Unfortunately, Miss Kellor is dead. That she lived with another woman for years is undeniable. That her letters to her had quasi-erotic moments is undeniable too. My ascription of her as being butch comes from, unfortunately, only one or two pictures where she has short hair and a tie. I do, however, want to make sure that I’m not reading too much into her. I appreciate your cautions.

Her stance as a feminist is very tangental to my dissertation. She did coach women’s basketball. She irked at least one modern feminist for saying sports should teach women cooperation and not ruthless competitiveness. My main concern is that, as the head of the early 20th century movement to Americanize immigrants, she often gets depicted as intolerant and into uniformity. My contention is, however, that someone so far out of the mainstream would be an unlikely candidate to want uniformity.

On another note, it does seem appropriate that someone into Americanization would be lesbian. My political orientation affirms that GLBT life is now accepted in the West much more than anywhere else in the world. That is not to say things are perfect here. But Islamic, African and Asian countries are worse. Being generally pro-America and pro-Western naturally follows being pro-GLBT.

BTW I spoke with someone that researched her before and met her girlfriend’s nephew. The nephew refused, in 1968, to hand over Kellor’s love letters to his aunt. And he seemed, to the person I spoke with, cold to Kellor. I think the whole family was a bit ashamed. She rarely gets mentioned in family letters. Since they were so progressive otherwise, it is sad that they were not closer to and prouder of this great person.

Thanks so much for your input!! John

http://www.culturism.us
pressjohn@hotmail.com

Also not an expert, but gender identity is really how one terms themselves. Could be transexual, or could be gender queer, or gender fluid. As to if that makes her (him) heterosexual or gay in a relationship with a woman, that also depends on how someone defines themselves.

I usually think of transexuals those who live and identify themselves as the opposite of their birth sex. They truly feel like they are a man in a woman’s body, or a woman in a man’s body.

It might be interesting to note, since you seem to be from Europe, possibly the UK, that Empress Elizabeth of Austria was considered the most beautiful woman in the world. She hunted and road horses BETTER than most of her male counterparts. She grew up a major tomboy and always outdid her brothers. She was also very competitive with other males in activities, but not so much with women.

Just because a woman can kick it with the best of ‘em doesn’t make them identify as a man. (And that was in the late 1800’s).

Keep in mind as well, that in Europe, particularly Germany and Austria, around the early 1900’s it was a statement for women to dress like men, yet retain that element of womanhood. You can find this in a lot of film history. By the way, some of the films of the 20’s had very racy sexual content.

Gender identity is how one positions oneself along the gender spectrum (or in gender categories for those who prefer little boxes to the wild world of spectra). I agree with RSG, that one can’t know how Kellor identified without asking.

It’s also untrue that all lesbians are feminists. I know plenty of queers, all along the gender identity spectrum, who are certainly not feminist. I’m not saying that Kellor wasn’t a feminist, but identities, categories, and other descriptors are rarely synonymous. (Wasn’t there a biologically- and self-identified male lesbian on the L Word? Oh wait. That’s the L Word, ergo, does not conform with reality!)

So this comment is basically worthless, except to say that as far as I’m concerned, identities of all types are best utilized from a self-identification standpoint. And today I’m identifying as a decidedly purple-loving monosexual with a penchant for grilled cheese sandwiches. That’s right. Ignore me. It’s safer for everyone.