Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Great Thief Yatagarasu

Girlfags/Guydykes, and how it ties in with a Genderqueer identity

Recommended Posts

Great Thief Yatagarasu

Yes, I've tried (and failed) talking about this before, and we all know how well that turned out. While I do have my own personal reasons for bringing up this discussion again, I don't want to be the main focus here - so a warning ahead of time, to keep things purely academic and not personal? There's a TL;DR at the bottom, because this post turned out a lot longer than I had originally planned.

So after my last disastrous thread on the subject, I decided to do some more research on the concept of Girlfags and Guydykes, just so I could say that I knew what I was talking about and how it fit in with what I already knew. A refresher of the definitions:

Girlfag: “A woman who is very attracted to gay/bi men. She may (or may not) also feel she is (fully or partly) a “gay man in a woman’s body”. Girlfags may identify primarily as bi or straight or lesbian, and are often attracted to more types of people than just gay/bi men.”

Guydyke: “A man who is very attracted to lesbian/bi women. He may (or may not) also feel he is (fully or partly) a “lesbian in a man’s body”. Guydykes may identify primarily as bi or straight or gay, and are often attracted to more types of people than just lesbian/bi women.”

So I was looking around, and I found a few boards for people who identified as such...but what interested me where the number of Genderqueer sites which acknowledged Girlfags/Guydykes as being a kind of Genderqueer identity worthy of respect. This site, for instance, lists Girlfags and Guydykes among it's list of different genderqueer identities that exist, and considers it a valid identity based on one of the definitions of genderqueer - that is, “having an overlap or blur of gender and orientation and/or sex”. When you consider this one of the many definitions of genderqueer, and you combine it with some of the other definitions ("both man and woman" or "moving between genders", in particular), then it makes sense that it would count as a valid, legitimate genderqueer identity. Well written and detailed articles on the subject, written by other people who share this identity (like this one) also do well to explain how it feels while breaking any possible stereotypes surrounding the concept. Tumblr tags also dig up a lot of helpful things about it.

...And then you hear what the rest of the internet has to say about it. HOO BOY.

I mean, I've already found out the hard way that even MENTIONING this concept, let alone trying to identify with it (as I tried to do) is pretty much just asking for trouble. Not just because of the name - which even I admit it unfortunate - but because of the concept itself. The fact that it often includes an attraction to gay men means that a hell of a lot of people see girlfags as "cisgendered perverts" who ruthlessly objectify gay men and their relationships just for kicks while trying too hard to invade the queer community (which, seriously, isn't true). A lot of the stereotypes to do with yaoi fangirls, and how they're apparently immature women-children who are too afraid of "real" relationships to enter one themselves whilst projecting themselves onto their yaoi, are also applied to girlfags (not helped by the fact that girlfags are often "fujoshi" too). There also seem to be a lot of complaints which seem to ignore/forget about the concept of being genderqueer, claiming that you can't be "partly" a gay man/lesbian woman. One last complaint is the idea of how you can be attracted to gay men in particular, and how this appears to some to be stereotyping. So overall, the internet - and the queer community as a whole, from what I've seen - has taken a very dim view on the concept of girlfags and guydykes. And just like yaoi fangirls, it's the girls who are like this who get more negative attention and flack for it than the boys. I would put quotes/links up here too, but it's too easy to find the negative stuff, I wouldn't know where to start.

So, for the people who do think this is a legitimate genderqueer identity - what does this actually mean in relation to gender and sexuality? Because just looking at the concept, it's actually really interesting when you really look deeply at it. The questions and ideas this immediately raises in my mind:

  1. It shows that gender and sexuality CAN logically be blurred on occasion to create new identities. In the case of girlfags, it takes a male gender identity (and whether that's a transmale identity or a genderqueer one is down to the individual) and it mixes it with consistent androphilia (attraction to men) which, in the case of genderqueer individuals, applies to their entire gender. For some girlfags, it's mostly about gender instead of attraction preferences, while for others gender has nothing to do with it - and it's quite interesting to see how the two things can blend together.
  2. The idea of "being attracted to gay men" is thrown in the spotlight (and is often a cause for further criticism, as mentioned above) - what does it mean, to have such a preference? Is it so different to liking chubby people, or muscled men? On a personal level, in explaining what "being attracted to gay and bi men" means - there's something quite comfortable and attractive in being able to talk to a man who has the courage to not only be honest with his sexuality, but to also express an interest in things that are considered to be outside his gender. That's not to say that all gay or bi men are effeminate camp guys - but it's just nice to see guys who are so brutally honest about themselves, their lives and their interests, whilst not giving two shits about what society thinks of them. Personally, I am also attracted to androgynous things in both men and women - again, while gay/bi men aren't necessarily more effeminate than straight ones, my personal experience has found that they at least tend to be more honest about the androgynous qualities they have. But then, that's just me - I'm sure someone else would tell you something different.
  3. It brings up the point - what is it to feel "male" or "female"? If that male identity happens to share a lot in common with your female identity, then how do you notice the difference, and how does it work?
  4. Is it objectifying to be attracted to any one type of person or relationship model? What is it that makes it move from being mere admiration to objectification?
  5. The concept highlights something that should be considered more, but isn't - the idea that you don't need to feel body dysphoria to have a gender identity that isn't entirely cisgendered. I'd been told so many times that you need to be uncomfortable in your body to be non-cis that I tried to shut down any attempt my brain made to question my own gender, and even now there's a part of me that tells me that I should stop questioning because I'm happy in a female body and I at least partially identify as female.
  6. How would a person express such an identity? On the outside, they would appear to be cisgendered and heterosexual men or women, especially if they don't identify as being trans and they don't intend to transition. This brings up the idea that genderqueer identities are often quite difficult to express in what the person feels is the "proper" way. And how would this affect heterosexual relationships with individuals who aren't primarily homosexual?
  7. Doing research, while one of the main drawbacks of this identity is the cold hard fact that gay individuals will most likely not be interested in you, I did find "Meet up" pages for gay men and women who wanted to meet and try dating girlfags or guydykes - so it does appear that there are some gay men and lesbian women out there who not only accept the concept, but actively want to seek it. What does this actually mean in terms of sexuality? Would such relationships be considered straight, or would they still be queer? Knowing that your opposite sex partner at least partially identifies as the same sex you, does this make the relationship a homosexual one from the perspective of the gay partner, or do they end up being relationships where they see it as a straight relationship but they don't care?
  8. One part of the identity for some people is a desire to "love men (or women) the way a man (or woman) would". What does this say about ideas on sex or romantic expression? If I were to try and love a man "like a man would do", what would I have to do differently? I don't see this idea as a possible negative, by the way - on a basic level, it would make people more open to sexual practices that they may have thought could only be done by the opposite gender, or social behaviours and attitudes towards romance that are expected of the other gender.
  9. A lot of the criticisms of the concept reek an awful lot of identity policing. Like, "you can't identify as this because I personally don't agree with it." And these criticisms aren't casual "I don't think this exists" dismissals - they're often full blown "These people are disgusting, they should be ashamed of themselves and I hope they all burn in hell" type rants. Some of them dismiss the concept of non-binary gender identity completely, and others maliciously put words into other people's mouths. So why does this identity get so much flack from people? Is it not extremely hurtful to people who have this identity to say that this identity is actually hurtful and malicious in nature? It highlights the fact that the queer community are not exempt from identity policing, and how there's a lot of vitriol aimed at anyone who isn't "queer enough" or seen as "trying to be queer".
  10. Could the term Girlfag possibly be renamed into something that sounds less offensive? Is it possible, now that the term is being used, to change it? What possible terms or phrases could be used to convey the same sort of meaning? The same thing applies to Guydykes, too, since that can be seen as an offensive term, but girlfags get hit with this criticism much harder. Does a name like this actually lower people's opinions of the concept, and would changing the name make it more accepted?

TL;DR: There are rather intelligent arguments to support the idea that Girlfags and Guydykes are a type of genderqueer identity and therefore can count as a valid genderqueer identity. There are lots of criticisms about the concept, which makes it pretty undiscussed. However, it has in my brain triggered lots of possible ideas and questions about gender and sexuality, which may or may not be interesting to talk about.

The main questions of this thread that are up for discussion: Do any of you think that it IS a valid identity? If not, why not? Are any of the above questions worth discussing/debating? Are any of the criticisms at all valid, or am I not the only on who thinks there's something distasteful about identity policing and claiming that people's identities are not only non-existent, but offensive? And could this ever be a full, visible part of any trans or genderqueer community without there being any criticisms?

...I'd go into the personal reasons I have to bringing this debate back up, but you know what, I'm not going to. I know what might happen if I do. However, I am still interested in seeing an intellectual discussion of it, mmmkay? Because it's not a concept that's talked about at all, and when it is people are quick to criticise it. So yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JAKQ7111

Hmmm...this is an interesting concept indeed. I wouldn't go so far as to shut down the possibility of girlfag and guydyke as legitimate genderqueer identities. As a genderqueer person myself whose experiences with dysphoria are minimal at worst, I definitely agree with point 5 on your list. To quote Zinnia Jones:

It’s not always a burning red arrow of constant agony pointing you directly to another gender. I spent a long time doubting that I could really be trans, because for me, it wasn’t like this at all.

Also, point 9 hits close to home with me, and I take a very firm stance against identity policing in the slightest. A healthy skepticism about some more "outlandish" identities is fine, and asking questions framed to understand is the way I approach said skepticism, but people should not go around and outright deny/undermine the experiences of said people, be they girlfags, guydykes, whatever, just because they seem "a bit weird" or "trying to be queer".

On the other hand, I do find the "guydyke" concept somehow similar to "girl on girl is hot" fantasies that many straight guys somehow have, albeit less outright perverted, and more genuine, perhaps. Conversely, "girlfag" concepts not only remind me of the extreme yaoi fantasies that many straight girls have, but also combined with the "fag hag" or "gay best friend" thing, which greatly annoys me, not only as a trans* person, but also an asexual, but that's a rant for another day (I may make a topic about that at some point).

