#if I see one more person imply that lesbians are the root of all transphobia and evil I think Im gonna snap | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wolf-queer-discourse · 3 years

Text

Adventures in Aphobia #1

So I was scrolling through Tumblr the other day (a regrettable mistake as always), and I had the great pleasure of seeing this joyous post.

*deep breath*

Not gonna lie, posts like this make me real pissed. Pissed because the person who posted this exists in a space where they feel comfortable enough to post this online. Pissed because these posts are so common and often face little backlash. And pissed because there’s nothing better than allosexuals condescendingly explaining to asexual people why they’re dirty attention whores who invent their own oppression. Ace people deserve to be defended against this horseshit. Young people see these posts, and it’s extremely damaging to have your identity be nothing more than fuel for people in discourse to mock you and demand you bled in order for them to notice your pain.

Anger aside, many people do not see why this post is wrong, so why is it? Let’s unpack this clusterfuck of bigotry:

“would love to see substantive evidence of systematic “aphobia” that isn’t actually just misogyny, toxic masculinity, or rpe culture.”

God damn, we are not mincing our words here XD. A few things: systematic in bold, which tells you if you do not make a blood sacrifice on the altar of queer pain you will not be taken seriously. Potential nitpick, but systemic and systematic are not the same thing. I believe systemic is the word they’re looking for. Systematic implies a lot more intentionality that can be hard to prove. Systemic merely means that systems, in their current state, do aphobic things, which they absolutely do.

“Aphobia” in quotes is absolutely rich. Not only will this person refuse to acknowledge systemic aphobia, which is only one type, but this poster casts clear doubt upon the mere concept of aphobia in and of itself. We love to see it.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The statement, as clearly condescending as intended, is sort of correct, though it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Systemic oppression is about the systems in a society (government, healthcare, etc) discriminating against people. Systemic oppression is not bigotry faced on a person-to-person level. In short, systematic oppression is something a person experiences in their overall life, while personal discrimination is experienced on a personal level by people who are not singularly in control of the systems. This post boils down the negative comments ace people face into being called “weird”, which is an understatement for sure, but calling a gay person weird isn’t systemic oppression either.

It’s still bad and discriminatory.

This is such a snotty way to dismiss aphobia as some mere, insignificant comment with no meaning as if it doesn’t reinforce society’s painful aphobic views in the same way casual homophobic comments reinforce heteronormativity and society’s hostility toward gay people.

Ace people face discrimination in healthcare, most notably, which is systemic discrimination, but the systemic discrimination of asexuals really ought to be its own post if I’m to nosedive into it. Even if ace people faced no systemic discrimination, it wouldn’t make this point anymore correct. Discrimination is a perfectly valid reason to feel disregarded by society, and often only ace people are denied the right to feel this way and are instead gaslit into admitting what they face is no big deal and they’re just making it up for attention.

The experience of being pressured to have sex when you’re allo vs ace is very different. The vast majority of allo people do not plan to be celibate their whole lives. Many ace people do not want to have sex, ever. “Waiting for sex” in much of western society and in Christianity is seen as pure and honorable. Yet being asexual and never wanting sex is seen as a deviant disorder and people are accused of robbing their partner of sex forever.

There’s really a specific flavor of sexual pressure that is unique to ace people. Sex being to “fix” someone or because they “just need to try it”.

In this respect, aphobic sexual pressure is better compared to that faced by gay people and lesbians. Lesbians especially often can face this same struggle, men pressuring them to have sex because they think lesbians just need to “try it” or to “fix them”. I can imagine this poster would have no issue acknowledging lesbophobia being the root of lesbians coerced into sex with men, yet she does not give ace people the same.

Imagine if someone said (and knowing our fucked world, someone probably has): “Lesbophobia doesn’t exist. It’s just misogyny. Straight women are coerced into sex too!”

It’d be pathetic bullshit. Toxic masculinity, misogyny and many other issues can all tangle into combined messes with other forms of bigotry. Lesbophobia is an experience that deserves to be recognized apart from misogyny, even if the two are linked. Please stop erasing ace people’s experiences with this when it’s not the same thing.

Honestly, though, this post, as trashy as it is, if anything, is perhaps, really asking: Is there any type of aphobic experience that’s inherently exclusive to ace people?

I still wager to go say, yes, yes there is, but I must make an important point first:

Most experiences of queer discrimination are not limited to queer people.

Homophobia and transphobia are both experienced by cishets in certain instances. Feminine straight men can be victims of homophobic harassment. This does not disprove the fact that it’s homophobia just because a straight man is the victim of it. A tall cis woman with broad shoulders and a lower voice may be the victim of transphobic remarks or comments. The basis of these comments is rooted in transphobia, however, so the fact that the victim is cis does not erase the transphobia.

People who argue that experiences ace people complain about can be experienced by allosexuals are not poking a legitimate hole in doing this. Certain experiences related to aphobia can and are experienced by allosexuals. If you do not acknowledge this, then homophobia and transphobia aren’t real because cishet people have sometimes experienced them.

Despite cishets sometimes experiencing queerphobia, most of us acknowledge that their experience of that bigotry, however unfortunate, is not the same as that experienced by actual queer people. It’d be quite homophobic for a feminine straight man to claim he knew just as much about the gay experience as an actual gay man. Similarly, when allosexual people relate experiences that were rooted in aphobia, it’s overstepping a line when they claim asexual discrimination isn’t real because they experienced elements of it too.

Cishet (cishet including allosexuals) people do not experience their doctors telling them their sexuality might be a disorder or caused by trauma. Allo queer people can experience this with their sexualities too.

“using sex appeal to sell products is misogyny, it is not engineered to gross sex-repulsed people, it is meant to objectify women.”

This is a strawman thinner than my last nerve. Uh, what? What ace people are you seeing that literally think sex appeal was engineered to gross-out sex-repulsed people?? I don’t think this is a core argument??

Yes, sex-repulsed ace people sometimes complain about sex appeal in media being uncomfortable. But that’s it. Every time an ace person shares a discomfort of theirs doesn’t mean it’s the entire basis of their oppression. For the love of God, let ace people discuss their experiences without being blow-torched over not being oppressed enough with an individual discomfort.

BONUS ROUND

(This was in the tags)

“Completely vilifies celibate individuals”

...no…? What…? Huh…?

The most charitable interpretation of this vague accusation is that the poster means celibate people face aphobia as well, due to not wanting to have sex. I have no idea how this “vilifies” anyone, but that aside, as said before: people who are not queer can face aphobia. Also worth noting that society treats celibate people way better than ace people, which is really another example of aphobia. Celibate people can be told they’re missing out (which could be at very least related to aphobic ideals), but they’re rarely called broken. Celibacy is seen more as a respected, controlled ideal in allo people, but when ace people want to do it, they’re just mentally ill.

Anyway, the post was aphobic trash, and it needs to be debunked more often. Mocking ace people online is not a good look anymore, guys. Don't be ugly.

#discourse #queer discourse #LGBT discourse #Adventures in Aphobia #ace discourse #asexual discourse #aphobia #ace discrimination #asexual #asexuality #LGBT #queer #ace #rant #aphobes have no shame but they should #imagine having a brain smoother than a banana peel

94 notes · View notes

roublardise · 3 years

Text

my "Crowley isn't attracted to women" take

for @spnprideweek - day 2 - mlm

cw: dicussion of homophobia & transphobia all in all I wanted to highlight how canon gay Crowley is bc I love him 💕 thank u spn for Crowley even tho he deserved better

in the last weeks I've realized there's a huuge consensus in the fandom for pansexual Crowley. if you're pan or not and wanna hc Crowley as pan, power to you! but what's bothering me is the non-discussion of it all. the way it seems obvious for everyone. whereas, to me, Crowley has been canonically gay all this time.....

disclaimer: I'm aware Mark Sheppard alledgely said he saw Crowley as pansexual, however I can't even take these words for canon without context. Especially not when a year later he'd say Crowley's sexuality didn't matter. The way Mark Sheppard talks about characters' sexuality is more a "why are people making a big deal let them be" than "the character doesn't care." Moreover, actors pov can't be taken as canon imo. Jensen Ackles thought Dean straight for so long when Dean's been bi all this time as well. Sometimes actors are biased by their own experiences & stereotypes!

disclaimer #2: on god I don't wanna start discourse lmao. I just wanna share my silly thoughts about a tv show & question the way Crowley's sexuality is written in this silly homophobic tv show. don't @ me about what's making you think Crowley is indisputably pansexual bc I assure you I already know your points

That being said, here's why I think Crowley is a bear, a gay man, a trans gay man actually, a homosexual, who isn't attracted to women & some food for thoughts about why the unquestioned consensus towards pan Crowley could have roots in both homophobia & panphobia.

I don't think we can think of Crowley as your usual demon. We know too much about Crowley's life as a human, and the numerous ways in which he acts un-demony, almost humanly after. Considering him simply like a demon with no concept of gender preference who would be pan “by default” wouldn’t be right with his character. But we also can't question his sexuality in the exact same way we would a human's.

It also can't be thought in the same way as angels': as once-humans demons do have a concept of gender. Crowley especially cares a lot about his gender presentation and the way he's addressed. Not only does he literally sell his soul for a bigger d*ck as a human ; as a demon he uses the same vessel where other demons are shown to move once they had to leave one ; and for the few hours Crowley's possessing a woman, he clearly states he should still be referred to as king.

This will all be used for homophobic & transphobic jokes in the show, but I'll get back to that later on. Gender does matter to Crowley's identity, and I think it could be extended to his sexuality.

I've seen numerous descriptions of it all saying Crowley's sexuality was "ambiguous" and I guess it is, as he never explicitly used any label. However "ambiguous" doesn't mean bi or pan. It doesn't mean anything besides the fact we can't draw a clear-cut conclusion of his sexuality.

Imo we can actually draw a clear-cut conclusion of Crowley's sexuality but yeh, I'm getting there.

----------------

Let's take a look at canon events around Crowley & sexuality!

His character introduction is him enjoying making a homophobe man kiss him for a deal

It is rumoured that he was a demon's lover (Lilith's)

He heavily flirts with Bobby

He french kisses Bobby for a deal and takes a pic

He never kisses a woman on screen (tell me if I forgot anyone!)

He flirts with every single man he sees, and even more strongly when it's making the other uncomfortable

The other parent of Crowley's son is never mentioned nor even brought up

He has two orgies that we know of

He has sex with a demon who's possessing a woman (Lola) when he was addicted to human blood

He dates, has sex with, and asks Dean to rule Hell with him. He's in love with Dean

On late spn he drinks fruity drinks

He flirts with and implies he had sex with an angel (Naomi)

He flirts with Death (Billie)

He's into BDSM

I'm not gonna go into details with all the sexual stuff he says bc there's a lot.... But it's always about gay sex. (once again, if I'm forgetting smth pls tell me nicely)

Now, with all that I'd like to question specifically the elements people use to say Crowley is canonically attracted to women.

