Can I get a lesbian perspective on something please?

[GetGenderInTheBin]

I'm a straight gender non-conforming woman. For instance, I don't wear high heels, make-up, or push-ups bras.

Since joining the gender debate, I have often been called a "dyke", amongst many other insults. I think I get called this because I am gender non-conforming.

I am currently writing about my experiences as a GC feminist, and some of my writings are poetry. Is it okay for me to use the word "dyke" when referring to myself, in the same way that I might call myself a "TERF", "cunt", or "bitch" (i.e. in a way that is reclaiming the word). Or should words only be reclaimed by those that they're directing aimed at?

Thanks.

This is crazy. Not wearing heels, make up or push-up bras does not make you GNC - unless you have an amazingly restrictive and regressive view of gender. I don't do any of those things and I'm a straight woman.

Not doing any of those things also doesn't make you a dyke. 'Dyke' should only be used of a gay woman, not a straight woman.

Dyke, whether it's recognised as a derogatory slur or embraced as an empowering word that challenges expectations of gender and sexuality, is not a word you can use to describe yourself, OP because, as you've stated yourself, you're not a lesbian.

Why ask for a lesbian perspective and then patronisingly explain why you're going to ignore the many examples you are given? And please stop bumping your own thread when it has become blatantly obvious that you have no intention of paying any attention or respect to those responses.

The thing is, OP, that your job as an artist, writer, etc, is to tell the truth

Rereading my post after several (?) weeks, I can see that I may not have expressed myself very clearly. What I mean by "telling the truth" doesn't exclude fiction, obviously, or particular genres of fiction, either - I'm not excluding fantasy or satire or Finnegan's Wake. The point I'm trying to make is more about authenticity and commitment: within the conventions of the idiom and the setting you have adopted, does it ring true? Everything, no matter how comedic or exaggerated or weird, is read by readers who live in the real world, and the extent to which it will speak to them is the extent to which it illuminates and reflects real, true things in that world. To me, good literature says, "if [this], what would it be like?" and then answers to the best of its ability. So you can choose whatever crazy, hyperbolic premise you want - whichever premise will help you explore whatever interests you - but at some level you have to try to imagine as honestly and exactly as you can what that would actually mean. Whether that's, "I am a wizard" or "I am a lesbian". Neither one is a lie in a fictional context, but to write well you have to think about what the implications are (and with the latter comes the responsibility of imagining the experience of people who exist and have not, to put it mildly, found that their voices were expecially valued).

As someone pointed out, what I may be missing out in this argument is the art that is created for therapeutic or other purposes, and that's fair enough - but as the OP presumably knows that she can say absolutely anything she wants in private/therapy, I was only really talking about art that's intended to be publically consumed, with ambitions that are artistic as well as personally fulfilling.

I think part of the problem is that the men who call you are dyke aren't really commenting on your sexuality at all- they're commenting on your appearance by way of an offensive stereotype about what lesbians look like. So any attempt by you to "reclaim" the word is inevitably founded on the same stereotype: you're using "dyke" to mean "a woman whose physical appearance is...".

On the GNC point, I've no objection to the term and I don't doubt that OP is GNC if she says she is. But the examples she gives aren't great as they suggest a very narrow and stereotypical view of those who aren't GNC.

Also can't understand how any GC feminist would call themselves gender non-conforming because they don't wear bras or high heels. Really? That's some pretty regressive gender stereotyping going on there..

I feel like I'm missing something here. Isn't the OP's point that there are certain sexist stereotypes to which she doesn't conform? She's not claiming that it makes her special, only that it has led to past abuse. She's not saying - no one is saying, as far as I can see - that it has any relevance to whether she's a woman, or a lesbian. As Kimiko said, some things we do conform to society's (more or less repressive and regressive) expectations of our sex, some things don't - and as far as the latter are concerned, in those particular respects we are all GNC, aren't we? Genuine question, I feel like I'm somehow at cross-purposes...

in those particular respects we are all GNC, aren't we?