I guess I can see both sides of the argument, but I would not stop anyone who identifies as girlfag or guydyke from doing so, as long as they don't cause any harm to themselves or others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

...And then you hear what the rest of the internet has to say about it. HOO BOY.

I mean, I've already found out the hard way that even MENTIONING this concept, let alone trying to identify with it (as I tried to do) is pretty much just asking for trouble.

Not much has changed in 15 years and I suspect it won't for another generation or two or three. It has to do with a territorialism created out of the fact that for the vast majority of people, biology is destiny and sex and gender are inextricably linked.

I've often thought that it helps to think of the concept of genderqueer as being the final frontier--- to boldly go there is to be a little too queer. Transgress, and they'll circle the wagons to keep *you* out.

Funny side note about something that happened today: I didn't have to work today, so I was out scouting for materials for a project. I'm in blue jeans and a pocket T-shirt and bopped into a burger joint in the afternoon to get something to eat. As often happens, "May I help you ma'am?" Depending on my mood, I'll pitch my voice up and down and tailor the modulation to sound either male or female. I don't even have to think about it anymore, I can do either on the spur of the moment. Today I went for female, and got 'Sir" in a somewhat negative connotation when my food was delivered. Had I went to a deeper voice in a monotone, I probably would have received an apology.

It's really pretty easy to push the buttons of many cisgendered people. One just has to be ready for the results, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bye Bye Birdy

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CDSM

[*]One part of the identity for some people is a desire to "love men (or women) the way a man (or woman) would". What does this say about ideas on sex or romantic expression? If I were to try and love a man "like a man would do", what would I have to do differently? I don't see this idea as a possible negative, by the way - on a basic level, it would make people more open to sexual practices that they may have thought could only be done by the opposite gender, or social behaviours and attitudes towards romance that are expected of the other gender.

See... this is me right here. I've realized lately that a lot of what I thought was a lack of desire to have sex, was closer to a lack of desire to have sex in a male body. Along with a lot of other gendery issues that have been on my mind.

...I'd go into the personal reasons I have to bringing this debate back up, but you know what, I'm not going to. I know what might happen if I do. However, I am still interested in seeing an intellectual discussion of it, mmmkay? Because it's not a concept that's talked about at all, and when it is people are quick to criticise it. So yeah.

You know you can always talk to me about stuff, if you're worried about bringing it up in public and being judged or anything. ^^

On the other hand, I do find the "guydyke" concept somehow similar to "girl on girl is hot" fantasies that many straight guys somehow have, albeit less outright perverted, and more genuine, perhaps. Conversely, "girlfag" concepts not only remind me of the extreme yaoi fantasies that many straight girls have, but also combined with the "fag hag" or "gay best friend" thing, which greatly annoys me, not only as a trans* person, but also an asexual, but that's a rant for another day (I may make a topic about that at some point).

I guess I can see both sides of the argument, but I would not stop anyone who identifies as girlfag or guydyke from doing so, as long as they don't cause any harm to themselves or others.

This is the thing about "girl on girl is hot", is, they don't actually like watching lesbians, they want two girls that will sexy each other up, and then they want to be able to jump in there and bang them both as a man. So it's not REALLY the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UraNepu

sexuality is so different for human to human, so girlfags/guydykes are totally possible and no one has the right to say to people who identify as such that they are not.

I have brought the whole "I'm a girlfag" concert up to my two gay friends, they never felt the least offended by it, and found it pretty much possible. (one of them still teases me about it and tells me stuff like "get your strap on and take me" :lol: )

from the precious discussion also I realized that those who were offended by the term were mostly non-gays :blink:

Sure there could have been a different term that didn't use a derogatory word but then again what would describe it better.

and when a "boylesbian" or "lesbianboy" might work for a guydyke, a "girlgay" or "gaygirl" certainly doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azure.Providence

On the other hand, I do find the "guydyke" concept somehow similar to "girl on girl is hot" fantasies that many straight guys somehow have, albeit less outright perverted, and more genuine, perhaps. Conversely, "girlfag" concepts not only remind me of the extreme yaoi fantasies that many straight girls have, but also combined with the "fag hag" or "gay best friend" thing, which greatly annoys me, not only as a trans* person, but also an asexual, but that's a rant for another day (I may make a topic about that at some point).

I guess I can see both sides of the argument, but I would not stop anyone who identifies as girlfag or guydyke from doing so, as long as they don't cause any harm to themselves or others.

This is the thing about "girl on girl is hot", is, they don't actually like watching lesbians, they want two girls that will sexy each other up, and then they want to be able to jump in there and bang them both as a man. So it's not REALLY the same thing.

Yeah, I agree its not the same thing. The reason alot of guys watch lesbian porn is because they dont have to look at man-ass. That is not quite the same as appreciating lesbians as an identity.

I also don't see what is so offensive about 'girlfag'. Its short, fun, and conveys a specific meaning--which is all good. People just get all uptight about the word 'fag' being thrown around. The word can be offensive in certain contexts like , for example, whenever a member of the Westboro Baptist Church says the word but if the word isn't being used in an offensive context then whats the harm? Being called a 'man' can be offensive in certain contexts as well but that doesn't make 'man' a bad word--so why is 'fag' singled out?

I've been reading The Ethical Slut and they mention girlfags in their book in a positive way. They didn't focus so much on "man-on man-is-hot" but more on gay culture and how gay men interact with each other in a sexual context that we all could learn lessons from.

@Great Thief Yatagarasu

I won't judge if you feel like going into your personal reasons for bringing this up. You can PM me too if you like.

It really sucks you are getting backlash for being a girlfag but thats a problem with the queer community and not girlfags. Just like some people experience bi-phobia or people who think anyone who isn't bisexual is lying/repressed/a victim of social conditioning. Its an unfortunate human condition to circle the wagons whenever something is different from their world view--even within communities that have experienced marginalization and hatred as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

And it came to pass, they gathered in the desert and built a Tower of Babel, saying, "Let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

But Sex saw that this allowed them to become One, to be one people with one language and one will. So Sex said, "Come, let us go down and confound their speech, so that there may be conflict that will drive them out from behind their great city walls."

And so driven out, they went out into the desert and built treehouses. And Sex saw that this was good, that Sex was once again the Alpha and the Omega and that those who have forsaken Sex would always be barren wanderers in the desert whose language and gender none will understand. For verily, it is written, if one wants to visit the treehouses of the Children of Sex, one must do exactly This and Think exactly That or they shall never have the Understanding that Passeth All Peace.

Amen.

Your mileage may vary. This post may contain thoughts that are prohibited by laws in your Treehouse. Nature reserves the right to make certain exceptions about Gender. Certain Exclusions may apply in your Treehouse. Tax, Tags and Title extra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

On the other hand, I do find the "guydyke" concept somehow similar to "girl on girl is hot" fantasies that many straight guys somehow have, albeit less outright perverted, and more genuine, perhaps. Conversely, "girlfag" concepts not only remind me of the extreme yaoi fantasies that many straight girls have, but also combined with the "fag hag" or "gay best friend" thing, which greatly annoys me, not only as a trans* person, but also an asexual, but that's a rant for another day (I may make a topic about that at some point).

I guess I can see both sides of the argument, but I would not stop anyone who identifies as girlfag or guydyke from doing so, as long as they don't cause any harm to themselves or others.

This is the thing about "girl on girl is hot", is, they don't actually like watching lesbians, they want two girls that will sexy each other up, and then they want to be able to jump in there and bang them both as a man. So it's not REALLY the same thing.

Yeah, I agree its not the same thing. The reason alot of guys watch lesbian porn is because they dont have to look at man-ass. That is not quite the same as appreciating lesbians as an identity.

I also don't see what is so offensive about 'girlfag'. Its short, fun, and conveys a specific meaning--which is all good. People just get all uptight about the word 'fag' being thrown around. The word can be offensive in certain contexts like , for example, whenever a member of the Westboro Baptist Church says the word but if the word isn't being used in an offensive context then whats the harm? Being called a 'man' can be offensive in certain contexts as well but that doesn't make 'man' a bad word--so why is 'fag' singled out?

I've been reading The Ethical Slut and they mention girlfags in their book in a positive way. They didn't focus so much on "man-on man-is-hot" but more on gay culture and how gay men interact with each other in a sexual context that we all could learn lessons from.

@Great Thief Yatagarasu

I won't judge if you feel like going into your personal reasons for bringing this up. You can PM me too if you like.

It really sucks you are getting backlash for being a girlfag but thats a problem with the queer community and not girlfags. Just like some people experience bi-phobia or people who think anyone who isn't bisexual is lying/repressed/a victim of social conditioning. Its an unfortunate human condition to circle the wagons whenever something is different from their world view--even within communities that have experienced marginalization and hatred as well.

I think with a lot of blokes, the logic is "1 hot girl + 1 hot girl = 2X the hotness". I remember hearing a guy explain it like "let's say you had a puppy, and it's adorable. Now, let's say that you had TWO puppies, and they're both rolling around and licking each others faces and isn't that even cuter than just one puppy on it's own? That's why guys like lesbians." And it's usually with the expectation that the girls will be lesbians...as long as it's convenient for him, while still expecting them to be straight for the blokes when called for.

I don't think Guydykes and Girlfags are like this at all. On a personal level, I never stoop to the level of objectifying other people. Admiring them, yes - but the qualities that I admire about them aren't their entire being, are they? And I keep that in mind, that they're this entire person that I don't know about and that my admiration is only okay as long as I keep that in mind. The same goes for any person I consider attractive, really. I think a person may admire someone else, and even admire the kind of relationship they have, without losing sight of the fact that they're complete human beings with more to them than just their looks or their relationships. Does that make any sense?

One of the problems is that a lot of girlfags are indeed yaoi fangirls. It's really easy to see how the two things overlap, really. I'll be honest, though, there's a big difference between writing yaoi stories about fictional characters who aren't real existing people, and taking the exact same attitude towards real people. For a lot of people, either completely heterosexual girls or girlfags, writing slash is a safe way of exploring these feelings in a way that doesn't hurt or objectify any real people. Yes, some yaoi fangirls are really fucking annoying (most of the time, it's because they're quite young and aren't mature enough to properly handle just what it is they're writing and drawing - I'll be honest, I went through a phase like that, and I'd like to think that I'm definitely not like that anymore), but even if you're a yaoi fangirl, most yaoi fangirls wouldn't fangirl over real couples the way they would over fictional ships. There's a difference between fantasy and reality, and I think a lot of them understand that.

