A reader writes: “I was hoping I could get your opinion on this issue. I recently read a diatribe by a cisgender gay man stating that those who identify as girlfags are being disrespectful to cisgender gays and lesbians, as well as gay transmen.
“I agree that the term does sound pejorative, and it would be better if a new term was coined. But I believe that it is a legitimate identity. What do you think?”
I had never heard of this term before, so I had to look it up. On Urban Dictionary, “girlfag” is defined as: “A woman who is very attracted to gay/bi/trans men. She may (or may not) also feel she is (fully or partly) a ‘gay man in a woman’s body.’ Girlfags identify primarily as queer, and are often attracted to more types of people than just gay/bi/trans men.”
I think every identity is legitimate. I also think that reclamation of negative or harmful language can be beneficial in certain circumstances. However, I have three criteria for reclaiming pejorative language, and I feel that all of these criteria need to be met before a word or words can be reclaimed:
1. The people reclaiming the language must be aware of the history of the language – the word or words to be reclaimed – and how that language was used against people in the past (and still today). What is the origin of the language? How did it come into general use and how did it come to be used against a group of people? What were and are the ramifications of that use? The people reclaiming the language need to be fully aware of this and make a conscious decision to reclaim the language based on their thorough knowledge of the past.
2. The people reclaiming the language must be aware of how using this language today emotionally (and possibly physically) impacts those living people who have had this language used against them in the past. People reclaiming language should have complete awareness of how their use of this language affects those around them, and they must make a conscious decision to use this language knowing this potentially negative impact.
3. The people reclaiming the language must be members of the group against which the language was used in the past.
In my opinion, if a group of people – or even an individual – meets these three criteria, they can reclaim the language. So people deciding to use certain terms to define their identity need to ask themselves if the terms they choose are appropriate for them to reclaim and if there are other descriptors that might better suit them.
I know that I will get disagreement on this. That’s fine. That’s what makes a lively discussion.
Readers, what do you think?
Reblogged this on Valprehension and commented:
Yes. The idea of reclaiming pejoratives is always very fraught and controversial, but I think these criteria are a very reasonable place to start.
I like your three criteria a lot.
Those three criteria sound solid and well thought-out to me.
While I broadly agree, I guess I feel like there might be some grey area on #3, insofar as people wielding slurs don’t tend to be super concerned with the actual identities of their targets. For example, I think most people would agree that “fag” means “gay man”, but in practice, “fag” is used against men who are deemed insufficiently/inappropriately masculine. I’m sure many bisexual men and effeminate straight men have had that word used against them repeatedly – do they have any claim to reclaiming “fag”? Does personal experience carry any weight (i.e., an effeminate straight man who’s been slurred with it persistently, vs a gay man who’s never been called “fag”)?
I don’t know how I feel about this myself… just airing it for discussion.
I do think the third one has a little more give and take. What do other people think?
I like these criteria a lot. I actually don’t think #3 is very flexible. A person might be outside the dictionary definition of a word, but inside the usage. To put it another way, denotation is not as important as connotation. I could definitely see some bi/queer/femme men falling under the connotation of fag, so that makes sense. To take a sometimes controversial example, trans men are included in the denotation of the term “tranny” (i.e., transsexual) but I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to try to reclaim that word, because we are completely outside the connotation.
From what I’ve seen the people who are trying to reclaim “tranny” are mostly cis-male drag queens, who are in the opposite position of trans men – they don’t fit the denotation but they DO fit the connotation. And I feel like trans women have a legitimate complaint with cis-male drag queens reclaiming that word. Though I guess that would be a point #2 violation rather than a point #3 violation – living people are still being impacted negatively by the use of that word.
Imo trans masculine folks have no business “reclaiming” the word tranny either.
Interesting–my anecdotal observation has been that a variety of trans people try to reclaim it, but I don’t know very many drag queens, so that might be it. I agree with you that trans women have a legit complaint there and that it’s more of a #2 issue. It’s also a #3 issue, though–if you’re a cis male drag queen, you fit the connotation only when you’re in drag, whereas trans women always do. So you’re like a part-time resident in the group, IMO.
Hi Marc –
Speaking as a girlfag-identified person, I’d like to point out one problem you might not have thought of: in English, there is no single, non-vulgar word for “gay man.” Which makes me – what? – a female gay male? A gay man-woman?
My German counterparts call themselves “schwule madchen,” and when I taught this topic in Barcelona last year, my translator called me a “chica marica” (which I love – it’s *such* fun to say!). But it just doesn’t work in English.