He has two orgies that we know of

There’s the one Crowley has while he’s himself possessing a woman ; iirc it’s a foursome with two other men and one woman. Crowley still counts as a King, as the show makes sure we know, admitedly this dialogue implies we should still think of him as a not-very-manly-man.

Honestly, if one is convinced Crowley is attracted to women based on this scene.. okay. Personally I don’t see it because the orgy is unplanned, it’s an opportunity Crowley takes. Is he even attracted to the two other men?? Who knows. We don’t even know if Crowley even touches the other woman, there’re so many ways to have group sex. Even if he did, having sex with one woman doesn’t make it impossible for him to be homosexual.

The second orgy is with Dean. Crowley describes it then: “We've done extraordinary things to triplets.” It’s interesting how before I went to check, I thought it was clear the triplets were women. But not at all! I’ve been tricked by heteronormativity myself. So this is up to interpretation. Even though the way the show doesn’t make sure we know the triplets were women is pretty telling (as I’ll talk about later).

It is rumoured that he was Lilith's lover

Well, this is a rumour. In this relationship Crowley would know Lilith as a demon possessing a woman, and Lilith would know Crowley as a demon possessing a man as well. Who's even to say they met in their vessels to sleep together. That's the kind of cases in which the ambiguity of Crowley human/demon situation makes it impossible to draw any kind of conclusion towards Crowley's attraction to women. Also if anything Lilith is clearly a lesbian lmao.

He has sex with Lola when he was addicted to human blood

Same thing here, the relationship is one of demon/demon. Though we do now they do meet in their vessels to sleep together. Besides that, the sex happens while Crowley is at a low point. She's the one bringing him human blood, which makes the sex more of a transaction than anything. It does fit a very grey area of consent which would be fair to question.

We can't know for sure whether the demon possessing the woman was a woman as well, but let's say she was: 1/ Crowley having sex once or twice with a woman doesn't prevent him from being homosexual. 2/ What is he seeing if not a demon's true form? 3/ Wasn't he in a self-destructive mental state?

It's a stretch, imo, to assume Crowley was attracted to her.

He flirts with and had sex with Naomi / flirts with Billie

This one is so ridiculous to me bc Naomi is an angel and as a demon, Crowley sees her true form. We don't even know who was her vessel when they had sex.

The flirt thing is interesting however, bc iirc Naomi and Billie are the only "women" we see Crowley actually flirt with. During the orgies or the demon sex there's no flirt involved. It's interesting bc, as Cas would say: "Naomi's vessel is a woman. Naomi is an angel."

Same case for Billie who's a reaper then Death. Spn is pretty unclear about how the whole thing works but we know reapers are kind of angels. In any case, I won't go as far as saying Billie has any connection to gender.

Moreover, the way Crowley flirts with them is pretty light next to everything else Crowley says to men. It's pretty personal, I'm aware, but I do relate a lot with the way Crowley flirts with them VS how I flirt with men just because (and I'm a lesbian).

Anyway! Both Naomi and Billie are supernatural creatures, which brings the count of women Crowley flirts with to... zero.

-> What I take from all that is that Crowley is attracted to men for sure ; to angels and demons ; and doesn't care about the genitalia involved in the sex he has. We have nothing about the kind of relationships he had as a human. His gender presentation matters a lot to him. The only long-term commitment he has is with Dean. I wouldn't even say he had a committed relationship with Gavin's other parent bc we don't know anything about them.

----------------

But what's my deal with homosexual Crowley? One can wonder, if Crowley doesn't care about bodies, doesn't that mean he can still be written as pan?

No! First because sexual attraction isn't about genitalia (even if transphobes would argue the contrary but they're transphobic so...). And second, well....

I would refer to this point as "how do I know Crowley isn't attracted to women? bc Dean is"

I'm convinced that if the show wanted to write Crowley as anything other than a gay man, it would have been way more obvious.

This is a show who wrote Dean catcalling a faceless woman on the street, for no other reason than to remind the viewers Dean was attracted to women & to balance it with the following homoerotic scene.

One could say spn doesn't have lots of women characters to begin with, but that's my point exactly: when spn wants to show attraction towards women, they do find women for people to be attracted to. Hell, they even give Gavin some girlfriend but never ever bring up the topic of Gavin's other parent. Even though an entire episode is dedicated to learning about Crowley's past.

What's important to understand Crowley's sexuality isn't the people he slept with ; it's the people he doesn't show interest in.

The absence of something is the presence of the thing, blablabla. It's a way to look at homosexuality that heteronormativity makes hard to see because, unconciously, we don't tend to question attraction towards the expected gender. One would ask for a 10 pages essay on why a character is gay, but one would need only a 2 sec kiss to assure a character's heterosexuality or attraction towards the expected gender.

----------------

In Crowley's case, his attraction to men is a huge part of his character right from the beginning (thanks god, at least no one's questioning that). Spn as a show that hears what the fans are saying and twists writing accordingly, is perfectly aware of that. Yet rather than pushing women at him along the course of the show to remind everyone how Not Gay Crowley is - the opposite happens.

Yeh, Lola, Naomi, Billie, they all happen in the later seasons. But even then, the show somehow can't write Crowley as attracted to a human woman.

What happens then is: not only does Crowley fall for Dean ; he engages in some BDSM play with Lucifer : and he switches from drinking only the finest Scotch to fruity cocktails.

The BDSM thing as well as the drink thing are choices rooted in stereotypes, that's how spn is! But it does canonize Crowley's homosexuality. They're depriving him of his "masculinity" as the show goes on, because they purposely write him as homosexual. I don't think spn would have ever written a bi or pan character that way.

We learned a few days ago that Crowley died in a gutter. He died in a gutter for a bigger d*ck. I'm just gonna refer to Oscar Wilde & Mika on this : "some of us in the gutter are looking up at the stars."

The "referred to as king" scene isn't about Crowley being a demon and so not caring about gender - it's the opposite. Other demons are the ones poiting out Crowley's vessel. This is a transphobic joke. It's the demon edition of the "gay boy in a dress" transmisogynistic trope.

Viewers aren't supposed to be on Crowley's side ; we're supposed to be giggling with the other demons while Crowley is being emasculated. Crowley gets a woman vessel because he's a not-very-manly-man, because he's a trans man, because he's homosexual.

And I know that bc Dean is written as bi, and all they're doing is reaffirming the way he does like women while being extra subtle with his love for men.

Meanwhile Crowley is losing influence and power, loses his authority as he loses his throne in Hell, gets humiliated by Lucifer, until all his character revolves around is his love for Dean. The way Crowley is then protrayed as some lovesick ex who can't move on is, imo, a straight man fantasy. Crowley's love is both used as predatory and as a tool to validate Dean's Peak Masculinity.

Spn has been burying their gays all along, and Crowley was right there being punished for not only being in love with Dean but for not being attracted to women. For never being able to be a "normal" guy. For never being able to be seen as a "normal" guy. For checking every homophobic stereotypes in the books. Crowley as a human dies because he's a trans man. Crowley as a demon dies because he's homosexual.

----------------

That's what leads me to be uncomfortable with the way the fandom seems to have a consensus towards pansexual Crowley. (Once again: idc about people's personal hc of Crowley as pan, I just want to think critically about the way no one thinks twice about it & accepts it as canon so easily. Hell, just bc I dared to ask what started the pan Crowley confirmation I got accused of erasing his pansexuality. All I did was ask a question.)

To me, it feels like erasing everything his character went through because he was gay. And it seems to be taken from a reasoning which is going to assume Crowley is attracted to women.

I mean: the reasoning would go "oh, Crowley clearly has a non-straight sexuality -> he's attracted to men -> he's pan" His attraction to women being accepted by default, without needing any backup. And when I look at the canon I see nothing implying he'd be attracted to women. Taking Crowley's attraction to women for granted is following an heteronormative thinking.

Being into people isn't all about who one sleeps with. It's about love. And when we look at what spn shows about Crowley's close relationships, the only meaningful one he got is with Dean. When Rowena wants payback for Crowley making her kill Oskar, she goes for his son.

And it's SO interesting to me because if angels can't be in love because they don't have a soul - can demons? as they're beings with a destroyed soul? And if so, how powerful of Crowley to still fall in love with Dean Winchester.... the power of gay love :) (Crowley 🤝 Cas)

----------------

To conclude all this with some more stuff to think about if, like me, you love questioning everything:

While it's not wrong per se to hc Crowley as pan, it can be worth questioning what's making us so sure we collectively just vibe with it? To me there's a few things: - As I was saying: heteronormative bias - Crowley being a non-fully-human character - Crowley being masculine (despite the show's attempts to erase that) - Crowley being into BDSM - Crowley flirting and making sexual remarks in every context

These, unconsciously, gives a vibe of a character who's "outside" of the gender norm, not making big deal of their sexuality, not even questioning it. This creates this idea of "ambiguity" around Crowley's sexuality. The way Crowley particularly seems to be really chill about sex, is a demon (so what does he know about gender?), and heavily flirty, ... is what most people will link to pansexuality. That doesn't mean thinking of Crowley as pan is being problematic™ ; this means in western medias that's what fills the "pansexual character" imagery (like basically: the Jack Harkness type).

However, when we look at it like that, none of these elements are defining of pansexuality. None of them are excluding him from homosexuality. If not stereotypes.

That's where it gets personal ; but it does make me feel like the huge consensus towards a pansexual Crowley (when there is no clear-cut evidence of it) is erasing the complexity of homosexual experiences. As I said at the begining: I'm happy if pansexual people can relate to Crowley ; everone's free to headcanon. But saying Crowley is canonically pansexual is a stretch - and a take rooted in homophobic stereotypes.

Imo Crowley may have been created with all these traits pushing towards a pan reading of his character. However, as the show went, he was clearly written as a homosexual man. The changes in his portrayal took a turn to be specifically homophobic. He gets imagery that only strictly homosexual characters got (such as drinking fruity cocktails like Aaron. Meanwhile Dean, on the same scene, is allowed beer & whiskey.)

We're used to taking spn's homophobic rep and jokes to make it our own. Yet it seems, when it comes to Crowley, the fandom doesn't see it.

Sometimes people aren't attracted to the gender heteronormativity expects them to be attracted to.......... sometimes people are gay and it's not an umbrella term.

#crowley spn #spn crowley #crowley #trans crowley #spn meta #supernatural #spn #so..... i went off once again #homophobia #transphobia #i just kept adding stuff to it lmao and i would STILL have stuff to say but this is enough #long post #spnprideweek

45 notes · View notes

glutenfreetitty · 3 years

Text

No but I am literally at my wit’s end with the discourse between lesbians and bi women. Like I’m not even on twitter or even spend that much time here anymore, but it’ll just pop up somehow anyway. Last night I saw this tiktok video where this bi woman was explaining that she will only pursue relationships with other bi people, because cishet men objectify and don’t respect bisexuality and lesbians are biphobic and self-righteous.

