I recently heard that NYC’s Dyke March theme was “Barely Legal.” The image is a depiction of a young girl in handcuffs and in print around the photo it states, “Woman Only.” I cannot confirm this otherwise I would upload a photo, but I have something to write to the organizers.
Let me first queer a few things out. I do not agree with age based rights. Experience, knowledge, willingness, and ability (not to mention numerous others) are all much better indicators of the preparedness of individuals than something like the number of days lived. One moment, mere seconds, can greatly change a persyn. Just as, days/months/years can pass with complete stagnation.
Also, I cannot understand what exactly 18 years can mean for consent. Consent is consent. Obviously, everyone needs to understand what it is they are consenting to, but my understanding of consent includes this idea. Someone on the eve of their 18th birthday is not much different in a few hours, and I do not understand how these few hours can mean the difference between consensual activities and statutory rape. For me, this argument attempts to reinforce the needs of prisons by locking up those convicted of this charge. We all know how the (in)justice system works. Those that are locked up are much more likely folks of color from lower income neighborhoods. Often these charges are followed through regardless of what the younger persyn (and oftentimes their families) says or if they try to fight these false charges.
As for the handcuffs, if folks consensually get pleasure from them I am not here to get in the way of that. I am not a fan as I cannot link desire to the police state, but if folks want to reclaim them I am fully supportive. I think exploring our boundaries and learning what our deepest cravings are is a wonderful practice and gets me hot just thinking about it.
None of this is necessarily negative. Dykes explicitly stating their desires for age-play and younger partners is awesome (consensually). What gets me, and here is the message to the organizers:
WHAT THE FUCK??? WOMAN ONLY. REALLY?
Why are we trying to make dyke an exclusively woman-only category? I know plenty of trannies and genderqueers who identify with the term. Dyke is so much more than a gender specific category. It is so much more than upholding the gender binary.
I guess what I am wondering is can the boydykes or boidykes come?
Can the dykes with boyfriends bring them along?
What about the relationship of transwomen and transphobic womyn-born-womyn only spaces? Was it yr intent to uphold definitions of “woman” in the march? If not, why bring up this hirstory? Why alienate folks by only welcoming certain folks to participate?
What about the folks who do not identify with the term woman or dyke who wanna come out? Can they march alongside ya’ll?
Or, does that not jive with yr woman only invite? I want some answers.
Alternatively, if you want to celebrate a dyke march that doesn’t give a shit if you identify as a woman, come to
Twin Cities Dyke March
Saturday, June 26th
Walker Art Museum (Hennepin Ave across from Loring Park)
And, if you want to mix it up with trannies earlier in the day:
Twin Cities Trans March
Saturday, June 26th
3pm
Stevens Square Park (18th St E & Stevens Ave S)
Oh yeah, after the rant I totally threw in some shameless self-promotion.
Cheers! Posted to the Avengers blog, if that’s ok w/ you.
I think it’s kind of silly. I picked up one of the cards at Ginger’s and it says “The march is for women; supporters cheer us on” it doesn’t say “womyn born womyn.” I respect the fact that it’s about women having rights — I run Trans DoR at my college and when we read the names and bios of those who have passed it is always an overwhelming majority of transwomen — I just checked 2010 and they’re all transwomen. I’m not saying that us transfolks are on equal footing with the rest of the world, but if that’s what they want, live and let live, ya know?
“live and let live?”
so if someone is oppressing people you are arguing to just let them do it so they have space to be oppressive?
i don’t think you got the central point of my argument: dyke identity is not gender specific; therefore, how can you not welcome folks who identify as a dyke because they might also identify as boy/male/kid/pony/queer/faggotassdykegrrrl?
i definitely understand when oppressed people create spaces free from those oppressing them. but what about how oppressive their definition of dyke is?
i am not saying they are asking for “womyn-born-womyn” spaces, but it is clear they are creating dyke to be an exclusive category for woman identified folks. this is parallel to the transphobia of “womyn” spaces. they are defining “dyke” (instead of woman) to mean and include only certain types of people in the same way that “womyn” only spaces have notoriously excluded transwomen.
also, it’s not silly. it’s oppressive.
Well said, well done. Thank you. Is lesbian identity so fragile that there is always a need for vigilance (and witch-hunting) to exclude those with improper chromosomes? And here I always thought that we lesbians were strong women who could take care of ourselves. Oops, I guess some of us are dainty, wilting flowers who must be kept at a safe distance from everyone else who isn’t privileged enough to be — and live and love openly as — lesbians.
the march is for people for whom the words “woman” or “dyke” speak to them.
if the march is for people who identify with “dyke” OR “woman” than it should not say
woman only
because, as i stated in my response, people who identify as dykes do not necessarily identify as women.
If it is an or situation, then the postcard would not also say “woman only.” It seems pretty simple. Dyke is not a gender specific category and those dykes that do not identify as women should not be unwelcomed.
[I posted this comment somewhere else too]
I’m one of the organizers of the Twin Cities Dyke March, so I’m really interested in what other Dyke Marches around the country do. A friend was in NYC and reported on seeing the ads. When I saw it for myself, I had a strong reaction to the ad. I think it has a lot of problematic elements.
When I consider the elements of the ad that I find problematic, they are many, but the top two are:
a) Barely Legal is totally the name of a magazine that is meant to make young women the object of male gaze, women who we are meant to think are below the age of consent. (Issues around the age of consent are HUGE and I’m not going into my diatribe there right now) I think that whether or not you are pro-porn or anti-porn, most dykes and dyke allies I’m close to agree that dyke sexuality doesn’t exist for male gratification. The name Barely Legal correlates directly to a publication that co-opts women’s sexuality for male gratification.
b) The discourse in many of our communities about whether or not human beings can be illegal/legal right now is greatly focused on the debates around immigration, access, fences, ICE raids, etc. Juxtaposing the idea of a human being legal with the image of a human in handcuffs might be saying more than the NYC DM organizers were going for, but it’s saying a lot.
I am not going to go into my issues with promoting a women only PUBLIC event, because that implies (to me) that there will be people there policing other people’s genders, and as someone who appreciates my right to self-determination especially as it pertains to my gender I can’t support or endorse any gender policing.
The censorship and unwillingness to engage with questions just shows me that the NYC DM Organizing Committee is too short-sighted to admit when they’ve gone forward without considering all of the ways this polarizing, potentially triggering ad could impact the local and far-flung community.