I don’t know a single girlfag-identified woman who wouldn’t prefer a different word. After the news about female molly fish being more attracted to male molly fish after seeing them interact sexually with other male molly fish, I attempted to popularize “mollies” – but there just aren’t enough of us, and we’re not well enough understood, to make that stick. Likewise “chica marica,” which is just catchy enough that it might work if enough people used it, and if we weren’t accused of appropriation, which is a whole other problem.
Our male counterparts can be “male lesbians” – at least that way they only have to defend themselves against people who are upset by the concept, and not the ones who are upset by the words. But we girlfags have no such “polite” option.
(It might also be worth pointing out here that I’ve heard few objections to “fag hag.” According to your guidelines, gay men can call themselves “fags” if they want, but they should not be able to call women “hags.” Personally, I’m happy to be called a fag hag, but what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, right?)
So. I’m not arguing with your rules as a general guideline. But call this a cri de coeur: if I’m not a “girlfag,” then what can I be?
Thanks,
Janet W. Hardy
author, “Girlfag: A Life Told In Sex and Musicals”
Oops. Matt, not Marc. Sorry about that!
It’s okay. I knew you meant Matt. Anyway, I’m not sure how to respond to your comment, because it’s definitely not my place to determine what you can or should be. I think that you are who you are, and the label that you use for that should be one that you’re comfortable with. I don’t think that you should base anything regarding yourself or your label on what two people on the Internet (me and the guy who wrote the original article that the writer was talking about) say about it.
But if no one who identifies as girlfag is really happy with that label, then maybe that says something about that particular label. That would not be for me to decide. I’m just not a fan of people reclaiming language willy-nilly, to the point where anyone can “reclaim” a word that has nothing to do with them. That’s just my opinion, and I am one person. I am not the arbiter of correct and incorrect labels or correct and incorrect language. I wish I was, but so far, no one has been impressed enough with my opinions to elevate me to that position 🙂
Hi Matt (See? I got it right this time!) –
I think you’re misunderstanding the problem I’m trying to describe. This problem is with the word, not the identity. Just as you might be happy being a gay transman but unhappy being a “tranny fag,” I’m happy being a gay-male-identified and gay-male-loving woman, but less happy being a “girlfag” – simply because the *word* (not the identity) reflects a history of oppression and offends people I care about.
The *identity* also offends some people: we get accused of “fetishization,” “objectification,” “appropriation” and other sins of the postmodern era . That, I’m willing to deal with and discuss. But the map is not the territory, and I’d rather not use a map that pisses people off.
Janet
PS: I’m enough of a survivor of second-wave feminism that “girl” is problematic, too. ::sigh::
I’m glad someone who identifies this way has posted. You make some excellent points, Janet. I also have an issue with the term, but not the identity. But, gay male identified woman is a mouthful, isn’t it?
I knew you were talking about the label and not the identity itself. I think I just worded my response wrong. Language is so limiting. I think there are probably a lot of people out there who are using labels that they don’t wholly like or that don’t quite fit, just because they’re not sure what else to use, or there’s nothing really that accurately describes the experience.
I’m the one who asked the question about this term. According to what I’ve read, the term was originally popularized by Jill Nagle and Carol Queen. Both are women who initially identified as lesbians, but then found themselves attracted to gay and bisexual men. I’ve seen the term used in a very broad context. What I did not like about the author’s article that I mentioned to Matt is the ignorance of the history of this identity and this term. The author stated that all girlfags are esentially straight cisgender women who “fetishize” gay men. And that those who identify this way have no place identifying as queer or under the transgender spectrum. I disagree wholeheartedly. Some fit under one or both categories. As I mentioned in my question, the issue that I have is with the term. I think most who identify this way aren’t unhappy.
On a personal note, I have struggled to find a term that appropriately describes who I am. I feel that this term doesn’t acknowledge me as someone who feels strongly male, but at this point in life has decided not to transition. On the other hand, it describes a feeling that I’ve been struggling to put a name to for over half my life. I identified as genderqueer for a short time, but I had similar problems with this term. Some still consider the word “queer” to be pejorative. I am still seeking a term that I feel comfortable using around others who may not understand certain identities or may consider certain terms offensive. And I feel that it is important to respect the views of others on these issues. Thanks for sharing your views, Matt.
Language is a problem. I’d still be using “transgendered” if it didn’t upset so many people, because it is my preferred term (although not for myself). And I teach a class at a university here called Queer Sexualities and Identity. I didn’t choose the title of the class. It has been in place for a while. But queer is very offensive to some people, as you say, while other people embrace it and feel that it is the right word for them. I don’t know the answer. Language is constantly evolving. Times change and language changes. I’m not sure there’s really any right answer or any answer that fits every situation. I really appreciate you writing in, because, as I said before, I had not heard of this term, so I am always learning something new.
