MetaChat - Lesbians vs. Lesbians

No, I clicked it because, considering the poster, I KNEW that (sadly) it would not feature mud wrestling, or anything akin. There was a chance, in my mind, of getting rickrolled, but I took it.

It's pretty interesting though, which, again, given the poster, I knew it would be.

(Daughter, although outwardly would match the description of that certain kind of Lesbian, hates the term, preferring "queer person," and nothing other, at least this week.)

posted by danf 30 April | 14:08

Champagne.

posted by danostuporstar 30 April | 14:10

Lambrou says Sappho was not gay. "But even if we assume she was, how can 250,000 people of Lesbian descent — including women — be considered homosexual?"

(I am loving this article.)

posted by danf 30 April | 14:12

I love the phrase "certain ladies" ("'Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos,' he said") and think it should be proposed as the alternative.

Related gripe: I keep catching the intro to "Shot of Love with Tila Tequila," which, granted, I do not particularly expect to be at the forefront of respectful depictions of gender and sexuality, but I keep getting annoyed that they keep saying they're pitting "guys" against "lesbians" because it would seem to logically follow then that gay men are not guys and lesbians are not women. Grr.

posted by occhiblu 30 April | 14:12

Actually, I can see how that would cause some confusion.

posted by muddgirl 30 April | 14:13

Daughter, although outwardly would match the description of that certain kind of Lesbian, hates the term, preferring "queer person," and nothing other, at least this week.

I'm not a fan of it myself, but I've never really figured out why. Sounds so clinical. I also don't call myself 'queer' (I'm too untattooed, unpierced, and un-hair-dyed for it to fit); I *hate* 'homosexual' with a burning passion (too Baptist); and 'dyke' is too dykey. When I'm forced to label myself in such a manner as to explain my deviance, I stick with 'gay.' It's just so sleek and simple.

posted by mudpuppie 30 April | 14:13

Actually, I can see how that would cause some confusion.

There's something inherently homophobic in the argument, though, as opposed to something inherently professing confusion. I mean, people of Hamburg aren't suing McDonald's because they're worried about being confused with hamburgers. But no one who's not a lesbian wants to be assumed gay, because there's still that much of a stigma. Which is sad, really, and a little bit insulting.

I like what one of the comments says -- the island women should call themselves "native Lesbians." Sounds much cooler.

posted by mudpuppie 30 April | 14:17

When I worked at Cisco, people would always assume it was Sysco, the food company. Tiring to clarify, and certainly not a social stigma, but still a nuisance.

I'd gladly give up the L word, and like 'pupp, if I have to label myself, gay fits the bill, everyone knows what it means and how to spell it, short & simple.

'course, I guess people might say if we prefer 'gay', then we harbour some penis envy or other such neurosis around male homosexualites.

Splitting frog hairs. Three ways. But I guess it matters in some cases.

posted by chewatadistance 30 April | 14:34

I can't wait for a coalition of happy people to file suit against the gays.

posted by dersins 30 April | 14:44

Wait til they sue people for pronouncing homosexual as if the prefix was Latin, i.e., həʊməʊ, rather than the 'correct' Greek form, hɒməʊ (it's homo as in same, not homo as in man).

posted by matthewr 30 April | 14:45

Homeos sound like some kind of hip hop cereal.

posted by ethylene 30 April | 14:48

What's wrong with sassy?

posted by ethylene 30 April | 15:00

Years ago, I saw Will Durst do a stand-up routine in which he said that the word "sex" was much too harsh sounding for what it described; he preferred using the word "waffle" instead. In keeping with this idea, I propose naming sexual prefernces after breakfast foods. Heterosexuals might be "eggs over easy", for example. Lesbians could be "French toast" and gay men would probably end up being "sausages". (I suppose that would make bisexuals EBCBs.)

posted by bmarkey 30 April | 15:04

When I'm forced to label myself in such a manner as to explain my deviance, I stick with 'gay.' It's just so sleek and simple.