...I do think I have to discuss the personal things behind this topic, not because I have to, but because I can't discuss it without it becoming personal and subjective anyway. Yeah, the first topic I made on this, I kind of went in like a bull in a china shop, with no real thought given to how I was going to say it or what exactly people would think about it - or, in my continuing phase of questioning, if it was really something I identified with. I didn't really understand the concept of being genderqueer - I thought if a person was androgynous, then it must be a 50/50 split, that if a person didn't feel dysphoria or discomfort then they must be cis, and other things that made the whole thing very difficult to explain on my part or elaborate on. I put the matter to bed in my mind because of the massive negative reaction I got the first time around, and it's only when I cleared up the facts in my head and began questioning again that I revisited the concept. Practically every time I've questioned my identity, I always quickly stepped down for one reason or another, the main reason being that idea of "no dysphoria = cisgendered", and I'd always reason that I was being silly, that I should be happy at the fact that I'm mostly female anyway. Mostly. It's not the full picture, and I'm starting to think that there's some gender fluidity going on here with me too - a lot of the time I feel quite neutral, other times I'm definitely a woman and other times I feel like...well, this. This topic. So while I'm still questioning, and while I'm still trying out this inclusive label of genderqueer, I do think that being a girlfag is a part of my identity, and a rather large one at that - it's the kind of thing where, should a friend read it, they'd make the link between it and me immediately. But the reactions I got from the last topic, combined with the other negative reactions I've seen about the concept, still make me quite wary about using it. I know I shouldn't be so wary about it, but here's the thing: I don't like offending people. And if my identity happens to offend people, then fuck if I'm going to mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

On the other hand, I do find the "guydyke" concept somehow similar to "girl on girl is hot" fantasies that many straight guys somehow have, albeit less outright perverted, and more genuine, perhaps.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument, but I would not stop anyone who identifies as girlfag or guydyke from doing so, as long as they don't cause any harm to themselves or others.

Yes. This really, really bothers me. Guys being into girl-on-girl fantasies does sometimes make me extremely uncomfortable. It can make me feel objectified, like, my sexuality(/romantic orientation) isn't for you and your fantasies...you know? That's my gut reaction. Is it reasonable, is it fair? I'm not sure.

Then again, if there are lesbians who are open to dating so-called 'guydykes', more power to them. As long as I'm not pressured to be open to this as well, because I'm not.

I think anyone who identifies as "feeling partly like a gay man trapped in a woman's body/lesbian trapped in a man's body" and is NOT trans, doesn't share the same definition of gay or lesbian that I'm using! There might be a lack of understanding on my part here. What is the basis of this identity, and what distinguishes a "girlfag" from a straight girl who gets crushes on gay guys? Or a gay transman?

I remember the last thread on this subject. I admit my initial emotional reaction was one of outrage, but I kept that to myself and tried to be calm and rational as possible--just ask questions and come to a better understanding. I think I did. I'm still at the point of being skeptical/wary.

As for whether or not it's "queer"...well, my thoughts on that term are as follows: anyone who wants to call themselves queer will find some reason for doing so.

That was a little ramble-y. Hope it all makes sense, though.

Edit: Ah! One thing I definitely agree with you on--it's total bullshit that girls are condemned for this while guys get off relatively easy. If anything, one has to be intellectually consistent. Either they're both equally acceptable or equally questionable.

I agree with all this.

On a personal level, I never stoop to the level of objectifying other people. Admiring them, yes - but the qualities that I admire about them aren't their entire being, are they? And I keep that in mind, that they're this entire person that I don't know about and that my admiration is only okay as long as I keep that in mind. The same goes for any person I consider attractive, really. I think a person may admire someone else, and even admire the kind of relationship they have, without losing sight of the fact that they're complete human beings with more to them than just their looks or their relationships. Does that make any sense?

With all due respect, people who objectify don't think they're objectifying. My friend who loves lesbians TOTALLY objectifies lesbians. The evidence is in the fact that he loves lesbians. Because, you see, lesbians are just women... we come in a variety of shapes and sizes and opinions and politics. The ONLY similar quality amongst lesbians is that they are lesbians. Therefore, if someone is partial to lesbians, they are de facto objectifying them. Calling oneself a lesbian trapped in a woman's body just makes the objectification more offensive, not less. Not only are guydykes objectifying us but they're also claiming to know what it's like to be us. But they don't know what it's like to be us, because if they did, they'd be offended by their own objectification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CDSM

Yes. This really, really bothers me. Guys being into girl-on-girl fantasies does sometimes make me extremely uncomfortable. It can make me feel objectified, like, my sexuality(/romantic orientation) isn't for you and your fantasies...you know? That's my gut reaction. Is it reasonable, is it fair? I'm not sure.

Is it that you feel like guys being in girl-on-girl fantasies means it's like they see female/female sexuality exists solely as a vessel to turn them on, and then shuffle back in their sexuality? Because, I mean, you're totally right in that I think a lot of male fantasies are about watching to girls get it on, so you can then fantasize about coming into the scene and then having them have a threesome with you. So I understand that. It's an extension of the usual "men objectifying women" thing.

But like... my other question for you is... how would this be distinguished from fantasizing about any kind of romantic/sexual relationship? Do you think things like porn, fantasies, romance novels, always objectify the things portrayed within?

I think anyone who identifies as "feeling partly like a gay man trapped in a woman's body/lesbian trapped in a man's body" and is NOT trans, doesn't share the same definition of gay or lesbian that I'm using! There might be a lack of understanding on my part here. What is the basis of this identity, and what distinguishes a "girlfag" from a straight girl who gets crushes on gay guys? Or a gay transman?

I think the difference between a "girlfag" and a straight girl getting a crush on a gay guy, is that the straight girl wishes the gay guy was straight so they could have a heterosexual relationship, whereas the "girlfag" wishes she had a penis so she could have gay sex with the gay guy.

How this differentiates from transman, I'm not sure, but it might be that the girl identifies as a girl and wishes to present as such, and only wishes to be a male for the purposes of having sex with other men?

That's the impression I get of the concept and it makes sense to me.

I mean, they obviously aren't trans. But it depends on where you stand on issues like genderqueer, because I think that's where this ties together.

As for whether or not it's "queer"...well, my thoughts on that term are as follows: anyone who wants to call themselves queer will find some reason for doing so.

I think can tie legitimately into a genderqueer/genderfluid identity, if they do indeed feel that way. I think girls that just like gay guys as a fetish or something shouldn't count as queer because they are just straight with a fetish for watching gay porn.

With all due respect, people who objectify don't think they're objectifying. My friend who loves lesbians TOTALLY objectifies lesbians. The evidence is in the fact that he loves lesbians. Because, you see, lesbians are just women... we come in a variety of shapes and sizes and opinions and politics. The ONLY similar quality amongst lesbians is that they are lesbians. Therefore, if someone is partial to lesbians, they are de facto objectifying them. Calling oneself a lesbian trapped in a woman's body just makes the objectification more offensive, not less. Not only are guydykes objectifying us but they're also claiming to know what it's like to be us. But they don't know what it's like to be us, because if they did, they'd be offended by their own objectification.

Right. Like, if he's like, "Oh, you're a lesbian? Cool!" and wouldn't have looked at that person twice if it weren't for that. That's totally objectification.

And in Yata's defense, I don't think she objectifies anybody, and doesn't fetishize gay men. I think she just has an interest in taking a male role in having sex with men she is attracted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Yes, I do see the distinction between "I want to have straight sex with lesbians as a man" and "I want to have lesbian sex with lesbians"... the problem is, since girlfags and guydykes aren't trans, what they are actually says is "I am a man who wants to have lesbian sex with lesbians as a man". I really don't see how that is any different from every other straight guy who digs lesbians, except this one found a clever way to conceive of it. I'm sure if you asked most pervy straight dudes if they'd be OK identifying as a lesbian in order to fuck one, they'd all say "HELLS YES".

With all due respect, people who objectify don't think they're objectifying. My friend who loves lesbians TOTALLY objectifies lesbians. The evidence is in the fact that he loves lesbians. Because, you see, lesbians are just women... we come in a variety of shapes and sizes and opinions and politics. The ONLY similar quality amongst lesbians is that they are lesbians. Therefore, if someone is partial to lesbians, they are de facto objectifying them. Calling oneself a lesbian trapped in a woman's body just makes the objectification more offensive, not less. Not only are guydykes objectifying us but they're also claiming to know what it's like to be us. But they don't know what it's like to be us, because if they did, they'd be offended by their own objectification.

Right. Like, if he's like, "Oh, you're a lesbian? Cool!" and wouldn't have looked at that person twice if it weren't for that. That's totally objectification.

Exactly. If their status as gay or lesbian or queer or whatever is what attracts you, that's a fetish, a kink... regardless, it most certainly is objectification.

And in Yata's defense, I don't think she objectifies anybody, and doesn't fetishize gay men. I think she just has an interest in taking a male role in having sex with men she is attracted to.

And I understand that, I do. But women pegging their boyfriends isn't the same thing as two homosexual men having sex, and I just don't see why we think identity terms like "girlfag" should be instituted when all they do is describe some specific sexual proclivities. I mean, I'm a lesbian, but I'm the kind of lesbian who likes strap-ons, which differentiates me greatly from lesbians who are adverse to any form of penetration. But I don't think me and the non-penetrative lesbian need different identity terms. We can both be lesbians because we're both women who sleep with women, and how we choose to sleep with them needn't be labeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

On the other hand, I do find the "guydyke" concept somehow similar to "girl on girl is hot" fantasies that many straight guys somehow have, albeit less outright perverted, and more genuine, perhaps.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument, but I would not stop anyone who identifies as girlfag or guydyke from doing so, as long as they don't cause any harm to themselves or others.

