"oh please everyone has gay thoughts sometimes" so what i'm hearing is that heteronormativity is so ingrained that a significant percentage of the population regularly experiences bisexual attraction? but dismisses it as something that all straight people experience? this is so concerning are you guys okay

Hiya! I'm new to your wonderful corner of the internet, and I hope you don't mind if I ask a lot of questions lol. Firstly, what do you think of pan vs bi? The only satisfying answer I have gotten as to the differences (besides subjective stuff like feeeeeeling like you value their gender or whatever) is that a pan person would f*ck intersex/enbies, while bi people wouldn't. I'm curious what you think. Second, do you think that the LGBs are ever going to have a satisfying split from the Ts/the gender fandom? What kind of steps would we take to accomplish that?

Hi, and welcome! I don’t mind questions at all. 😄

I’m strongly against the concept of pansexuality.

I believe that the label is rooted in biphobia and a misunderstanding of bisexuals.

The main arguments for the difference between bi and pan (off the top of my head) are as followed;

Bi means two, pan means all. Bisexuals are only attracted to two genders but pansexuals are attracted to all.

Bisexuals take gender into consideration when it comes to attraction. Pansexuals don’t.

Bisexuals care about parts, pansexuals care more about somebody’s personality. (“Hearts not parts”)

Bisexuals won’t date trans people, pansexuals will.

These are all either based on a misunderstanding of sexuality, or of bisexuals.

For the first one, I do agree that bi means two. But it means the two sexes, because sexuality is based off of sex (hence it being called SEXuality).

In the same way homosexual means same sex attracted, heterosexual means opposite sex attracted, and asexual means attracted to neither sex... bisexual means attracted to two/both sexes. And since there’s only two sexes, “pansexual” meaning “attracted to all sexes” is functionally the exact same thing as bisexuality.

Even if you believe in more than two genders (which I don’t), the attraction is still based off of sex characteristics... and on a biological level, there would be no difference in how a pansexual experiences attraction and how a bisexual experiences attraction.

For the second one, there are many bisexuals who don’t care about gender. There are many who have a preference. To say that all bisexuals have a preference is a misunderstanding of bisexuality. And, to say that preferences dictate sexuality is a misunderstanding of sexuality. Preferences or no preferences—it doesn’t change what sex(es) you are attracted to. If you are attracted to both sexes, you are bisexual. Your preferences or lack thereof don’t make or take away from your bisexuality.

For the third one, I just find this argument disgustingly biphobic, and in general an arrogant thing to say—that only one sexuality, pansexuality, cares about one’s personality over their body. Especially when the idea that bisexuals and homosexuals are obsessed with sex is a stereotype that has been fought against for years.

And once again, it’s a misunderstanding of sexuality. A straight woman who is more interested in sex than a guy’s personality isn’t suddenly a different sexuality. So why is this the case for bisexuals?

I believe it’s to escape the negative stereotypes that cloud over bisexuality. The idea that bisexuals are sex crazed and greedy, and only care about genitalia. It’s not a coincidence that pansexuality makes its entire brand off of distancing itself from these negative stereotypes.

It would be like if a bunch of homosexual women started calling themselves “samesexual”, and claimed that they’re different than homosexual women/lesbians because unlike lesbians, samesexuals aren’t predatory.

That sounds insanely homophobic, yes? If we can accept that creating a whole new “sexuality” to distance oneself from negative homosexual stereotypes is homophobic, we have to accept that creating a whole new “sexuality” to distance oneself from negative bisexual stereotypes is biphobic.

And the fourth argument, there’s not much to say here other than that this is plain transphobia. It separates trans people from cis people, placing trans men and women into a separate box away from “man” and “woman”

On top of this, being attracted to or not being attracted to trans people does not make a whole new sexuality, because trans people are not a third sex.

It’s also another misconception about bisexuality—because never have transsexuals not been in the bisexual dating pool.

Onto the next topic;

I don’t support “drop the T”.

This isn’t to say that I don’t think separating LGB and T for certain causes is helpful. For example; fighting for same sex marriage is an LGB issue, while fighting for accessible and affordable medical care for gender dysphoria is a T issue.