I’m not saying that’s an unfounded argument to make, there very much is rampant biphobia among lesbians, but this tiktoker went on to say that lesbians hold the same space in her mind as cishet men.

What???? I don’t know how many more ways there are of saying this, LESBIANS ARE NOT OPPRESSORS OF WOMEN. The social power and privilege held by a cishet man is not comparable to that of a lesbian. That isn’t to diminish a lesbian’s ability to hold prejudiced views about bisexuality, and certainly doesn’t mean that lesbians who do so don’t deserve to be called out and held accountable for upholding biphobia. But lesbians do not have the social power to oppress bisexual women. Holding lesbians and cishet men in the same regard is fucking lesbophobia.

And this video gets even *better* because this white bisexual woman wanted to add a comment about how white lesbians are racist and are blind to their own whiteness. The thing is, that is often true, and is a warranted critique to make. It makes me think of all the callout posts directed toward cis white gay men, and holding them accountable for their lack of inclusivity and racism, which is very much deserved, but then the message totally goes over the heads of other white queer people. Like, we’ve established white gay men as the scape goat of racism in queer spaces, and I guess white lesbians as well, but they are not the only ones who engage in those problematic behaviors.

I don’t know what white bisexual, pansexual, trans, asexual, queer person needs to hear this, but those takes on cis white gay men’s unwillingness to unpack their white privilege and be mindful of the space they take up as a white person in a queer space, are very much about you as well as a white queer person. Scapegoating white cis white gay men and lesbians is you deflecting from your own fucking white privilege and upholding racism in queer spaces.

Anyway, this commenter on the video got a ton of replies supporting her take, mostly from other white bisexual people, and I just think it’s so telling how lesbians have to (and should, don’t get me wrong, I’m just pointing out a double standard here) answer for our problematic behaviors, but then I guess bisexual women don’t? I guess they get to just? Blame it all on lesbians?

What I’m getting at here is that lesbians are held to a different standard than our queer counterparts. You’re just not going to fucking convince me that racism, transphobia, biphobia, and general toxicity is exclusive to the lesbian community. I want to be clear, I don’t want to diminish the fact that those things very much exist in lesbian spaces or imply that because other queer people participate in these behaviors as well that lesbians don’t deserve to be held accountable for their actions.

But the comment section in this video was soo fucking telling, and it extends beyond the comments, or this particular video, or even online discourse. Like, the fact that these white bisexual women really felt that they could say “white lesbians are racist” without acknowledging their own whiteness or how they walk through the world as a queer, but white person, is quite revealing.

Sure, recently cis white gay men have been called out on their problematic behaviors, but it seems like that typically exists in online spaces. I have fucking never seen a gay man have to explain himself the way lesbians do. Again, not implying that lesbians shouldn’t be held accountable, just pointing out the double standard here and what it says about the way we see lesbians.

Or how about the notion that lesbians are inherently transphobic? Again, I understand that this notion is not entirely unfounded. There are certainly lesbians who hold transphobic beliefs that endanger trans people, and deserve the backlash they get. I’m just saying, there are plenty of non-lesbian identifying people who hold similar transphobic views and I don’t ever see anyone other than lesbians having to answer for the transphobia of other lesbians. Like what, are you telling me you’ve never heard a bisexual or pansexual person make a transphobic comment? Gay men? Fucking straight people? How about the fact that currently the most well known TERF on the planet right now is JK Rowling, a straight woman? Do you think the people who question lesbians and are distrustful of them take that same energy to straight women, or any other group of people? That’s not even getting into how there are, and always have been, trans lesbians, and the idea that lesbianism is exclusive to trans identities is both historically inaccurate and fucking invalidating to a number of experiences.

I am just fucking sick of y’all. It’s not that the problematic behaviors you’ve noticed in lesbians is wrong, or that you shouldn’t call it out, it’s the fucking double standard you hold lesbians to. It’s the fact that you will designate lesbians as the root of all troubles facing the queer community, and not fucking self-reflect on how you participate in similarly problematic behaviors. Just say you hate lesbians and leave.

#this isn't a discourse blog #but man i had some thoughts today #biphobia cw #lesbophobia cw #transphobia cw #racism cw #discourse cw #lesbian #bisexual #queer

13 notes · View notes

its-an-inxp-again · 3 years

Note

Hey

Idk if you ever got the answer to your thing. But I’m a person who is queer but regularly uses the term lesbian to make things simpler. I can tell you why I hate the phrase monosexual- it feels transphobic to me- I am not attracted to men at all, but I am attracted to women, non-binary folks, gender queer folks, and agender folks. If I was with a partner and they transitioned to be a man I would still love them. That wouldn’t change. Sexuality is fluid and calling someone monosexual seems to erase that and really put people in boxes. Everyone has exceptions. And as someone who has identified as bisexual and pansexual in the past and find those not to suit me and fit right (especially since I am not sexually/romantically attracted to people physically/based on appearances- it’s more about personality and what I could do with a person)

I don’t mean this in an antagonistic way, I really hope it doesn’t come off that way(I’m bad expressing myself sorry).

(I’m sorry, I know you’re not trying to be rude. My answer, however, will sound rude and upset because you touched upon some stuff that needs a lot of unpacking to me lmao. Just know this anger is not necessarily directed at you but at biphobia in general.)

Why do bisexual people may need to use the term monosexual?

A. It is descriptive

I see what you mean but as you said you're queer and lesbian is a term to make things simpler, right?

So I wouldnt call you monosexual because you’re clearly not attracted to only one gender (but if you want to who I am to stop you?). Monosexual is someone who is almost exclusively dating/is attracted to people of one gender. There are plenty trans people that are straight or gay that would NOT date a partner if they realized they were a different gender. For real: kat blaque made a video (here it is if youre interested) on youtube about this - she’s trans and she wants to date men and wouldnt feel comfortable on continuing dating if a partner of hers realized they were actually a trans woman all along. She wants to date guys not girls and that's FINE it just means A. She actually recognizes the girl gender, obviously B. She's straight af and that's wonderful! It’s not a box if that’s how her experience is and she likes it that way!

Also how is being monosexual transphobic? Cant a girl just like guys exclusively (both cis and trans) or like girls exclusively (both cis and trans)? It's not even enbyphobic since you dont need to be attracted to a person to support their rights. (Gay men arent attracted to women but can be 100% feminists.) Being open to fuck somebody is not the same as supporting their rights: fetishization is a thing. Again, I refer to the video Kat Blaque made.

Sexuality IS fluid but to some people (like me and you) it is more than others. Some people don’t feel comfortable dating people that dont fall into the gender theyre usually attracted to and thats 100% okay.

B. It helps in talking about biphobia and panphobia in society

Biphobia and panphobia are for the large part based on the assumption that you cant be attracted to more than one gender (not even non-binary and so on) and that if you do you're weird/disgusting/mentally ill/a sexual predator. I can tell you 100% that's the narrative both straight and gay people can and may perpetuate since I struggle w this kind of shit every single time Im attracted to someone no matter their gender (YES, EVEN IF THEY'RE A GUY, BECAUSE THE OTHER DAY I WAS ATTRACTED TO A GIRL AND NOW I FEEL LIKE A FUCKING ANIMAL THAT CANT CONTROL ITSELF, even though it makes NO sense because if it was two girls or two boys the actual number of people my hormones activated to wouldnt change, but it would make my experience not subjected to biphobia!). I’m not saying gay people are the same as straight people. But I do feel alienated BOTH from heteronormative society AND from (subtly biphobic) gay spaces because of my bisexuality. I costantly feel like I’m outside both of those worlds and you know how humans are: I just need a term to encompass it all easily, to say “I don’t identify with any of this” (which is both straight and strictly gay spaces: ie, monosexual). To me is literally the same as saying non-bisexual/non-pansexual.

I dont mean to say lesbians or gays have it easier or are just like straight people. But we do have different experiences and I need terms to express that. It honestly doesnt matter to me if you identify as lesbian or queer (though I think you’re implying you’re more queer than anything). But I do need a term to talk about how society at large treats sexuality; ie, as a monosexual thing. Another concept that’s been thrown around is bi erasure. A strictly monosexual society is bound to view a girl dating a girl (or girl presenting) as if theyre both LESBIANS and erase a queer person the moment they’re in a m/f relationship, because people cant COMPUTE that it may not be the case and that the girl dating a cis straight dude isnt betraying her queerness.To think so is basic biphobia.

In some ways, I think it’s the same as when transgender people started using the term cisgender - which is applicable to both straight people and queer/gay people. They simply needed a term which meant “not-trans” as they were saying “I dont identify with this” (ie the cisgender experience). Does it imply that cisgender people, no matter if queer, have something in common? Yeah, yeah it does. Does it imply that queer people are just the same as straight people, or face no oppression? Of course not. Seeing people being offended upon being called monosexual feels like people being offended upon being called cis to me.

Also, saying that the terms bisexual people use are transphobic is almost implying that bisexuality is inherently transphobic? Or reeks to me of that kind of rhetoric. I use the terms I need to use, just like any other marginilized group does, and nobody outside of that group has any right of denying me that. It’s like I’m trying to create a safe space for myself and people like me and yall come around to judge us YET AGAIN. And I'm just tired of hearing this bullshit. I could accept this kind of criticism only if it came from a trans person themselves, I guess? But it’s not usually trans people who accuse us of being transphobic, in fact, many trans people identify as bisexual and use bisexual terminology lmfao.

“Hearts not parts” rhetoric

Finally, about personality being superior to physical appearance. That's amazing but I do want to note that, not you necessarily, but many people who are into the “hearts not parts” rhetoric are, how can I say this. Slut-shaming people? I’m not sure if you are doing this but I feel it needs to be said just to be sure. A lesbian trans woman can be just attracted to a girl for her physical appearance and just want to fuck her - and THAT'S OKAY. That's fine. I am a sexually attracted to people and that doesnt mean I have to form a deep bond first. Sex positivity is about accepting that people can feel like this and not shame them for this. "Hearts not parts” rhetoric has in the past infantilized, sanitized or outright shamed other queer experiences. It's fine if you feel that way but dont start acting like you're morally superior because of that. That's catholicism with extra steps. My bisexuality its not the symptom of some predatory and animalistic thing that should be purified into something more palatable and less sexual. That’s the same thing they used to say about gay people and now gay (biphobic) people are using this against us. That’s also the kind of thing trans women (especially if they’re sapphic) constantly hear every fucking day. Queer people have a good part of their discrimination rooted in the shaming of purely sexual desires. Forcing ourselves to be more palatable and less sexual is just respectability politics. I’m tired of it. (This is obviously different from being on the asexual spectrum: but you dont see ace people going around pretending they’re morally superior than everybody else, and many are actually very sex positive) You would still love your partner if they were a different gender: that’s great, but that’s not how some (most) people feel, and they aren’t superficial because of this, just different from you.