Yes. This really, really bothers me. Guys being into girl-on-girl fantasies does sometimes make me extremely uncomfortable. It can make me feel objectified, like, my sexuality(/romantic orientation) isn't for you and your fantasies...you know? That's my gut reaction. Is it reasonable, is it fair? I'm not sure.

Then again, if there are lesbians who are open to dating so-called 'guydykes', more power to them. As long as I'm not pressured to be open to this as well, because I'm not.

I think anyone who identifies as "feeling partly like a gay man trapped in a woman's body/lesbian trapped in a man's body" and is NOT trans, doesn't share the same definition of gay or lesbian that I'm using! There might be a lack of understanding on my part here. What is the basis of this identity, and what distinguishes a "girlfag" from a straight girl who gets crushes on gay guys? Or a gay transman?

I remember the last thread on this subject. I admit my initial emotional reaction was one of outrage, but I kept that to myself and tried to be calm and rational as possible--just ask questions and come to a better understanding. I think I did. I'm still at the point of being skeptical/wary.

As for whether or not it's "queer"...well, my thoughts on that term are as follows: anyone who wants to call themselves queer will find some reason for doing so.

That was a little ramble-y. Hope it all makes sense, though.

Edit: Ah! One thing I definitely agree with you on--it's total bullshit that girls are condemned for this while guys get off relatively easy. If anything, one has to be intellectually consistent. Either they're both equally acceptable or equally questionable.

I agree with all this.

On a personal level, I never stoop to the level of objectifying other people. Admiring them, yes - but the qualities that I admire about them aren't their entire being, are they? And I keep that in mind, that they're this entire person that I don't know about and that my admiration is only okay as long as I keep that in mind. The same goes for any person I consider attractive, really. I think a person may admire someone else, and even admire the kind of relationship they have, without losing sight of the fact that they're complete human beings with more to them than just their looks or their relationships. Does that make any sense?

With all due respect, people who objectify don't think they're objectifying. My friend who loves lesbians TOTALLY objectifies lesbians. The evidence is in the fact that he loves lesbians. Because, you see, lesbians are just women... we come in a variety of shapes and sizes and opinions and politics. The ONLY similar quality amongst lesbians is that they are lesbians. Therefore, if someone is partial to lesbians, they are de facto objectifying them. Calling oneself a lesbian trapped in a woman's body just makes the objectification more offensive, not less. Not only are guydykes objectifying us but they're also claiming to know what it's like to be us. But they don't know what it's like to be us, because if they did, they'd be offended by their own objectification.

Okay then, I'll bite - what about people who like fat people, or people who like intellectual people, or people who like nerdy people? Or, fuck it - people who like WOMEN as a whole? Surely, if I were to say "I'm a woman who likes men" - nothing else added, just "likes men" - surely I'm objectifying those men because they're humans and humans come in a variety of different shapes and sizes and opinions and politics? The only thing that separates them from women, in that regard, is that they look different. Does that mean that I am objectifying men by being attracted to them? No, I am not. You're a lesbian, and you like women - does that mean that you're objectifying women because you happen to find them attractive? I doubt you'd say yes to that. I've heard a lot of other girlfags/guydykes say that when they're usually attracted to people, it's because of the person that they are instead of other factors - in these cases, the object of their attraction being queer is simply "a plus", just like being handsome or rich or interested in specific things would be seen by some people as being a plus. When it comes to who people are attracted to, it's safe to say that most people have qualities that will immediately attract them to someone - a lot of the time, I'm attracted to guys who happen to like anime or sci-fi or other nerdy things, it's a trait that makes me go "oh, you like these things? DO TELL." That's my type, generally - nerdy. And let's be honest, the same goes for most people - most people have their own "types" who they're attracted to. I don't think liking specific traits in other people is inherently objectifying - using my "nerdy interests" example, it would be objectifying if I were to purely think "nerdy guy" instead of "this guy who likes nerdy things but also has a whole range of other qualities". That's what I've been trying to get at here. There's a difference between admiring and objectifying, and the difference is whether you remember that they're a human being with feelings or not. There probably are girlfags/guydykes who are exactly as you've described, but at the same times there are probably plenty who aren't.

And again, I love how you're completely denying the idea that genderqueer people exist. Yes, some girlfags/guydykes are not genderqueer in this regard, but some of them are, and it's kind of hurtful to go "not only does your identity not exist, but I find the idea to be offensive". On a personal level - no, I cannot claim to know what life is like for gay men, because that's not what I physically am, nor is it the social sphere I've been brought up in. But at the same time, when I do feel like a man (which does happen, among other things), I'm still aware of the fact that I'm attracted to men - so, what else does that make me? When I feel like my romantic attractions and my gender are closely linked, then what would you rather call me? I am FAAB and genderqueer - sometimes as a woman, sometimes agendered and occasionally male - I like men even when I'm male, and I have an interest in "queer media" and men who subvert gender roles and expectations (who, in my experience, often turn out to be gay or bisexual - see below for details). What other term is there that can sum all of that up? This kind of reaction is exactly why I'm not coming out as being genderqueer any time soon, because I know people would ask for details if I do.

Using your own example - why does your friend like lesbians? Is it purely because he finds the idea of girls making out to be sexy? Is it just a "plus" for him that makes an already attractive woman slightly more so? Or does he somehow think that lesbian/bi women would be sexual with other women for his amusement? Because I want to know what you're trying to compare me with, and whether that's a fair comparison to me and other people who would use this label. As I mentioned above, I just happen to like guys who are honest about themselves and honest about the fact that their interests and behaviours fall outside their gender norms, or cultural norms as a whole, while not caring that they do so. That's an incredibly attractive quality in a person...and the people who express it, in my own personal experience, have tended to be gay or bisexual, or the kind of guys who people think are straight but still set off loads of gaydars. Or massive, huge nerds (some of the guys I like have been both of these things). I'd like to think that that's a bit different and less skeevy than "gay dudes are sexy because they make out with other dudes".

You're likely not going to listen to me, nor are you likely to take my explanations of the genderqueer aspects of this seriously (I've seen how you've reacted to some transpeople on this site, so yeah, I have no doubts that you're not going to believe me), but just be aware that for me and for other people who are like this, it's not just a case of "lesbians are hot", it can be more than that. On a deeply personal level, it's nothing like what you've assumed it is. You're likely going to keep assuming the things you've assumed, and nothing I'm going to say will change that - but you know what, that's your opinion. I've had to bring in personal feelings just to get some of these ideas across, but I still want this to be an intellectual and civil debate. But seriously, prove me wrong. You can do that - just don't insult me to my face when you do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CDSM

Yes, I do see the distinction between "I want to have straight sex with lesbians as a man" and "I want to have lesbian sex with lesbians"... the problem is, since girlfags and guydykes aren't trans, what they are actually says is "I am a man who wants to have lesbian sex with lesbians as a man". I really don't see how that is any different from every other straight guy who digs lesbians, except this one found a clever way to conceive of it. I'm sure if you asked most pervy straight dudes if they'd be OK identifying as a lesbian in order to fuck one, they'd all say "HELLS YES".

Yeah. I can understand why you would automatically think that.

"I'm a lesbian, that means it's okay for me to put my penis in you!"

That's ridiculous.

Exactly. If their status as gay or lesbian or queer or whatever is what attracts you, that's a fetish, a kink... regardless, it most certainly is objectification.

Confession: I objectify redheads. >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

I've heard a lot of other girlfags/guydykes say that when they're usually attracted to people, it's because of the person that they are instead of other factors - in these cases, the object of their attraction being queer is simply "a plus", just like being handsome or rich or interested in specific things would be seen by some people as being a plus. When it comes to who people are attracted to, it's safe to say that most people have qualities that will immediately attract them to someone - a lot of the time, I'm attracted to guys who happen to like anime or sci-fi or other nerdy things, it's a trait that makes me go "oh, you like these things? DO TELL."

If a guy being gay is simply a plus, there would be no need to call yourself a girlfag. You're focusing on it... it is, in fact, the crux of this new identity. Therefore I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that their homosexuality isn't important. It isn't just important, it's a requirement. Which leads to the question of why that requirement is offensive. Again, the reason it's offensive is because being gay has no traits associated with it except for wanting to fuck other men. And you're not a man. So you are exoticising a trait that has nothing to do with you. It's no different than men who like lesbians. Men who like lesbians, like my friend, don't say "dude lesbians are so hot!". They say things like "I just love how women relate to each other. I just wish I could relate to women like they relate to each other. Women are so soft and kind and wonderful and beautiful and I just want to be a part of it". Well fuck that. Women dating women is no different than women dating men. Men dating men is no different than men dating women. I've dated all three genders and I can say with absolute certainty that people are people... there is nothing magical about lesbian relationships, there's nothing strong and secure about gay male relationships, etc. They're all the same. The only difference is the genders of the people participating. So for you to say that you like that a man is gay means that you think there's something special or magical or different or wonderful about a gay relationship that doesn't exist in a straight relationship. You're exoticising something that you are not a part of. It's like if I said I wish I was black because I just love how wonderfully close black families are. Um, there's nothing stopping a white family from being close either. Whatever it is about a gay dude that you like, the same qualities exist in straight dudes.

You know what that's different from liking someone who's into anime? Because you're into anime too, and that's something you share, and their enjoyment of something that gives you enjoyment is a genuine benefit to your relationship and it will make it more likely that you'll connect. Finding someone who matches your interests isn't objectification. Placing all kinds of qualities onto homosexuality that don't actually relate to homosexuality... that's a whole different ball of wax. We have spent so fucking many years teaching people that gays are absolutely no different than straights. WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU. We just like to bang the same sex. So for you to prefer gay men just because they're gay... do you not see why that's a problem??

Again, if being gay isn't what you're interested in, but rather effeminate men or gender neutral men, OK. Those things aren't the same as gay, so please stop using "gay" as a proxy for effeminate or gender neutral. If you like straight effeminate men or gender neutral men who like to sleep with women, but you want to take on a male role sometimes during sex, that's just a bit kinky. That makes you a woman who likes to take on the role of a man sometimes during sex.

