(no subject)

[subjective]

here's the text of my letter to the women's center, with some comments on my strategies.



Dear Collective:

Thank you for an insightful & important newsletter for Winter 2002 ("Speaking of Sex..."). The diversity of voices included is much appreciated, as is the care with which you wrote about such an intimate & complex subject.

I would like to ask that we all extend that care to our language when talking about bodies, sex & gender. In particular I'm thinking of this line: "A heterosexual man might be threatened by the concept of lesbianism precisely because it means that women are able to generate the power of intimacy and orgasm without the need for a penis -- or the person attached to it." There are many women (both queer & straight) who have penises, and many men who do not. Many transsexual women are lesbians. Many are survivors of sexual abuse. Not all people who are attached to penises are men, and this does not make it any less possible for them to generate the power of intimacy and orgasm within lesbian relationships.

It is perhaps more accurate to discuss the perceived threat of lesbianism and queer sex in the context that Suzanne Pharr uses in her classic work, Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. She writes that "to be a lesbian is to be perceived as someone who has stepped out of line, who has moved out of sexual/economic dependence on a male, who is woman-identified. ... A lesbian is perceived as being outside the acceptable, routinized order of things." Pharr locates the threat in actions that challenge sexist & heterosexist norms, rather than solely in physical bodies. And her careful phrase "woman-identified" moves away from definitions of gender that narrowly hinge only on biological sex, thus expanding the definition of lesbian (and woman) to be more inclusive of all lesbians (and women).

Meanwhile, I am aware that people who are threatened by lesbianism & queer sex may well think of this threat largely (or only) in terms of physical bodies, as you note above. It may be that you were not describing your own views, but those of the people who perceive the threat. If this is the case, however, I urge you to clearly say so. Doing so would not only avoid confusion, but also encourage trans-inclusion & remind your readers that such a perspective erases the existence (& sexualities) of transwomen.

I would like to express again my pride, gratitude & relief that the Cambridge Women's Center has recently revised its policy to include transwomen. It is now our collective responsibility, as feminists, as progressives, as allies, to challenge ourselves to enact that inclusion in every aspect of our lives and work. Trans-inclusive language is a crucial component of that responsibility. Thank you for the work you do.

-------

strategies, by paragraph:
(a) openly appreciate the work they're doing -- because i do, & also because i want to decrease the possibility of them feeling like i'm just "nitpicking" without having a stake in their work overall.

(b) use their language -- it makes me uncomfortable to talk about other people's bodies, so in a way it feels like a cop-out to just replicate their wording (because it took some of the burden off of me, in deciding how best to talk about bodies). but i was also trying to explain in a language that would be familiar.

(c) provide alternatives -- hence the suzanne pharr. (and as the women's center has always seemed a wee bit on the second wave side to me, pharr might also give me some old-school cred.)

(d) give them the benefit of the doubt -- explain that intentions & perceptions are not always a match, & stress how more clarity in their language would affect readers.

(e) include myself in the work (less fingerpointing, more collective action) & make it relevant to this particular community.

fyi.