To be fair, I’m almost of the opinion that the large grouping itself isn’t really necessary, considering how different the experiences of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals are. But, I can understand why they’re all lumped together for a rights movement, especially because homophobia impacts everyone in the LGBT acronym. So since it’s here and it’s been here for a while, I’m in support of the full acronym being LGBT.

But as far as completely dropping the T goes... I believe that the push for this comes from a misunderstanding of transgender people, likely from the terrible representation they are given from people who aren’t actually transsexual.

Because the Ts and the gender fandom are two incredibly different groups, and although the distinction isn’t made often... it’s incredibly important for exactly this reason—that they get mixed together and it leads to hatred of trans people.

Transgender people/transsexuals are people who experience gender dysphoria. The goal of most trans people is to live a normal life as the gender their brain recognizes them to be. They have medical and mental health needs that are important to their quality of life. This is the crowd where you’re likely to find people who simply want to live their lives in peace.

The gender fandom, at least who I think you’re referring to, are people who don’t experience gender dysphoria, and often treat gender as an accessory, a performance, a fashion or political statement, etc. This is the crowd where you’ll find the neopronoun users, the obscure labels like “genderfluid”, and are unfortunately typically the people who get the spotlight over actual trans people.

Please do not confuse the two!

Look, I get it. Watching the second group run around and make LGBT people look like a joke is painful. But it is not the fault of transsexuals. Many trans people are just as annoyed as everyone else is, especially because they are directly being misrepresented (shown by how you and many others consider them to be one and the same with things like MOGAI).

So I won’t be advocating for dropping the T.

However, I do fully support from separating from MOGAI (or the “queer community” as many of them like to say), and I think the way to do that is to make a clear distinction between LGBT people, and QIA+ people. And making it clear that the T only includes dysphoric trans men/women.

It’s not about dropping the T. It’s about dropping everything after the T, and restoring the T to its original meaning.

We need more LGBT people to stand up against how the “queer community” is representing us, and to make it clear that the acronym is LGBT, and that the LGBT movement is a civil rights movement, not a “let’s all party and share our pronouns” movement.

Thanks to the “queer community”, LGBT people aren’t taken seriously. Thanks to the “gender fandom”, transsexuals are seen as a joke and a burden to the LGBT community. Both the “queer community” and “gender fandom” need to be separated and made distinct from the LGBT community, and this should be done with all four letters, not just three.

Tl;dr:

I’m against the pansexual label, and I believe it is inherently biphobic and often transphobic.

It also perpetuates harmful stereotypes about bisexuals and homosexuals.

I don’t support the “drop the T” movement.

The T gets a lot of misrepresentation, and I believe that misrepresentation is part of where the “drop the T” movement comes from.

It’s important to make a distinction between the LGBT movement and the modern day “queer community” if we ever want LGBT people to be taken seriously again.

Rando Munday ramblings! For new followers, on Munday sometimes I just post a bunch of personal stuff I normally wouldn’t. Not usually anything intimately personal, more like random thoughts and news that just isn’t relevant to the blog in any way, not related to X-Men or RP or writing in general, etc. ....there’s a lot of Hannibal today, sorry, I’m rewatching it.

