Starting in 2004, the Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Research Foundation (LGQRF), has been keeping track of queer sub-populations in the U.S.  They have ALL kinds of quantitative data, both about self-identity and lifestyle.  They don't list "butch" as a self-selected category, but do collapse several indicative variables together, including sporting activities, reading habits, car ownership, occupation, and more, and end up with a startlingly accurate picture of the butch population throughout the U.S. 

If you're like me, you're a little hesitant--after all, there a thousand ways to measure the "butchest" towns and cities: butches as a percentage of the queer population, butches as a percentage of the general population, or degree of butchness (that is, how "butch" are the butches there, even if there aren't very many of them?).  The GLQRF actually breaks it down in seven different ways, but I'm just going to highlight the top 5 in the categories I think are the most interesting.  (The GLQRF lists 50 in each, and that's just waaaay too many for me to include here.)

Butches as a percentage of the queer population
1. Sudbury, Massachusetts
2. La Honda, California
3. Dixville Notch, New Hampshire
4. New York, New York
5. Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Butches as a percentage of the general population
1. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
2. Northampton, Massachusetts
3. Oakland, California
4. Provo, Utah
5. Abilene, Texas

Butchest Butches (without regard to # or % of butches)
1. Tracy, California
2. Highlands Ranch, Colorado
3. Friday Harbor, Washington
4. Mitchell, Nebraska
5. Lafayette, Louisiana

Least Butch Butches (without regard to # or % of butches)
1. Seaside Heights, New Jersey
2. Sunnyvale, California
3. Scarsdale, New York
4. Los Angeles, California
5. Frankfort, Kentucky

Most Attractive Butches
1. Portland, Oregon
2. Galena, Illinois
3. Greenville, South Carolina
4. North Decatur, Georgia
5. Eliot, Maine





Silliest Butches
1. YOU, if you're still reading this.  April Fool's!  Heehee.  Hope you enjoyed scouring the fictitious stats above.  I just made 'em up!  Have a terrific day.  Love, BW

I love sports (almost) as much as the next dyke, but I have awfully mixed feelings about the Olympics this year.  Russia's LGBT community is under constant, hateful, and often violent siege from its government.  Gay "propaganda"--defined as anything depicting LGBTQ relationships in a positive or neutral light in a form accessible to minors--is illegal.  This includes, as you can imagine, such "propaganda" as holding hands with your partner, wearing a T-shirt with a pink triangle on it, or even just being queer parents.  Just a few weeks ago, the Russian government fined the editor of a newspaper who published an interview with a gay teacher.  An interview, people.  In a newspaper.

Gay people in Russia are regularly bullied, chased, beaten up, and subjected to all kinds of hateful acts.  In a way, maybe it's good that the Olympics are being held in Russia this year, since it will draw attention to the human rights violations that go on in Russia every day.  Principle 6 is the Olympic principle that forbids discrimination on the basis of politics, race, religion, gender, or otherwise--a principle decidedly not embraced in Russia. 

The Principle 6 campaign is designed to raise awareness of the way LGBTQ people are treated in Russia and "and underscore that Russia's anti-LGBT discrimination is incompatible with the Olympic movement."  I urge you to take the Principle 6 logo and make it your Facebook or Twitter image.  I guarantee that people will ask you about it, which will give you more chances to spread the word.

And if you're a schwag-lover like me, you'll be happy to know that American Apparel has designed a very cool "Principle 6" clothing line, and it's money well-spent, since proceeds will support LGBTQ groups in Russia. 

I hope you'll spread the word, and help LGBTQ folks in Russia imagine a better world.

Okay, I'm hesitating to post this because it makes me seem way more curmudgeonly than I actually (think I) am.  Oh well. 

I should also say that at least for me, and maybe for other people, none of this applies if you're a close friend or close family member.  It's more when acquaintances or (godfuhbid) strangers offer their advice that I blanch.

What you say: There are soooo many options for people who want kids!
What I hear: You're probably too stupid to figure this out, but you can procreate without having sex with a man!

What you say: But you'd be such a good parent!
What I think: I'd also be a good race car driver, occupational therapist, or professional shoeshiner.  Natural predilection does not a destiny make.

What you say: Some people are too selfish to have kids.
What I hear: You are selfish and shallow.  Unless you have kids.  In which case all is forgiven.  But I thought better of you.  Now you just make me sad.