Also, I think you’d really benefit from hearing a trans person say they don’t care if someone has genitalia preferences. Here it is. This obviously doesnt mean that every trans person will feel like she does, but it does mean that we can’t generalize trans experiences/preferences/what they feel transphobia is. Just like straight people dont get to say what’s homophobic or not, cis people dont get to say what’s transphobic or not. The definition of those terms relies entirely on the community that is targeted by these things.

I hope this wasnt excessively confusing but I wanted to make my point clear.

#ask #anon ask #sometimes i say stuff #tw biphobia #tw transphobia #tw panphobia #tw queerphobia #lgbt #lgbtqia

3 notes · View notes

pinkchaosart · 3 years

Text

On transphobia towards our Sisters (not just our cis-ters)

(TW: talk of transphobia, misogyny, gender and sex-based violence)

So I went and took a look at the post by @persistentlyfem that’s causing a major fuss, and I thought I’d address it as a lesbian femme myself. I see a lot of the common talking points that get thrown around and I’m seeing some truly toxic replies being thrown in her direction. Eight years ago I might have agreed with the replies, but I think it’s more useful to engage those talking points and maybe we can meet with some kind of understanding.

Now I want to get a few things out of the way first. Persistentlyfem says, if not in the main post then elsewhere on her blog, that she doesn’t identify as a radfem (radical feminist), so I won’t assume that she is one. I will however address the points she raises as being part of the trans-exclusionist radical feminist ideology, as that’s where the ideas seem to have come from.

One of the biggest misunderstanding between radical feminists and liberal feminists is the concept of gender vs. sex and their importance when speaking of identities. TERF ideology is rooted in second-wave feminism of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, which was a necessary step in the feminist school of thought and is the reason we have a lot of our modern rights. Most people who are trans-exclusionary would describe themselves as gender-critical, but in my opinion, I believe that being exclusionary towards trans women is rooted in the resistance to third-wave feminist ideas of individualism and diversity. But we’ll hold that thought for now.

The ideal of radical feminism is to liberate women by tearing down the concept of gender, abolishing it all together. The ideal of liberal feminism is to create equality by creating safe and inclusive spaces for everyone, regardless of gender, via social and legal reform. Basically the main difference between the two schools of thought is one seeks to destroy gender as a construct and the other seeks to expand it to be more inclusive. It’s important to note that being a radical feminist does not automatically mean that you must be trans-exclusionary.

So I’d like to talk about some specific talking points. I took a little stroll down Persistentlyfem’s blog to see what her experience has been and so that I can understand where she’s coming from. Normally I wouldn’t engage in this kind of conversation because I’m disabled so I have very little energy to spare, but as a fellow butch-attracted femme, I thought it might be useful to respond to her thoughts. I won’t respond to all the points in her recent post, but I will try to talk about the core ideas.

I see that she’s concerned with misogyny in LGBTQ2S+ spaces. I agree it’s widespread, often in ways that are covert. I see it in how butches treat femmes, how gay men talk about women, and how we speak to fellow gay women who disagree with our opinions. And, If I understand correctly, it’s that internalized misogyny that she believes is responsible for trans women believing they should be included in women-only spaces. I argue that it’s quite the opposite, and that it’s actually misogyny that keeps trans-women from being fully accepted.

What I mean is that I find the argument for “female-only spaces” (assigned female at birth, cisgendered women) quite reductive. It implies that there is only one way to be a woman and it reduces us to our genitalia. I don’t think anyone would say they’re a woman because they have a vagina and mean it fully (maybe you would, I don’t really know you). They would also say that their experiences shape them as a woman as well. And I agree, what makes a woman involves quite a lot of factors, and no two women’s experiences are the same. Persistentlyfem has argued that trans women are raised and socialized as male, but I disagree. Setting aside that trans women aren’t a monolith and have completely different socializations between individuals, I would agree that most trans women are treated as male growing up, but for the most part, it doesn’t quite….fit them. More accurately I would say our culture attempts to socialize them as men.

When I think back to my own experience growing up, I, like a lot of girls, had a “not like other girls” period. Internalized misogyny, great right? Because the socialization of “girl” didn’t quite right, the definition being narrow and rigid. Based on stereotypes. So I found my femininity later in my teens. I argue that this is something that most women go through in some way or another. We find our socialization as women uncomfortable and constraining. Not quite right.

As I said, you can’t speak of trans women as a monolith, but from the stories and dialogue I’ve been involved in, countless stories sound exactly like that. Being socialized into a Gender Box that doesn’t suit you is like watching a video in a language you don’t speak. Internalized misogyny is a universal experience between girls growing up, cis and trans, and it is internalized misogyny that keeps trans women from accepting who they truly are. In fact, for them to run away from woman as their identity would inherently be internalized misogyny.

The idea that trans ideology is based in “regressive stereotypes about ‘boys and girls’” isn’t wholly incorrect. I think we all agree that gender is a social construct. But that doesn’t make my identity as a women more valid than someone who transitioned later in life. It doesn’t follow that a trans’ person’s gender is less real than a cis person’s gender. And while we live in our culture and our current society, gender is something that we interact with on a daily basis, which makes it real in a very real sense. We could argue whether it should be that way, but the situation is currently that gender is an important construct in our culture. Not to mention, the thought that all trans people fall in a strict “man” or “woman” binary is incorrect as there are plenty of people that embody other gender identities. Indeed, there are many wonderful trans people that we could argue are the radfem ideal of aegender and/or non binary.

Now the idea that “lesbians and straight men like vaginas. Gays and straight women like penises” is a bit of a stretch. Again, I think a statement like this is pretty oversimplified, but I don’t think that you’re inherently wrong. Generally speaking, sure. Although, again, I’ve met plenty of straight women dating trans men, and there are plenty of straight men that date trans women. But the inherent flaw in this argument isn’t that you’re wrong, but that it implies that attraction equals validity. Am I a woman because a man is attracted to my vagina? No. Am I less of a woman if men aren’t attracted to me? Again, no. My gender isn’t contingent on other’s attraction to me, and that is the same for trans individuals. I think this kind of argument comes from the pressure that is sometimes felt within our community, that if you’re not open to dating trans people then you’re inherently transphobic. I am not going to get into that argument, as this is a whole other can of worms. But what I am going to say is that nobody is going to force you to date a trans person. You don’t have to date someone if you don’t want to. You don’t have to tell everyone why you don’t want to date them, you can just politely decline.

I’m going to be blatantly honest: I am predominantly attract to butch women and afab non binary masculine people. I have never dated someone who was amab, and generally speaking I don’t find myself attracted to them. But that doesn’t mean I think that trans women aren’t women just because I generally don’t find myself attracted to them.

On top of this I’m going to agree with you: sex based oppression does exist. So does gender-based oppression. I know I have experienced bullying in my own time based on my own gender, my ability, my weight, all that good stuff. Maybe some of it was based around embarrassing period episodes (which I would file under sex-based bullying). But misogyny is not just sex-based, it is also inherently gendered. And if we know anything about trans women, it’s that they are overly targeted with violence based on their gender. Especially if they’re BIPOC. And it’s because their gender is feminine that they’re perceived as being targets; is that not the epitome of misogyny? To hate a person because they’re not perceived as the patriarchal male ideal?

Something else I would like to talk about is the concept that trans women are inherently misogynistic. I would argue that every woman, regardless of what they were assigned at birth, carries internalized misogyny. Cis women, however, have years to grapple with it before becoming women. Trans women tend to not have as much time to unlearn internalized misogyny before they become women. That doesn’t invalidate them as women, it just means that we should be more supportive of them, not less. All of this trans-exclusionary rhetoric only serves to increase their self-hatred and I argue that that kind of talk is a contributing factor to the poor mental health we see in the trans community. Instead of supporting some of the people with the greatest insight into the patriarchy, trans-exclusionists push women away and inflict them with even more gendered violence and gender-based discrimination.

The other thing I want to address is the idea that trans women transitioning is rooted in homophobia. Which seems to make sense if you think of trans women being only attracted to men. The idea that a man decides to be a woman because he can’t deal with being gay doesn’t make a lot of sense, though. Homophobia tends to be rooted in misogyny too, a fear of being less of a man. So it doesn’t follow that the solution would be to “become a woman” much like the solution to put out a fire isn’t to light more things on fire. Piggybacking off of this point, a lot of trans exclusionists will accuse trans women of being predators. In fact, often, they’ll hold these two ideas at the same time. But the reality is that, if a man wants to prey on women, he doesn’t need to become a woman. The sign on the bathroom door isn’t actually a deterrent if a man wants to follow a woman in. And again, it’s a counter-intuitive idea, that a man who wants to prey on women would go through all the legal hurdles, all the social stigma, even some medical treatments just to gain access to women’s only spaces. Besides the fact that this type of behaviour is a myth created by conservative right-wing christian groups to stir up fear, it doesn’t happen and assault is still illegal regardless of what your gender marker is.

I am not going to address anything about surgery or hormones. Those points are only ever brought up as enforcing points, they’re not the main issues. Most of the rhetoric is based in fear-mongering conservative right-wing christian groups drum up and it is, again, a whole other topic that requires nuance that most people don’t acknowledge.

The main point I see Persistantlyfem talk about, and something we can agree on, is the misogyny in LGBTQ2S+ spaces. We all like to think that, somehow through our journeys of discovering our true selves, we shed the misogyny along the way, that our spaces are truly accepting of all genders and presentations. That’s not the case. Misogyny is still a problem in every letter of our community and it will be for a long time. We see it when butches treat femmes as “high maintenance” or like property, we see it in how gay men talk about female bodies. We see it the self-hatred trans people of all gender identities feel towards themselves. We see it when lesbians reject bisexual women.

Throwing around “terf” helps nobody. Calling each other stupid and pretentious is not useful. I know this is a painful topic to many on both sides, but the infighting in the queer community is toxic and needs to come down from a boil if we’re going to make any progress. Most people that sling insults are younger and therefor are more hot-headed. I used to be too, and still can be sometimes but like I said, limited energy means that you tend to focus it more consciously and I hope that this time I’ve spent here can help.

@Persistantlyfem, I see that you were hurt, and I respect and honour your experiences. I suspect that some of those that hurt you were trans women. I understand, I’ve had trans partners hurt me as well. But those experiences don’t allow us to revoke someone else’s right to their own interpretation of themselves. And I’m sorry about all of the toxicity you’ve experienced in these last few weeks, you don’t deserve it. I hope that we can have a conversation in a respectable way, worthy of two adult gays who’ve been through a lot.