My issue with the term, therefore, is twofold. One, it makes it clear that the woman in question has as a NECESSARY quality for attraction the homosexuality of the man. But that's bullshit, since homosexuality isn't a quality that extends to anything other than having sex with other men. There is nothing better or special or different or awesome about man-to-man relationships, just like there's nothing more beautiful and pure and soft and psychic and earth-connected about woman-to-woman relationships. these are messed up stereotypes, and they are messed up stereotypes we've spent a lot of time trying to diffuse.

Two, there's an attempt to co-opt an identity and I always find that offensive. A girl who wants to take on a male role during sex is not the same creature as a man who has sex with men. Very little about the situation is the same. So why co-opt the identity of a homosexual male? I understand that being a straight woman may seem boring. But that's a problem with culture, and it is a problem that you, quite honestly, are exacerbating. We need to make being yourself cool again. I just don't see the benefit of throwing around a term like "girlfag"... which essentially says "I'm a gay man living happily in a woman's body"... since gay men WOULDN'T be happy living in a woman's body. Between the two groups... happy, out, homosexual men, and happy straight women who like to peg their boyfriends, who do you think you have more in common with?

And again, I love how you're completely denying the idea that genderqueer people exist. Yes, some girlfags/guydykes are not genderqueer in this regard, but some of them are, and it's kind of hurtful to go "not only does your identity not exist, but I find the idea to be offensive".

When did I say genderqueer doesn't exist?

I don't find your feelings offensive, I find all the bullshit you've constructed around your feelings to be offensive. You like to take on male roles. Awesome. So do about a gazillion other women. That does not make you a gay man. And gay men, gay relationships, etc, are not different in any way to straight relationships, so I do find your idealizing of something that you'll never experience to be extremely offensive. So those are the two things I object to... suggesting that you are in some way similar in identity to a gay man, and the idealizing of gay relationships. Your actual feelings of wanting to take on male roles with men I have absolutely no issue with.

Using your own example - why does your friend like lesbians? Is it purely because he finds the idea of girls making out to be sexy? Is it just a "plus" for him that makes an already attractive woman slightly more so? Or does he somehow think that lesbian/bi women would be sexual with other women for his amusement? Because I want to know what you're trying to compare me with, and whether that's a fair comparison to me and other people who would use this label.

Because he thinks that women are amazing and beautiful and in touch with the earth and the spirit mother and he wishes he could be a lesbian so he can experience how wonderful it is for two women to be together. His penis really doesn't enter into the equation.

And that's all bullshit. It's a disgusting male-centric view of femininity and lesbianism. Dating women is just as big a pain in the ass as dating men... it is not spiritual or magical or better in any way. It's better for me because I'm a lesbian, but it's not objectively better, and I'd go so far as to say it's not even subjectively better. In other words, he idealizes something that he isn't a part of, and that's gross. And you know what else? He's my best friend and I love him dearly. I also... along with every other lesbian he talks to (including his sister) tells him he's full of shit.

You know how "nice" stereotypes are just as bad as the negative ones? The stereotype that Asians are all geniuses at math is fucked up, even if it's based in idolatry. Saying "You should get a Jew as an accountant" is just as bad as saying "you shouldn't hire a black dude because they're lazy".

You're likely not going to listen to me, nor are you likely to take my explanations of the genderqueer aspects of this seriously (I've seen how you've reacted to some transpeople on this site, so yeah, I have no doubts that you're not going to believe me)

I am really sick of this and I'm beginning to report people who baselessly accuse me of being anti-trans. Please quote me, and use exact quotations, to prove your point that I will not listen to you and that I am anti-trans. Go ahead, I'll wait. And if you don't, or can't, then I don't EVER WANT TO HEAR THIS ACCUSATION AGAIN FROM YOU. You hear me? It's one thing to engage in an argument. It's entirely another to accuse someone of an "ism" just because you think it strengthens your argument. I know that I'm not anti-trans. I have trans friends, I've dated trans people, I've done trans activism. SO BRING IT.

but just be aware that for me and for other people who are like this, it's not just a case of "lesbians are hot", it can be more than that. On a deeply personal level, it's nothing like what you've assumed it is.

I don't think that's what it is at all. I think it's the idealizing of something that you aren't a participant of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

Yes, I do see the distinction between "I want to have straight sex with lesbians as a man" and "I want to have lesbian sex with lesbians"... the problem is, since girlfags and guydykes aren't trans, what they are actually says is "I am a man who wants to have lesbian sex with lesbians as a man". I really don't see how that is any different from every other straight guy who digs lesbians, except this one found a clever way to conceive of it. I'm sure if you asked most pervy straight dudes if they'd be OK identifying as a lesbian in order to fuck one, they'd all say "HELLS YES".

With all due respect, people who objectify don't think they're objectifying. My friend who loves lesbians TOTALLY objectifies lesbians. The evidence is in the fact that he loves lesbians. Because, you see, lesbians are just women... we come in a variety of shapes and sizes and opinions and politics. The ONLY similar quality amongst lesbians is that they are lesbians. Therefore, if someone is partial to lesbians, they are de facto objectifying them. Calling oneself a lesbian trapped in a woman's body just makes the objectification more offensive, not less. Not only are guydykes objectifying us but they're also claiming to know what it's like to be us. But they don't know what it's like to be us, because if they did, they'd be offended by their own objectification.

Right. Like, if he's like, "Oh, you're a lesbian? Cool!" and wouldn't have looked at that person twice if it weren't for that. That's totally objectification.

Exactly. If their status as gay or lesbian or queer or whatever is what attracts you, that's a fetish, a kink... regardless, it most certainly is objectification.

And in Yata's defense, I don't think she objectifies anybody, and doesn't fetishize gay men. I think she just has an interest in taking a male role in having sex with men she is attracted to.

And I understand that, I do. But women pegging their boyfriends isn't the same thing as two homosexual men having sex, and I just don't see why we think identity terms like "girlfag" should be instituted when all they do is describe some specific sexual proclivities. I mean, I'm a lesbian, but I'm the kind of lesbian who likes strap-ons, which differentiates me greatly from lesbians who are adverse to any form of penetration. But I don't think me and the non-penetrative lesbian need different identity terms. We can both be lesbians because we're both women who sleep with women, and how we choose to sleep with them needn't be labeled.

I see your point on that top one, except that I doubt people who use this label would be quite that skeevy about it. However, I'm not sure you're right on that idea of "I'm sure if you asked pervy straight dudes about it, they'd say yes". Let's be honest, a man would NOT, in any way shape or form, admit to being even partly a woman in regards to his gender identity unless he were genuinely being honest about it, whether lesbian sex is involved or not. It would involve saying "I am partly a woman", which, sadly enough, would be seen as degrading and embarrassing by the people around them. I hate saying it, I really do, but it's still not okay in our society for men to be feminine, so admitting something like that would probably get them such a negative response that it would cancel out any positive things they gain from it. Plus (as has been proven here) claims of "I partly identify as a gay member of the opposite sex" is going to be met with disbelief for people who don't get the concept. It's not the kind of thing you say for shits and giggles, and if the person saying it really IS a straight guy who wants sex with a lesbian (mind, he's had to claim that he's part woman for this to possibly work), then he wouldn't get very far with his ploy.

On that note, I've seen a lot of people who use this label and then figure out that they're totally trans go "Well, this community's been great to be a part of, but I'm not a girlfag/guydyke anymore because I'm transitioning, see you later". Basically, people saying that the label was great while it fit them, but now they're more comfortable in a more obviously trans/genderqueer identity, they drop the label - seeing their logic, it's because the "girl" and "guy" parts of the label no longer agree with them. I did post a question on a genderqueer tumblr about it because I did get a bit stressed out about the whole thing (I hate the idea of offending people, especially when I don't intend to), and the one guy who responded said that he used to call himself a girlfag up until the "girl" part no longer applied to him - he acknowledged that it's quite the loaded term, especially if there aren't any gender issues involved, and basically said that if I didn't want to offend anyone, then a non-offensive way of wording it would be "bigender genderfluid (in my case) and androphilic". I'm actually going to stick a link here of the reply this guy gave, because it was really extensive, interesting and very detailed - he included links to a survey that he'd once done and everything (as to the way I worded the question, it was referring both to the first discussion I had about it and other things I've seen and read about it - so no, I wasn't trying to be passive-aggressive about it). I like the explanation of it that he gave, although I don't entirely know if bigender is an apt word for me - I'll have to think that one over a bit more. He pretty much answers a lot of the questions that most people would have on the subject, so yeah, it was fascinating to read.

Looking around, I've heard other girlfags claim that they like queer identified boys more because they find it easier to get along with them and talk to them about topics that they don't feel they can discuss with straight boys - personally, most of the queer people I know are lesbian/bisexual women and bisexual guys who I never realise are bi until I've known them for a few years, so I can't say that's my experience. But looking around, I've never seen a girlfag go "I like gay dudes because they shag other dudes". For a lot of them, it's the community spirit that they like because they feel "at home" in it (often feeling that they can't understand or get along with straight people of their gender) and for others, it's a genuine feeling of identifying as both a man and a woman. I've not really seen any girlfags or guydykes who have that "chaser" or yaoi fangirl attitude over it.

It's not, but you can argue that it's the closest you could get to it considering. While I'm not arguing that it's the only way to express things like this and that different practices need different identities, I think different sex acts have different meanings to different people. On the subject of pegging, some people view it as a submissive action on the man's part and therefore it's a D/s related activity. Some people don't, but that doesn't take away that meaning to the people who view it like this. It's not the only way I'd express these kinds of feelings, either - it's such a tricky thing that I think words are the only way I can do it justice, although crossdressing would work too. Nothing would please me more than if people still thought I was attractive whilst I'm sporting a breast binder, tied back hair, a top hat and a curly moustache. Since I don't think it's the kind of thing I'm willing to share with my boy (either right now or in the future), it's something I'd have to vent in other ways, although it's still the kind of thing I'd be interested in exploring, just to see what comes out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UraNepu

Yes, I do see the distinction between "I want to have straight sex with lesbians as a man" and "I want to have lesbian sex with lesbians"... the problem is, since girlfags and guydykes aren't trans, what they are actually says is "I am a man who wants to have lesbian sex with lesbians as a man". I really don't see how that is any different from every other straight guy who digs lesbians, except this one found a clever way to conceive of it. I'm sure if you asked most pervy straight dudes if they'd be OK identifying as a lesbian in order to fuck one, they'd all say "HELLS YES".