- I definitely wanna have a pair of critters named Hannibal and Hasdrubal at some point, maybe if there's a third I'd name him Hamilcar. I know everyone will think I named them after Hannibal Lector but actually these are really common names from Ancient Carthage. Like if you look at Carthagian history and records, everyone is Hannibal, Hasdrubal, or Hamilcar, it's like John, James, and Jim. I'd prefer the pair, though, since Hannibal and Hasdrubal were a pair of brothers and famous historical figures, so it would feel much more like a "set" that way (whereas they did not have a brother called Hamilcar) - Speaking of Hannibal Lector, I knew he was based on a real person, but I did not realize that person was a gay Mexican man. That’s...an interesting example of gay history, for sure. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, Thomas Harris (the writer of the books that the films and later the TV series were based on) based Hannibal on a surgeon he met while interviewing an inmate at prison for another novel. This surgeon was so intelligent and charismatic that Harris implicitly assumed that he was a doctor in the employ of the prison. Nope---the doctor was an inmate himself. Harris was so shaken by the encounter that it inspired him to create Hannibal Lector, who, in contrast to the typical media portrayals of serial killers as uncontrolled lunatic slashers like Michael Myers or Leatherface, is a charming, culture, charismatic intellectual. To protect the man’s identity, Harris called him “Dr. Salazar” in interviews, so that was always how I knew him. I just now learned not only was his real name Alfredo Balli Trevino, but his victim was Jesus Castillo Rangel, his male lover. Harris describes him as a small, lithe man with dark red hair and, unsurprisingly, “a certain elegance about him”. Though Trevino was given the death penalty for his crimes, his sentence was commuted to 20 years and he was released in either 1980 or 1981. He died in in 2009 when he was 81 years old. He reportedly spent the last years of his life helping the poor and elderly, and he expressed deep regret for his “dark past”---which I suppose makes sense, since his crime was that he killed a lover in a fit of rage during an argument, whereas Hannibal simply killed people in cold blood whom he had no attachment to because he liked eating them (something Trevino never did) and to punish them for rudeness. - I’ve decided to stop buying silk, unless it's from a thrift store and thus my money won't go to supporting sericulture. Ahimsa silk isn't an option either, the bugs aren't technically killed but they're not treated well either. I know it might seem weird to eat meat and wear leather and yet not want to purchase something that hurt moths and larva, but...I have to eat meat for medical reasons, and my leather purchases is limited to boots that I then keep for YEARS AND YEARS so it's very sparing. There's really no such thing as a cruelty-free diet or lifestyle, whether that cruelty is suffered by animals or by other humans, but I can still make choices that at least lesson some small aspect of harm. I need to eat meat, I don't need real silk. ...Haven only wears bamboo silk for this reason and when this came up with Shaw, he absolutely thought she was fucking with him, like even SHE can’t be THIS insane, NO ONE ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT BUGS WTF - The books nearest to me right now are “Women Who Run With The Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype ” by Clarissa Pinkola Estes, The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Romantic Period, “X-Men: The Legacy Quest Trilogy” by Steve Lyons, two  horror anthologies, the script for “M. Butterfly” by David Henry Hwang, “The Spanish Riding School of Vienna: Tour of America 2005″ book I got from when I went to see the Lippizanner horses perform, and a big beautiful leatherbound English translation of “The Flowers of Evil” by Charles Baudelaire. This is...this is a summary of my whole personality, sans rodents. Also god I need to clean my room. - Something I've noticed is that many sci-fi horror films that do the whole "science went too far against nature!!!" thing....don't actually have the problem result from the lack of ethics involved or because the scientists did something "unnatural", it happens because they didn't follow basic safety precautions, lab protocol, common sense, etc. "Splice" for instance, is a really good example---the problem isn't that they made a part-human hybrid, that's not why shit goes wrong, shit goes wrong because the two scientists act like idiots, adopt the creation as a child, hide it in their barn instead of a sterile controlled environment, and then one of them HAS SEX WITH IT. Or in "The Fly" the problem isn't that Brundle invented a teleporter, it's that he tested it ON HIMSELF while he was ALL ALONE. Even in "Jurassic Park" the issue is less that dinosaurs are breeding and more the result of a disgruntled worker who was given way too much power over being able to run things, and thus shut them down when he wants to. So many "science gone wrong!" movies end up not really being condemnations of science itself, so much as depicting scientists as utter dumbasses. Which, on the one hand, I do like, because I dislike the notion of condemning scientific progress just because it seems icky or creepy or "goes against nature" (so do vaccines, I still like those!) But on the other hand, the movies don't FRAME it as "this is the result of failure to practice science safely and sensibly" they frame it as "they should never have attempted such an unnatural thing and this disaster is punishment for a moral sin" even though the issue doesn't happen because what the scientists did was "wrong" it happens because they do something DUMB. - Bringing it back to Hannibal, I reached the episode where Margot Verger first appears, and if I have one big disappointment about the Hannibal series, it's Margot. In the books, she's a huge butch lesbian, literally and figuratively. In the TV series, she's a pretty femme fashionista like all the other women, and she fucks Will in order to get pregnant. At the time this came out in 2013, I tried to be all resigned and fair-minded about this. I was like "ok, well, they didn't want to be offensive with a stereotype, and I guess that's fair, I guess not hurting people matters more to me than getting the horseback-riding bulldyke hearthrob of my high school years on-screen at last" but you know what? No. Firstly, butch lesbians deserve representation too. How many have you ever seen onscreen, let alone in a mainstream media production? Sure, it's a stereotype, but it's not an inherently negative one, they just get treated that way in media because society sees it that way. But the way to handle butch lesbians and femme gay men and so on isn't to erase them from the screen, it's to start writing them as human beings and not caricatures or jokes or monsters. Margot is a fleshed-out human being, she's nuanced and twisted and hurt like everyone else in this series, she would be PERFECT for that. She wouldn't be just a butch lesbian, she'd be a CHARACTER who just also happens to be a butch lesbian. I don't really think she was changed to avoid "hurting" lesbians, I think she was changed because the director, gay man or not, clearly has a way he wants the women in his series to look (they're all fashion plates, all have long hair, all very sophisticated, etc) and book Margot didn't fit his aesthetic, his design if you will. Because god forbid we just make her a DAPPER dyke, right? Back to having sex with Will, which most certainly did NOT happen in the books...that's not bad itself in a VACUUM, fucking men to get a baby is something real-life lesbians do, I had a friend in college who was actually conceived that way, but like...no media exists in a vacuum, and there is very little depiction of lesbians in media that doesn't feature them fucking men for SOME reason or another. They want a baby, or they start the story with a boyfriend, or they're actually bisexual, or they're even raped, but there's always SOME reason we have to watch a guy fucking them and it's frankly distressing. Like, remember Irene Adler in BBC's Sherlock? It's a pattern. And I'm not saying lesbians who have had a sexual past with men, or who were the victims of sexual violence by men, don't deserve representation, I would never say that, those are very common experiences, I'm not saying "gold stars only", I'm saying that there is a strong pattern in media where it seems almost obligatory that a lesbian has to have sex with or be attracted to men at some point, while comparatively the opposite case, where a lesbian is depicted as exclusively and only attracted to and "with" other women, is seldom there. And it's just kind of a kick in the nads for me, as I think it was for a lot of other lesbians, butch or not, that a gay director took an opportunity like Margot Verger and turned her into just another attractive lipstick lesbian that is okay with having sex with the male protagonist as a treat tee hee (Spoiler: She does end up with Alana though, which I appreciate)

