Femme Representation
Hey Loves,
A reader just contacted me to discuss how invisible femme gender roles are in the queer community, and what we might be able to do about that. We talked about the possibility of creating a new community expression space that specifically focuses on and celebrates femme identity.
Is this something you’re craving, too? Would you be interested in helping to shape/organize it?
If so, please send me an email at: [ sarah at genderfork dot com ]
… and put “femme identity” in the subject line so I don’t lose it. I’ll get you in the loop.
Lots of love,
Sarah
Posted by Sarah Dopp on November 25th, 2009 at 02:17 pm
Category: requests 65 comments »
November 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
would love to see femme boys. male/feminine beauty is so underrepresented and alluring.
[Reply]
November 25th, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
I can see where some people would want to celebrate primarily feminine beauty. However, as a gender queer I prefer celebrating a balance of masculinity and femininity. Too much emphasis of either one would feel strange to me.
[Reply]
November 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
I respect, admire, and adore the femme identity, though I’m blissfully androgynous myself. However, knowing what it feels like to be invisible to the very group you feel a part of (however tenuous that connection may be), I want to help out any way I can.
No one should have to feel invisible to the group they choose to belong to.
ellejohara
[Reply]
November 25th, 2009 at 9:55 pm |
Depends. For bio females or males? The “femme” identity for females is actively encouraged by society, so I don’t really see it as being entirely relevent to genderqueer. If anything, that’s what most genderqueer women have to fight against in society – the expectation that they should be femme. As pertains to women, the reason femme is invisible in the queer movement is because it isn’t really *part* of the movement, since it is the expected standard of presentation for women. If anything, it’s damaging to it.
But as it pertains to bio men, I think that Genderfork is completely welcoming to femme identities, though I do see fewer of them than bio fem andro/masculine identities.
Obviously it’d be cool to have a specific space for the femme identity, but I think it depends on how you do it.
[Reply]
November 25th, 2009 at 10:02 pm |
I think it’s great that people are open to the idea of having a separate space where femme identity is validated and celebrated as a queer identity. I do think it’s important that femmes have a space where they feel supported, visible, and respected. However, I think of my, and many of my femme friends’ gender expression as entirely genderqueer and radical. And while I crave a space where I can talk about these expressions with people who reflect my identity, I want more than anything for my queer gender to be considered just as valuable as androgynous or masculine presentations. I want to be part of the conversation, not a separate afterthought.
[Reply]
November 25th, 2009 at 10:51 pm |
Cat:
I think that you need to be careful when you automatically discount femme identity as something that is damaging, or not valid, because as Ashley said, it continues to silence an important and radical part of the genderqueer movement. As queers, we have no road maps, and we must all construct our own identity. I present myself in various ways, and a great deal of thought goes into that. One of the ways I present my gender is femme. As a female born genderqueer who sometimes presents as femme, it really hurts to continuously have part of my identity marked as “not valid” when I am radical and active in the queer movement. It has taken many years for me to come back to and feel powerful and valued when I present as femme, although in the same token, I also feel invisible and hated by other members of the community when I do so. I understand that when I present as femme the kind of oppression I face may not be the same as others, but I do experience oppression based on the way I present my gender. As queers with multiple layers to our identities we all experience oppression in different ways. I think the community needs to think really critically about why there is so much “femme hate” happening. Queer culture and identity is about accepting a multitude of ways of being. I queer the fuck out of gender in both masculine and feminine ways and femmes who think critically about the way they present their gender do too. I won’t be silenced, or separated anymore.
[Reply]
November 25th, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
I personally feel that we would have more to gain by doing better outreach to bring feminine-spectrum queer people here, rather than creating a separate space for them. Why not be fully inclusive?
The devaluation of traits that are considered feminine is a major part of misogyny. I think the only way to fight back against that devaluation is to openly appreciate the value of femininity within the queer space.
And I don’t mean the patriarchy-approved brand of femininity. There is no one single, monolithic “femme” identity. Some feminine identities and images may be socially acceptable and encouraged in women, but others are not (the unshaven all-natural girl, for instance). And considering that femininity in males is—to mainstream society—one of the most reprehensible things imaginable, an empowered feminist trans woman is possibly about as radical as it gets.
The “radical/conformist” binary that values masculine presentation over the feminine in some queer circles is the main reason why so few trans women and femme-spectrum people show up. They often don’t feel welcome. It’s unfortunate and a huge missed opportunity.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 12:44 am |
Erin -
I didn’t mean to imply that femme isn’t valid, I’m sorry if it came off that way.
I’m a fluid androgynous bio female. Sometimes I look very boi-ish, usually somewhere in the middle, and sometimes I look femme. I don’t consider my femme side to be any less valid, nor do I consider yours to be any less valid.
But I also don’t consider it entirely relevant to genderqueer, because in society, a female being femme isn’t queer. Even if it’s your chosen mode of expression, it’s very mainstream. Not that there’s anything wrong with being mainstream some of the time, or all of the time, if that’s what YOU like.
But I do think it’s a seperate issue from genderqueer. If we were going to include bio female “femme” identities, then I think it would have to be a catch-all that isn’t based around being genderqueer, but rather representing the FULL spectrum of identity, from the totally cisgender to the completely trans, and whatever else is out there.
I think that’d be a really cool idea, but such a site would be genderqueer FRIENDLY, not genderqueer. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s casting a much wider net.
I also don’t think that sometimes (or always) being femme makes you any less radical and activist for genderqueer, nor does it make you any less genderqueer.
Even totally cisgender people can advocate genderqueer awareness and rights, just like men can advocate feminism.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 1:21 am |
i think a femme space is a great idea!
if it was the same sort of deal as genderfork (photos, snippets, bios etc.) it would for sure be in my bookmarks.
in fact, no matter what sort of deal it is i will probably lurk it.
i couldn’t disagree more about femme identities not being a part of the movement, or being counterproductive. i think it’s discounting femme identities and rendering them invisible that is counterproductive, and i’d love to see a site that celebrates them.
i think femmes can be mainstream, i think they can appear mainstream but not actually be, and i think they can be entirely non-mainstream. generalising about femmes as if they were an homogeneous group is on par with generalising about women as if THEY were an homogeneous group.
i would argue against integrating femme photos/bios/whatever into genderfork, because i think this is a really important space and i’d hate to see it diluted, but with all identities being equal, i think there should be equal space for them.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 8:05 am |
I agree with Cat. As a bio female genderqueer I often feel pressure to express a feminine identity. If I were to walk down the street right now the majority of women I would see are feminine. Some may shave or not, but most most of the women would be expressing their femininity.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for feminine beauty and I support it. I just don’t feel it belongs on a genderqueer site. One of the reasons I visit this site so often is because it acts as a refuge from the mainstream. I think it’s more socially acceptable for a woman to wear a skirt without shaving than to be a genderqueer who binds. The first would be called a “hippie” or “earth woman” whereas the latter would be called a “freak.” I’m sure feminine women run into discrimination, I’m not saying they don’t. But generally I think it is more mainstream to be a woman expressing womanhood than an androgynous expressing a mixture of genders.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 9:25 am |
I think there definitely needs to be a space for femme identities, or at least greater representation on the main GenderFork site.
To me, genderqueer is the act of queering gender; subverting what it means to be masculine, feminine, androgynous or otherwise. I don’t feel that genderqueer is a drop-in replacment for the word trans* and it’s certainly not just about what clothes you wear. I don’t know a single queer female-bodied femme-identified person that doesn’t radically subvert what it means to be feminine. Being loud, strong, political, socially radical and queer are not mainstream feminine traits last time I checked.