Yeah. I can understand why you would automatically think that.

"I'm a lesbian, that means it's okay for me to put my penis in you!"

That's ridiculous.

errr not really

under spoiler because of description of sexual practice

a guydyke doesn't want to put his penis into a lesbian's vagina

because he feels as a lesbian he will act in sex the way a lesbian would (using fingers, toys, tongue, but NOT his penis)

same goes for girlfag, she wants to fuck a guy's anus with a strap-on, not having him put his penis in her. She wont even show her breasts to him or she would even dress as a boy so the gay man feels comfortable

and that's basically the difference between guydykes/girlfags and straight people who simply fancy gay people, when it comes to sex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

I've heard a lot of other girlfags/guydykes say that when they're usually attracted to people, it's because of the person that they are instead of other factors - in these cases, the object of their attraction being queer is simply "a plus", just like being handsome or rich or interested in specific things would be seen by some people as being a plus. When it comes to who people are attracted to, it's safe to say that most people have qualities that will immediately attract them to someone - a lot of the time, I'm attracted to guys who happen to like anime or sci-fi or other nerdy things, it's a trait that makes me go "oh, you like these things? DO TELL."

If a guy being gay is simply a plus, there would be no need to call yourself a girlfag. You're focusing on it... it is, in fact, the crux of this new identity. Therefore I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that their homosexuality isn't important. It isn't just important, it's a requirement. Which leads to the question of why that requirement is offensive. Again, the reason it's offensive is because being gay has no traits associated with it except for wanting to fuck other men. And you're not a man. So you are exoticising a trait that has nothing to do with you. It's no different than men who like lesbians. Men who like lesbians, like my friend, don't say "dude lesbians are so hot!". They say things like "I just love how women relate to each other. I just wish I could relate to women like they relate to each other. Women are so soft and kind and wonderful and beautiful and I just want to be a part of it". Well fuck that. Women dating women is no different than women dating men. Men dating men is no different than men dating women. I've dated all three genders and I can say with absolute certainty that people are people... there is nothing magical about lesbian relationships, there's nothing strong and secure about gay male relationships, etc. They're all the same. The only difference is the genders of the people participating. So for you to say that you like that a man is gay means that you think there's something special or magical or different or wonderful about a gay relationship that doesn't exist in a straight relationship. You're exoticising something that you are not a part of. It's like if I said I wish I was black because I just love how wonderfully close black families are. Um, there's nothing stopping a white family from being close either. Whatever it is about a gay dude that you like, the same qualities exist in straight dudes.

You know what that's different from liking someone who's into anime? Because you're into anime too, and that's something you share, and their enjoyment of something that gives you enjoyment is a genuine benefit to your relationship and it will make it more likely that you'll connect. Finding someone who matches your interests isn't objectification. Placing all kinds of qualities onto homosexuality that don't actually relate to homosexuality... that's a whole different ball of wax. We have spent so fucking many years teaching people that gays are absolutely no different than straights. WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU. We just like to bang the same sex. So for you to prefer gay men just because they're gay... do you not see why that's a problem??

Again, if being gay isn't what you're interested in, but rather effeminate men or gender neutral men, OK. Those things aren't the same as gay, so please stop using "gay" as a proxy for effeminate or gender neutral. If you like straight effeminate men or gender neutral men who like to sleep with women, but you want to take on a male role sometimes during sex, that's just a bit kinky. That makes you a woman who likes to take on the role of a man sometimes during sex.

My issue with the term, therefore, is twofold. One, it makes it clear that the woman in question has as a NECESSARY quality for attraction the homosexuality of the man. But that's bullshit, since homosexuality isn't a quality that extends to anything other than having sex with other men. There is nothing better or special or different or awesome about man-to-man relationships, just like there's nothing more beautiful and pure and soft and psychic and earth-connected about woman-to-woman relationships. these are messed up stereotypes, and they are messed up stereotypes we've spent a lot of time trying to diffuse.

Two, there's an attempt to co-opt an identity and I always find that offensive. A girl who wants to take on a male role during sex is not the same creature as a man who has sex with men. Very little about the situation is the same. So why co-opt the identity of a homosexual male? I understand that being a straight woman may seem boring. But that's a problem with culture, and it is a problem that you, quite honestly, are exacerbating. We need to make being yourself cool again. I just don't see the benefit of throwing around a term like "girlfag"... which essentially says "I'm a gay man living happily in a woman's body"... since gay men WOULDN'T be happy living in a woman's body. Between the two groups... happy, out, homosexual men, and happy straight women who like to peg their boyfriends, who do you think you have more in common with?

And again, I love how you're completely denying the idea that genderqueer people exist. Yes, some girlfags/guydykes are not genderqueer in this regard, but some of them are, and it's kind of hurtful to go "not only does your identity not exist, but I find the idea to be offensive".

When did I say genderqueer doesn't exist?

I don't find your feelings offensive, I find all the bullshit you've constructed around your feelings to be offensive. You like to take on male roles. Awesome. So do about a gazillion other women. That does not make you a gay man. And gay men, gay relationships, etc, are not different in any way to straight relationships, so I do find your idealizing of something that you'll never experience to be extremely offensive. So those are the two things I object to... suggesting that you are in some way similar in identity to a gay man, and the idealizing of gay relationships. Your actual feelings of wanting to take on male roles with men I have absolutely no issue with.

Using your own example - why does your friend like lesbians? Is it purely because he finds the idea of girls making out to be sexy? Is it just a "plus" for him that makes an already attractive woman slightly more so? Or does he somehow think that lesbian/bi women would be sexual with other women for his amusement? Because I want to know what you're trying to compare me with, and whether that's a fair comparison to me and other people who would use this label.

Because he thinks that women are amazing and beautiful and in touch with the earth and the spirit mother and he wishes he could be a lesbian so he can experience how wonderful it is for two women to be together. His penis really doesn't enter into the equation.

And that's all bullshit. It's a disgusting male-centric view of femininity and lesbianism. Dating women is just as big a pain in the ass as dating men... it is not spiritual or magical or better in any way. It's better for me because I'm a lesbian, but it's not objectively better, and I'd go so far as to say it's not even subjectively better. In other words, he idealizes something that he isn't a part of, and that's gross. And you know what else? He's my best friend and I love him dearly. I also... along with every other lesbian he talks to (including his sister) tells him he's full of shit.

You know how "nice" stereotypes are just as bad as the negative ones? The stereotype that Asians are all geniuses at math is fucked up, even if it's based in idolatry. Saying "You should get a Jew as an accountant" is just as bad as saying "you shouldn't hire a black dude because they're lazy".

You're likely not going to listen to me, nor are you likely to take my explanations of the genderqueer aspects of this seriously (I've seen how you've reacted to some transpeople on this site, so yeah, I have no doubts that you're not going to believe me)

I am really sick of this and I'm beginning to report people who baselessly accuse me of being anti-trans. Please quote me, and use exact quotations, to prove your point that I will not listen to you and that I am anti-trans. Go ahead, I'll wait. And if you don't, or can't, then I don't EVER WANT TO HEAR THIS ACCUSATION AGAIN FROM YOU. You hear me? It's one thing to engage in an argument. It's entirely another to accuse someone of an "ism" just because you think it strengthens your argument. I know that I'm not anti-trans. I have trans friends, I've dated trans people, I've done trans activism. SO BRING IT.

but just be aware that for me and for other people who are like this, it's not just a case of "lesbians are hot", it can be more than that. On a deeply personal level, it's nothing like what you've assumed it is.

I don't think that's what it is at all. I think it's the idealizing of something that you aren't a participant of.

Alright then - I take back anything I said that might have offended you. I'm sorry, I really am - I'm just trying hard not to get frustrated over this. I understand that you're not anti-trans. It's not a nice accusation to make, and I apologise for that. I know I'm a complete bitch, and I can get nasty and catty and horrible - I know that, and you have every right to call you out on it. I am sorry, and I know that that's not much, but I mean it. I misinterpreted something that you said and I took it totally the wrong way, and it wasn't big or clever of me.

For me, it's NOT a requirement. And for others, it's not a requirement. For some people, it is, but I don't know why they think it is, nor can I speak for them. I can only speak for myself and the people I've talked to. And for me, as I've said before, it's not exactly the fact that they're gay that I like - it's things that, in my own experience, they also tend to exhibit (and before you ask, it's not femininity either). I know gay people who are complete and total fucknuts, too, so I have no illusions of them being exotic pixies or some stupid shit like that. Just in my experience, they tend to be fucking awesome people, and I still like them even after I find out that they're gay or bi. I never said that their relationships are somehow special - did I ever say that? There's no magic to it, and I know that there isn't. Just as I've apologised for wrongly interpreting what you've said...yeah, I never said any of these things. I can say over and over again "I don't like guys JUST BECAUSE they're gay" until I'm blue in the face, really, because it's true. I don't chase gay guys, if I have feelings for any guy I don't expect them to feel the same way about me, I don't view them as pretty accessories - what more do I have to add for you to actually believe me on this? No, I don't immediately link femininity or gender neutral behaviour to gay people...just that in my own experience, I get attracted to people who are like that and I then get told "Oh, that dude's bi" or "there are rumours that guy is gay." Even if they aren't queer, I still like them. So I don't actually make that link as an active connection in my mind, it often just turns out that way anyway. Plus, I don't immediately get sexually attracted to people - I thought that was common knowledge, really. So if I find any of these boys to be sexy, then you have to know that it's not because I think their queer identity is hot or whatever - it's because I genuinely trust and care for them.