I wanna coin a term:

Cismisogyny

the misogyny that cisnormative people utilize is focused on "biological/natal sex" and birth assigned gender, as well as intersex erasure, and is basically just glorified genital supremacy. that people with penises have power over people with vaginas, and therefore people with a uterus are inferior. it's a very particular type of sexism that's a blend of transphobia and misogyny but from a cis lens.

transmisogyny is specifically prejudice against what they deem to be trans women (as they're unaware that "passing" trans women exist), so cismisogyny would be specifically prejudice against what they deem to be cis women (or what they would just say is women), and is a separate notion entirely from the misogyny that misogynist trans men and misogynist but not transphobic cis men (and brainwashed dumb white blonde haired blue eyed bimbo trophy wives for conservative men so think a cookie cutter carbon copy of tomi lahren) frequently feel.

so to clarify:

Misogyny: hating all women

Transmisogyny: hating trans women

Transphobia*: hating trans people in general

(*includes gender binarism and truscum)

Cismisogyny: hating people with vaginas, indeterminate of whether they're trans or not

...

It's a very specific term but it describes a very specific type of sexism, you see. As someone who does not have a vagina, is transgender, and has the benefit of viewing things from an objective standpoint due to autism, it's a very disturbing trend I see in many parts of society. Even here on Tumblr.