I am a queer male-bodied trans*-identified genderqueer grrl (sometimes femme) and I think there desperately needs to be more space here – and in the larger genderqueer community – for ALL the radical queer femmes out there!
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 9:42 am |
Right on, Jess! The thing about being labeled as mainstream by my queer/genderqueer community is that I am being told that the place I belong is within a heternormative framework, and a heterosexual community. Believe me, I tried that on for a long time, as did many other queers, and i was extremely unhappy. Nothing about normative, or “mainstream” femininity speaks to my experience or embodiment of sexuality, or of gender. Since coming out and actively, consciously, and politically articulating my gender presentation, i’ve met very few “mainstream” heterosexuals who have any freaking clue about how to relate to me.
So if, as you say, queer has no place for femme, and heteronormativity has no place for femme…then it seems as though femme exists in some kind of liminal space. The margins is a place that I’m getting pretty used to. So forgive me if I’m wrong, but an experience of liminality, marginality, exclusion, misinterpretation, consciously political gender presentation, and radical resistance of gendered norms and expectations are all pretty valid criteria for identifying as genderqueer.
If the only way a person’s gender is validated as queer is by them embodying the “opposite” gender of the sex they were assigned at birth, we are still operating within a restrictive and faulty binary logic, and I would argue that very few, if any of us subvert that logic 100% of the time.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 10:01 am |
Great post Ashley! So what you’re saying is that “feminine female-bodied person” does not equal “femme.” Femme is a complex conscious politcal gender identity that exists in the margins of both the Queer and mainstream communities. Sounds pretty genderqueer to me!
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 10:59 am |
I think J stated part of my view well in saying “…doing better outreach to bring feminine-spectrum queer people here, rather than creating a separate space for them. Why not be fully inclusive?”
This reminds me of some anarchists having separate spaces for women, although they may be defined as “safe havens,” it’s still a separation, and that’s not the point. In face, it’s nearly the exact opposite of the point. Reaching out to represent “femme” more is a better alternative.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 11:33 am |
Fuck YEAH! As a person who is often congratulated, respected and given a lot of power within the queer community because I am a masculine-presenting genderqueer, I think it’s time all of us step back and take a look at how we are re-creating heteronormativity and misogyny when we tell femmes that they have no place in genderqueer and queer spaces/movements. I strongly believe that femme is genderqueer, no matter the body it is presented on.
Femmes may fight a different struggle than masculine presenting folks, but it is certainly not a lesser struggle. We are in this together, and we all need to be examining our privilege. There are femmes in my community who are SO committed to challenging the ways that we all think about gender, and that is as genderqueer as it gets.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 11:38 am |
If even one person chooses to identify as a genderqueer femme, isn’t that proof positive of its existence?
I fuck my gay bear husband interchangeably as a boy, as a daddy, as a femme top- I am equally comfortable in all roles. Motorcycle boots suit me just as much as my 5″ silver stilettos, and you better believe that’s it hard to disagree with me when I’m pressing the heel of either into your chest, neck, ass. The one constant in my identity has *always* been femme, whether I am using male pronouns or female, at five years old and now at 29.
I think it’s a great idea to have femme space, whether it’s a separate thing or a movement towards inclusivity on the site in general. I personally would visit more!
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am |
To start, I love the femme-spectrum, and I’d rock it more often if it didn’t make me feel like needing to shave. I’m a trans cub who wishes there was less of a divide between the trans and gender variant communities. The majority of online groups I belong to have separation, mostly for the feeling of being with like minded individuals, and I can understand its purpose at times. However, in the grand scheme of things, I can only see a fully inclusive space available to all femmes,butches,cubs,schmangers etc. There is no use in fighting ourselves and isolating our parties. In my tranny little queer heaven, depending on the day, and how I feel, the way I present myself to the world should be in constant flux. Its the only way I can keep fighting the resistance.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
Being in the queer community and identifying as femme is a trying experience, due mostly to beliefs that we have it “easier” due to our “mainstream” appearance. This is a demeaning claim since my sexual identity has assumption continuously placed on it that are hard to fight and difficult to correct.
If you look at traditional queerness, there is a tendency in the community to present androgynous or butch…therefore, by me playing with my femme side, am I not queering my sexual identity by not following the traditional outward expression that is expected and accepted by my community?
I understand the immediate reaction of maintaining a space for a specific demographic, but should it come at the cost of alienating another demographic who must also fight and face discrimination? I will never understand further dividing up a movement based on marginalization.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
Just a quick note to tell you all I’m listening and I truly appreciate this conversation. The way you’re wrestling with these questions is so open and respectful… please keep going.
Also, what will likely happen from here is a discussion group mailing list to dig deeper into the questions as they relate to organizing some change. I’m not going to assume that everyone who’s commented here wants in on that process, so please email me if you’d like to stay in this conversation for the longer term.
thanks and love,
sarah
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm |
Hey, folks! Interesting timing for this conversation. I don’t know if any of you read the Sugarbutch Chronicles, but Sinclair just wrote a pretty good piece on Femme Invisibility. I recommend it as highly pertinent to the current debate.
http://www.sugarbutch.net/2009/11/on-femme-invisibility/
I definitely see “femme” identity as something different from “feminine and female-bodied”. Femme involves a conscious choice to perform femininity, not necessarily for the attraction or benefit of men. [Not an exhaustive definition!] As such, femme inherently queers gender by disrupting the sex-gender-presentation conflation that mainstream [and lots of gay/lesbian] society holds. Frequently, this means that femmes must defend their sexuality and gender presentation at every turn, in both mainstream and some queer circles. [This is said much more eloquently by Sinclair, I must admit.] Also, I feel that anyone can identify as femme, regardless of gender identity or presentation. I know femmes who are; ciswomen, transwomen, cismen, transmen, genderqueer, etc.
I feel as though many of the other posts on Genderfork treat subjects who’ve consciously chosen to present a gender. I feel that femmes should not be left out of this pool of people; after all, a femme choosing to perform femme exercises just as valid [and subversive] a choice as my choice to perform transmasculinity.
If there were to be a separate project that focused on femmes, I’d be more comfortable if it were laregely/entirely femme-controlled- otherwise I’d have rampant fears of perpetuating misogynist dynamics and engaging in paternalistic imperialist placating of an overlooked/appropriated group.
[As a note, I do not identify as femme and speak only from my own observations/experiences.]
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
First of all, I am so glad that this discussion is taking place.
I agree with Jess, Ashley, Erin, Francie, Smith, tara and Eli- Femme is genderqueer.
Femme is a part of the queer movement and embodying femme identity is not synonymous with simply submitting to mainstream ideals of what women should be. I argue that the devaluation of fem(me)ininity and femme gender identities in the queer community and society at large represents what is actually dangerous to our communities- misogyny and the hierarchical valuation of queer masculinity over queer femininity. There should be space for femme representation in the queer community.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
I’m a freshly femme identified genderqueer.
Pibb I’d like to riff off you because I think what you’re talking about is the same reason why some people can’t wrap their minds around femmes being genderqueer.
Pibb-”Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for feminine beauty and I support it. I just don’t feel it belongs on a genderqueer site. One of the reasons I visit this site so often is because it acts as a refuge from the mainstream.”
Me- 1. Femme isn’t about sticking to normative beauty and it isn’t just about appearances or trying to conform to beauty standards. Although it can be and there’s room for that. But a lot of femme folks don’t fit society’s definition of ‘beautiful’ but they are still femme. No identity is just about performance, other things are at work or at stake. 2. I would ask you what does belong on a genderqueer site? How is my performance of gender any less queer if it exists outside the heteronormative discourse of the word ‘feminine’? I think when we get into ranking or weighing identities as to whether or not they are genderqueer enough we are further oppressing.