9 notes · View notes

vampireqrow-moved · 3 years

Note

hey so I agree with a lot of the stuff in your post about the transphobia involved in the origin of the pansexual label, but I just have one question: what are the actual impacts of people with good intentions calling themselves pan? If you don't hate pansexuals and consider them bi, why type up a paragraphs long manifesto on the harms of the origin of the label if it means the same thing in the way that most non transphobic people (your audience) use it? a lot of identities can be used in transphobic ways (like bi and lesbian and anything really) and plenty of valid identities from problematic roots and evolve over time as people use them differently (queer, transsexual). so how is a person with good intentions using a not-perfect label in a way you don't like a threat to the community? if someone is using the label pan transphobically, wouldn't their bigotry exist independently? if pan people do not act in transphobic ways besides using the label pansexual, realistically what is changing if they call themselves bi beyond holier-than-thou aesthetic activism? plus, a blog on the internet isn't going to get everyone to stop identifying as pansexual, especially considering multiple prominent celebrities ID as pan. so why spend all that energy quibbling on semantics because some bi people use a slightly different word when you could be worrying about Literally anything else? just feels like you want to find something to argue about lol. extremely disappointed that I had to break a mutual

im going to respond to each thing you bring up chronologically- im not trying to nitpick or prioritize certain things you say ill just forget things if i go out of order and i dont want to miss something important. ALSO! i will be typing less formally (like keysmashes and shortening words n stuff) in this response than my og post bc its 1am as im starting to type this so im tired but i want to be clear that i am like. taking this seriously and im not like. mocking u in anyway if it could read that way?? i hope not but just in case anyways here it goes!

in terms of actual impact people with good intentions identifying as pan: honestly im not sure the full scope of the impact this has, so ill only be speaking to what ive personally seen which might not be all. but like... id argue my younger self has good intentionals iding as pan. i wanted to support trans people, even if i didnt understand a lot of the nuance involved. as a result of this, i developed a sense of superiority over other bisexuals and a mentality that bisexuality was a primitive and lesser sexuality. that mentality is harmful, and although im not sure if it affected bisexuals around me (of which there are many most of my friends are bi ajfjfjf) its still a harmful mentality and can easily hurt people even if i specifically didnt. also using it even with good intentions, which i know many people have, still spreads and further normalizes a label that imo can not be separated from its transphobic origins. this effect is not as extreme as other forms of transphobia and biphobia by A LONG SHOT. the bi community faces a lot of other issues but that doesnt mean this one isnt worth addressing if that makes sense?

if i dont hate pansexuals: ik this is part of a larger point which i will adress but i specified this in my post bc i see a lot of other posts that are negative towards pansexuality have "i hate pan ppl" somewhere in it or a close equivalent. i do not shame these ppl for their anger, i just wanted to be clear i think a lot of pan ppl are bi ppl with good intentions choosing a label they dont fully understand based on a misunderstanding of bisexuality.

why write a paragraphs long manifesto on the harms of pansexuals origin: ok 😭😭 the real reason here is that im literally just bad at summarizing. like thats literally it. i also like talking, its a bad combination. plus ive been thinking abt this for like. over a year im not even kidding and just like i have a lot of thoughts and figured if i was going to bother making my own post instead of rbing someone elses that i might as well get everything i wanted to say off my chest. ALSO BTW i literally got an ask like a week ago that was several paragraphs long asking me to explain my thoughts on why pan was harmful and some other stuff so like. this is partially responding to that and partially just me wanting to air my grievances ? idk if thats the right expression 😔😔

why write the post if my audience of people who identify as pan arent doing it in a transphobic way ? again sorry i didnt really understand the phrasing so i hope this is a vaguely correct summary!! um but like... again imo i think pan cant be separated from its transphobia and like. again imo iding as pan is like. a transphobic action/choice? obviously one transphobic thing does mean someone necessarily is like officially a Transphobe (it CAN be depending on the action but i dont think that applies here) but that doesnt mean there arent problems with what they did. this is like very complicated, but like. someone doing something harmful without the knowlege that its harmful doesnt make that person a bigot by any means it just means they didnt know. and i feel thats the case here? a lot of ppl (myself included until recently) know next to nothing abt pansexualitys origins so a trans inclusve sexuality might seem like a safe and good bet just because they dont know too much abt it, and like? i cant hate those people cause that was me for 5+ years and djgjfjdj you just dont know what you dont know!

basically i think iding with a transphobic label is inherently a singular transphobic action that doesnt make the person transphobic by itself, but is still a transphobic instance.

a lot of identities can be used in transphobic ways like bi, lesbian, etc.: this is true and a point i attempted to make on my original post, but i might not have clear enough. my issue with pan is specifically that it is a transphobic response to a preexisting identity. lesbian isnt an attempted trans inclusive indentity that replaced an identity that already existed (which have many trans ppl identifying with the og label). transphobes can use whatever labels they want, but transphobes using a label vs a label having a transphobic origin is very different. bigots use inclusive and supporting language for their bigotry all the time but language that originated with that bigotry is worse.

many valid identities stem from problemstic origins (like transsexual and queer) but the words evolve: ok my paraphrasing is a little weird there. anyways. the thing here is that. those are slurs. reclaimed slurs that can be empowering to many people, yes, but slurs nonetheless. reclaiming a slur is taking a harmful word and wearing it as a badge of pride. first off, pansexual is not a slur (ur not implying that in anyway just. saying) and it isnt being reclaimed when people dont treat it as having harmful origins. transsexual is the way some people identify but ppl acknowlege its a slur and originates from transphobia. ppl love to act like queer isnt a slur, which is an issue in and of itself, but just. factually it has historically and is currently being used against ppl with the intent to hurt them. pansexual isnt on the same level as these and other words like the f slur, d slur, etc. pansexual originates from trans and biphobia WITHIN the community and not outside of it, and most pansexuals dont see themselves as reclaiming the title because they dont think anythings wrong with it in the first place. and reclaiming it just seems unnecessary considering its history? theres no empowerment from using pan as a label as opposed to queer or transsexual, and it just divides the bisexual community for no reason.

how is a person using a not-perfect label a threat to the community? ok i dont think its a threat but still an issue if that difference makes sense? id like to reiterate a few things ive said before, but for me personally, it made me look down on bisexuals and see them as lesser, and it made people around me see pan as the "trans inclusive" sexuality as opposed to bisexuality, and basically its usage just leads to further biphobia. is this the worst of biphobia? no!!! but its still biphobia and why not attempt to target and minimize that? i have no way to singlehandedly stop biphobia, but my post might get through to my friends who id as pan and that small thing is better than nothing.

if someone used the pan label in a transphobic way, wouldnt that bigotry be different from people using it not transphobically?: someone claiming all bi ppl are transphobic and only pan is the acceptable label is obviously a lot worse than someone iding as pan and saying bi/pan solidarity but again, the second isnt not an issue because the first one is a bigger issue, its just a smaller issue in comparison. i wouldnt say the bigotry is different, one is just worse than the other, but it still has the same problems.

if pan people dont do anything transphobic other than id as pan then what changes with iding as bi over pan other holier-than-thou activism: its just one less person using a transphobic label? which isnt that big but it might lead to their friends stopping iding as pan and cause fewer people around them to see bi as a transphobic identity. which is small scale stuff, i wont try to blow it out of proportion, but thats still a step in the right direction and hopefully more people follow with it. its not terribly huge or lifechanging but something small that may only affect the people close to you is still something rather than nothing.

a blog the internet isnt going to get people to stop iding as pan: oh absolutely not. honestly i expected to get unfollowed/blocked more than change peoples minds regarding the pan label (im surprised i only lost two followers so far honestly) but again, someone literally asked me to do this and i wanted to be clear on my stance on the label, since in the past ive been supportive of it. im not expecting the post to get more than five likes, its more directed to my followers rather than the internet as a whole. im not expecting a large impact, im hoping to change the minds of my followers and friends who id as and support the pan label. thats it. if something bigger comes from it- great! but thats not what im aiming to do.

prev point + many prominent celebrities id as pan: the first name that comes to mind is someone im not a fan of for separate reasons but thats irrelevant. i mean im repeating myself a bit but some celebrities in the past validated and made me feel excited abt my identity as a pan person when they came out, and it justified the label to me, even when i had doubts. i have never interacted with a celebrity and do not plan to change their minds abt their identity. again, my post was for my friends and followers and maybe who ever was scrolling through the biphobia tag and decided to read my post.

why spend that much energy worrying abt the pan label instead of something else: ive spent waaaaay more energy thinking abt a singular meme i didnt like regarding my favourite rwby character so like. maybe i just overreact to things lol. maybe i have a lot of energy and since i cant talk my friends ears off abt my favourite fruits or the different voting methods i learned in my math class or what would dreams taste like, then i gotta put my energy into something. idk. i have a lot of energy and honestly? this didnt take that much. but i felt it weighing on me as my friends talked positively abt the pan label, when i felt guilty for the superiority i felt over my bi friends INCLUDING my best friend and favourite person in the world so like. i spent enough energy worrying abt it, and like. in hindsight since its been over 12 hours since posting it, im thinking abt it less. i was more worried abt feeling dishonest with my friends than actually worrying abt pansexuality, but i figured i owed them an explanation for why my feelings around it had changed.

just feels like you want to find something to argue about: okay i DO love arguing but im not pulling this out of my ass for fun. its in response to posts ive seen on my dash, asks i recieved abt pansexuality, and my way of letting people know my views have changed and why since i know at least some people are curious.

i am sorry to lose a mutual as well, and i genuinely hope things go well for you, but uh yeah thats that.

again, if people have further questions im willing to answer them i just might take a while bc i have school and other stuff 2 do but uhhh yea sorry if im clogging ur dash sjfjfkkf

#asks #long post #anonymous #pansexuality #biphobia #transphobia #my post

2 notes · View notes

fandomshatelgbtqpeople · 5 years

Text

There’s a post that’s been bothering me for literally four years. It managed to somehow be both homophobic and transphobic and the (very popular) social justice blogger who made it never got any serious blowback. I’m going to post a screencap of it here, but I won’t say who it’s from because it was four years ago. What I will say is that as far as I know, they have never addressed it or apologized despite having been asked more than once, never did anything about all the people in the notes using it as a reason to be homophobic, and that they are still a pretty popular, well regarded blog.

This post was made in response to part of an old conversation that got dragged up. It was one of those things that’s like, maybe this was okay, maybe it wasn’t, depending on the context, which I’ve never been able to find. The person who originally pulled it up was a transphobe who was talking about “biological sex,” so I don’t trust their judgment or intentions, but a broken clock is right twice a day, so it’s possible that something actually homophobic was said. I haven’t posted it here because that would just be taking it out of context again and as OP has pointed out, that isn’t helpful. Here’s the part of their response that deals with monosexuals and making assumptions about people’s gender. The rest of the post talked about why taking the comment out of context didn’t accurately represent their feelings and how the conversation had also been about biphobia and bi erasure, and that’s all fine.

It starts out fine (making assumptions about someone’s gender and anatomy based on their appearance is cissexist and we should all try not to do it), but it turns into “and I don’t do that because I’m bisexual.” Which like, you’re a cis woman so yes you fucking do. I’m nonbinary and I still do it sometimes. And then there’s that line at the end about how gay and straight people’s orientations are based on assumptions about people’s gender and anatomy.