I just saw a take that was blaming trans men and dfab nonbinary people for the lack of trans women's voices in trans spaces, and saying that they are silent about it because the silent oppression of trans women benefits them. A very cold take indeed. Trans men and dfab nonbinary people aren't responsible for the transmisogyny. Cis people are. And the reason why is because cis people typically are usually also male supremacists. If what a cis person perceives to be a male tries to "become a female" such as trans women and dmab nonbinary people (because cis people and male supremacists typically are also binarists), that is them rejecting the privilege society awarded us for having the magic Y chromosome that allows humans to be treated with dignity and respect. If what a cis person perceives to be a female tries to "become a male" such as a trans man or a dfab nonbinary person (see my prior parenthical remark), that is them attempting to reject femininity and embrace the superiority of masculinity, which accepts them into their ranks.

So trans men and dfab nonbinary people are typically lauded by many cis male-supremacist people are socially acceptable, especially since many of them seem to be okay with tomboys and women wearing suits and just a general overall sense of women embracing masculinity and rejecting femininity. That's acceptable to a bunch of white christian post-colonials. And of course degenerates would feel it's an "added bonus" to ~get~ to see breasts and vaginas in the locker room because tHaTs sO hOt.

But dmab people who identify as anything but men? Absolutely loathsome, in cis eyes, because femininity is EVIL and BAD and INFERIOR.

Cissexism is of course a definition I've seen, but it seems to be basically a synonym for transphobia. But see, while cismisogyny as I am describing it is indeed rooted in transphobic ideology, it doesn't seem to be in and of itself explicitly transphobic. I'll have to explain that.

Like. All white people are racist. Every person with white skin color benefits from the privilege accompanying it, at the expense of the people who don't. We perform microaggressions that we don't notice all the time. We absorb all of the negativity and racism society forcefeeds us, subliminal propaganda, and it releases itself. Now, a white person could actively fight and campaign for black rights. They could respect black culture and art. They could listen to and understand wu tang clan without ever letting a slur pass their lips. They could date black people who don't find them racist. They could be the least racist person you've ever met. But they would still be at least somewhat racist because that's how human development works. But just because they're not republican or a 4channer, don't laugh at lynching jokes, don't use slurs, don't treat black people as less or inferior, don't literally murder black people, that doesn't mean they aren't racist at all. It just means they're not specifically that kind of overt explicitly violent antiblackness like the kkk. It's a different tier of racism. It's not as severe or as noticeable, but it's still racism.

And it's the same way with cis people. Many cis people are supportive of trans people on the surface. They'll smile and welcome you into their homes and hug you and walk you to the bathroom and respect your name/pronouns and go clothes shopping with you and be the shoulder to cry on when someone attacks them and fight congress for your rights and punch a transphobic asshole in the face. But they still can & do perform transphobic microagressions for no other reason than society instilled those ideals in their heads since birth when they put the M or F on your birth certificate or in slightly rarer cases performed surgery on your infant genitals without parental consent. They can sympathize, they can attempt to empathize, but they will never fully understand. And that's okay. If they try, that's good enough.

Just as there are many tiers of racism there are many tiers of transphobia. Cismisogyny is one such tier that intersects with binarism and standard misogyny. People who aren't typically transphobic could still be cismisogynist. Even I can admit to experience cismisogyny in my life through sexual exploitation. My orientation is bisexual with a strong preference towards cis women, trans men, and dfab nonbinary people. I don't want it to be like that. And it's not like cis men, trans women, and dmab nonbinary people are not attractive to me, because they are (unf chris hemsworth 👌🏻🤤), but due to the social conditioning in my being born and raised a "straight white christian red blooded hoosier man" and the cismisogyny accompanying that, the entitlement complex that manifested side by side with my "nice guy in the friend zone" complex, that I didn't unlearn until after I was already a fully grown adult, that's how my brain be like. I recognize it in myself, and that's how I know that it exists. And it took that ignorant shitty post for me to actually be able to put these thoughts in writing.

I don't blame trans men and dfab nonbinary people for my social isolation and distinct lack of friends who are also trans women. I don't blame this new wave of drag kings and bio queens. I blame cissexism, cisheteropatriarchy, transphobia, transmisogyny, and cismisogyny. I blame the people responsible for the situation of our society. I don't blame my brothers, my siblings, my friends and family. I won't throw them under the bus, just as they didn't throw me under. We're all in this together, and I'm glad that they're having less difficulty than I am in that specific situation. Especially because due to my aforementioned objectivity, I've also noticed all of the hatred and vitriol hurled towards them, especially by dudebro gamer culture. I've seen it. I know it's there.

