Ok, so let’s talk about the history of Stone. We all know that Stone has its origins in Butch/Femme lesbian culture. What’s apparently news is that it didn’t end there. Stone identity actually made it through the 60s and continues evolving today.
Back when Butch/Femme was the norm in the lesbian community, to the point of prescriptivism, (quite unlike today where Butch/Femme has been erased so much that Butch/Femme lesbians find themselves having to prove they’re ~lesbian enough~ to other lesbians) [1], there was a certain stoic, chivalrous Butch ideal. It had the kind of problems that ideals of masculinity usually do, but it also had all the freedom and general subversiveness any queer identity does.
Stoneness fit fairly well with this particular brand of queer masculinity.
(But let it not be said that Stone identity, or it’s intersections with other identities, has ever been uncomplicated. Navigating a Stone identity is a complex and deeply personal thing for every Stone, and picking and choosing who can’t and can’t be Stone and what is or isn’t real Stoneness does not make it any easier. [2])
Now, what happened as that generation of AFAB queers got older, and as the trans community made greater strides toward visibility and accessibility, is that Stone Butches started transitioning. [Leslie Feinberg, author of Stone Butch Blues (the book on the subject) IDs as a transgender lesbian and uses ze/hir pronouns.] Younger AFAB queers stopped IDing as Stone Butch and started IDing as trans at younger and younger ages. Stone, which had always been an identity directly tied to gender variance, became more definitively a trans identity. Butches who had been part of the lesbian community became part of the trans community. The blurred lines between transmasculine identity and Butch lesbian identity became a visible issue. [3]
So, to be clear: Stone as a cultural phenomenon originates in the lesbian community. Stone as a personal identity comes primarily from nonbinary transmasculine people.
To say that Stone is a lesbian identity is an oversimplification. Historically Stone is a Butch and transmasculine identity, and historically transmasculine people have been accepted within the lesbian community whether they belong there or not. Those who’ve been allowed to call themselves Stone still have to field constant challenges of their identities. Meanwhile this ‘lesbian’ identity has been denied to both trans women and Femme cis women. There are a lot of things wrong with that, but I’m not going to try and dissect them all right now.
This is why degendering Stone is not only acceptable, but critical. Stone belongs to all queers. [I don’t have any sources to link for that, but it’s something I’ve discussed with Stone Femmes and Stone trans women.] Furthermore, I personally think making Stone more accessible in general is crucial because denying people access to Stone isn’t just denying them a framework with which to understand their identity, it’s denying them an alternative sexual script. Making Stone visible and accessible is necessary for good consent.
So, now onto lith. I am the one who coined the term. My partner is lithromantic and we needed a word for it. I’m not lithromantic myself; I’m quoiromantic. I am lithsexual, although figuring that out is a relatively recent thing.
I’m also Stone. That’s less recent.
For the record, no, I am not a lesbian. I’m a transmasculine queer AFAB person who’s lived much of its life in women and trans communities and has ID’d as a lesbian in the past. In other words, a key demographic of Stone identity. And I’m ace and aro spectrum.
Now, I don’t know if you, the reader, will agree with me on anything at this point. But supposing you do agree that I have a right to Stone identity and lithsexuality, you might still question if people who aren’t Stone should be allowed to call themselves lith.
Stone and lithromanticism and lithsexuality are all different, but they have a lot in common. For one, these identities all share remarkably similar stigmas. You’re told you have a complex, an ‘unhealthy way of thinking’, not an orientation. You’re made to feel undesireable, but unlovable, unworthy. At the same time, you’re shamed for denying others complete access to you, for having boundaries, basically. Your imagined pleasure outweighs your actual wants and needs, your feelings bend under someone else’s need to control your feelings. There’s a unique quagmire of identity issues and internalized shame that comes with navigating the world as someone so fundamentally incompatible with something so omnipresent. [4]
Secondly, lithros and lithses are queer. Ace spectrum folk are queer. Aro spectrum folk are queer. If you’re not het, you’re queer. If you’re not allo, you’re not het. Sure, aro and ace people can uphold heterosexism, cissexism, and amatonormativity. So can queers with any other identities. Call out internalized *isms where you see them, but stop making spaces unsafe for ace and aro folk.
Finally, yes, it would be appropriative if we were calling lithros and lithses Stone, because Stone already means something, already belongs to people. If we took the word away and misused it and/or changed its meaning, of course that would be appropriative! But drawing on pre-established terminology when you create new terminology isn’t appropriative. It’s just linguistics.
Language appropriation is an important issue, but I’m reasonably sure it’s not the issue here.
That said, I am always open to dissenting opinions. If you want to discuss this issue, I would love to talk with you, if you’ll be civil to me. If you want to yell, I understand, but here is not a productive place to do that. I know what my limits are.
theartofmadeline
kianamaiart
annaxmalina
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