What you say: You could always adopt!
What I think: No sh*t.

What you say: Lots of lesbians are having kids these days!
What I think: Lots of lesbians are also chain-smokers, alcoholics, drug users, glue-sniffers, head cases, doctors, truckers, and couch potatoes.  So?

What you (usually another lesbian) say: My mom didn't fully accept my partner and me until we had kids.  But now that she has grandkids, we're closer than ever.
What I hear: Your mother will never fully love you until you procreate.

What you say: There are SO many children out there who need good homes.
What I think: So why didn't you adopt instead of having biological kids?  Oh--you're scared you'll end up with a crack baby or a psychopath from a Russian orphanage who's never been held?  But I should go for it?  Thaaanks.

What you say: NO one thinks they want kids. Then they have them and they're glad they did.
What I think: Am I the only person in the world who's ever heard of cognitive dissonance?

What you say: Are you thinking of having a family?
What I think: So, me + DGF + slightly swollen canine ≠ "family?"  Screw you.

What you say: You haven't lived a full life unless you have kids.
What I hear: Your life is invalid.  There's only one way to redeem yourself, and it smells like diapers.

What you say: You may think you know what love is, but you don't really know what love is until you have kids.
What I hear: All your feelings are pathetic, shallow, and invalid--mere shadows of what they could have been.  Alas!

Okay, so I'm being melodramatic, but you get the idea.

I actually don't think the pressure is nearly as bad for lesbian and gay couples who don't want kids, as it is for straight couples who don't want kids.  People basically assume that opposite-sex couples are going to have kids, and that if they don't, it's because there's something biologically "wrong" with them.  Instead of just getting asked, "Do you think you'll have kids someday?", people will ask questions like, "Do you think you're going to...  start trying?" 

OMG.

Recently I was talking to someone I respect a great deal, and she said something I've often thought as well: many people are more uncomfortable with gender nonconformity than with homosexuality.  Of course, the two often go hand in hand.  But let's assume, for a moment, that we can disaggregate them.

In my work circles, which mostly comprise upper-middle-class NPR listeners, few people care if your partner is male or female.  Same-sex partnership is still noteworthy, interesting, and a titillating gossip source to some people, but for the most part, it's not a big issue.  Homos abound at high levels in my profession, and most are pretty open.  But I have trouble coming up with examples of high-powered women in my profession who wear mostly men's clothing.  If you're a woman giving a conference talk, it's not that big a deal to mention your same-sex partner.  It is a big deal to wear a necktie.  No one else does it, and you're likely to be seen as "making a statement."

For me, this begs two questions: (1) Why?; (2) What implications does this have for my own self-presentation?  Today, I'll write about the former.

Here's my guess: looking gender-conforming still adheres to people's ideas and assumptions about gender--the idea that men "are" and "look" a certain way, and that women "are" and "look" a different way.  If we define homosexuality narrowly (as I think most people do, particularly non-queers), it only challenges one aspect of gender typicality: whom you sleep with. 

It's as if are only two kinds of ice cream, and ice cream always comes in double scoops: one vanilla, one chocolate.  This is what most people always order,  then later they learn that some people order two scoops of vanilla or two scoops of chocolate.  "Fine," they think.  "Some people like two scoops of the same thing.  But there are still just two kinds of ice cream."

In contrast, if someone orders vanilla with chocolate swirls and says, "It's still vanilla--it just has chocolate swirls in it," (or if, God forbid, they order strawberry) this challenges people's fundamental ideas about the kinds of ice cream that exist.

In this way, gender nonconformists mess with people's categories.  A woman in a tie, when only men are wearing ties, is like chocolate chip ice cream.  "What IS that?" people think.  "No flavor I've ever seen."  This is probably why, as Kristen Schilt writes in One of the Guys, when people go from identifying as butch women to identifying as trans men, they become more accepted in the workplace.  As butch women, people viewed them as gender atypical.  When they become trans men, people can say, "Oh, I kind of understand--you were really chocolate all along!" 

As more states adopt legal protections based on sexual orientation, I think gender conformity will be one of the next frontiers.  This is closely tied--though not identical--to the fight for trans rights, providing another reason to help fight for the rights of all other queers, not just your personal subset.

For now, I'll leave the conversation there.  What do you think, dear readers?  In your everyday work lives, what's people's reaction to sexual orientation versus gender nonconformity?