Pibb-”I think it’s more socially acceptable for a woman to wear a skirt without shaving than to be a genderqueer who binds. The first would be called a “hippie” or “earth woman” whereas the latter would be called a “freak.” ”
Me- I can’t help but notice your use of the word ‘more.’ We should be celebrating all differences not making swooping generalizations that forget each person has an individual struggle. You can’t quantify these. And you use three different discursive nominals which suggests that the hippie, the earth woman, and the freak are all outside of something ‘normal.’ I don’t think a genderqueer femme identity can be reduced as simply. For example, I don’t wear skirts because I hate my ass. Choosing not to wear a skirt doesn’t make me less femme. There’s got to be more room than that.
Pibb- “I’m sure feminine women run into discrimination, I’m not saying they don’t. But generally I think it is more mainstream to be a woman expressing womanhood than an androgynous expressing a mixture of genders.”
- I find this kind of classification system troublesome. I can be femme and still express a mix of genders. I think that I do. And I cringe when I see the word ‘generally.’ Genderqueer femmes want to change the construction of femininity. Nobody fits the role of femininity that society prescribes. It doesn’t exist. But we are morphing images in an explicitly performative way. A lot of people choose to see it as placating a binary role but it’s not if you delve deeper. I think heteronormativity is at the front of our minds when performing and that’s a struggle in itself that needs to be recognized. I think everyone is working to make things ambiguous in their own way that feels authentic.
An exclusion of femme ideintity is regressive. I think we are just asking for space in our community.
Everytime we draw a line, we have drawn a space outside of that line where marginalization can occur. Just because a genderqueer femme identity might not be instantly intelligible to your framework doesn’t mean that it should be excluded, your framework should adjust to include the identity. This way intersectionality can take place and we can contemplate this space like we’ve all done here today. This is a political platform to stand on. Calling for space in the community is a great thing.
peace and love and thanks for flexing my brain Pibb
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
I like to come here and explore my trans male femininity and yet every time I come here I feel excluded because I am trans. I don’t understand why genderqueers insist on using outdated terminology for cisgender and trans people, such as “female-bodied” and “bio-woman”. What is the point of “subverting” gender ideals if you reinforce notions of that your body defines your gender and trans people aren’t “real” women or men? I’m not trying to be snarky, I just feel a kinship to femme people of all genders and it is really frustrating that they are being denied access to genderqueer camaraderie.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm |
I think it is important to clarify a couple of things in having a discussion like this.
1. In the OP, it seems like “femme gender roles” and “femme identity” kind of got equated. I don’t see those as being the same thing. Roles sound like something situational and temporary. Identity sounds like something all-encompassing and ongoing.
2. I think in the responses “femme” and “feminine” have also been equated in some ways that I think might be problematic. One sounds more like an identity while the other sounds more like a general descriptor that can mean so many different things – some more femme [and some more queer] than others.
3. I think there needs to be some “working definition” of femme in order to try to keep everyone in the same ballpark. I’m sure that the way I apply the word “femme” to myself is vastly different than the way others apply the word to themselves.
I swear I’m not trying to be pedantic. I really think it is important to have a reference point, or series of reference points to prevent conversational clutter and unwitting communication gaps.
I mean…what is femme to you [each of you]? What is feminine? What weight do you give to clothing, hair/makeup [or lack thereof], mannerisms, behaviors, word choice, interests, etc… Everytime I try to define these things, they fall apart. Since people here seem much more confident in their ideas of femme, I’d love to hear what the various definitions or classifications are or are not.
At the end of the day, I think it’s important to respect each others’ expressions and identities as part of our/their process. We are ever changing and whether or not I/you appreciate or identify with someone else’s presentation at a given moment in time, that person has their reasons. 10 years from now, we may end up totally agreeing with or identifying with that presentation while they may have moved on to believe something else entirely. We are all in a continuous process of learning and adjusting and evolving. The more we can see things in that context, I think the more constructive we can be in trying to understand gender and each other.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
B-Rae –
I totally agree with you, especially on point 3. Because there are so many definitions going on and the genderqueer community can still be a little defuse, I’ve come to realize that what I heard when I read this post, and what Pibb heard, were different things than what most of the other posters heard.
Jardo -
“I definitely see “femme” identity as something different from “feminine and female-bodied”. Femme involves a conscious choice to perform femininity, not necessarily for the attraction or benefit of men. [Not an exhaustive definition!] As such, femme inherently queers gender by disrupting the sex-gender-presentation conflation that mainstream [and lots of gay/lesbian] society holds.”
I totally see what you mean here. Yes, it is hard to wrap my mind around, but not because the CONCEPT is hard, but because then the definition of genderqueer begins to be stretched into other movements and social issues, such as cisgender equality, and sexuality issues, both of which are related to, but not part of, genderqueer. And while there is nothing wrong with linking all these things together, it does make it increasingly difficult to have a cohesive sense of what’s going on.
If we were to remove to necessity of the social movement of acceptance for genderqueer, gender equality, and sexuality acceptance, then it wouldn’t matter. It all just falls in the big blanket of human diversity.
But the problem is that we are still in the process of raising awareness and acceptance for all of these things, and breaking down the lines between them makes it almost impossible to make progress on that front. The issue becomes too large and convoluted.
While these lines are, in many ways, totally contradictory to the idea of gender/sex/sexuality diversity, they are at the same time necessary if we are to make any progress on awareness and rights. Maybe they won’t be someday. The same thing happened during the racial equality movement.
Kia –
I think using words like “bio-fem” or whatever, helps describe where our personal experiences are coming from. There are people here who don’t declare their physical sex, and I don’t see anyone pestering them for it.
I don’t think saying ones physical sex detracts from their genderqueerness. They aren’t conflating it with their gender identity, but simply stating it as a physical trait of their body, no different than saying you are short, tall, thin, fat, blonde, or brunette.
But because *other* people judge us on our sex, it becomes relevant when discussing our experiences in genderqueer, not because it impacts our identity, but because it impacts what our struggles have been on the road to finding our identity.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 9:56 pm |
P.S. A couple more things I missed in my first comment…
I am totally not denying that femme or feminine women experience discrimination in society, even if their mode of expression is more societal acceptable. They totally do. In a way that is equal, but different, from the way trans or genderqueer people do.
Also, back to the lines between these different social and personal concepts, I also think that diluting them makes them less accessible to people who are trying to find their way.
I did not find my answer in the mainstream when it came to my sexuality, OR my gender identity. But I tackled these issues separately, because in a world that provides you with no road-map if you are outside the mainstream, trying to figure them out at the same time was simply too overwhelming.
I spent several years tackling my sexuality, and am only now getting around to tackling my gender identity, though I knew I wasn’t cisgender for a very long time. This was the only way I could work through it.
And I think that if we don’t have specific spaces where people can go for specific issues, it makes finding any support at all much more difficult and daunting.
[Reply]
November 26th, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
I’m gonna chime in here with two things that are slightly derailing, but I feel like they need to be said.
1. Putting the word “bio” in front of an identifier, as in “bio-man” or “bio-fem” makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Are transfolks not biological? It’s a completely incorrect term to use, and I think that it perpetuates the idea that transfolks can never be “real” men or women. I think the proper term is cissexual, as in someone whose physical sex and subconscious sex match up.