So I know I'm not really popular online. Very few people know me. My only claim to fame is the "aliens: [slide $40 to nasa] nasa: lmao what aliens" post and even then they don't know the individual URLs of the three of us involved. In fact I'm pretty sure the number of people I'm blacklisted by and blocked by is double my follower count. Even with the bots. Maybe even triple. Things I've said taken out of context have in the past made me look like I'm racist, transmisandrist, a sexual predator, a fucking rape apologist, and worst of all a person who "didn't get a joke" that I ignored heaving pile of religious intolerance that hates jews, muslims, christians, and... everyone else (people who weren't judeochristian didn't seem to care). Certain circlejerks herald me as a king of clowns of a sort (I'd say queen but they were mostly transphobic lmao). So I know that this post will get ignored. Maybe two or three people will like it. Maybe one person will reblog it... like that one crimson lady monarch, or the mildly irked homosexual wyvern, you two know who you are. Maybe nobody will. And looking back it's much more likely for a bunch of dumb uglyass terf cunts taking my sexual preferences bit out of context to make all trans women look like evil sex predators, than any people will see my vocabulary suggestion. But there is a reason why I'll hit post and not delete.

Cismisogynist trans women don't speak for me. Despite the problematic microaggressions my shit tier bad brain development perpetuates, despite what any ignorant cis tries to tell me, despite all of that shit... if you try to talk shit about my family I will obliterate you.

i wanted to talk about tony and his bisexuality .       first and foremost , tony’s acceptance of his sexuality was complex , difficult , but holistically good and solid for him . 

being raised under howard gave tony ideas of EXPECTATIONS he had to meet in order to win howard’s attention , let alone his love . one of those was to not deviate from norms - he had to come off a certain way . masculine , unforgiving , intelligent , brutal , a cut above the rest . sexuality wasn’t talked about in his house . not really . 

maria , his lovely mother , was much softer . and i think in the quiet moments - because i see her as the type of mother who sought out tony in the aftermaths and met him there . talked to him there . and tony probably hinted at the prospect that he was deviating - that he wasn’t simply attracted to one , opposite sex . and in the times he was growing up , sexuality and gender discourse weren’t all that prevalent . they were there and rising but the same attention and light they were given to today wasn’t at the same intensity or forefront . so maybe he got his mother’s love , but not so much the understanding . 

tony begins researching . finding all the information he can because he was fearful of what happens if he’s not straight . and tony , when he’s frightened , becomes as KNOWLEDGEABLE as possible so he can conquer his fears . because really , fears are given birth from the unknown . once you know - you shouldn’t be afraid anymore . at least in his mind . so he researches , and reads up on gender theory and sexuality and devours a bunch of texts by academics but also from blog posts , documentaries , etc . 

he always does his searches in places where howard wouldn’t find it or with encryptions so tightly packed howard couldn’t break into if he ever stumbled upon it .  

tony really begins understanding he’s attracted to not just girls , but guys too when he’s at boarding school . it wasn’t ground breaking . but his first kiss with a boy was when he was fourteen and he realized he liked it . he started experimenting more when he was 16 . and by 18-19 he could admit , to at least himself , he liked being with girls and boys in various amounts . 

this was not something he was comfortable sharing though . not until he’s in his mid twenties and he talks to jarvis and jarvis was honestly a huge huge help with tony . once he confides in jarvis jarvis is a huge support . a giant advocate . and works with tony on having someone who knows where he can go for Real People Support and !!! gives tony  a listening ear when he struggles with his identity  . because really at this point still tony was still tightly wound around howard’s perception of his worth and fighting for that every day . 

after his parents dies tony flings himself into a lot of vices - sex , drugs , alcohol . seeing which one sticks . for a while , he attempts to only sleep and flirt with girls so the media won’t already have Wild Field Days but tony . . . tony after meeting the avengers and meeting pepper and rhodey and happy and . . . idk where i’m going with this but TONY when he’s older gets much more comfortable with himself and his sexuality . says ima do what i want but he doesn’t go public with it bc it’s not the people’s place to know until he’s ready . and when he is ready he’ll do it in the most tony stark way possible but tony coming to grips with his bisexuality is a part of th eprocess of tony cutting off his identity from being so dependent on approval and love , and more reliant on his own perceptions of self worth and loving himself in whole . 