As for appropriation or the "co-opt" identity; You assume that I think being a straight woman is somehow boring. Why is it boring? Why would I think it's boring? The two things that I'm pretty certain about when it comes to my gender (this whole mess being the only part that I'm uncertain about) are that I often feel pretty blank with no gendery things going on, or that I go into "I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME ROAR!!!" levels of certainty in my femaleness. Why would I think that's boring? I love it. I love having tits, I love having a huge ass - fuck, while I've always been a fairly androgynous-acting person, I love being a straight girl. I'm not questioning any of this because I think being a straight woman is "boring". I mean, seriously. If I wanted to fuck the system, I'd be much more creative about it than this.

And maybe that IS what I am - a kinky straight girl. Maybe. I don't know - do you? I'm not entirely sure anyone can really make a judgement on that right now, it's all a little bit jumbled up in me old noggin at the moment. All I'm trying to do at the moment is feel out different things and see if they fit. This term seems to fit, but I'm still uneasy about it and I'm still thinking it over, and while I don't speak for other people who use the term, I'm trying to view it in a positive way. I don't think anyone would actively think up a term for the specific purpose of offending them, and I'm not questioning the use of this label because I want to offend people - that's the last thing I want, and the idea that I've been offending people on this issue has been stressing me out quite a bit. By the way - you're saying that we "need to make being yourself cool again". The entire reason I've been questioning my gender is because I knew that "cisfemale" didn't exactly sum up what "myself" was. I'm trying my best to explore what "myself" actually IS.

Again I point out, I've never intentionally idealized gay relationships. And I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure how I can word how I feel, not because it's intentionally creepy or offensive, but because I can't really word it in a way that would really get my point across without people brushing it off as "you're just a kinky straight girl, get over it". It's not JUST what you've been saying, but I can't articulate it so well.

...Are you serious?! I don't mean to be rude, but is that REALLY what you're comparing me to? Is that seriously how you view me? Skulls, I am shocked, offended and saddened. Firstly, because you've made it clear that he's full of shit (which means that you think I'M full of shit, and I don't need to tell you how hurtful that is), and secondly, because it's an unfair comparison, especially since it's a comparison based on things that I never said and things that are not true. I don't want to have to keep repeating myself, I really don't. If you still think that that's a fair and honest comparison, then seriously - what do I have to do to make you understand that I'm not like that? I have no false illusions about what gay men or their relationships are like - I don't need you to tell me that. I don't need you to have to tell me that that's a bullshit idea, and I have no idea what it is I've said or done that's made you think that I think this. If anything I've said has even VAGUELY implied anything like this, then I take it back, because none of that is how I feel.

So yeah, I don't think that you're anti-trans, and it was fucking stupid of me to say it - but at the same time, you seem adamant about portraying me as some child who can't tell fantasy from reality and who thinks that gay guys are magical pixie creatures full of rainbows and wonder, or some weird kinky person who doesn't understand the difference between being gay and pegging. I hate to be rude - but really, I don't think I need to repeat how much that isn't true. As an extra aside, I KNOW that it's a very loaded term (I learnt that the hard way, definitely). I DO see the problem with the label, yes - but please don't put words in my mouth in explaining these problems. Like with any identity, the bad points are when people act like an asshole about it...however, I don't think I have.

---Edited, I realised I was acting like a bitch again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CDSM

Yata: You've been trying to figure yourself out for awhile. It might help you to find some other genderqueer people on a forum that is open to questioning folks. From what you've told me, I think

I think you've gotten a little too belligerent and sensitive here. I don't think SkulleryMaid fully understands where you are coming from, and her hostility towards the concept is justified.

She brings up a good point. Just wanting to take a male role doesn't make you a guy. Although, from what you've told me, for you there's more to it than that.

This thread's told me that these girlfag/guydyke terms are pretty loaded, and I think you might be getting the wrong impression from them. Because it looks like a lot of the people using these labels are as Skullery says, people that idealize something they aren't a part of.

So, I think it's best if you drop the label, because it might not mean what you think it means, and it will associate you with people you don't really want to be associated with. You've expressed a lot of concern about the term wanting something different. If you're genderqueer, just say that. I don't think you need this word. Because it's not like you expect gay guys to see you as a guy and have sex with you, right?

Also, I'll be blunt: your accusations were really out of line. Come on. You should know better than that. I mean, really? Saying she is anti-genderqueer? Telling her beforehand she won't listen to you?

You're treading a dangerous road, Yata. We've become pretty good internet friends, so I'm telling you this because I care. You're getting close to people on tumblr who won't let anyone question their identities or labels.

Because he thinks that women are amazing and beautiful and in touch with the earth and the spirit mother and he wishes he could be a lesbian so he can experience how wonderful it is for two women to be together. His penis really doesn't enter into the equation.

See, this is the difference. Her friend thinks lesbians are something mystical and magical. It's like men in general thinking women are mystical and magical. That "all women are goddesses" and that two women being together is something sparkly.

That's not like a 'man' who is genderqueer and wishes at times he was a woman, and also likes a particular woman he wishes he could have a lesbian relationship with. Because those things aren't connected. He's attracted to that woman for who she is, and he also feels like a girl sometimes. His attraction and gender identity are their own independent things, it's just if you put them together, he becomes a guy who happens to want a lesbian relationship just by logical conclusion.

EDIT: I see you've already reflected on this a bit. I'd started writing this before the above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CDSM

-snip-

Yata, again, I think Skullery doesn't fully understand where you are coming from. Dial it back. Don't get reactionary because that *does* make you come across as a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

Okay, I'm going to make a few assumptions. Correct me if they are offtrack.

Yata: You've been trying to figure yourself out for awhile. It might help you to find some other genderqueer people on a forum that is open to questioning folks. From what you've told me, I think

I think you've gotten a little too belligerent and sensitive here. I don't think SkulleryMaid fully understands where you are coming from, and her hostility towards the concept is justified.

She brings up a good point. Just wanting to take a male role doesn't make you a guy. Although, from what you've told me, for you there's more to it than that.

This thread's told me that these girlfag/guydyke terms are pretty loaded, and I think you might be getting the wrong impression from them. Because it looks like a lot of the people using these labels are as Skullery says, people that idealize something they aren't a part of.

So, I think it's best if you drop the label, because it might not mean what you think it means, and it will associate you with people you don't really want to be associated with. You've expressed a lot of concern about the term wanting something different. If you're genderqueer, just say that. I don't think you need this word. Because it's not like you expect gay guys to see you as a guy and have sex with you, right?

Also, I'll be blunt: your accusations were really out of line. Come on. You should know better than that. I mean, really? Saying she is anti-genderqueer? Telling her beforehand she won't listen to you?

You're treading a dangerous road, Yata. We've become pretty good internet friends, so I'm telling you this because I care. You're getting close to people on tumblr who won't let anyone question their identities or labels.

Because he thinks that women are amazing and beautiful and in touch with the earth and the spirit mother and he wishes he could be a lesbian so he can experience how wonderful it is for two women to be together. His penis really doesn't enter into the equation.

See, this is the difference. Her friend thinks lesbians are something mystical and magical. It's like men in general thinking women are mystical and magical. That "all women are goddesses" and that two women being together is something sparkly.

That's not like a 'man' who is genderqueer and wishes at times he was a woman, and also likes a particular woman he wishes he could have a lesbian relationship with. Because those things aren't connected. He's attracted to that woman for who she is, and he also feels like a girl sometimes. His attraction and gender identity are their own independent things, it's just if you put them together, he becomes a guy who happens to want a lesbian relationship just by logical conclusion.

It is *not* someone who see girls' love as some kind of magical thing.

I do understand that it's VERY loaded. I really understand that. But there's a difference between criticising a term and then assuming that the criticisms apply to everyone that uses it. It's hard not to get belligerent and sensitive when someone's basically telling you that you think something that you don't. I understand that it's a loaded and possibly negative term, but I just don't think that it's inherently bad. Obviously, it's bad if someone is using it as an excuse to shag lesbians, or if their behaviour is becoming objectifying and nasty, or if they have false ideas on what gay people are like - but I don't think that that's all there is to it either, or that it necessarily HAS to have those elements included. And yes, I do think people use the label as a way of expressing some creepy, messed-up ideals. But I still think that the person who DO use it for those purposes are likely the ones who need a reality check, not everyone who uses the label.

She does bring up a good point, too. Whether her feelings that I'm a "kinky straight girl" are right or if I'm right...well, we'll see, I guess. I can honestly say that in terms of questioning, it's this bit that's the last leg of it, really. And this entire debate, I've not wanted it to be personal. A part of me wanted to make it personal right from the word go, but I knew that no one would like that - pretty much, just testing the waters.

I know I was out of line, I do understand that. And I can't apologise enough for it. I can go back and re-edit things if I must, and I can keep on apologising for it because I know it was a bitch thing to say, I really do. I can try and say "I act irrationally when I'm angry" as much as I like, but that's no excuse and I know it.

Just saying - but what exactly do you mean by "You're getting close to people on tumblr who won't let anyone question their identities or labels"? If you meant me posting that question to a tumblr...I don't think the guy was overly defensive or belligerent about it. He totally got that it was a loaded term and that some people who use it are complete assholes, and he got the negative implications. He wasn't telling me "OMG You're totally right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot!", he was being pretty reasonable - even going so far as to say "I would recommend you DON'T use the term girlfag and instead word it differently".

That's been the general advice - don't say it, say something else that sounds less offensive. And I'm starting to think that that's great advice, really. It's sad, but true, I suppose. I'll keep on questioning and trying to figure all this out, and if I still find that this is the shoe that fits, then I'll word it differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

-snip-

Yata, again, I think Skullery doesn't fully understand where you are coming from. Dial it back. Don't get reactionary because that *does* make you come across as a child.