I’ll note that they were talking about monosexuals, which includes lesbians, gay men, and all straight people and was also read like it was directed at people who were doing it out of ignorance rather than malice, so this post was not specifically about terfs and isn’t really applicable to them at all because they know exactly what they’re doing. Terfs were also considered just as bad in 2015 as they are now, so if that comment had been about terfs, they could have said that and it would have gotten them off the hook with the people who were calling them out in good faith.

They then wrote out a longer explanation about what their current feelings were on the subject. This is broken up into two images just because it was too long to screencap at once. I haven’t removed anything. The first post and second reblog are the OP:

They later edited the post twice--once to specify that they were only talking about cis monosexuals and once to add “and sometimes also bi and pan people do this too,” which did little to address the fact that this post was literally claiming that being gay or straight was inherently problematic and that bi and pan people were automatically less transphobic by virtue of their sexual orientation and just ended up implying that it’s only okay to be gay if you’re trans (because I guess that means you’re woke enough to stop yourself from being attracted to people on sight?). Here’s

Four years ago, I wasn’t really able to articulate a response that cut to the root of why this post bothered me so much more than any other homophobic or transphobic bullshit and to navigate around the fact that there are parts of it that I genuinely agree with (most of the stuff about anatomy), but I’m older and more practiced now, so here we go.

This post is based on a number of incorrect assumptions:

That gay people can’t find someone they’re not attracted to aesthetically pleasing to look at

That gay people are, across the board, only attracted to certain genitalia and base their sexual orientations off that

That gay people’s thoughts immediately jump to sex the first time they’re attracted to someone

That the only way to be bi is to be attracted to every gender

That gay people base their assumptions about people’s gender on whether they’re attracted to them

That still being willing to have sex with someone after finding out you were wrong about their gender makes your assumption less transphobic

They were not willing to listen to any of the gay people in their notes trying to explain to them that this isn’t actually how being gay works at all or any of the bi, pan, or trans people who called them out for being way out of their lane. The only person they responded to at all was a trans lesbian who pointed out that they hadn’t ever specified that they were only talking about cis gay people (that person also pointed out several ways in which the post was homophobic, none of which were addressed beyond “that’s not what I meant”).

Basically, the thesis statement here is, “Gay people’s attraction is based solely around sex and genitals and none of them are attracted to trans people, but bi and pan people are attracted to everyone so we don’t make as many assumptions about people’s gender, and when we do it’s less problematic.” Which is obviously very false for multiple reasons.

I’m going to go through all of these assumptions and talk about the underlying thought processes underpinning them and how they’re even more insidious than they seem on the surface.

1. Gay people can’t find someone they’re not attracted to aesthetically pleasing to look at

This is actually one of the more benign assumptions and what it really comes down to is not understanding that thinking, “That person is hot” isn’t the same thing as thinking, “I would be interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with that person” (which also isn’t necessarily the same thing as thinking “I would be interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with that person” but this post completely ignores that romance might be part of being gay--we’ll get to that later). It’s really just a fundamental misunderstanding about what sexual attraction is and how it works.

2. Gay people are, across the board, only attracted to certain genitalia

The obvious thought process underlying this attitude is that you have to be attracted to women in some capacity to want to date and trans man and vice versa for trans women. There are two possible assumptions that could be causing this. The first is that all gay people (and all straight people) are transphobic and only care about genitalia. The second is that a trans man who hasn’t had bottom surgery isn’t really enough of a man for someone who’s only attracted to men to want to have sex with him, and the same for trans women. You’re either being homophobic or transphobic here.

In fact, what it really reveals about OP is that, regardless of their self-righteousness on this topic, they are the one equating being attracted to women with being attracted to vaginas and being attracted to men with being attracted to penises. That’s not to say that there isn’t a transphobia problem in gay communities, but the implication here is that these are the objective definitions of being a lesbian and a gay man respectively. There are definitely cis lesbians who date trans women and cis gay men who date trans men.

OP assigned a transphobic, incorrect definition to gay people and then based a lot of their argument on that. We see this a lot in ace discourse (”it means not wanting to fuck”) and in bi vs pan discourse (”it excludes nonbinary people”). It would be a problem if it was true, but it’s not, and while there are people who ascribe to that definition, those people wrong. There are lots cissexist bi and pan people who equate gender and genitalia until told otherwise, and it’s not less transphobic when they do it. It’s a transphobia problem, not a being gay problem.

3. Gay people’s thoughts immediately jump to sex as soon as they’re attracted to someone

So this is just blatant sexualization of gay people, and it really explains a lot of about the first two assumptions. Being gay is all about sex, so if you’re gay, you can’t possibly think someone is hot without immediately thinking about what they look like naked and how you want to have sex with them. And of course because being gay is all about what kind of sex you want to have, your attraction must be defined by the genitalia of your partners.

It should go without saying that this is really homophobic. Even for gay aros, this isn’t how it works. I guess I can understand how if you’re equally attracted to everyone, you might not understand how gender plays a roll in attraction outside of thinking about sex, but it does, and that you don’t get it doesn’t excuse this. It just means you shouldn’t have been talking about it.

4. The only way to be bi is to be attracted to every gender

There are a couple of assumptions that could be underlying this. The possibility that’s most charitable to OP is that they are attracted to every gender and assume that that’s the only way to be bi. This is the only option that avoids exorsexism, but it is biphobic.

The second possibility is an assumption that nonbinary people don’t exist. Therefore, the only way to be bi is to be attracted to both men and women. This is extremely exorsexist for obvious reasons.

The third is a little more complicated, but it’s basically an assumption that being attracted to nonbinary people doesn’t, on it’s own, make someone bi. So, a person acknowledges that nonbinary people exist but basically thinks that either, because nonbinary people span so many identities, it’s impossible to be attracted to them if you’re not attracted to everyone. So a bi woman who’s attracted to nonbinary people and women shouldn’t exist because some nonbinary people identify so close to being a man that you couldn’t be attracted to them if you weren’t attracted to men. This is where the fetishization argument that a lot of exlusionists use comes from (I’m not saying that OP is an exclusionist, this is just the underlying ideology they use), and it ignore the fact that identifying as being attracted to women and nonbinary people doesn’t mean you’re attracted to ALL women and nonbinary people. It just means you can be attracted to women and nonbinary people.

Another possible mindset underlying that assumption is that if you aren’t attracted to everyone, the nonbinary people you’re attracted to must be so close as to be indistinguishable from whatever binary gender you’re attracted to, and therefore don’t count as being a different gender. That mindset stems from not thinking aboit nonbinary genders as being as legitimate or meaningful as binary genders and from seeing nonbinary people as basically whatever binary gender you think they’re closest to (”If you’re a bi woman who is attracted to men and nonbinary people, you’re really straight because your nonbinary partner looks like/acts like/is basically a man”). This is again exorsexist for reasons that should be obvious.

5. Gay people base their assumptions about people’s gender on whether they’re attracted to them

This is the assumption that gay people go:

I’m attracted to this person -> They must be a man/woman

rather than

I think this person is a man/woman -> I’m attracted to them

This frames gay people’s attraction as the reason the assumption about someone else’s gender is being made, and not the fact that we were all raised in a cissexist society. It’s also lets cis bi and pan people completely off the hook cissexism. If gay people’s assumptions about other people’s gender is caused by or is somehow made worse being attracted to them, then bi and pan people should be basically immune because they’re attracted to everyone (according to OP).

The mindset underlying this assumption is that there are people that you are innately attracted to and gay people are just attempting to shape their sexual orientation around their best guess at who those people are. Therefore, everyone is... I don’t know, varying degrees of bi I guess?... and gay people (and straight people) are just the transphobes who assume they know what everyone’s gender is, while bi and pan people are enlightened enough to realize they don’t. OP claimed in the notes that they weren’t saying monosexual orientations don’t exist, but if the point your making is that monosexual orientations are based solely around an assumption that’s probably wrong, then that is what you’re saying. And they definitely didn’t correct the first reblogger, who was unequivocally saying that.

It completely ignores the probability that a person’s attraction would disappear after finding out the person’s gender was actually not compatible with their sexual orientation, or the possibility that a gay person might know someone at least well enough to have some idea of what their gender is before becoming sexual attracted to them (because, as we’ve covered, just thinking someone is hot isn’t the same as attraction, and many gay people aren’t fantasizing about sex with complete strangers). Unless we’re talking about a closeted trans person, you usually don’t have to know someone that well to know what their gender is.

Shocker: most assumptions about people’s gender are made because they “look like” one of the binary genders, have certain secondary sex characteristics, have a traditionally masculine or feminine name, use he/him or she/her pronouns, or have a certain gender marker on their driver’s license. These are all things that bi and pan people are equally susceptible to.

6. Still being willing to have sex with someone after finding out you were wrong about their gender makes your assumption less transphobic

It super doesn’t. You still made the assumption. Framing it this way implies that transphobia is all about whether you would be willing to have sex with a trans person. I shouldn’t need to explain why that’s bad.

In conclusion

I want to mention that OP clarified that they weren’t try to say that everyone is bi in a reblog, but if that’s genuinely true then... I honestly don’t know how this post made sense to them. The point is either “people only think they’re gay or straight because they’re making assumptions about other people’s genders” OR “gay people want to have sex with strangers and that’s problematic (but it’s fine if a bi or pan person does it).” Which is a great example of someone setting a standard that requires huge changes from others but none from them and then getting self-righteous because other people don’t meet it (surprise surprise, the post I was referencing when I brought this up yesterday was from the same OP).

Anyway, regardless of which is true, it’s wrong. This post is homophobic, transphobic, and also erases a lot of bi experiences, and I still can’t believe that so many people just let this go unchecked when it happened.

mod k

Note: I better not catch a single one of you using this post as an excuse to be biphobic.

#modk #homophobia #transphobia #exorsexism #genital mention #long post

32 notes · View notes

femme-brulee · 6 years

Note

The gold star lesbian thing is more lesbophobic than anything else. Bi people aren’t lesbians, so it doesn’t effect them. And it’s only transphobic if you’re talking about never touching a penis. It’s not transphobic if you’re saying that you’ve never had sex with a man, which is what some ppl say.

Did you miss the bit in my About where I said that these are points I’m not willing to budge on? It doesn’t seem like you’re being malicious with this ask (which is why I’m responding to it), but in general it’s not a good idea to try to debate with people about things they’ve said they won’t debate about.

Anyway.