he’s a giant advocate for LGBTQ+ organizations , especially when he learns about intersectionality and how that impacts people based with layered identities and oppression . he builds his own resources and centers for LGBTQ + youths and young adults and also ADULTS and has it filled with well trained , quality individuals who Get It to ! help !

he’s big on pride . he loves being there . he loves showing his support . and if someone asks him what his sexuality is now , he’ll say he’s bi . and that bisexuals are very valid bc you can have preferences one over the other , still enjoy both , still be seen and heard . and he gets tight when people try to downplay his sexuality bc he’s , while he hasn’t out RIGHT gone through shit thanks to this social status and his race , the internal complexities and struggles he’s faced are still very real and valid . and he has had people say in his face before that he’s just ~confused~ and ~playing around~ . 

like no , he ain’t . 

anyways  ! the conclusion is tony is a proud bisexual and he’s super into being an advocate and having those discusses about the constructs of gender and empowerment . . . yeah ! 

On Preferences and Transphobia

What I did: I wrote a small post about how while preferences aren’t inherently transphobic, it is transphobic to refuse to date someone purely because they are transgender.

What happened: a bunch of gross TERF blogs reblogged the post and added some lovely transphobic comments.

Why? I don’t know. Maybe they were just feeling salty today.

I blocked the TERFs (because first and foremost, I have to take care of my mental health and I would rather not engage in that kind of discourse right now) and deleted their comments on the original post. One of the TERFs left a long list of things that they were salty about on my post. Ironically, the comment was longer than the original post. Funny how that works.

So here’s some thoughts on that list, kids:

1. You’re correct, sexual orientations are not preferences. I could have worded that better, and I apologize. While preferences was not the correct word, what I meant was simply that some people have certain genitals that they would prefer not to interact with. As a lesbian, you would likely not want to have sex with someone who had a penis.

And, small caveat, if you did, that’s totally fine, too! Because sexuality is a fluid thing, and there are women who don’t have vaginas. There are *gasp* trans women! I know that sounds terrifying to you, but honey, trans women are women. It doesn’t matter what they have in their pants, they’re women, and if you sleep with a trans woman or date a trans woman, you’re still a lesbian, don’t you worry. You’re still valid, because, again, trans women are women. So off the bat, get used to the fact that in the year of our lord twentygayteen, we support all women.

2. Yes, gay men are attracted to the same sex. They are also attracted to the same gender, because sex and gender are different things. In my original post, I stated an example. Let me explain that a little further, because I don’t think you understood it. Let’s say there’s a gay man, and let’s call him Andy. Let’s say I told Andy I was AFAB, or assigned female at birth, and had not had any trans affirming surgeries. I would be absolutely okay if Andy told me he didn’t want to sleep with me. He knows the specific details of my situation. He took the time to ask and be fully informed before declining. We go our separate ways, and stay close friends because hey, Andy’s awesome. And, yes, this is a true story! Sometimes, in the real world, people are adults and respect other people enough to be affirming of their identities. And Andy is a feminist, but he’s no TERF.

However, let’s say that this gay man tells everyone that he would never date anyone who is transgender. Blanket statement. Boo, Andy. I know, in the original post, you took offense to my talk of genitalia. I’m sorry that bothered you so much, but in the real world with real adults, you have to talk about that kind of stuff, because it’s important to know your partner well if you’re planning to sleep with them. So Andy decides he’s never going to date anyone who’s trans. Andy doesn’t understand that there’s a wide range of genitalia in the trans community. There are trans men who’ve had every surgery imaginable, and have fully transitioned to the point where you couldn’t tell (and don’t come up in here saying that you can “always tell”, because I, a trans person who is well acquainted with all sorts of genitalia and all sorts of transgender surgeries and such, slept with a transgender man a couple weeks ago and I did. not. know. until after the fact.)