Heterosexually challenged?

posted by danf 30 April | 15:06

I just woke from a nap. I was dreaming someone was calling me a sassy sausage, and was pouring maple syrup all over me. Hmmm.

I'm going back to bed.

posted by BoringPostcards 30 April | 15:10

Heterosexually challenged?

Nah, not really. Not being straight comes quite naturally--not a challenge at all.

posted by sneakin 30 April | 15:26

Seems like the title of this post should be "Lesbians vs. lesbians" -- the capitalization matters. ;)

posted by me3dia 30 April | 15:43

Except that parties in court cases are capitalized, Mr. Smarty Pants.

posted by mudpuppie 30 April | 16:00

Does Greek have a capitalization scheme for proper nouns and adjectives? Or some sort of way to graphically distinguish them? Because it does seem like that kind of further undercuts the "confusion" angle.

posted by occhiblu 30 April | 16:04

Personally I think it's a great opportunity for lesbians to come up with a new word for themselves. Not a chance you get everyday. And I'm sure lesbians understand the idea of taking a word back.

That said, the people of Lesbo should just go with Lesbonites, because I'm sure they're seriously outnumbered.
Upon further thought, the first lesbian/Lesbian in space will be called a Lesbonaut. But which will claim this new frontier?

posted by Hellbient 30 April | 16:12

Oh also, if I may, I made up a word for a person who seems gay but isn't - a fauxmosexual.

posted by Hellbient 30 April | 16:14

I made up a word for a person who seems gay but isn't - a fauxmosexual.

We already have that word:

"British"

*flees*

posted by BitterOldPunk 30 April | 16:23

*flees*

you flee like a poofta.

posted by Hellbient 30 April | 17:11

Bender? You bend 'er, you brought 'er.

i've never been fond of lesbian, why "gay AND lesbian", it never made enough sense and doesn't ring right. too Victorian or something some swells said once.

How about "gone native"?

posted by ethylene 30 April | 17:17

Yeah, that always annoyed me, too - are lesbians not gay? Are gay men more gay than gay women? What gives?

posted by dg 30 April | 17:25

Yeah, that always annoyed me, too - are lesbians not gay? Are gay men more gay than gay women? What gives?

I think it is, in its practical application, designed to indicate to us gays/lesbians who we're allowed to sleep with. Imagine the confusion if we were all lumped together.

Note the following example.

Me: Oh, you're gay? Me too! Let's go have sex!

Bob: Yeah, let's! We're both gay! That's what we should do!!

[Five minutes later, behind closed doors...]

Me: Hey, what the fuck is that??? I thought you said you were gay!!!

**The previous scene was dramatized.

posted by mudpuppie 30 April | 17:31

Me: Hey, what the fuck is that??? I thought you said you were gay!!!

mudpuppie, I'm predict that over the next 48 hours or so, I will keep randonly thinking of that and bursting into peals of laughter. PERFECT.

posted by Elsa 30 April | 17:36

It's turned into alphabet soup. . .lgbtq-etcetcetc.

I think the whole "gay and lesbian" or "lesbian and gay" came about because gay, back then, referred to male homosexual people, and the female ones wanted equal time/status/recognition, etc. At least that was my understanding, back in the 70's.

And I still know some women who will give you the stinkeye if you refer to them as "gay."

(Derail. . .a few years ago, a couple Eugene women in their 80's I know married eachother. They even got a nice little story on the news. The female anchor referred to them on air as "cute." Well, wrong thing to say. They not only pried an apology out of this poor woman for "infantilizing" them, but her first apology was not good, or public enough, so they got another one out of her. Here was a newscaster, a public ally, and they made her pay and pay for calling them "cute." Which they were. Until then.)

posted by danf 30 April | 17:41

I think it is, in its practical application, designed to indicate to us gays/lesbians who we're allowed to sleep with. Imagine the confusion if we were all lumped together.
Well, I would have thought it was obvious (leaving aside partially-completed gender reassignments for the moment). Gay males can sleep with anyone who has a penis, gay females can sleep with everyone else.

