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.

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.

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.