Later in your reply, you called this incel logic, which, ew. Can we not compare a young trans person’s logic to the logic of a group of generally homophobic rape-apologizers? But I digress. I’m not saying that a gay man should absolutely have to sleep with every trans person he comes across or he’s transphobic. I’m saying that, if this gay man says that he won’t sleep with anyone who’s trans JUST BECAUSE they are trans? That’s transphobic. You don’t know what genitals someone has, and assuming that every single trans man has a vagina is a bad game. I’m absolutely not saying that anyone should force themselves to have sex with someone they don’t want to have sex with, because they shouldn’t. I’m saying that trans women are women, trans men are men, and you need all the information of the situation before automatically assuming that because they’re transgender, you won’t be attracted to them.

Here’s another example, just in case that one was also a little too hard for you to understand. I have another gay male friend, we’ll call him Stanley. Stanley likes to sleep around, and he’s good at it. Stanley recently slept with a trans man, and he didn’t like it as much because the trans man had not had surgery. I asked him if he would continue to sleep with trans men after the experience, and he said yes, but he would have a conversation with them beforehand about sex, genitalia, and STI protection, because that would help him decide better whether he and his partner would have a good, safe, enjoyable time. Stanley, a gay man, knows that trans men are men. Stanley also knows that genitalia come in many shapes, sizes, and variations, and understands that while he’s not attracted to vaginas, not. every. trans. man. has. a. vagina. And therefore, Stanley knows that he shouldn’t exclude trans men as an entire group.

3. This may be a revolutionary thought, but if you’re a gay man and you date a woman, you might not be gay. If you’re a lesbian and you date a man, you might not be a lesbian. And, because trans women are women and trans men are, in fact, men, guess what?

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

4. Sure. You can call me obsessed with genitals. That’s fine. As a trans person, I am obsessed with genitals. Wanna know why? Because I care about the people that I choose to have sex with. I care about informing them what they’re getting. I care about them informing me what I’m getting. If we don’t talk about genitals, if we don’t talk about sex, if we don’t talk about STIs and safe practices and contraception, someone’s going to end up getting hurt. And nope. Again, not incel logic. I’m not saying that anyone has to give me a chance in bed because I’m trans. I’m saying that if a person says that they won’t have sex with anyone who’s trans, that is a transphobic comment. Because, as we’ve already gone over multiple times, not every trans person has the same genitalia, or the genitalia you expect us to have.

Also, for the other TERF who commented that I’m probably a virgin-first of all, there’s nothing wrong with being a virgin, dude. Get off your old fashioned horse drawn carriage and stop shaming people who haven’t had sex. Secondly, I’ve done and continue to do sex work, so of all people, I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about when it comes to sex and genitalia.

5. Pump the brakes, buddy. If I were a less nice person, this is where I’d get mean. I am not a woman. I am a transmasculine person. My pronouns are not ““new””, they’re the pronouns that fit me the best. On that note, I’m not heterosexual either. I’m bisexual. I like men and women.

And you wanna talk about gay men and conversion therapy? You wanna talk about how you somehow think that, because I’m not a gay man or a lesbian woman, because I exist somewhere else on the queer spectrum, that I haven’t faced discrimination? Not that being gay should ever be a fucking discrimination marathon, but I’ve fucking been in shitty situations because of my queerness. When I came out to my parents, they told me not to come home again. I was homeless for a period of time this summer and was blessed enough to sleep on a friend’s couch. I’ve been yelled at, I’ve had people ask me what went wrong in my childhood, I’ve had letters written to the president of my university asking why I’m leading a group that makes being queer seem like an okay thing.

The last line of your post really tells me what I need to know, though. “shut the fuck up bc nobody asked you”. You’re right. You’re right, nobody asked me. Nobody asked Marsha P. Johnson. Nobody asked Harvey Milk. Nobody asked any of the other countless people who’ve given their entire lives over to make sure that people like us have the ability to walk the streets without fear. Nobody asked them, and yet? They spoke up anyways.

If you think that I’m going to shut my mouth and live in shame because people like you don’t like the fact that I, a transgender person, can live openly and with pride now, you’ve got another thing coming.

You’re right, nobody asked me. That’s exactly why I’m still talking.