When I say that “gold star” rhetoric has roots in biphobia and transphobia it’s because they are negatively impacted by it, and because the ideals behind promoting “gold star status” come from places of biphobia and transmisogyny. For those of you reading this who are not familiar with the term, “gold star” lesbians (which I use in quotes because I refuse to legitimize it as a concept) are lesbians who have never had sex with a man. The idea is that this would somehow make a lesbian special and better for never having questioned her identity (don’t try and debate this, it’s literally called “GOLD STAR”, which is something awarded to a person who has achieved something above average). This implies that a lesbian who has questioned her identity (and perhaps even identified as bisexual in the past) is lesser than a lesbian who “always knew” she was a lesbian. This really runs in tandem with biphobia. It does not de-legitimize a woman’s attraction to women if she has also had sex with men. This is true of lesbians, bisexual women, and all other wlw. Just because the term isn’t directed at bisexual women doesn’t mean that the ideals behind it aren’t rooted in the same damaging ones that are aimed at them. As for transphobia and transmisogyny, it’s really not that big of a leap to make. Almost every single time I’ve seen the term “gold star” used it’s equated sexually interacting with a penis to sexually interacting with a man. That’s where the roots of the term come from. I have never heard someone use the term in a way that fully recognizes trans women as women and trans men as men. Even if the person using the term seems to be doing that, when examined closer most of the time they’re actually seeing trans people as this sort of “grey area”, where sleeping with a trans man is seen as different from sleeping with a cis man, and being a “gold star” lesbian who has had sex with only cis women is different from being a “gold star” lesbian who has also (or only!) had sex with trans women. If I have to explain to you why that sort of thinking is problematic then you’re probably neck-deep in some pretty gross ideology. So again, while on the surface the term may not seem like its being transphobic or transmisogynistic it only takes the slightest amount of examination to reveal the currents of transphobia running through it.

It’s also damaging to only think of things as being related to biphobia or transphobia (or systemic oppression in general) if they’re being used to directly attack those groups of people. Toxic masculinity among men has roots in misogyny even if it’s “not aimed at women”. These things aren’t just actions, they’re indicative of a general way of thinking that also causes people to act in discriminatory and violent ways towards those groups of people. It’s short-sighted to think otherwise, and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how systemic oppression actually works.

Anyway, thanks for coming to my TED Talk about some of the reasons why “Gold Star” rhetoric is gross. These are obviously not the only reasons why the term is problematic. There are way, way more things I didn’t delve into, I was only addressing the biphobia and transphobia in this reply because that’s what someone decided they wanted to argue with me about. Next time please be more respectful of the boundaries people set.

#fucking yikes #Anonymous

6 notes · View notes

mykidsgay · 7 years

Photo

Defining: Transphobia

By Alaina Monts

Welcome to another installment of our “Defining” series, where we unpack various terms and identities. Do you have a word that needs defining? Let us know!

Content Warning: This post includes discussion of violence against trans people.

Define It

Transphobia is the hatred of transgender people. Transphobia is typically accompanied by the belief that trans people don't deserve respect or rights. Choosing to marginalize someone because they are transgender is a form of transphobic violence.

Explain It

While transphobia's root word, phobia, implies fear, transphobia has little to do with fear and everything to do with hate. To be transphobic is to believe that there is something inherently wrong with being transgender, and that trans people are lesser than cisgender people. Transphobia relies on the belief that a person's gender should match the sex they were assigned at birth. It ignores the way that both gender and sex are constantly constructed and performed every day, and instead implies that these are static, pre-determined qualities.

One of the most prevalent types of transphobia in Western cultures is transmisogyny: the specific hatred and disgust directed at transgender women. Transmisogyny is also perhaps one of the most dangerous types of transphobia as well; it's one of the reasons why many trans women are overwhelmingly poor, homeless, have statistically short life spans, and face fear of violence and death more than trans men and cis people do.

Transphobia is violent, and sometimes that violence is overt and easy to spot. For example, there have been over 20 murders of transgender people in 2017 so far. All of these people were killed because they were transgender. The Stonewall Riot—considered by many to be the first major moment in the LGBTQIA rights movement—was started because transgender women of color were reacting to the transphobic violence of the NYPD.

Physical violence isn't the only way a person can be transphobic. Purposefully using the wrong pronouns to talk about someone is an act of transphobia. Legislation banning people from using the bathrooms that match their gender is transphobia. Whether or not you physically harm someone, creating an environment where trans people don't feel safe and protected is a form of transphobia.

Sometimes it's not as easy to spot transphobia because, unfortunately, it's so prevalent in Western culture. Transphobia goes hand in hand with cissexism; an assumption that all people are the gender they "appear" to be. When you assume that a person with breasts is a woman or a person with an Adam's apple is a man, you're perpetuating cissexism and transphobia. This sort of everyday transphobia is harder to combat because it seems to be everywhere—think of how many television shows still use a man in a dress as a gag. When popular culture does things like this, they perpetuate the idea that trans people are pretending or playing a role, instead of living their truth. These seemingly harmless jokes lead to the ostracization and death of many trans people.

We combat transphobia by making people feel welcome. No one should be making assumptions about people's genders, or jokes about how someone dresses or sounds. We need to encourage lawmakers to pass legislation that keeps the most vulnerable protected, instead of endangering their lives even more. To quote the TSA, "If you see something, say something." Don't let friends and family members get away with casual transphobia—ally yourself with trans folks by correcting cis people who mess up.

Debunk It

Transphobia is rational.

It is not. Unless we are intimate with a person, there is no logical need for us to know what someone's genitalia or reproductive organs look like. Transphobia, more than anything, is nosy. It's a desire to know what a person's junk looks like in order to determine something you consider essential about that person. Genitalia doesn't tell us anything essential about a person, so needing to know about someone's genitalia before deciding whether or not you can respect them and treat them like human beings is irrational.

Transphobia keeps people safe.

Part of the way people rationalize transphobia is by arguing that it keeps people safe. This is inherently false. A pervasive myth right now is that transphobia, especially transphobic legislation, will protect (cisgender) people from sexual assault. But statistically, all these laws do are put transgender people in more danger. There is no proof that forcing a trans person to disclose their status will keep anyone safer. There is proof, however, that forced disclosure will put transgender people in danger. A quick news search will show you that most trans people who've experienced violence at the hands of a cis person dealt with it after the cis person found out that they were trans—sometimes even when this information was voluntarily shared. People who think their transphobia will keep them safe are kidding themselves.

LGB people can't be transphobic.

Transphobia is not just something heterosexual people do; cisgender LGB folks can be transphobic. Cis LGB folks often equate a person’s gender to their genitalia, and will say things like "I'm a gold star lesbian, I've never seen a penis!" as if women only can have vaginas or "I'm gay, I wouldn't even know what to do with a vagina!" as if men can only have penises. The cis LGB community even perpetuates transphobia with casual comments like "bisexual people are attracted to men and women," ignoring a wide range of nonbinary transgender identities. Cis LGB people also sometimes appropriate language that becomes a slur when it's used by those who don't identify as trans.

Only trans women and men experience transphobia.

The fact that there's so little discussion about nonbinary genders is, in and of itself, a form of transphobia. The constant erasure of those who don't identify as a binary gender (i.e. male or female) is transphobic violence. While trans women and men often experience violence because their gender appears "wrong" to some people, nonbinary trans folks often experience violence because their genders are unreadable. Being able to place bodies into categories of man or woman is a large part of how our societies have decided to organize themselves. When people don't fit into either category, they become unrecognizable, dangerous, and susceptible to violence.

Finally, for a discussion of what homophobia is, check out Defining: Homophobia!

Be sure to check out the rest of The Defining Series right here!

***

Click here to read about our brilliant contributors!

#my kid is gay #my kid is trans #my kid is transgender #defining #transphobia #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqia

26 notes · View notes

unloneliest · 4 years

Note

hi i don’t think pan ppl are transphobic, just because bi ppl can be attracted to 2+ genders and pan are attracted to all doesn’t mean pan ppl or bi ppl are transphobic. i deal w panphobic things anytime anyone mentions pansexuality and i really thought your blog would be safe from that. i'm pan and don’t use bi bc i recognize i'd be attracted to someone regardless of gender identity as long as i find them attractive (and this has nothing to do w seeing trans ppl as a dif gender), if they're 1/

this is a long post & i want ppl to have the option 2 skip it so i’m putting it under a readmore; above all else i’m so thankful that you sent me these asks and deeply sorry that i rb’d something that made you feel unsafe on my blog. i agree with you; i don’t think bi or pan people are inherently transphobic and i’m really sorry i implied that with that post!

2/ if they ID as demiboy or demigirl, or genderfluid or anything else that isn't binary, then i really don’t care. i'm not saying bi ppl can’t feel the same since i said bi people are attracted to 2+ genders or all, but pan is rooted in the emphasis of all gender identities. yes theres a lot of overlap but just... i'm hurt that you'd rb smth like that, i understand the last line of its root in transphobia but being gay/straight and so many other things have issues that clash w other LGBT+ IDs

3/ if anything, i've dealt with internalized panphobia and homophobia, i just never felt comfortable with saying i was bi, not because it was "boring" or "binary" but bc everyone would just assume i was attracted to guys and women which was never the case and saying i was pan allowed for me to show that i knew that there are more than 2 gender identities and that i was attracted to all of them

hi its the 3 pt ask anon and its like i completely get why bi ppl would be upset w pan ppl but its just so hard when both are oppressed and one of the most common arguments is like: we aren't seen so we have to be seen first before you try to get into this too. i get why biphobia exists but the same biphobia exists for pan ppl. so many ppl say you're just straight bc of a het relationship or you're just bi then. or the whole theres only two genders argument. and its like i'm as open to dating

5?/ anyone. i genuinely do not care about whichever gender they ID as since i just find ppl attractive for being attractive. and bi ppl can be the same. there is a LOT of overlap and i'm not going to dismiss any worries or concerns. all i know is that the pan community i've surrounded myself with to find love in my sexuality and community have constantly explained that theres overlap but it depends to the person and neither sexuality is transphobic so i try to never overstep or invalidate either

but thank you for listening, so many ppl just invalidate pan voices who try to put both bi and pan ppl into view while acknowledging how theres overlap but theres a difference. its hard feeling invalidating when all i (and others) do is be as inclusive as possible and try to never overstep. i listen to others worries like you do and i've learned so much from your blog and your rbs which i appreciate. it was just hard seeing panphobia & biphobia when i've tagged both to filter the words out

8?? sorry i lost count/ ty again for listening

hi and again just. thank you, for sending me these. i’ve privated the post for now, because i don’t want to hurt anybody but i also don’t want to avoid accountability 4 hurtful actions; i’d most like to delete the post but probably only will if you’re ok with that. and if i ever rb something that includes biphobia or panphobia i’ll do my best to always tag them.

and again i’m so sorry to have rb’d a hurtful post especially bc that runs so opposite to what i want to be doing with this blog & i know that when i’ve found something hurtful shared in spaces i viewed as safe it’s somehow hurt a lot worse than when i’ve encountered hurtful attitudes in places i was expecting it.

in retrospect the phrasing on that post was Not kind, & didn’t convey the nuance i read into it. my baseline assumption of both bi and pan people is that neither group is inherently transphobic; both identities have extremely similar experiences and my perspective on different lgbtq+ identities in general is that our strength is in solidarity and isolating/separating can be really dangerous to the lgbtq+ community’s ability to thrive and work on making the world better and safer for us all.