I know it does, but again, it's hard not to come across as reactionary when someone is insisting that I think a certain thing that not only isn't true, but paints me in a really bad light. I've gone back and edited it so it's not so bitchy, because yeah - I know I've been doing massive wrongs here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henshin

Ok this whole thread is TL;DR so I'm just going to cut right in here and just say welcome to the genderqueer fold where no-one knows what the fuck is going on and you are most, most welcome to reside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CDSM

I do understand that it's VERY loaded. I really understand that. But there's a difference between criticising a term and then assuming that the criticisms apply to everyone that uses it. It's hard not to get belligerent and sensitive when someone's basically telling you that you think something that you don't. I understand that it's a loaded and possibly negative term, but I just don't think that it's inherently bad. Obviously, it's bad if someone is using it as an excuse to shag lesbians, or if their behaviour is becoming objectifying and nasty, or if they have false ideas on what gay people are like - but I don't think that that's all there is to it either, or that it necessarily HAS to have those elements included. And yes, I do think people use the label as a way of expressing some creepy, messed-up ideals. But I still think that the person who DO use it for those purposes are likely the ones who need a reality check, not everyone who uses the label.

She does bring up a good point, too. Whether her feelings that I'm a "kinky straight girl" are right or if I'm right...well, we'll see, I guess. I can honestly say that in terms of questioning, it's this bit that's the last leg of it, really. And this entire debate, I've not wanted it to be personal. A part of me wanted to make it personal right from the word go, but I knew that no one would like that - pretty much, just testing the waters.

Thing is, sometimes it's best to make it personal, so you can bring your personal feelings into it, which are what's relevant to your exploration of the concept, and not be weighed down by what's perceived as the majority of people it might apply to.

She said

If a guy being gay is simply a plus, there would be no need to call yourself a girlfag. You're focusing on it... it is, in fact, the crux of this new identity. Therefore I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that their homosexuality isn't important. It isn't just important, it's a requirement.

And I think that might be operative. For a "girlfag" they are interested in gay sex with gay men exclusively. If you don't feel that way all the time, just use a genderqueer/genderfluid label, and indicate sometimes you feel that way.

Just saying - but what exactly do you mean by "You're getting close to people on tumblr who won't let anyone question their identities or labels"? If you meant me posting that question to a tumblr...I don't think the guy was overly defensive or belligerent about it. He totally got that it was a loaded term and that some people who use it are complete assholes, and he got the negative implications. He wasn't telling me "OMG You're totally right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot!", he was being pretty reasonable - even going so far as to say "I would recommend you DON'T use the term girlfag and instead word it differently".

What I meant was... some people on tumblr latch onto a bunch of neologisms and get

Obviously, you are not like them. But, if you don't try a bit harder to be calm and explain yourself, you will start to sound like them.

You've already calmed a bit, I see, so that's the solution. You don't need me to preach to you about it any more.

That's been the general advice - don't say it, say something else that sounds less offensive. And I'm starting to think that that's great advice, really. It's sad, but true, I suppose. I'll keep on questioning and trying to figure all this out, and if I still find that this is the shoe that fits, then I'll word it differently.

Like I said, you might seek out some other message boards more geared towards questioning gender identities.

I know it does, but again, it's hard not to come across as reactionary when someone is insisting that I think a certain thing that not only isn't true, but paints me in a really bad light.

But that's why you need to be calm when you explain that they were mistaken.

Because, really, you can't blame people for jumping to conclusions in this case. Skullery has experience with her friend and his views... I can't fault her for thinking you are the same way without knowing your context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

I do understand that it's VERY loaded. I really understand that. But there's a difference between criticising a term and then assuming that the criticisms apply to everyone that uses it. It's hard not to get belligerent and sensitive when someone's basically telling you that you think something that you don't. I understand that it's a loaded and possibly negative term, but I just don't think that it's inherently bad. Obviously, it's bad if someone is using it as an excuse to shag lesbians, or if their behaviour is becoming objectifying and nasty, or if they have false ideas on what gay people are like - but I don't think that that's all there is to it either, or that it necessarily HAS to have those elements included. And yes, I do think people use the label as a way of expressing some creepy, messed-up ideals. But I still think that the person who DO use it for those purposes are likely the ones who need a reality check, not everyone who uses the label.

She does bring up a good point, too. Whether her feelings that I'm a "kinky straight girl" are right or if I'm right...well, we'll see, I guess. I can honestly say that in terms of questioning, it's this bit that's the last leg of it, really. And this entire debate, I've not wanted it to be personal. A part of me wanted to make it personal right from the word go, but I knew that no one would like that - pretty much, just testing the waters.

Thing is, sometimes it's best to make it personal, so you can bring your personal feelings into it, which are what's relevant to your exploration of the concept, and not be weighed down by what's perceived as the majority of people it might apply to.

She said

If a guy being gay is simply a plus, there would be no need to call yourself a girlfag. You're focusing on it... it is, in fact, the crux of this new identity. Therefore I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that their homosexuality isn't important. It isn't just important, it's a requirement.

And I think that might be operative. For a "girlfag" they are interested in gay sex with gay men exclusively. If you don't feel that way all the time, just use a genderqueer/genderfluid label, and indicate sometimes you feel that way.

Just saying - but what exactly do you mean by "You're getting close to people on tumblr who won't let anyone question their identities or labels"? If you meant me posting that question to a tumblr...I don't think the guy was overly defensive or belligerent about it. He totally got that it was a loaded term and that some people who use it are complete assholes, and he got the negative implications. He wasn't telling me "OMG You're totally right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot!", he was being pretty reasonable - even going so far as to say "I would recommend you DON'T use the term girlfag and instead word it differently".

What I meant was... some people on tumblr latch onto a bunch of neologisms and get

Obviously, you are not like them. But, if you don't try a bit harder to be calm and explain yourself, you will start to sound like them.

You've already calmed a bit, I see, so that's the solution. You don't need me to preach to you about it any more.

That's been the general advice - don't say it, say something else that sounds less offensive. And I'm starting to think that that's great advice, really. It's sad, but true, I suppose. I'll keep on questioning and trying to figure all this out, and if I still find that this is the shoe that fits, then I'll word it differently.

Like I said, you might seek out some other message boards more geared towards questioning gender identities.

I know it does, but again, it's hard not to come across as reactionary when someone is insisting that I think a certain thing that not only isn't true, but paints me in a really bad light.

But that's why you need to be calm when you explain that they were mistaken.

Because, really, you can't blame people for jumping to conclusions in this case. Skullery has experience with her friend and his views... I can't fault her for thinking you are the same way without knowing your context.

I've actually been reading these surveys that were linked into this tumblr post I mentioned, and while a lot of the things said DID vary, there were quite a few things there where I looked at it and thought "yep, that about sums it up for me." Being personal about it has helped me sort out how I see it, and while I know that doesn't match up with how other people see it, it's still good to filter through all the mental clutter. Going back to my original post...yeah, this shit is REALLY interesting to read! I hate to anger/annoy people further by saying this, but it kind of reminds me of AVEN - the general concept/definition fits everyone there, but people's experiences with it and feelings about it, either on themselves or the rest of the world, are all very unique to each person. It's fascinating how communities like this can get so diverse.

I thought part of the definition was "and are often attracted to more types of people than just gay/bi men"? I AM reading more into it, just to clear up some of the gaps, because I think this is one of those labels that applies to a variety of different experiences. Some of the ones I keep seeing do match my own, while some don't - some people seemed more on the gender dysphoric side of things, while one or two do seem a bit skeevy about it. Some people totally view it that way, and others don't, I think. I'm not going to rush into using the term, I AM going to do more research on it and see how any of my thoughts and experiences match up with other people's.

I'm not actually on tumblr, haha. :D I've been asking things on different forums/tumblrs as an anonymouse but what I've found is that forums often allow you to spill your guts just so they can say "From the sounds of it, you're X!". I mean, different forums have listened to the exact same things and have said such different things - some thinking that I'm a cisfemale with a queer presentation, others saying I'm bigender, others saying I'm genderfluid...and I'm not entirely sure that I'm 100% okay with letting other people evaluate me and then tell me what I am. Checking out questioning spaces would be helpful, yes, but I'm not sure what I'll find there.

I can't blame her, no. I guess it might be because I've never met anyone who was quite so passionate about specifically liking people of a certain orientation like that, nor have I ever heard anyone word their reasons for it in such a way. So it kind of confuzzled me that I was being compared to a person like that.

I certainly feel more calm. More stupid and insensitive, but more calm as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

All I've said is that I have a major problem with the term, and I stand by what I said about this in particular... girlfag requires that the guy be gay. If you just like guys, and you feel like sometimes you relate to them as a man (I don't know what that means but I'm not questioning that), then you are not a girlfag. Those people you were describing who like queer dudes because they feel safer and they connect to them... those are girlfags. Those are girls who idealized gay relationships as a way of avoiding what makes them uncomfortable. That doesn't sound like what you are describing. Anyone who says something about a gay male relationship being better in any way is a girlfag, and I'm sorry but they ARE full of shit and they ARE idealizing something they aren't a part of. you just feel like you relate to guys as a guy sometimes. That's a different thing, imo. Also, imo, I think its fairly common... but I also acknowledge spending the last 15 years in the lgbt community, where I'm sure its more common than in your typical UK high school. I do sometimes think things are more common than they are because in my life that's how it is. All that means is that as much as you may be stressing now, you will find people and places that, over time, make you feel totally comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bye Bye Birdy

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

getting older helps too. 18 year olds aren't exactly known for their diversity as a group, nor their self-awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JAKQ7111

girlfag requires that the guy be gay. Those people you were describing who like queer dudes because they feel safer and they connect to them... those are girlfags. Those are girls who idealized gay relationships as a way of avoiding what makes them uncomfortable.

This...just...this...I've been holding in a rant for a long time, and I'm going to try and make this as succinct as possible, but there is something in this concept that REALLY grinds my gears!

Ah, forget it...expect a topic on this issue in the "musings and rantings" section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

girlfag requires that the guy be gay. Those people you were describing who like queer dudes because they feel safer and they connect to them... those are girlfags. Those are girls who idealized gay relationships as a way of avoiding what makes them uncomfortable.

This...just...this...I've been holding in a rant for a long time, and I'm going to try and make this as succinct as possible, but there is something in this concept that REALLY grinds my gears!

Ah, forget it...expect a topic on this issue in the "musings and rantings" section.

I keep checking musings and haven't seen it yet... inquiring minds want to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...