2. Cat said:
“I don’t think saying ones physical sex detracts from their genderqueerness. They aren’t conflating it with their gender identity, but simply stating it as a physical trait of their body, no different than saying you are short, tall, thin, fat, blonde, or brunette.”
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. Requiring people to add some sort of disclaimer about what their physical sex is implies that there is some sort of knowledge to be gained from that. Like if you know that someone is a transman, and they have a vagina then you can make all sorts of assumptions about what that means.
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 12:55 am |
Smith -
1. That assumes that you think genitalia have anything to do with being a “real” man or woman. I don’t. What other term would you say we use to describe someone whose sex and gender do not match up?
2. I never said they are required to say what their sex is. In fact I did indeed note that some people here don’t, and everyone including me is ok with that.
What I said, is that stating ones born sex can help them explain the types of issues they’ve run into in defining themselves, since as we know, the pressures on biological men and women are different. I’m biologically female, so I faced pressure to act more dainty, and dress more girlie, and all sorts of other stuff. These are not pressures a biological man would face, because society’s expectations of them are different.
And since we’re on a genderqueer site, it’s pretty much a given that no one is going to make assumptions if we tell them what’s between our legs, should we so choose to do so.
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 8:02 am |
Okay, everyone bear with me for a moment.
I’m new to the genderqueer movement. I only discovered the term about six months ago, and it changed my whole way of thinking about gender. When I found this site I was amazed and spent hours looking through the profile pics. Before I was shoved into this label of “tomboy” “butch” and “lezbo” among other things.
I admit that I don’t understand all the terms, I’m not informed about when it’s appropriot to include your bio gender and when it’s not. I’ve spent hours upon hours reading and talking about gender– but these concepts are so big and so sensitive it’s very hard keep on top of it.
So my question is this… What is genderqueer? Is it a social movement, a gender movement, a political movement? Is it about expressing a balance of both masculine and femme (feminime, female, etc) traits? Is it about expression one aspect of gender? What is it??
I’m not trying to be condescending, I’m truly confused at this point. The simple, possible backward way I was thinking about it, is that genderqueer meant the expression of both genders, or neutral gender. So to me, a genderqueer site is about androgyny.
I want to be sensitive, and I hate the idea of anyone struggling to be accepted. I need an update on what genderqueer means to all of us.
Like I said, I’m relatively new to this movement. I’m not nearly as informed about issues as I should be. I don’t have a grasp on the semantics involved. And I’m not as sensitive as I should be.
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 8:08 am |
I’d like to try to tackle something here that’s making me a bit queasy. I want to trouble this issue of “dilution.” That word, specifically, has been used a few times, and the concept seems to be pretty common here. There seems to be a huge fear that if this particular genderqueer (GQ) site were to relax its borders a little to include a different conceptualization of GQ identity and community, then it will inevitably lead the site into depoliticization. I hugely resent this argument. What that tells me is that the ways femmes perform their genders are inherently apolitical. This seems to kind of be the crux of the argument here. Opening Genderfork’s doors to include femmefolks who DO articulate their identities as GQ is not the same as completely relaxing the boundaries and letting any old schmo into the site.
Cat said: “but because then the definition of genderqueer begins to be stretched into other movements and social issues, such as cisgender equality, and sexuality issues, both of which are related to, but not part of, genderqueer.”
I think what’s happening here, and in other posts about dilution is that femme identity is still being seen as something that is inherently an experience of privilege. This is not to say that some femmes don’t experience *certain* privileges such as heteronormative passing, although i would be cautious to argue that this is not something experienced by all femme identities, and is tenuous and fraught. Rather, this privilege is very exclusive. For example, trans femmes, femmes of colour, femmes with different abilities, fat femmes, and poor or working class femmes are regularly denied access to the privileges that are supposedly inherent to femininity.
Relating the inclusion of femmefolks into the GQ community (when we’ve already expressed that we identify as GQ), is not the same act as creating an open space where all identities are equal and we’re now focussing on “cisgendered equality.” Femmes not only play with, politicize, and consciously articulate the narrow definitions of femininity placed on them by heteronormative social constructs, but we also, by our very existence, and, for me personally, in my everyday actions, trouble the category of woman as well. As i move deeper and deeper inside my femme identity, my gender identity of “woman” is beginning to relax, and i can begin to see from inside this glittery, short-skirted, lipsticked body that actually I *am* no woman at all.
I am uncomfortable with this fear that a bunch of heteronormative, cisgendered folks with nothing to worry about are going to infiltrate this site and appropriate *your* community. It doesn’t make sense to me that decreasing the amount of gender policing that happens in queer subcultures will make these spaces any less accessible to those trying to find their way. I would question exactly who you’re worried about being able to find refuge in a place where many expressions of genderqueer are able to come together to try to pull out the threads of their identities. To me it seems like an entirely necessary move in order to make a space like this even more accessible to all the gender outlaws looking for community!
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 8:20 am |
Hey Pibb,
Genderqueer, like many of the words used here, do not have one clean, universal meaning. Language itself is problematic, so it’s important to keep touching base with each other. Here is a link that I think does a pretty good job of providing an initial description of genderqueer. I’m not sure of the last paragraph. It sort of exacerbates the nature of your confusion. But…worth the quick read anyway.
http://www.txstate.edu/allies/lgbtq_community/genderqueer.html
Also, relax. It’s ok not to know everything [who does?] and if you are trying your best to be respectful, then you’re doing fine. It’s impossible to have these discussions without someone at some point having their buttons pushed. And fair enough. But the fact that you stay engaged in the discussion and keep asking questions is the important part. :)
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am |
OK, again, bear with me. I’m new to this movement, ignorant in many ways, and not up to date with my semantics. While I may sound simple, disrespectful, and insensitive it is not my intentions. I want to understand what most of you are saying, I really do.
My understanding of genderqueer is that is is a third gender. It is not identifying as strictly male or female. It is the belief that we are all more than one spirit. It is about being fluid.
That said, can someone explain how being femme (female, feminine, etc) and expressing femininity, is genderqueer?
Some of you are touching on it, but it still isn’t getting through my thick skull.
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 11:24 am |
Hi Pibb,
What you may be missing here is that “femme” is not the equivalent of “female, feminine”. It’s an identity that is consciously claimed, often by queer women (though let’s not limit it to them), often with radical tone and intentions. If you know any queer femmes, you know they fight every day to subvert the expectations of their gender and remain true to themselves while still feeling comfortable in their bodies.
“Genderqueer,” on the other hand, to many people, refers not to a specific kind of gender representation, but rather to transgressing boundaries in a way that doesn’t fit a clean box.
To everyone on this thread, I want you all to understand that I *firmly agree* that femme is genderqueer. You do not need to convince me of that. Although please keep educating each other.
The question, rather, is: is this a site for representing the spectrum for genderqueerness?
Surprisingly (and I get that this will sound weird), thus far, the answer is no. It’s a site for representing gender ambiguity — visibly showing the mixed absence or presence of both masculinity and femininity in the same person. Why? Because when I started this site two years ago, that representation was missing — I couldn’t find it anywhere, and I felt very alone.
The site has since grown by natural shift to also represent the self-asserted experiences and identities of the people identifying with those photos (you).
A huge number of people identifying with those photos referred to themselves as “genderqueer”, so we started throwing that word around on our website. And now, if you google “genderqueer,” we’re in the top three results, if not the first one. We’re also huge and awesome — my little fight for acceptance turned into a big party, and now just by staying the same at our larger size, we’re making people feel excluded. That’s a surprising turn of events. And I’m glad I can see it now.
