#like butches may not all be men but they know what i want and frankly i will kill and die for butches | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

There were a total of 171.5 billion posts on Tumblr in 2019.

#like butches may not all be men but they know what i want and frankly i will kill and die for butches

orkbutch · 4 months

Note

i am a butch now but i don’t know whether that’s true or not anymore. i want to take T, but at what point am i actually just a trans man? have you question that line in the sand at all yet?

Oh boy.

I can only talk from my perspective on this, others may differ, and thats because "whats the difference between a butch on T and a trans man" is such a new sociological concept that its basically in the very beginnings of its infancy. its SO new, and neither Butch nor Trans Man nor Trans Masc have secure, well established roots as social identities or concepts. It may seem like they do and it may seem like there are rules or lines that are firm, but when you step back, zoom out, and consider them in the context of broader society (and especially compared to the idea of a Man and Woman), they do not. These are social contructs that are actually very early in their construction, and we are doing the constructing like, right now, within this ask.

That said, I can tell you why I don't identify as a trans man fairly easily: I don't care about men or the idea of a man. "Man" as a static concept is like... I don't know what that is. Its almost alien to me.

Now, to ramble that point out:

I have considered if I'm a man throughout my life. The closest I've been to identifying as a man was when I was in a period in my life when I considered that there was at least an aspect of me that was drawn to Manhood. Also, as I came to be read as a man in my public life, i supposed that in social situations when I was being treated as a man and I didn't correct people because I didn't care to, and I even enjoyed it somewhat and leaned into that role, I was essentially Being a Man (socially). So Man came to be a role I found myself in occasionally, and Manhood came to be a vaguely defined something that was intriguing to me.

But these moments of Man Feeling ended up being more like exceptions that proved the rule. Anyone can feel a bit like a man in the right circumstance, because gender isn't static; its something we can and often do play with, and phase through. I feel like music puts me in some heavily gendered spaces, like Everyone has a part of them thats a woman when they're belting along to "I'm Every Woman", yknow. Anyway.

I didn't feel like a man that much. I didn't feel like a woman that much either. I felt like a butch more frequently, because when I do things that indulged my masculinity, when I'm consumed by my love and attraction to femininity, when I think about the queers that I admire most, I felt butch, and was drawn to butches and interesting queer women. Leslie Feinberg, Frida Kahlo, Nancy Grossman, Patricia Highsmith, leather dykes and femme pro-doms, transgender queens... I've just never been that drawn to the experience of being a man. I've never been interested in men, frankly. Every man I've admired has been very much despite being men. Sufjan Stevens, Clive Barker, David Lynch, David Cronenberg, John Waters... great and usually queer artists whose gender is irrelevant because I like their work. The only man in that list who I have some personal affection for is Sufjan Stevens. He is an angel.

If I'm going to be a gender, its going to be the gender I admire. That I aspire to. I don't aspire to any man. Perhaps I aspire to a kind of body or a kind of masculinity, and sometimes men do that, but thats just a lack of other non-man representations of the thing I like. When I see in butches, it feels like a depiction of Me. Also WOW do I So Not feel like a man when I'm with my lovers. Sometimes I feel a bit like a man when I'm in a certain headspace while domming or if I'm having the rare T4T(masc) dalliance, but I feel very dyky when I'm with femmes. I just don't FEEL manhood. And I don't really care for man. Edit: I will say, there is a kind of Queer Man Masculinity that I definitely admire and aspire to, like that depicted by Tom of Finland or various other usually kinky gay art. But again, I don't see the Man part as important - its the masculinity. Btw, imo, there is no line in the sand as far as transition stuff. I'm very dysphoric about my body and that's never been about how I'm seen by others; it's my comfort in my own skin, and doesn't change my indifference to men or manhood. and that is my butch vs trans man ramble

#ask #trans things

116 notes · View notes

cock-holliday · 8 months

Note

hey! genuine question, ive only seen the flag you have in your icon called the “butch lesbian flag” and i see that you say in your bio

do you also consider yourself lesbian? or are non-lesbians allowed to use the flag?

i ask because im butch but not lesbian and idk if i can use that flag

So, I for years would put the bi flag behind a character, as a headcanon or they WERE bi or because I just felt like it. I changed my icon to Van from Yellowjackets and, confident she would NOT ID as bi, it felt odd to put the flag behind her even if it was MY identity. So I put a shared one: butch.

