlane being disingenuous but, though I'm not familiar with American politics, what was the alternative? If you accept nothing less that honest political figures then you'll be wishing for the moon. I'd be happier to have a political representative with some experience of LGBT issues than some crazy religious/red-neck zealot.
 
Then I guess we're back to the old labels/language dilemma and will end up chasing our tails because language is only a shorthand for expression.
I think we shouldn't see the word as a barrier or, as the people with religious or political agendas do, use it to divide us or belittle our status. Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that we have so much in common and feel empowered by our diversity and throw their BS back in their vinegar faces?

Then I've realised I've been saying 'our' and 'we' and so stepped out of line. :rolleyes: I guess I'm not lesbian or I would just 'know' and TBH I do have feelings for men as well as women, so I'm not phased by being bi. But I have so much to learn and benefit from sharing my life with lesbians and we have so many values in common.

You can complain about Chirlane being disingenuous but, though I'm not familiar with American politics, what was the alternative? If you accept nothing less that honest political figures then you'll be wishing for the moon. I'd be happier to have a political representative with some experience of LGBT issues than some crazy religious/red-neck zealot.


Sorry, you feel that way, hon.

The thing is you are not trying to look at it from our perspective:

I, at least, refuse to allow people to define me by co-opting who and what I am. Lesbian is my identity; it is NOT only my orientation.

Also when you have the "Lez for pay for the basement dweller" str8 chicks, the "Dyke for the night then run home to hubby" bi chicks and the "Use what we have gained to their political advantage" users on one side; the fundie "kill all homo bitches" on another; the "you REALLY want it" fucktards on yet another and the misogynistic GBTQ envious "chick haters" in our own LGBTQ community all gunning for you... then you get pretty defensive of your label.

So you can lay the snark and condescension on as thick as you'd like but that is NOT going to make me give up who and what I am for the benefit of those who are not.

We erned this label through the blood and sacrifice of my sisters and I'll be fuck all go to hell before I give it to someone who hasn't just because they are a "wannabe".


P.S. That does NOT mean that I don't love, respect and support my GBTQ & str8 friends. It just means that I refuse to allow them to define me or co-opt what was hard earned.
 

I really don't understand your Whatever.

Safe_Bet is so right when she says "We earned this label through the blood and sacrifice of my sisters and I'll be fuck all go to hell before I give it to someone who hasn't just because they are a "wannabe"." I won't go as far as saying I earned it but my sisters did, those who came before me did.

I'd give you an elegant assay to prove my point but let one of us, one whose involvement in both the lesbian and early feminist community added much to both, although you won't find her mentioned often in the exclusive academia third wave feminism. Radical she was but the whole problem with today's feminists is they aren't radical enough, they don't want to change the world.

Jeanne Cordova
"1) YES, I still proudly use L word for all my selves. 2) Lesbian Nation still exists. Lesbian Connection has 25 K readers; thousands still go to lesbian music festivals. True, new gens don’t understand fully the concept of LN as Johnston & Whiting, but they/we still live in tribal identity & community & witness each other doing so. and 3) We still NEED Lesbian Nation-and we’re still mad-as-hell that the L word remains so erased in the LGBT movement. Erased by the heteronormative world, and so often by our own G, T, and B siblings. As long as this erasure stands, we still need Lesbian Nation because We as queer women, as people who still claim “woman” are not the same as gay men, or transmen, or bisexual men-we need our damn “L”. We need to know our tribe, our heritage-no matter how many other adjectives we choose to also embrace."

I assure you Jeanne Cordova is not exclusive in her support for the queer community, nor am I, but she is a lesbian and I, like her, know we have a need and a right to our own identity. In no way are we taking anything away from anyone else. There are no blurred lines when it comes to who is or isn't a lesbian. Although seldom used, lesbian meant the same thing in the 18th and 19th century as it did in the 50's and 60's when women who were in love with and had sex exclusively with other women took it up as their identity, as word it is excepted everywhere to mean women who are exclusively oriented to other women. No one has the right to take that away form us, nor redefine who lesbians are and we ARE NOT about to let them.
 
Well, more apologies, but I seem to have become an Aunt Sally and out of my depth. I posted a reply but I didn't feel in the least confident so yea...
I was only looking to understand - that means asking questions. If you don't know something you ask questions and I never intended to come across as either snarky or condescending.
 
I assure you Jeanne Cordova is not exclusive in her support for the queer community, nor am I, but she is a lesbian and I, like her, know we have a need and a right to our own identity. In no way are we taking anything away from anyone else. There are no blurred lines when it comes to who is or isn't a lesbian. Although seldom used, lesbian meant the same thing in the 18th and 19th century as it did in the 50's and 60's when women who were in love with and had sex exclusively with other women took it up as their identity

I'd be interested in seeing a cite for usage in the 18th century. The etymology discussions I've seen all put the first appearance of "Lesbian" at around 1890 and "Lesbianism" around 1870, so late 19th. (In a "same-sex-attracted" sense, that is; it's been in the English language since the 1590s meaning "inhabitant of Lesbos".)

I'd also be interested in seeing 18th- and/or 19th-century cites that specifically support the "exclusive" part of that assertion.

as word it is excepted everywhere to mean women who are exclusively oriented to other women.

Not "everywhere". Most of the folk I know who use it define it more on the basis of "primarily oriented". Some make the distinction "I occasionally sleep with guys, but I only fall in love with women".

No one has the right to take that away form us, nor redefine who lesbians are

Your usage is a redefinition, over the objections of people who've been using "Lesbian" for much longer.
 
Back
Top