Of course, we are all free to sleep with who or whatever we want, but if you insist on being put in a pigeonhole ...

posted by dg 30 April | 17:52

Next up, Greeks sue certain cities in Georgia and Ohio, claiming that Athenians don't wish to be confused with Red Staters, and demand that Europeans now call themselves Europeans-not-to-be-confused-with-the-Greek-Europa-which-of-course-is-Greek.

We should be settling the Macedonia question any minute now.

Also, hey!, my sister in law and her husband are Lesbians! Well, only a few weeks out of the year, but they do own some property there.

posted by taz 30 April | 18:06

In related news the Comfortable Shoe Company, Inc. has filed a lawsuit...

posted by jonmc 30 April | 18:25

How do youse feel about the GLBT branding?

posted by rainbaby 30 April | 18:49

WTF? They're branding folks now?

posted by danostuporstar 30 April | 19:11

That's it! We're glibbits!

posted by chewatadistance 30 April | 19:30

I don't mean to sound flip - I work for organizations that have in mission statememts to "sevice the GLBT Communiy." Does this glibbit thing rankle? Because I mean to do positive things, and I don't know how to suggest anything else. Tag me ignorant.

posted by rainbaby 30 April | 19:42

It doesn't rankle me. But then again, I don't feel left out when someone refers to "the gay community." (Which has nothing to do with the fact that I'm not PART of a gay community. Or ANY community. I stand alone!)

I guess bisexuals and transgendered folks ARE left out when you refer to 'the gays,' though, so 'GLBT' is used to be all sunshiny and inclusive and stuff.

Only goes to prove that you can't keep everyone happy.

posted by mudpuppie 30 April | 19:57

It's a Bright, Bright, Bright, Sunshiney Day!

posted by rainbaby 30 April | 20:04

Displaying my ignorance here, but why are transgender people lumped in with gays? Are they, by definition, gay, or is it just a way of lumping all but straights in one convenient bundle?

posted by dg 30 April | 20:07

I think it's based on potential discrimination based on sexual 'preference'? Or, as Eddie Izzard (unjokingly) calls it: Alternative sexuality.

posted by mudpuppie 30 April | 20:12

No, dg, they are simply transgender. Who knows what the personal circumstances are - they just feel trapped in the wrong body and can have any kind of prefernce when they come out the other side, but they are yes, lumped in by bundle, as community members who might need some sort of support or validation or recognition.

It is convenient, that's why I asked if it rankled in some way.

posted by rainbaby 30 April | 20:18

I got my hair cut this weekend at the cheap haircut place. The cutter was a (I would put money on, a straight woman, with at least one child) but she somehow knew I would be sympathetic to her story about a transgendered transiton person being abused in the Target around the corner, and her outrage about it. How did she know I'd sympathize with that? I gave her a big tip, but it could have backfired on her totally, yeah? I mean, ok, she works in hairdressing, I work in theatre sometimes, but she didn't know that. What a knack.

posted by rainbaby 30 April | 20:37

... they are simply transgender. Who knows what the personal circumstances are ...
That's my point - why pick out someone who is (potentially) as heterosexual as the next person and label them gay just because it is the nearest pigeon-hole? What about people that are into BDSM? Should we include them as gay just because they practice an "Alternative Sexuality"? What about furries? What about paedophiles? Where is the line between a "straight" person who only has desire for sex with a person of the opposite gender and only within certain boundaries and "everyone else"?