To everyone who feels a little lost about why this site is limited in the ways that it is: I am deeply sorry. If you check the FAQ’s, they’re over a year out of date. I have not been keeping up with documentation, and this confusion around scope is now a sensitive and serious problem.
To everyone feeling excluded: I am deeply sorry.
I’m not sure what the right answers are. I’m talking about it with the volunteers, and I will continue talking about it with you. And regardless of whether this project decides to broadens its scope or clarify its mission, I do believe that better understanding needs to exist in the queer community about femme identity (as is evidenced by this thread) and I’m still collecting names of people who want to dig into that discussion over email.
Thank you for making this community bigger than I ever expected, and thank you for your patience with us as we try to understand our own identity as a community. As we all know, this is tricky stuff.
But I can genuinely say that I am glad and grateful every single one of us is here.
Love,
Sarah
Founder/Director of Genderfork
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 11:26 am |
Cat: In your post #25 you quotes me but I didn’t actually say those words. Just wanted to point out your response should be directed at Eli.
Also, in your response to Smith you said: “And since we’re on a genderqueer site, it’s pretty much a given that no one is going to make assumptions if we tell them what’s between our legs, should we so choose to do so.”
-Isn’t that what’s happening? Because my performance relates to (but simultanesouly redefines, rejects and removes) society’s original definitional intention for the match up of a gender with what’s between my legs, I’m not allowed to feel genderqueer because the assumption is that I’m conforming? Just curious maybe I’m totally wrong. But for me, my femme identitiy is ambiguous and I’ve heard this sentiment echoed.
Ashley: Yes. Grand.
love.
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 11:54 am |
Sarah, thank you for clearing that up. I understand now what people are saying about femme being underrepresented. I’m sure there’s away to help these individuals out. Thanks all for expanding my brain!
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
As a genderqueer transman who shifts between androgyne and femme identities, I think that my femme expressions are every bit as queer as a “bio man’s” (although I too hate that term, cause I’m sure on some level despite considering myself queer by choice, I was born a genderqueer male). Furthermore, I feel it would be a great thing to have a space to talk about these issues because I face tons of problems based around them aka people asking me why I would ever consider myself trans when I seem to be so fine with acting feminine, and date boys (even if they’ve all been gay/queer). So, I say fuck those that want to make my queer identity invisible and let’s do this!
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
I’ve been skimming the comment thread. I haven’t read every word. But it seems to me that there’s enough confusion/debate/interest in femme identity that it would be nice to have space to explore it here at genderfork.
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
First of all, forgive my blunt way of saying things. I intend everything I say with the utmost respect.
I think Sarah really helped articulate what I wasn’t quite getting across. This site is for ambiguous gender. Femme identity is not part of that definition.
Depending on how you’re defining genderqueer (and no one is more right than anyone else), femme identity may or may not be part of genderqueer as a whole. But regardless, it is not part of the aim of this site.
I get that, when talking about something that is defined by fluidity and lack of boundaries (such as genderqueer) it is frustrating to have to deal with language. Any given word used to describe any given characteristic is sure to offend someone. Why do you think the terminology for intellectual disabilities has changed so many times? It’s impossible to please everyone.
But what would you suggest we do? Just take away the language entirely? If we do that, then how exactly do people find out this is an option?
You have to remember, to people like us who know it exists, have found community, and are working (or have succeeded in) self-acceptance outside the societal mainstream, it may seem like language is a boulder tied to our leg.
But what about the genderqueer kid living in suburbia who doesn’t know why they’re unhappy, or that they don’t have to fit into the gender binary? How exactly do they find community, if we have no language?
How do they find community if they have nowhere to look for it, because we’ve lumped everything together?
I don’t think having a specific space for ambiguous genderqueer is “exclusionary” at all. Not any more than having a space specifically for MtF’s, boys who smoke, people who own cats, or people who like BDSM.
We are not denying their right to exist, simply by having a site in which they are not included. In fact, is Sarah likes, she can start up a site to represent other genders that don’t have enough representation, just like she started up this one for the under-represented gender ambiguous.
I just don’t see why *everything* must be for *everyone.* I get the inclusionary ideal, but taking it to that extreme just sort of negates the entire point of having this place at all.
[Reply]
November 27th, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
cat: sarah didn’t say that. what she did say, and sorry for being redundant but it seems necessary, is:
“The question, rather, is: is this a site for representing the spectrum for genderqueerness?
Surprisingly (and I get that this will sound weird), THUS FAR, the answer is no. It’s a site for representing gender ambiguity — visibly showing the mixed absence or presence of both masculinity and femininity in the same person. Why? Because when I started this site two years ago, that representation was missing — I couldn’t find it anywhere, and I felt very alone.
The site has SINCE GROWN by natural shift to ALSO represent the self-asserted experiences and identities of the people identifying with those photos (you).”
i added the caps to emphasize that what sarah said was not, as you put it, “for ambiguous gender”. it seems to me that this thread being started and the initial question being asked indicates that this site’s very creator, is open to the inclusion of femme identities in the site, and recognizes the need for wider recognition of femme as genderqueer.
and since when is including femme in genderqueer, or including femme in genderfork, or including self-identified genderqueers who are not exclusively ambiguous in their gender presentation opening up *everything* to *everyone*?
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 9:17 am |
I’ve been mulling this over, and perhaps there’s a whole different problem here, which became more clear to me when Pibb commented again explaining more about their feelings and confusions.
I, like Pibb, am very new to the world of genderqueer. As I said earlier, this is an issue I’ve only recently been able to tackle with myself. Perhaps one of the advantages of *not* tackling it in puberty, or even earlier (which is when I first noticed it) is that now I understand the need for communication and actively sought places to discuss these issues, rather than keeping them to myself.
For me, as I’m sure for many others in a similar stage as me, this is a very daunting and difficult place to be. Being able to find a specific place to deal with specific issues makes it less so.
Those more grounded in themselves are more comfortable doing away with focus and language and aspiring to more esoteric, and quite likely impossible, goals of total inclusiveness.
Genderfork is the only community of any size I am currently aware of that focuses on gender ambiguity. This is the reason Sarah created it.
My point here is not that I want to cut people out, but rather that I think Genderfork fills a niche for which there is nothing else to take its place.
I think it would be a better option to create a separate space for femme identities, if that niche also need filling.
Perhaps as someone who is still grappling in the infantile stages of my own gender identity, this is more important to me than it may be to some of you.
I see the valour in inclusiveness (though I do also see it as ultimately impossible), but I don’t see the practicality in it. There are already widely-cast nets for the spectrum of gender identity. There is less for specific identities. And that is as necessary as anything else.
What this comes down to is not a question of inclusiveness, but of general purpose.
Is Genderfork a space for the philosophical ideals of the gender spectrum?
Or, is Genderfork a place for people to find support and to grow?
These two things have a very hard time existing together. It’s the classic operating system debate – user friendliness, or flexibility?
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 9:27 am |
Cat, femmes can be ambiguously gendered & I say this from a lifetime of personal experience.
Femme is something inside of you, something you put out to the world- NOT what the world puts on you.
And one more time: if even one person identifies as genderqueer femme, it exists, and genderqueer femmes have a right to representation on this site. So, here you go, I am a genderqueer femme, and I have a right to be represented on this site. End.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am |
Francie, I think your post brings up three points specifically.