I’m involved in a couple of on-line girlfag groups. While many of us are exclusively or primarily attracted to men, few if any of us consider ourselves “straight.” Many are gender-fluid or genderqueer butch types like me, others are a more complicated identity that seems to track to “female drag queen.” Few of us are entirely averse to dating straight men, but have trouble finding the kind of men who attract us in that group (the criteria vary from woman to woman, but the draws often seem to include androgyny, “fabulousness” and/or a straightforward, egalitarian approach to sex and relationships). The possibility that many gay men seem to fear – that a girlfag will try to “turn” them to a conventionally hetero relationship – is the last thing they should worry about; if we wanted that kind of relationship, it’s there waiting for us in straight-land, but we don’t.
It’s only recently that I’ve heard of gay men who have noticed that a large number of women (through slash, yaoi and more straightforward girlfaggery) are fantasizing about M/M sex, and begun objecting to it as “fetishization.” I’d argue that all sexual fantasy is “fetishization” pretty much by definition, and is nobody’s business but the fantasizer’s. And it’s encouraging, really, that the phenomenon is finally getting big enough to attract that kind of notice – women have been writing slash since the 1970s. (It’s been argued that “Brokeback Mountain” is essentially Marlboro Man slash.)
The word was coined by Jill Nagle in the 1980s, although Carol Queen certainly identifies as one – Carol wrote the foreword to my book. It’s not an uncommon identity among sex writers and educators – Billy Martin, in his previous existence as Poppy Z Brite, identified as a girlfag, and is a good example of the far-from-rare path from girlfag to gay transman. If I were twenty years younger, I’d be considering that possibility myself. But as it stands, I’ll just go on being my old cisfemale, genderqueer self.
Janet
“Few of us are entirely averse to dating straight men, but have trouble finding the kind of men who attract us in that group (the criteria vary from woman to woman, but the draws often seem to include androgyny, “fabulousness” and/or a straightforward, egalitarian approach to sex and relationships).”
This is a really great explanation of why I’ve always felt more attracted to bi and gay men, both before as a woman and now as an agender FTM transsexual. Though I never identified as a “girlfag”, this really helps describe what I’ve had trouble putting into words. Thank you!
I am ambivalent on the last one. I think someone can also reclaim a slur if it’s been used personally against them in a systematic way, even if they aren’t part of the group traditionally attacked by it. Largely because I don’t think that group is as well defined as we think. Gay men sometimes get called f*ggot. So do some transwomen. So do some MAAB genderqueers. So do some straight men who just happen to be “too” effeminate.
You can argue that all those other groups are being perceived as gay, so it’s still a slur against gay men. But we forget that society at large tends to conflate gender identity, gender expression, and sexuality. So in some ways, I think the people throwing slurs like that aren’t using gay and f*ggot to mean “you are attracted to and seek out relationships with men”. I think they’re saying “you are failing to be a man”.
Now, I also think there are caveats to this. There seems to be sort of two kinds of “reclaiming”. I’m not sure how to convey it, but I guess I’d call it a “community” reclamation, and a personal reclamation. The community one is being able to, for example, causally refer to OTHER people using that slur, or having the authority to tell other people they can use the word (ex: a trans woman telling someone they can use the T-word if they want to). It’s about trying to neutralize the stigma, by making the word casual. I think that one probably should be only given to people who DO have the identity the slur is associated with. A drag queen may have been called a tr*nny before, but he doesn’t get to declare that since he’s not a transwoman.
The second is more like choosing to be associated with that other group, and calling yourself that. In my mind, it’s about owning the stigma. It’s essentially saying “fine, I’ll be your freak”. For example, I have been called a dyke, though I don’t identify as female. If I’m choosing to “reclaim” the word, that means that when someone slurs it at me, I own it, and I throw it back in their face. For the sake of that conversation, I am their dyke. To me, this kind of reclamation is actually rather subversive when done by someone who is outside of the “intended” group. It’s actively choosing to be perceived as someone “lesser” when you don’t have to. I think this one can come with a pass on using the word casually, but only in the context of talking about how someone is perceived. For example, the Against Me! song “Gender dysphoria blues” has a line in the chorus “you want them to notice/ the ragged ends of your summer dress/ you want them to see you like they see every other girl/ but they just see a f*ggot”. Laura Jane Grace is not a gay man. She’s a transwoman and a lesbian. But I think it’s okay for her to use the word in this context, because she’s talking about stigma and discrimination, and harshness of the word doesn’t come from the fact that’s she’s being seen as a gay, it’s that she’s being seen as a man.
Sorry if this isn’t entirely cohesive. I’m on my phone, so I can’t really edit properly.