Every time a lesbian calls herself a lesbian when dating a trans guy who fully views himself as a man, she wounds him.In the early part of her article, Ms Hope tells us a little of her experience; she segues into a paragraph about labels and how they can be used to hurt. But that particular sentence caught my eye.
What Ms Hope is saying here is "I can call myself whatever I like, but you can't call yourself whatever you like because your self-chosen label might deny me my existence" or something. The self-proclaimed lesbian has to redefine herself, whether she wants to or not.
Seriously. That is what she's saying.
My guess is that Ms Hope didn't think about the implications of her assertion. If she had, she might have rephrased it, or changed it. After all, lesbians are routinely denied their humanity, too! It's not nice, or productive, to get into a useless battle about who has it worse, with declarations that the more aggrieved party has to prevail. (Really, it isn't.)
Ms Hope's example certainly highlights an interesting issue about all these labels, but her conclusion is lop-sided, and limited. In this example, according to Ms Hope, one or the other has to redefine themselves; she prefers it to be the lesbian. (I'm sure there's some unsupportable, emotionally heated, argument about "cis[sexual/gender] privilege" in there, somewhere.) Perhaps it is no one's business who redefines themselves in such a relationship? Why should the lesbian have to redefine herself? What label should she use? What label would be satisfactory to Ms Hope, and the individual?
It's a veritable minefield of labeling issues! :-)
Actually, it's a minefield of gender issues, too.
Other than that, Ms Hope seems to be persuading herself that her life is, indeed, her life. Believe me - it is your life, Ms Hope.
Added (26 Nov 10): For some whimsical reason, I decided to check the statistics for this blog. I noticed a lot of people arriving at this post; I didn't check who or whom, but it prompted me to put together a small table of contents for the entire discussion.
Added: Please read this: Kinsey Hope hates free speech.
Added (12/29/10): You know what's really stupid about Kinsey's argument about how sacred the two-spirit concept is? It's apparently a modern invention...
"Two-Spirit People (also Two Spirit or Twospirit) — an English term that emerged in 1990 out of the third annual inter-tribal Native American/First Nations gay/lesbian American conference in Winnipeg"Something that was "invented" in 1990 is not sacred. It hasn't had time to become sacred!
Added (12/31/10): I've been debating for awhile whether to add this bit; I've decided to do so. Ms Hope's argument was better articulated by Noam Chomsky in the 1970's; his argument was over a Confederate flag being displayed at an MIT dorm. While it was a better argument (in its originality and articulation), it was still nonsense. And Ms Hope's ideas about the sacred being off-limits definitely aren't original: they are encapsulated in many of the laws of the Arab world. The ones that say it's blasphemy to allow, for instance, equality for women, or to defame the name of the prophet and so on.
Her argument about labeling is as trite as it is condescending and arbitrary.