1) This is a private site. No one inherently has a “right” to anything here. There is no constitution for this site and it is not a governmental entity. In the FAQS Sarah states that “It’s worth mentioning though, that this site is a labor of love done in my free time, and I reserve the right to post whatever the heck I want.” Granted, Sarah posted the disclaimer that the FAQ section is out of date, but until clarified, it certainly sounds like it was started for reasons that are similar to what Cat and Pibb are voicing. Sarah seems to be open to evolving this site and listening to feedback, but in the end, it is her site as it would be her home. Since she is the one who is putting all of this work into it, let’s try to be understanding of the position she is in.
2) Sarah ALSO said, “The question, rather, is: is this a site for representing the SPECTRUM for genderqueerness?
Surprisingly (and I get that this will sound weird), thus far, the answer is no. It’s a site for representing gender ambiguity — visibly showing the mixed absence or presence of both masculinity and femininity in the same person. Why? Because when I started this site two years ago, THAT REPRESENTATION was missing — I couldn’t find it anywhere, and I FELT VERY ALONE.”
I’m not trying to antagonize you, but I think it’s important also to note that we will all focus on different points of emphasis. No one is right or wrong here. We all come from different frames of experience. We all have different needs.
3) Several posts ago I asked people what their definition(s) and description(s) of femme is/are. No one has stepped up to the plate to provide any kind of working definition. How do we provide a space for something or discuss something when we can’t even attempt a loose definition of what we mean. As mentioned earlier, there is definitely not just one kind of femme – as with feminism. I consider myself femme, although by all outward appearances, people totally consider me butch. I don’t identify as butch even a little bit. Do I consider my version of femme one that fits into most other versions of femme? Absolutely not. Would I find my version of femme in a room full of people who seemed just to be in a butch/femme revival or role playing? Absolutely not. So maybe if we focused on what “kind/s” of femme we are talking about here, it would be easier to discuss it.
I think Cat makes a valid point. Since we are all just wound up bundles of societal constructions, if we really want to be philosophical about it, we wouldn’t get anywhere because if you really dig down, all of these labels fall apart. But…in THIS world with its boundaries constantly pushing against us, many people need a practical way of dealing with that. Even those who haven’t been studying gender theory for years.
So, given that femmes can be ambiguously gendered, is that the “kind” of femme that should be represented on this site per the niche it serves?
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
I am so impressed with how you guys are handling the complexity of this conversation.
Still listening,
Sarah
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
I was reading this thread and wanted to step in.
I am a bio male, that likes women, but I like to present an androgynous, femme image. In other words, for those paying attention when looking they will notice I am indeed a male. How? No hips, and no breasts. That’s how. yes I may be wearing makeup, yes I may have a long wig on. But I have a mostly masculine voice, and all intents and purposes act like a man, but perhaps with softer edges. I love skirts and tights, and integrate them in my normal wear, when I can.
I am always trying to find a female that likes, or loves this style, and is not one that wants to “keep it in the bedroom” I for one am tired of hiding. But it is very hard in our society. People like me are either considered screwed up in the noggin, or not able to make a decision on what to be.
Having said that. It has been my experience that women dressing like men, but still acting for the most part like women, or even women that take on a “butch” mode, tend to have it many times more easier than a guy that wears the clothing items of women. I think this is because a man wearing female clothing is “lowering” himself to the status of a woman (which is such an outdated and stupid way of thinking).
In my profession if a woman showed up wearing relax fit slacks, and flat shoes and basically a man’s shirt, she would be accepted. If I showed up in a nice skirt, moderate heels, light makeup, nicely styled hair, and a fitting blouse, I would be put down, my sanity would get questioned, and I might just lose the certificate I worked so hard to acquire (all the while hiding my true self). In my book this falls right under the term “sexual discrimination” but for some reason the law does not recognize it as such.
What existence is easier again?
I think this site should be open to all people that do not fit in the two genders we are imprisoned in. No discrimination.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm |
Here are my problems.
1. I don’t want anyone to be left out, pushed aside, or excluded. Everyone here knows how that feels, and we all know it sucks.
2. However, I want a place that focuses on “beauty in ambiguity.” I feel less alone when I see profiles and pics of beautiful androgynous and gender variant individuals.
Can we somehow have both these things?
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 1:46 pm |
Pythos – I appreciate you sharing your story. I definitely think your version of femme is seriously under-represented. I think it also makes sense under the focus of ambiguous femme. I don’t think that the intent of this site is to discriminate, unless you mean in the neutral sense of the words [i.e. to differentiate.]
I think there IS an intent to differentiate on this site. Just as there is an intent to differentiate in butch-centered groups and femme-centered groups and other specifically identified groups. There are bike groups, some of which are all-inclusive, some of which focus on fixie road bikes, some of which focus on mountain bikes, and others which focus on touring bikes. There are weekly dinner groups, some of which indiscriminately go to random restaurants, some just go to sushi places, some just go to vegan places, and others only visit breakfast places. Those groups would only be “discriminating” in the sense that they are voicing their particular interests, seeking people who are interested in those things too, and doing something in those contexts.
Again – there is no one right or wrong way to make this site – it just depends on the chemistry and respect and interests of the people who actually put this site out there and those who visit it.
If there is a specific aesthetic or experiential focus to this site, that is not “discrimination,” [imho] that is focused mutual interest. Since the site is currently in flux, that focus is up in the air, but I don’t think there is anything diabolical about the site having a specific focus.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
I’m a genderqueer who is sometimes femme. Not very often, but it’s fun to see people’s reactions when I am. It’s like doubly subversive. People get used to me being androgynous, and then I wear a skirt all of a sudden, and they get confused. Even just saying that I like pink confuses them.
I think that if we are such genderqueers, we should be representing both ends of the spectrum. If you have femininity, don’t be afraid to show it, and don’t make others afraid to show it. Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny should be equally validated. For many of us, femininity is just as much of a part of our gender identities as androgyny and masculinity, and we should not feel like we have to repress this femininity because it will not be accepted by other genderqueers. I would agree that a woman who is entirely feminine would not be a genderqueer, but femininity as an intrinsic part of our genderqueer identity is valid. Indeed, it is what makes us genderqueers, rather than being entirely transgender in the sense of feeling like the other binary gender (whereas we have third genders, fourth or fifth genders, or no gender).
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
“I would agree that a woman who is entirely feminine would not be a genderqueer, but femininity as an intrinsic part of our genderqueer identity is valid. Indeed, it is what makes us genderqueers, rather than being entirely transgender in the sense of feeling like the other binary gender (whereas we have third genders, fourth or fifth genders, or no gender).”
this leaves me with a lot of questions. like what about femmes who identify as genderqueer? they are not genderqueer because…because you do not think they are? because they are ‘too feminine’ to be genderqueer? because genderqueer means being both masculine and feminine? hmm.
i also disagree with your implied definition of transgender. there are lots of trans folks who do not identify with a ‘sense of feeling like the other binary gender’ and a lot of trans folks who see themselves as genderqueer, medically transition (or not), and continue to identify as genderqueer. and even as gender ambiguous.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
I haven’t posted much on this thread because Ashley, Jess, Smith, Jardo, Francie, and others have already articulated many of the opinions that I hold.
A lot of what I’m hearing in this debate seems to be coming from a place of fear, which is totally understandable.
Many of you are expressing that you have never fit in to what society told you that you should be. That is, normatively feminine. I hear you, for sure. For many of you, femme identity appears (and I emphasize *appears*) to represent much of what you have spent your lives resisting. To you, it seems like to include femme identity in this site would be to lose ground, to lose ownership of this space, and there is precious little of this space to begin with. There’s also the fear that if femmes are included in the space, it will not be recognizable as a spot for ambiguously gendered folks.