Now, there’s lots of lesbian flags, trans inclusive or exclusive, there is the labrys, with all its complicated history and imagery. And there’s two butch flags. This one, which stresses butch lesbian:

And this one, which tends to either say butch lesbian or butch on its own:

I liked it, for its similarity to the Bear Flag, another group of shunned and complicated queer mascs.

Do I identify with the term lesbian?

Yes and no. I identify with it for the fact that many people have used it how I use bisexual throughout history, as for many it was more adjacent to “sapphic” or “likes women in a gay way.” There are male lesbians and bi lesbians and nb lesbians and lots of ways to be a lesbian. Some used the label AS a gender.

In many ways I identify with it, in others, the label makes me feel distant from another part of myself. My attraction to men would often be assumed absent if I used lesbian INSTEAD of bisexual, regardless of it I or others used it that way. So I hover on the cusp of the term lesbian and reach for bisexual first, sometimes only.

Now, words like dyke? I get told you cannot reclaim it if you aren’t a capital L Lesbian. But I’ve been called it. Plenty. I would attend dyke marches. The Boston Dyke March explicitly included bi dykes in their definition. Frankly, they said anyone who identifies with being a dyke is welcome to call themselves one.

So what about butch? I tell people to read it all the time but I went and copied the full opening essay of Butch Is A Noun titled “I Know What Butch Is” and will add it under the cut.

But long story (essay) short, if you identify with butchness, congrats, you’re a butch, and can use the butch flag.

I know what butch is. I know, and I’m going to tell you, so listen up and take notes. First of all, butch is a noun. And an adjective. And a verb.

Butches only ever wear jeans and boots, except if they’re wearing suits, and they keep their hair clipped down to a flattop you could putt off. Except if they have to for work. Or if they want to for sex. Or if they want to for some other reason. But otherwise it’s denim and leather and butch wax, kid, and don’t you forget it. Unless you’re vegan.

Toughness, even at the expense of gentleness, is a butch trait. Butches are outlaws. Also gentlemen. Gentlemen who open doors and pick up checks and say “after you” and hold your umbrella over you in the rain while the water drips down their sleeves. But butches not gentlemen if being a gentleman means imposing on the unsuspecting their sexist modes of acting out the cultural paradigm of the helplessness of women. Except if the unsuspecting are crying and need a handkerchief, or elderly and need a seat to sit down in, then it’s all right. Probably. But butches should never wait for a femme to tell them specifically that it is all right to behave in a gentlemanly fashion, they should just go ahead and do it because femmes like a butch with confidence, unless it turns out that she finds it offensive and feels as though you have imposed your gender fetish on her, you arrogant bastard.

And butches are monosyllabic, until you get to know them, which they will not allow but want, or will allow and want, or will allow but don’t want, or won’t allow and don’t want, so you may or may not get to know them, but you should try, or not. But butches are monosyllabic because all that talking is girl stuff, you know? Butches grunt in answer to questions; they speak sharply and emphatically. They do not share, process, or explain because these are activities that bring nothing but trouble, unless they are bringing relief to the troubled heart of a butch carrying around too much hurt or pain, though butches do not actually feel pain; they’re tough enough to either slough it off like dead skin or deal with all of that themselves. Unless someone wants for them to be emotionally available, in which case they can feel their feelings even though the presence of feelings is suspect in the first place, but they must stop immediately as soon as someone else is having a tough time so that all their resources can be directed to soothing that person.

I know what butch is. Butches are not beginner FTMs, except that sometimes they are, but it’s not a continuum except when it is. Butch is not a trans identity unless the butch in questions says it is, in which case it is, unless the tranny in question says it isn’t, in which case it’s not. There is no such thing as butch flight, no matter what the femmes or elders say, unless saying that invalidates the opinions of femmes in a sexist fashion or the opinions of elders in an ageist fashion. Or if they’re right. But they are not, because butch and transgender are the same thing with different names, except that butch is not a trans identity, unless it is; see above.