I think this is the issue some people have with the term. Either we're all GNC (which is true but then why bother describing yourself as GNC?) or else the GNC person is different and special while the rest of us (the gender-conforming ones) are interchangeable Barbie dolls whose choices are entirely culturally conditioned.

My reading of what the OP said was actually neither of these- I think she simply meant that the way she presents herself physically is not traditionally feminine by Western standards in 2022. I just think her examples are too narrow: I'm a fairly feminine woman, definitely wouldn't call myself GNC (except insofar as we all are) and yet never wear heels or push-up bras and rarely wear make up, and I think that's very common.

I call myself gender non conforming because I was one of those kids who at two hated to wear anything pink, frilly, skirts, dresses - wanted to wear chunky shoes, cords, boys anoraks and have short hair. I loved old ladies at the shops thinking I was a boy. I did all the rough and tumble 'boy stuff' and only started to conform once I started school, had to wear the uniform and tried to fit in.

Nowadays that would probably be called trans.

I wish there was a better word to describe it. Helen Joyce says it's sex non conforming I think because it's sex stereotypes we don't adhere to. I would say that my GNC is totally different to not wearing push ups bras and heels.

"- they're commenting on your appearance by way of an offensive stereotype about what lesbians look like"

You've not got it quite right. Historically, many lesbians didn't conform to the usual perform of femininity -- why should they, it was a gender performance for men. So, not an offensive stereotype at all, but an important part of lesbian history.

Dyke was reclaimed long ago, except modern generations seem to have forgotten that (see the psychoanalysis of Edward the dyke by Judy Grahn). As a street insult, lesbian seemed to be used as often as dyke, it was the non-performance of femininity that was being criticised.

Wave to all the bulldykes, diesel dykes and baby butches out there, don't let the haters steal our words again, even though the traitors at stonewall are trying to steal lesbian and the very concept of female homosexuality.

I’m a lesbian. No, it’s not okay to call yourself a Dyke.
if you’re reporting someone else calling you a ‘Dyke’ as an insult because of your appearance, sure, but as reported speech.

‘ . I want to reclaim it and wear it with pride. ‘

the word isn’t yours to reclaim. Your aren’t a lesbian, gay woman, Dyke.
We’ve taken care of the reclaiming, thanks.
it’s no more appropriate than for you to use the N word as a white person.
just no.

Interesting thread. I haven’t had a chance to read it in its entirety but FWIW I wear push-up bras, sometimes wear high heels and I also wear make-up. I’m also quite radical and undoubtedly a feminist. I’m not some kind of conformist just blindly following rules of womanhood …

I am bisexual. I love words and I think they can be powerful. They can be used to harm or celebrate.
For example: go fuck yourself.
I love to fuck.

I love the word cunt. Other people find it offensive but to me I own that word. It invokes my womanhood in MY way.

I say you choose your words, your way. If you set out to describe yourself, your life, your experiences and you are not intending on insult or hurt to anyone, that is ok.

Someone will always be insulted or pissed off no matter what your intentions are and sometimes you just need to not give a shit. That's my thoughts anyhow

I like your perspective @Codswallop20 and I actually agree with it … but in today’s cancel culture a misplaced word can cause a person untold grief/distress.

Oh Lord. Try going into a lesbian group as a bisexual woman and declaring yourself a dyke!

*I'm bisexual too. I would not try this.

But why not?? Dyke is only a word. If it's a word that feels comfortable to you and that you are not directly using to piss off other people then who cares?

I can call my gay friends gay. I can call them friends of Dorothy. I can call them my bitches. Because they don't care and I don't care.

Whatever I choose to label or call myself is up to me, as is your right and OPs right.
Words are just words unless there are thorns behind them, and when referring to yourself surely that is not labelling others?

Because I only ever experience biphobia in groups of lesbians. So if I tried to appropriate a word for a lesbian, I think they would quite rightly turn on me, because turning on bisexual women is never usually that faraway for them anyway.

Because I only ever experience biphobia in groups of lesbians.

Why would lesbians be biphobic?

Biphobia sounds horrible. I’m fairly bicurious

I am not sure about this word really, but I have heard 'biphobic' be used to describe a lesbian who won't date/sleep with a bisexual woman.