Comments on: Personal and Political Lesbian Visibility

By: bcmugger

bcmugger — Sat, 24 May 2014 03:37:00 +0000

BS article. Gays dress stupidly because they are mentally ill.

By: YeahRight

YeahRight — Mon, 19 May 2014 01:22:00 +0000

You are missing the point by pointing out the minority of examples where men are more attracted to women who “look” gay. The majority of men respond to femininity and women who look straight. Certainly the author is making generalized claims, and that is perfectly OK. No one said the issues you address can’t happen. Stop picking every word to shreds.

By: femme isn’t a four-letter word | Lady Lamia

femme isn’t a four-letter word | Lady Lamia — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:57:30 +0000

[…] for a while now this has been churning in my head. i think what really set it in motion more than anything was a post secret postcard that i saw on sociological images: […]

By: Crave4rave

Crave4rave — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:22:00 +0000

im supper gay im in beyond girly! if its not pink im not going to wear it

By: Carlaclaws

Carlaclaws — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:01:00 +0000

Sexual identity and gender identity bigotry: It isn’t just for homophobes!

By: Lillian

Lillian — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:28:00 +0000

My guess is that the writer is a teen, very young woman, or very new to being out.

By: The Ubiquity of Gender Rules; Or, Do Lesbians Have to Love Cats? | Scientopia Guests' Blog

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:16:35 +0000

[…] see our post on a confession, from another lesbian, about suppressing the fact that she’s really quite girly. Tags: animals. stereotypes, culture, gender, sexual orientation, social […]

By: Fighting Femme « O, Pioneers!

Fighting Femme « O, Pioneers! — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:42:48 +0000

[…] at Sociological Images takes a sociological reading of this PostSecret card: Because I’m a LESBIAN I feel obligated to […]

By: M

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:06:27 +0000

You just illustrated perfectly what unsettles me about being bi, and managed gave me great counter agrument at the same time: there very much exists a lesbian identity, and trhough that also a lesbian community, wether you like it or not. It’s not a stereotype, not even a stable culture, but there is so much history and so many association put into that little word that simply admitting to liking another gender is enough for you to disqualify a person from knowing anything about the experience of a woman who is attracted to other women. If you really didn’t categorize people at all, this would make no difference. Let me tell you this: a bisexual person may know the communities and identities very well, because we are stuck in a no man’s land ourselves. You may think of it as bigot, but it’s easy to have pass judgement when you’re not missing what someone else does.

By: Trix

Trix — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:23 +0000

Exactly! And I find it desperately sad that with all the evolution that has gone on in lesbian identities in the past 25 years or so, with the reclamation of femme and lipstick lesbian and everything else on the gender-presentation spectrum, that there are STILL young women who believe they must present as butch to be properly lesbian, as well as those who doubt someone’s ID because she’s “girly”.

I say this as a butch woman, btw. I’m not attracted to other butches, so if those “girly” women disappeared, I’d be SOL with objects of desire. ;-)

By: Lindsey

Lindsey — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:32:33 +0000

I think you just opened the lid on the difference between homo/bisexuality and queer identities…

By: Erin Leigh

Erin Leigh — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 01:04:29 +0000

Am I correct in saying that you think generalizations and labels are inherently a bad thing? That’s the impression I have from your comments, but I could be wrong.

Human beings categorize. Human beings generalize. It’s what we do. We do it all the time, in all situations, pretty much every minute of every day (not in regards to people, I mean objects and events, too).

Some people choose labels as a way of communicating who they are. Yep, sometimes those labels/boxes/categories are limiting/incorrect/static. And sometimes they’re useful tools for communication. What I *try* to do (and am certainly frequently unsuccessful) is to remember that labels are not immutable, that there can be different definitions to labels, and that a label is not the sum total of who a person is.

Same with generalizations: generalizations are how we study social patterns and processes. While it’s definitely important to remember and point out that they are generalizations and not 100% representational, it doesn’t make them any less of a useful tool.

You can either engage respectfully (i.e. not impugning a commenter’s intelligence just because you don’t agree with them, not asking rhetorical questions), or you can continue just like you are, not actually engaging in any meaningful way.

By: Erin Leigh

Erin Leigh — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:49:16 +0000

“It’s no more ok for people to do this who claim to be lesbians (anyone can posture here – just look at the commenter who went from an out and proud lesbian telling us all about it because she’s so special, to later telling us that she’s going to identify as “bi”)”

I wonder if you’re referring to my comment, about how I am now more actively identifying as bisexual, in response to biphobia in my communities.

If so, I’d like to make a few things clear:
This is not just a willy-nilly decision on my part. A big part of why I (and many other similar folks I know) identify as queer is because we ARE attracted to men, women and various other genders. I stopped using bisexual because it implies that there are only two genders, which is not true. So this is not a shift in my identity, or me taking on an identity which is not mine, or me “posturing.” It’s always been a part of my identity, and a part of my political ideologies.

I probably could’ve been more clear. You also could’ve asked for clarification, instead of assuming and insulting.

And if you weren’t referring to me, well, just consider this my own personal clarification.

By: meg // morningmidnight

meg // morningmidnight — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:47:46 +0000

yeah, and if other queer people call me that, i feel REALLY INSULTED. gross. i don’t think i’m the only one who would say that ‘lipstick lesbian’ is, if not offensive, reaaaaaallly patronizing.

By: meg // morningmidnight

meg // morningmidnight — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:40:53 +0000

seriously dude. it also occasionally attracts the attention of even creepier-than-usual men: aka, the ones who really want to comment about how they think it’s sexy that you look like a fourteen year old boy. right on. totally cool. at least my femme self only gets the usual streetcreepers who just see me as t+a and not those who are really dodgy about their repressed homosexual pederast-tastic issues — though i do get to fend off unwanted attempted sexy conversations about my sex life and why i’ve no interest in the penis of whomever is trying to stick it in me at that point.