I hear your fears, your need for space, your pain at not fitting in to gender norms, and your proud fuck yous to the norms that have caused you so much strife. The reason that femmes are expressing a need to be a part of this space is that we are a part of the movement to queer gender. We have also spent much of our lives not fitting in to the very same construction of femininity that you are actively resisting; we are resisting it too. Femmes are not the enemy, here. We’re doing battle for the same cause.
Yes, to include femme representations on the site might open it to a greater diversity of gender presentations. However, that’s not the same as letting everybody and their dog onto a site that’s devoted to queering gender. It’s more like giving everyone on your team (team genderqueer!) a chance to go up to bat.
Many people on the site don’t present ambiguously, they present as non-normatively masculine or feminine. If this is truly a site for genderqueers, which is what Sara explained the space has evolved into, then femme representation should be included in the site. That does not mean that there will be no space for you, that people who are looking for a space to discusses their experiences of gender ambiguity won’t be able to find others with similar experiences on the site, or that the site will be open to everyone. Rather, it means that we would be following what seems to be the natural progression of the site into a space for people who identify as genderqueer, and that includes femmes.
This isn’t about ruining the spaces, as some folks seem to believe. I get where that fear comes from and I think that it’s totally understandable to feel the need to defend the space. I’m not saying that our experiences are the same- quite the contrary; I’m saying that although we all have very different experiences, we should be focusing on the need for representation for all forms of genderqueer. This isn’t necessarily about embracing the principle of inclusivity. It’s about understanding that as our community evolves, as it constantly does, we become aware of new possibilities for identities and new ways of articulating our experiences. I get that you never fit in to what society told you your gender should be, I get that you’ve struggled to come to grips with all that your gender means and that it’s a constant battle for you to subvert gender binaries; I get it because it’s like that for us too.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
“this leaves me with a lot of questions. like what about femmes who identify as genderqueer? they are not genderqueer because…because you do not think they are? because they are ‘too feminine’ to be genderqueer? because genderqueer means being both masculine and feminine? hmm.
i also disagree with your implied definition of transgender. there are lots of trans folks who do not identify with a ’sense of feeling like the other binary gender’ and a lot of trans folks who see themselves as genderqueer, medically transition (or not), and continue to identify as genderqueer. and even as gender ambiguous.”
Sorry, I wasn’t being clear. It’s hard to articulate what I mean, but I’ll try.
I wasn’t saying that one cannot be femme and genderqueer at the same time. But there are a lot of femmes who don’t consider themselves genderqueers, and there are a lot of genderqueers who don’t identify as femme. I would say that anyone who identifies as genderqueer IS a genderqueer, regardless of how feminine they are. I can’t judge what they feel inside. Gender presentation is not everything.
And I shouldn’t have said that some amount of femininity is a requirement to be a genderqueer. That sounded stupid, now that I think about it. But I think that there has to be…an “otherness,” for lack of a better word. If you are generally on the masculine spectrum or generally on the feminine spectrum, there needs to be a touch of something else. Androgyny, ambiguousness, whatever you want to call it. I’m not trying to enforce “rules” for being a genderqueer, I’m just struggling to define it, as we all are here.
I know that about transpeople. I was not implying that one cannot be transgender and genderqueer at the same time. I was talking about a specific kind of transgender identity. One who is born in a male body and feels distinctly female, or one who is born in a female body and feels distinctly male. (Again, there aren’t good words for describing this, and I believe that you are whatever gender you feel like, so I am not implying that these transpeople aren’t “really” male or female. They were simply born in the wrong body.)
I was probably speaking more to my own experience than to others’, and I apologize. Because in my case, my small amount of femininity is the only thing keeping me from being a man. I don’t identify as femme, and the label feels very unfitting to me, but I can see where femmes are coming from. And I think that people who identify as genderqueer femmes should be represented on this site. At the same time, I think that there should be a separate space for genderqueer femmes to talk about the unique issues and challenges that they deal with as genderqueer femmes, because as we’ve seen here, it is different from what non-femme genderqueers deal with, and non-femme genderqueers are probably not as relatable as other femmes.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm |
Here is another thought of mine.
The “ambiguous” image people talk about to me comes off as male. It is a presentation that has mostly male characteristics, heck even the clothing is male, or unisex.
I have no problem with this. However what I essentially try to do is the “female” version of this ambiguity.
Some of this discussion seems in favor of the “ambiguous” almost male presentation, while in favor of separating the “feme” presentation, instead of embracing both.
We have to remember what we do is in the face of “normal” society. We present a confusing image, and unfortunately there are many that are frightened by that, despite the fact in scripture angels are gender neutral, and in medieval depictions they darn well look like females, and yet are beautiful.
Thought I am male, and like “masculine” things for the most part (I like cars, dislike sports) I wear styles more associated with females. I prefer skirts to pants, loose flowing shirts to cotton t-shirts, or starchy dress shirts.
If it didn’t mean my certificate possibly being revoked I would identify as Androgynous. Heck if forms that I had to sign had such a term under gender, I would check it. But for the most part I am male.
Think Japanese J rock artists for a little refference…LOL.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pm |
Sorry I hit enter too soon.
I have dabbled in full on cross dressing, and frankly prefer my androgynous, Gothy self to my “feme” self (by that I mean with fake hips and breasts) I do wish there was an easier way of putting a profile pic up, so people can get an idea. Though mine is Uber goth, lol. Hopefully Sarah will find my pic on flickr.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 8:53 pm |
Someone called me “sir” as I was reading the updated posts here.
:/ *sigh*
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 10:47 pm |
B-Rae:
I have been thinking all day about why I’ve felt so uncomfortable with your need for femmes to define themselves. You made that post awhile ago, requesting that we (femmes) articulate to you what kind of weight we place on minute characteristics of our gender presentations such as hair, makeup, clothing, mannerisms, word choice, etc. At that time, there had already been several posts made by people who qualified their gender presentation as femme (or sometimes femme), that explained the genderqueer nature of femme identities as those that are consciously articulated, political in nature, non-normative intentional femininities. Essentially femmes had been describing themselves as subverters of expected gender norms and presentations and queerers of femininity. The fact that individual expressions and experiences of Femme identity differ greatly from person to person, it seemed as though a sufficient “working definition” of Femme was already in play.
I found myself rolling my eyes when that wasn’t enough for you, because it felt like you were asking for proof. It felt like you were asking how, exactly, putting on a fat-hugging dress in the morning, making sure my hair looks flawless and comically outrageous in volume, reapplying my thick offensive purple lipstick 6 times a day, never stepping on a fucking scale to determine my own self-worth, never shutting the fuck up to make all the masculine-identified (normative and non) people in my life comfortable, always making sure that my cackling voice is at top frequency and full of brazen confidence, never feeling the need to defend a $250 purchase of hot pink patent leather peak-a-boo heels but standing by it till the day I die (how much did your Blundstones cost you?), and always looking to broaden the width of the fist i get fucked with…is fucking queer.
Now, I don’t know about you other femmes out there, but i’m getting a little bit bored with having to prove myself. People talk about ambiguity on this site as though the only way to be ambiguous is by purposefully presenting equal levels of masculinity and femininity in every single goddamn choice that you make in your life. Good luck proving that. People read me incorrectly all the time. People are confused by me every. single. day. People load their shit and their expectations of me onto my gender all the time, and it’s all i can do not to break under the weight of it.
I bet it gets tiring, this need to explain yourself to people, doesn’t it? You might want to think about how exhausting it is for femmes to have to justify themselves and explain in agonizing detail just how queer they really are, to their own people all the time.
[Reply]
November 28th, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
*waving white flag*
Heyyyyy…. my friends….