Butches are always tops. They always fuck the girls, and, for that matter, their partners are always girls; there is no such thing as a butch who is attracted to men. Well, transmen, but that’s just butch-on-butch repackaged as faggotry. But no non-trans-men. Unless the butch in question is a non-trans-man, then it’s okay. Except that non-trans-men cannot be butches, because butch is a queering of gender that assigned-male people cannot embody, unless they occasionally can, in which case they have to be gay men. Or the partners of femmes. Or not. But no one with an assigned-female body can be a butch and do it with assigned-male men. Unless they’re femmes. Or butches. I’m really putting my foot down on this one.

I know what butch is, and butches definitely, absolutely, do not get fucked, even if it feels so good to have someone slide in sweet and hard and rock them just right. They might eat pussy but they never suck cock, because licking pussy is chivalry without pants, and, of course, any butch would want to do anything to please the femme in hir life, if there is a femme. Which there has to be, in order to be a true butch, except if there does not have to be, but you cannot be a misogynist about it either, which a lack of interest in femmes and their attendant delights may be read as—if there is a lack, which there shouldn’t be. But anyway, cocksucking is about ownership and dominance, so butches must always be the ones having their cocks sucked, unless the owner of the cock being sucked by a butch is tied to something, but if a butch were tying down someone with a cock of some variety then the above rule would quite likely be violated, and I think I’ve been very clear about that, so never mind.

Butch has a lot of privilege because butches pass as men a lot, and butches also have a lot of privilege in the queer community because butch reads as queer and femme doesn’t always, and being able to pass to keep one’s self safe isn’t privilege if you’re a femme but it is if you’re a butch. Unless this is a butch who can pass as a heteronormative woman, in which case ze’s not really a butch anyway because no butch could do such a thing. Except that some of them can and also having kids really helps, even though no butch could have kids because of the rule about not getting fucked and also because that’s a femme’s job, but not everyone really understood their butchness all the way along and also sometimes there are fertility issues and also sometimes there’s not a femme so we’ll grandfather in some children but we’ll be suspicious of those butches. Unless they’re really great butch dads of whatever sex, in which case we’ll think it’s the damn cutest thing in the world and punch them on the arm, or if they’re awesome butch moms we’ll make approving comments about their ability to raise feminist men, but otherwise no children and no heteronormativity for sure, except for assigned male butches who do not exist.

Besides all of that, the butch pays. If there’s only one butch on the date. Unless the femme wants to. If there’s a femme present. If there’s a femme present, the butch pays unless hir paying would upset the femme or unless it creates class issues for the butch or patriarchy issues for the femme. Or if it’s two butches on a date, which they shouldn’t be. Or they should. In any case, they arm-wrestle for it. Except in such situations in which a public display of aggression on the part of butches, or an interaction which may be read as such, could potentially be detrimental to the community, to the mental health of those witnessing the act, to the butches themselves for feeling compelled to act out normative masculine-gendered conflict-resolution tactics, or to the glassware of the dining establishment, which so often gets broken. But otherwise, the butch always pays, and there’s just no getting around that.

I know what butch is. Butches are a brotherhood, or possibly a sisterhood, which would be a marvelous way to reclaim butch’s roots in the lesbian community except some butches were never part of the lesbian community and some were but aren’t any more, but placing masculine identities on butches is disrespectful, except when it’s desirable, but anyway, butches are a tribe, a tribe of people who have been maligned endlessly for, and in fact forged an identity in part out of, not fitting the gendered expectations of the culture in which they exist (until or unless they work to pass as men, which always or never or sometimes happens and is absolutely a great or problematic thing), so butches are very open to gendered variations in others and would never, ever try to make another butch feel like shit for having displayed a behavior which does not fit the microculture’s standard of what it means to be a butch, which is a useful or idealized or ridiculous or just plain complicated standard, so it should be adhered to, or critiqued, or aspired to, or not. Butches would also certainly never try to school younger butches in ways that are angry and dangerous because they feel like the process of toughening has disappeared from modern culture and butches need to be tough, dammit. Butches who do those sorts of things either are Real Butches or are Not Real Butches, depending who you ask.