i’m really glad that you’ve found love and support within the pan community and i have all the respect and admiration in the world for my bi and pan siblings in the lgbtq+ community! being able to find folks who share your identity and to find pride in yourself together is so healing and important and i’m so glad for the times i’ve experienced that in my life as well.

you’re right that all communities do have issues with transphobia, and i normally wouldn’t join in on other identity’s in-community conversations; i thought about that when reblogging the post earlier but i do my best to rb posts asking people to examine if their beliefs and identity might be formed on transphobic assumptions when it comes to all labels and that’s why i did originally rb. i do my best to rb a lot of posts asking wlw to examine potentially transphobic ideas they might hold, because i’m an afab nonbinary wlw and so regardless of the fact that i’m not cis, i have a lot more privilege than trans women do in wlw spaces and i know i need to be doing what i can to make wlw spaces safe for trans women & girls.

and the post i rb’d did just have pretty shitty & confrontational wording, which i didn’t think about when rb’ing it. i’m sorry again for that!

my reasoning in rb’ing that post was the same as when i rb posts asking wlw to examine their views; not that everyone of the groups in question are inherently shitty in some way, but that we all could use reminders to reflect sometimes and that occasionally people will be misinformed or have a shitty view/shitty views - but that that’s not the norm. i also felt more ok rb’ing this post bc i for a very long time id’d as bi, and my attraction as a lesbian still is to women and nonbinary people who don’t feel misgendered by the attraction of a lesbian; some people would call me bi for that, but it’s a common lesbian experience. i really relate to what you said about choosing pan because it really clearly sends the message that you’re attracted to people regardless of gender, bc i chose lesbian as a label bc it sends the message that i’m Not attracted to men! it’s about how i want people to see me.

my reading of the post was connected to experiences i had with some pretty shitty transphobic ex coworkers; they didn’t know i wasn’t cis, but a number of my coworkers at the time were bi. transphobia/biphobia tw for the rest of this paragraph/ the ex coworkers were pan and they adamantly told me/other coworkers that bisexuality was attraction to men and women whereas pansexuality was attraction to men, women, and trans people. my assumption based off of them wasn’t that pan people are transphobic/that pan as an identity is inherently transphobic, but that they as individuals sucked and were transphobic & biphobic?

that experience does touch on what the post was about though, i think. since the bi manifesto written in 1990 “official” definitions of bisexuality have been stating that bi doesn’t just mean attraction to men and women, and that there are more than 2 genders; it’s society’s biphobia that causes people to think that bisexuality isn’t inherently inclusive of more than 2 genders/inherently inclusive of trans people. its clear to me that you know there’s overlap in the communities and that you’re not transphobic and again that’s my baseline assumption of pan or bi people! ik that stinkers are always the exception in communities.

i rb’d the post because i think self reflection on internalized bs is good, and i didn’t realize how confrontational & potentially shitty the post was; i’m really sorry that i rb’d it and made my blog feel unsafe & i’m going to do my best to be more thoughtful in the future. i hope that me sharing why i rb’d it doesn’t come across as an excuse, either; i’m just hoping knowing my intentions might help w/ the experience.

(if ppl must know, link to the post here )

#biphobia/#panphobia/#<-discussion of #ik how much it sucks to have ppl say your identity is inherently transphobic ppl say that abt lesbians a LOT and its not true #anon #den replies

0 notes

snarktheater · 7 years

Note

Could you not say qu**r so often, please? Or at least tag it? Alternatives could be SGA or trans (depending on which part you're referring to) or LGBT? It's uncomfortable to quite a lot of people if it's used as an umbrella term too. Thank you

While I’m not interested in delving into that discourse on this blog…well, I guess it was gonna happen sooner or later.

So just to be clear, before I say anything else, let me preface this post by saying that I’m going to state my position on this, but I will not admit any further discussion on the subject on this blog. You’re free to talk to me @talysalankil if you feel like having further discussion, but this blog isn’t the right place to do so. Also I’m going to use links from my personal blog because it’s just easier. But frankly if you want better sources on the subject, they’re out there.

Warning for massive wall of text. I tried to structure it, but there you go.

“Queer” has been reclaimed for decades. Many people who are much more knowledgeable than myself have pointed out that it’s been used at least as long as LGBT as an umbrella term (and that it was reclaimed before SGA was even invented), and it has the benefit of being inclusionary. The fact that is a historical slur cannot and should not be ignored, but the thing is, there is literally not a single word in use to refer to people who aren’t cis and straight that hasn’t been used as a slur at one point or another. Fuck’s sake, people still use “gay” today as a derogatory term, even when discussing things that have nothing to do with sexuality.

Meanwhile, SGA is an acronym that takes its root from conversion therapy (yes, really; SGA discoursers have claimed otherwise but survivors of conversion therapy attest to it), so I’m pretty sure it is equally trigger or even more triggering that queer to people.

SGL (same-gender loving) is a less historically charged acronym that I feel less strongly about for that reason, but it also comes from AAVE and I feel like there’s an element of cultural appropriation for me to use it as a white person, just like I wouldn’t use two-spirits because it’s a native american term.

But that’s not my only issue with either acronym. See, the issue I have with SGA/SGL are multiple, and I’m going to put a cut here because this is getting out of hand:

It is an inherently binarist concept. Meaning, it either excludes nonbinary people entirely, since for many of them, the concept of “same gender” is compeltely irrelevant; or it partially erases nonbinary identities by grouping them together as “male-aligned” or “female-aligned”, i.e. implying they’re “basically a man” or “basically a woman”. Which, even if that is something some nonbinary people do identify with, is not something anyone should be entitled to force on people. Plus, you know, I guess people who aren’t on the male/female spectrum or agender people don’t exist at all and/or don’t belong in the community according to those people?

Bisexuality and polysexuality does not necessarily include “SGA”, even for cis male/female people. Implying that a bi person is straight if they experience attraction for the opposite binary gender and for nonbinary people is, once again, erasing those nonbinary people’s identities.

Because of these two points, the concept of SGA is inherently transphobic, since you cannot use it without assuming people’s gender.

This also adds a shade of exclusion of intersex people, whose status with regards to the community has always been complicated. Some intersex people don’t want to be included, some do. But “SGA and trans” doesn’t leave room for those who do, but don’t identify as trans (and those people exist), to join the community, even though they deserve a place.

Bisexual and polysexual people are constantly erased, and reducing their right to belong to the community as their attraction to their own gender is harmful rhetoric even for those who do experience that attraction (such as myself). It is the kind of thinking that leads to saying they’re “basically gay and using bisexual to ease into it” or that they’re “basically straight and just experimenting/lying” (the latter is particularly directed at women, especially if they are in a committed relationship with men, while the former is particularly directed at men, including myself). I am not “basically gay” and I don’t want to use an umbrella term for my community that reduces me to that in all but name.

More biphobia: it assumes that there’s such a thing as “straight passing privilege” and that anyone who’s not presently dating someone from their own gender is benefitting from that. That line of thought literally started off as biphobic rhetoric. Oh, and, you know, “straight passing privilege” is just being in the closet. Kind of like how TERFS say that trans women experience male privilege instead of being trans women in the closet. Apparently the closet only applies to you if you’re gay.

The unifying experience of the community is not homophobia. I mean, the fact that you have to use “SGA and/or trans” should be proof enough that you’re already adding trans people as an afterthought. But beyond that, biphobia is a different beast from homophobia, as is transphobia, as is aphobia. They stem from a similar form of societal bigotry, and there is intersection (a bi person dating someone of the same gender will probably experience similar issues as a gay couple, corrective rape which lesbians and ace people are both targeted by), but there are also differences of specificities (I already mentioned bi erasure; ace/aro people are targeted for being “mentally ill”; and I don’t think I have to explain the specificities of transphobia in a world where “bathroom bills” is a phrase that exists)

As others have pointed out, the phrasing makes it sound like the community started with “SGA people” and then was gracious enough to include trans people, which is historical revisionism.

The queer label offers grey areas for people who need time to figure out their own identity or just cannot place their identity on the existing, mainstream labels. SGA does the exact opposite of that by forcing people to place themselves on one side or another of a pretty ill-defined line.

Even if it weren’t for any of these points, the term has now been claimed as the rallying cry for exclusionary LGBT+ people, particularly to target ace and aro people. And by that I mean it started of as that, but let’s pretend it was already around and was claimed by those people. Well, I will not stand for that, just like I’m not standing by TERF rhetorics. Interestingly enough, “queer is a slur” only emerged as discourse at the same time (and usually from the same people) who tried to enforce that exclusion.

LGBT+ aphobes have time and again shown that they were recycling biphobic and transphobic rhetorics (as I’ve shown myself earlier in this list), and in many cases, have proven to be the same people who used biphobic and transphobic rhetorics a few years ago, and that they haven’t given up on those views, merely grown more careful about where and how they advertise them.

If you want more I suggest you run a search for “SGA” on my main blog. It’ll be a lot of the same idea as what I just summarized here, just with more details.

So…yeah. If anything, I do not want to be included under the SGA umbrella, even though I am a bisexual man who so far has only ever dated other men. Well, one other man, but my dating history is kind of irrelevant anyway. Point is, I’m not using that umbrella. And I have every right to reclaim queer since…well, I just said I’m a bi man, which I’m pretty sure that should be enough.

I don’t have as many issues with LGBT, but at the same time, the acronym has also been pushed as “it’s LGBT and only LGBT therefore anyone who’s not lesbian, gay, bi or trans doesn’t belong” by the same people, enough that it feels sour in my mouth. I still use it liberally, although I try to use LGBT+ or other variations, such as LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, etc, but ultimately, queer is just easier and has the benefit of being more inclusive than any of the above.

I understand that it’ll make some people uncomfortable, but until someone comes up with a word that makes no one uncomfortable (which, again, does not exist yet—the closest we got was MOGAI, but that one was targeted by a smear campaign from, you guessed it, exclusionists who didn’t like that it included ace/aro or trans people and now people can’t use it without starting a similar debate as this), I’m gonna have to settle for one, and I’ll pick the one that makes me the most comfortable, because I am a member of this community too and I have the right to do that. Just like you have the right to use SGA and it’ll make me uncomfortable, but I won’t come to your blog sending you an anon message asking you to stop, because I understand that no umbrella exists that satisfies everyone at the moment, and I have more pressing issues to deal with.

If that’s an issue, feel free to unfollow or whatever else it is you feel like doing. But I will not budge on this.

#queer discourse #sga discourse #ace discourse #lgbt issues #queer issues #st: other posts #Anonymous #ask

264 notes · View notes

kelvintimeline · 7 years

Photo

@preussisch-blau-und-kadmium-auch

OP blocked me but you’re on a high enough horse that I wanna push you off.