We’ve got a whole lot of people who feel really threatened and offended right now for lots of different completely legitimate reasons.
Let’s slow down a bit and make sure we’re respecting that. Everything you’re expressing is true. This is a discussion about lives and identities and acceptance. We have a lot in common.
As far as structural discussion goes:
- I understand that there is a need to maintain strong support for the community we’ve been focused on so far.
- I understand that there is a need for better understanding and representation of femmes (and probably other groups) in the queer community and I’m committed to helping with that.
- If you’re interested in participating in nuts-and-bolts organizing discussions to help address these issues, you should email me and let me know (before Monday morning, please, because I’d like to kick that work off then).
As for all the other details, if you’re offended by an insensitive remark made somewhere on this thread (and there were plenty), please remember that this is a community of people coming from lots of different cultures, experiences, and levels of exposure. Most of us are largely ignorant about each others’ real needs.
But for what it’s worth, I want to help.
Love,
Sarah
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 12:08 am |
ahem…*straightens tie*
i didn’t mean to turn this discussion into a flame war. i’m having a difficult time not getting lost in the tumultuousness and the gravity of things. and i whole-heartedly appreciate that this conversation is happening. thanks for the patience and passion.
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 12:23 am |
Francie -
It sounds like I’ve offended you, and rest assured that wasn’t my point. I never said that you, as a femme, are not genderqueer. I said that this site is the only such site filling a niche specifically for *ambiguous* genderqueers. Some other bring up good points on how ambiguous it really is…
pythos – You bring up a FANTASTIC point on the acceptance of men dressing in feminine ways vs. women doing the same. I actually wrote something about this in my blog not too long ago, and if you’re interested I can link you to it.
You are absolutely right that saying female genderqueers have it harder is silly, but I don’t think anyone was saying that. The reality it is that everyone in the world has it tough, when it comes to society. There is no such thing as a normal person, and we all experience these pressure to be normal.
I, for one, am female bodied and simply can’t pass as anything else without a lot of effort (not that I try to – that’s not my goal). I’m petite, pixie-faced, and all that jazz. I do have a low voice, and rather straight-line body, but not the point where I could be mistaken for anything besides female without a ton of effort and probably surgery.
In my style of dress, I mix feminine and masculine aspects equally. I don’t try to balance my female body by being overly masculine in dress.
It is in my style of interaction that my genderqueerness becomes more obvious. I do not act like a woman at all. Nor do I really act like a man. But I find that, for me, this is the most obvious incarnation of my gender orientation to most people. It’s something they pick up on much more quickly than my androgynous style of dress.
While people have no trouble discerning what’s between my legs, my manner of interaction leaves people stumbling.
I do find a lot of the female-bodies genderqueers here have a more masculine bent, for whatever their variety of reasons may be. And a male-bodied genderqueer with a more feminine bent is pretty much the opposite equivalent of that.
This debate becomes increasingly more convoluted when we try to define what ambiguity is. But let me try it.
Now, before I start, let me state that this is the idea kicking around in my head, and my head alone. I’m not saying this is The One True Definition From the Lord And Saviour Of Queerness. Just my current, half-evolved idea, put up for your input.
To me, ambiguous genderqueer is someone who is so outside of any definition of anything that they had to make up their own.
Now, again, in my brain and mine alone, a female-bodied femme genderqueer is plenty queer – not arguing that. However, they are women. They are women with a definition of femininity that society won’t accept, which is what makes them queer. But they are women, who don’t feel pulled into either the realm of the opposite gender, OR into the realm of something else entirely.
Same goes for genderqueer men who subvert the definition of masculine.
As B-Rae so truthfully said, if you stare at any of these definitions and labels for long enough, they will all begin to unravel.
But without staring too hard, that is, in essence, the difference between ambiguous genderqueers, and everything else.
If we want to have this dicussion *at all* we can’t stare at it too hard. Because how do we discuss if we’re unwinding the language as we go?
In a conversation that is ultimately about how we all want to be free, it is tempting to pull those threads and start watching the fabric fall to the ground.
But so many of us are still lost and frustrated and hurt because of the society we’re forced to live in while we try to find our way, and so, for the time being, we have to try to entertain these silly modes of language.
I’m just trying to get down a framework through which we can really discuss this, without anyone getting too upset.
Ashley, I don’t think B-Rae was trying to offend you, nor do I think anyone is debating your genderqueerness. We’re debating the purpose of this site – what it is, and what it may become.
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 12:43 am |
*still waving white flag*
Cat, you’re absolutely right that they all unravel, so I really think we need to stop trying to define and generalize this stuff. At least here.
Please. I know it’s so compelling. But every definition is going to alienate someone, and someone else will disagree. It’s just not useful in this context. We’re not trying to draw lines. We’re trying to take care of each other.
Or at least I am.
Thank you.
I’m going to close this comment thread in the next 24 hours and migrate the conversation to those who’ve volunteered to help organize. Any last words? Friendly ones?
Thanks,
Sarah
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 12:48 am |
Sarah -
I hope I didn’t come across as unfriendly. :(
I think one of the struggles here is the fact that we’re discussing the practical aim of a website. If we were all sitting in a room together discussing gender variation in general, I don’t think we’d be having as many problems with language.
It’s just that this is a practical question about a highly sensitive subject. It’s very hard to discuss it so everyone is on the same page.
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 1:14 am |
Cat,
Thanks for checking in. You’re not coming across as unfriendly, but I do think further defining categories is unproductive at this point… there is too much tension and need for acceptance here. Drawing any further lines in the sand is just throwing salt on wounds.
Everyone,
I appreciate all of the input you’ve all given me in this conversation. Seriously, it has been incredibly helpful. But it’s also gone beyond the space I can hold for it here, and I need us to bring it back.
One of my intentional rules on genderfork has been to not allow the kind of gender theory debate/discussion that tries to explain why we are the way we are. That’s not because I find it unimportant — I think it’s VERY important and we need more of it (in fact, we’re still talking about building a site specifically for it). I keep it off our site because I find it can be alienating to a lot of people. First, any kind of academic or specialized language is immediately intimidating to anyone who hasn’t been educated on it already. And secondly, because every theory discussion I’ve been in inherently draws a line somewhere that will hurt someone.
More than being about gender ambiguity, this site is about acceptance, vulnerability, openness, appreciation, comfort, and celebration. We are newbie-friendly and mom-friendly. We are here to welcome people in.
The scope of the gender representation is currently being reconsidered. Those values are not. (“My site, my rules.”)
So I hope you understand why we need to wrap this up. I genuinely appreciate all of your input, and I hope you all stick around to continue to help shape the site.
Lots of love,
Sarah
p.s. Cat, I wanted to check in with you via email, but i don’t think i have your email address. can you touch base with me, or leave a comment that includes your email? thx. xo
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 1:27 am |
Sure thing. My email in the optional box shows up for you, yes?
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 1:33 am |
Yep. Thanks. :)
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 8:06 am |
Ashley,
before the thread closes, I just wanted to let you know that I think I know what you’re saying and that absolutely was not my intent. Thank you for your honesty.
I will withhold further comment per Sarah’s direction, but I want to thank everyone for their input. I like to think I have a reasonable amount of knowledge on gender and gender theory, but I am always learning and evolving. I look forward to future discussions, here and elsewhere.
All the best,
B-Rae
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
sarah – not the point of this thread but let me just say: i am very impressed with you as a moderator and runner-of-websites/blogs. awesome job, and nice work. especially with such important topics.
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
*smiles* Thank you, elhuge.
That means a lot to me.
[Reply]