I understand the desire for people who are gay to self-identify a part of a group in order to feel supported, but why do we insist of defining people by their sexuality? If we must define people in this way, we should be equitable about it and describe everyone this way - "Fred, this is Joe, Joe, this is Fred. Joe likes anal sex and Fred enjoys cunnilingus, so your penchant for rimming means you have something in common with both of them! Isn't that great?".

posted by dg 30 April | 21:01

Because transgendered people often are affected by the same issues as gay people are; because the number of transgendered people in a population is often much smaller than the number of homosexuals (and therefore it is easier to incorporate into one club or organization then to form a much smaller, less funded organization - similar to the AFL-CIO, or American League and National League baseball); because at first, transgendered people may identify as homosexual or queer while they are still forming their identity, and still maintain ties to that community.

It would be nice to say, "Let's just stop labeling people based on their sexuality", but that's practically impossible. We're walking around transmitting our sexuality constantly. It's in the way we walk, the way we look at strangers and friends, the way we look at a lover or a crush. I don't need to introduce myself as "Muddgirl, Engineer, Likes Cock", because it's assumed that I do unless I say otherwise.

It's also a little dismissive to compare a sexual or gender identity to a sexual preference, danf, so I will assume that you were joking.

posted by muddgirl 30 April | 21:14

Assuming you meant me, not danf, I was kind of sort of half-joking. More tongue-in-cheek, I would say. However, I am totally serious about my feeling that we shouldn't label people because of which body parts they like to play with the most, while acknowledging that this is a utopian ideal that will never come to pass.

It's a shame that transgender people have to "tag along" with people who are gay when they (I guess) have very different issues in many ways, but at least it provides them with a support group with some alignment of issues. I just hate these arbitrary ways of categorising people that we have.

I don't need to introduce myself as "Muddgirl, Engineer, Likes Cock", because it's assumed that I do ...
Well, now it is ;-).

Now I'm picturing one of those stick-on name tags they use at conferences:

Hi, my name is:
dg
I like:
vaginas

posted by dg 30 April | 21:40

This is why we have hanky codes.

posted by ethylene 30 April | 21:48

It's a shame that transgender people have to "tag along" with people who are gay...

Although I don't identify as trans (I'm a female born/bodied, female identified woman and also a lesbian), I work on transgender rights issues in my state and help facilitate a trans youth group.

I see what you're saying--in some ways transgender issues are their own thing altogether. Trans folks can identify as trans and also as gay, straight, bi or whatever, so why get lumped in with same sex attracted people? Well, one can make the argument that homophobia and heterosexism, like transphobia, stem from how uneasy we are societally with people who behave or present "outside" their gender roles. So, men who are sexually attracted to men make us feel weird for the same reason a female bodied, male identified trans man make uncomfortable--they are folks acting outside their expected, prescribed roles even though in the first case it has to do with orientation and in the other with gender. For this reason, the "T" fits very nicely in with the LGB.

Also, because us gays have become experts at being disenfranchised both for our sexuality and gender expression, and because trans people are discriminated against because of their gender identity and gender expression and because sexuality and gender are linked, it's natural for trans folks to look to the queer community for allies. Kinda like "Hey, you've been here or more or less here or kinda here. How 'bout some backup?" Which I think is totally reasonable.

That said, the gay community has a ton of transphobia. But that's a thread for another time.

posted by sneakin 30 April | 21:53

"Upon further thought, the first lesbian/Lesbian in space will be called a Lesbonaut."

There has been a least one already.

posted by arse_hat 01 May | 00:05

It's also a little dismissive to compare a sexual or gender identity to a sexual preference, danf, so I will assume that you were joking.

I was not aware that I was equating preference with identity. I was trying to state that it is hard to talk about this stuff, in that in order to communicate, we need some sort of referrers with which to do this, and it's a moving target, depending on whom you are talking with.

I have a co worker, and two other acquaintances, who are m to f trans, post-surgery, so I am familiar those issues. There are a few trans folks who show up at our PFLAG meetings, because, I think, it's a friendly supportive environment, and they feel that they have no other place to go to get that. And it's fine.

posted by danf 01 May | 12:39

30 April 2008