“I was so resistant to being called a lesbian painter” [but] in recent years she has come around to liking the identification of lesbian again.

“It does begin to feel more radical when you have straight, married people being like, ‘we are queer!’ We all know people like that.”

Artist Nicole Eisenman, profiled by @cnqmdi. https://artreview.com/nicole-eisenman-boredom-fuels-art/

Re. which statement, yes - but also, god: bisexuality and lessay "non-binary but not transitioning" really are the positions that can. not. win.

Something knotty in here about the demand for sexual and gender difference to be ~visible~

bc yes, we all know heterosexual couples that aren't really straight.

put bisexuality aside for a while & there are still the twinsies: the couples who evidently operate on a principle of sameness, not difference. other couples where she is clearly the man, and he, the wife.

(we all also know homosexual couples who are as normative as fuck...)

same thing with gender.

if you take it seriously - if you actually speak to cis people about their experience of gender, if you ask: "What does being a man/woman mean?" and "How do you know you are one?"

you get all kinds of answers.

(it's probably an overgenerous reading but) one reason I think TERFs are TERFs is that many of them are ppl who would've in other circumstances identified as non-binary or agender.

they don't perceive gender as something one might inherently feel: it's only imposed from without.

I have had quite unexpected conversations with some entirely cis-normative-appearing women where they've talked about very masc senses of identification.

it doesn't make them trans, sure: but equally, if the word 'queer' means anything, it is that.

But! As Eisenman alludes, there is this queer inflation issue.

Bisexual-but-M/F couples making out at the gay bar or marching at Pride together, everyone knows this is "problematic". A similar un-ease around claiming genderqueer ID when possessing cis passing privilege.

Why? It's about material relations, right?

Who's putting their neck on the line when they say they're queer - who's risking relationships, jobs, personal safety. And who isn't.

There is resentment of those who are not. A perceived lack of solidarity.

So what? Are you really a better queer if you dye your hair pastel colours + paint your nails + let yr body hair grow + dress in dungarees & DMs like a thrift-shop toddler?

It makes yr bisexuality or GQ-ness legible, sure.

But I did not think queerness meant wearing a uniform.

(I cast shade at the tenderqueers but should pause to acknowledge that, ok, Rick Owens is also a uniform. Oh daddy...)

Ultimately it's a question of what you want queerness to do.

Is it to be a safe haven, in which case mutual recognition & a shared material position (re cishet mainstream) are paramount?

Or is it to destroy gender, which may entail some strange coalitions of allegiance indeed?