Restoring the L-word
The word “lesbian” used to be considered ooky because lesbians were considered ooky. Then there was Stonewall, and activism, and increased visibility, and Alison Bechdel, and Ellen, and Maddow. And then the word somehow became ooky again, apparently because it was somehow not “inclusive” enough. So when York Civic Trust put up a plaque to honor Ann Lister it carefully avoided That Word. It said “Gender-nonconforming entrepreneur. Celebrated marital commitment, without legal recognition, to Ann Walker in this church. Easter, 1834.”
And there was a stink, and a petition, and it worked.
A draft of the new wording will be proposed and opened for public comment in the coming weeks.
An online petition calling on York Civic Trust to change the wording attracted more than 2,500 signatures. The petition said: “Anne Lister was, most definitely, gender non-conforming all her life. She was also, however, a lesbian. Don’t let them erase this iconic woman from our history.”
“Gender non-conforming” is fine in its way, but it’s far from identical to “lesbian.” To spell it out there are lesbians who are not particularly gender-nonconforming (except for the not hooking up with men part), and gender non-conforming women who are not lesbians.
Julie Furlong, who started the petition, told the BBC she was pleased the wording was to change: “I am very happy that they have realised that lesbian erasure is not acceptable, but I will wait to hear on the final wording before expressing opinion as to that.”
The trust said following a meeting with the Churches Conservation Trust, York LGBT Forum and York LGBT History Month, a joint decision was made to change the wording on the plaque. It added: “The plaque is intended to be a positive celebration of the union of Anne Lister and Ann Walker, and this remains the case. The last thing we wanted to do was to cause offence or upset to any community.”
Oh? But that’s a hopeless way to look at it. They’re going to cause offence and upset to the “community” of people who hate the whole idea of same-sex love and attraction, just for one thing. So in trying to avoid annoying any “community” they managed to erase the very “community” the plaque is about. Ironic, isn’t it.
I are one…..;-)
It is interesting how much the trans-community hates lesbians. And some of the gay community. I have read gay female writers who refuse to call themselves “lesbian” because they think they are square, and have sold out to the straight middle-class community. It never occurs to them that not everyone who is different in one way wants to be different in every way. In other words, it may not be selling out; it may just be that some women like the lifestyle they are living, have no beef with the functioning of society, want to be part of it, but simply want to live with the person they love. Is that such a difficult concept? Or do non-conformists now have to conform to a rigid idea of non-conformity? (That last is rhetorical – it becomes more and more clear that the answer is yes)
For the Woke, only men can be lesbians. A “cis” woman who is a lesbian and doesn’t sleep with males, excludes trans women, the bravest, stunningest lesbians of them all.
Anyway homosexuality is inherently exclusionary, you TERFs.
Lady M, I think that heterosexuals are seen as being every bit as transphobic as homosexuals if they reject same-sex, opposite gender people as potential sexual partners, because sexual attraction across the board is another area where the woke either confuse or conflate sex with gender.
Now, one would think that a man or a woman who is – or is prepared to be sleeping with people of either physical sex is by definition bisexual regardless of gender identity, but one would be wrong. By the woke definition, a bisexual is one who has both same-sex, same-gender partners and opposite sex, opposite gender partners. A man who has sex with another man, if that other man identifies as a woman, is not bisexual but heterosexual (ditto women and transmen), and to suggest that such a liaison requires one to be bisexual is…..have you guessed it yet?…..transphobic and an act of violence, if not outright genocide.
True, but, AoS, somehow when they get to talking particulars, you don’t hear trans activists haranguing straight women to sleep with transmen, or gays to sleep with transmen, or straight men to sleep with transwomen.
Yet there is a meme (in the original sense of the term) in pro-trans circles about how bigoted and exclusionary it is for lesbians to reject transwomen as sexual partners.
Isn’t that interesting.
Gee, I wonder why. I wonder what the difference is in those scenarios.
Sorry, ladies. Even if a transwoman has a penis, a lesbian who says “no thanks” is a transphobe and a “vagina fetishist” and ought to be ashamed of herself.
Riley J. Dennis has carefully transplained all of this. I won’t link to him. Here’s the great Magdalen Berns responding to him; lots of clips of Riley himself, so you can see for yourself how he operates.
https://youtu.be/F_5FFGrGzJw
LGB → LGBT → GBT