There, that should be perfectly clear.

#ask #anon ask #butch #butch is a noun #I know what butch is

22 notes · View notes

redheadbigshoes · 1 year

Note

Tamsyn Muir is extremely, religiously Catholic. It’s not unheard of for lesbian and gay Catholics to have marriages solely for companionship because they don’t want to be alone for their entire lives. We have no clue what their relationship is like behind closed doors, and frankly none of the stuff that’s actually truly available to find where Tamsyn talks about her relationship suggests that it’s more than platonic.

Not all of us feel free to live as we truly want to. She’s also disabled and may not feel comfortable living by herself. she also has a history of being a CSA survivor that she’s bern harassed on social media about, so I’m not surprised she’s tight lipped about her personal life at this point. There’s a million things to speculate on, but tbh if she is in a purely platonic marriage, I don’t see that as invalidating her being a lesbian, and I’m a 30+ married lesbian, whose wife is a butch.

Tamsyn has created a wonderful world that is full of very sapphic, and frankly deeply lesbian prose, and is one of a very small pool of people to write an actual butch character who isn’t portrayed as just being man lite or isn’t a well fleshed out character. It’s okay if people don’t like it, but if she keeps her marriage private my guess is that it’s probably something she has complicated feelings about, and I don’t think that reflects on the book quality.

I’ve never read her book and I’ve never heard about her or her book until other anons started talking about it so I can’t say whether or not all of that reflects on the quality of the books.

You’re right, we don’t know how her relationship is behind close doors, however the thing other anons have discussed that is problematic is the fact she openly identifies as lesbian while married to a guy.

I think regardless of why she married a man (whether that relationship is exclusively platonic or if she’s actually something else but decided to identify as lesbian) we have to understand considering she’s someone public, that can have impacts on lesbians. It’s still problematic because it does contribute to people thinking we’re deep down attracted to men.

#stephanie answers #anon #long post

8 notes · View notes

crescairis · 2 years

Note

hi, i genuinely don't understand how a lesbian person can be attracted to men? like i really don't get "pan lesbian"/"bi lesbian"/etc... im an AFAB, transmasc NB lesbian myself but i am, for all intents and purposes, exclusively attracted to women.

i thought the term "lesbian" meant "any non-man exclusively attracted to women/fem-aligned people"

please explain? this is not hate or anything, this is a genuine question!

hi there! thanks for your good faith questions! :] this is gonna be a long one, so buckle up

the simple answer is that queer identity is never as simple as A + B = C. people can be multigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, Literally Just Butch, etc... it puts a wrench in very simple descriptions like that. there's gotta be some wiggle room for labels to work—and even then, it's entirely against the idea of queer liberation to let anyone but yourself define your connection to a label. as the saying goes, "not gay as in happy, but queer as in fuck you". (not directed at you, ofc :) /lh)

plus, the "non-men" definition kinda...inherently misgenders people who aren't men but aren't lesbians either. i know people who aren't men and would frankly bite anyone who tried to call them a lesbian for the sole sake of them liking women. a label based on exclusion is always going to run into road bumps like that.

but, if you want a more historical answer...

basically, the definition of lesbian has changed a lot over time. for a while in the 20th century, lesbian basically just meant "woman attracted to women", or even just "women who sleeps with women", regardless of how they felt about men.

the idea of lesbianism inherently not including men only really came around with the advent of lesbian separatism in the 1970s:

"In essence, lesbian feminists tried to untie lesbianism from sex so heterosexual feminists were more comfortable. ... Lesbian feminists responded by distancing themselves from stereotypes of “masculine roles,” maleness, and patriarchy. One way they were able to do so was by disentangling lesbian sexuality from heterosexuality and re-conceptualizing heterosexual sex as consorting with “the enemy”. ... They were then able to draw a distinction between lesbian sex and heterosexual sex, claiming that lesbian sex was “pure as snow” since it did not involve men." —Yamissette Westerband, "Lesbians in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1999"

this was coupled together with political lesbianism, and putting this all together, you got a doctrine that followed as such:

lesbianism was a conscious, feminist, and correct choice. (political lesbianism)

any relations with men were considered traitorship towards women and compliance with the patriarchy. (lesbian separatism)

this meant that bisexual women were considered traitors to their sisters. (biphobia babey!!)

this, at its core, was the belief of radical feminists—and it certainly wasn't something that was met with full agreement. while there were many lesbians who scorned any physicality with men, there were just as many lesbians who refused the idea that to be a lesbian, one must completely remove men from their lives.

there are accounts of bisexual women who saw their lesbian identity as a political stance alongside their bisexuality, or even the other way around. [there's a few here!] the phrase "lesbian-identified bisexual" comes up a lot in the literature spanning from the 1970s-1990s.

here's a couple select quotes from the page i linked:

"[Betty Aubut]: ... I never used to identify as lesbian out of respect for women who made the lifelong choice never to sleep with men, but then I realized that was a lot of bullshit. Calling yourself lesbian does not necessarily mean you have made that lifelong decision. Now I mostly identify as a lesbian–so I call myself a bisexual lesbian." —Robyn Ochs, “Bi of the Month: Betty Aubut,” Bi Women Vol. 5, No. 2, April-May, 1987]

"10 years ago when I left my husband and full-time role of motherhood, it didn’t make me less conscious of what being a mother means. In fact, it gave me a deeper understanding. I am still a mother. That experience cannot be taken away from me. In much the same way, my lesbian awareness isn’t lost now that I claim my bisexuality. When I realized my woman-loving-woman feelings, and came out as a lesbian, I had no heterosexual privilege; yet there were important males in my life, including a son. I am bisexual because it’s real for me, not in order to acquire or flaunt the privilege that is inherent in being with men. My political consciousness is lesbian but my lifestyle is bisexual. If I keep myself quiet for another’s sense of pride and liberation, it is at the cost of my own which isn’t healthy–emotionally, politically or medically. Not only is it unhealthy, it’s ineffective." —Lani Kaahumanu, “Bisexuality & Discrimination,” BBWN Vol. 3, No. 6, Dec 1985-Jan 1986; Reprinted from the 1985 Gay Pride March magazine, San Francisco

regardless of what anyone thought, this was still an opinion that stretched forward into the modern day, though it feels that a lot of exclusionists have all but forgotten it was the belief of radical feminists—or even accepted it, becoming modern radfems all on their own.

there's actually a huge radfem population on tumblr, and has been since tumblr's inception—and that's a big part of why this belief system was able to push its way into the wider queer community. with such a lack of queer elders coming out of the AIDs crisis, queer teens on the web didn't really have very many ways to learn about queer history—especially with bigoted parents around, leaning over their shoulders.

thus, radfems were given a perfect opportunity to deliver their verdict, and these queer teens just...didn't know better. i'd go so far as to say that i've seen radfems and exclusionists alike scorn their queer predecessors, claiming that, in nicer words, "being older doesn't mean you're right". it sucks a lot.

in general, a lot of the hatred comes down to the views of radical feminists. that men and masculinity are inherently evil, that to have relationships with men is a betrayal to one's sisters...when really, there's a lot of men who don't benefit from the patriarchy at all. if the patriarchy were some magical force that protected all men, we wouldn't get cishet men being called f or t slurs for showing emotion. men wouldn't be constantly doubted every time they admitted that they'd faced abuse from women.

instead, the patriarchy only rewards complete compliance and gender essentialism. to be viewed as a good man under the patriarchy, there can't be a whiff of femininity on you. likewise, to be a good woman, you can't be masculine in the slightest. (this is a big part of why things such as stay at home husbands and working wives are seen as such a "horrific" phenomenon. it's also the basis of—you guessed it—homophobia!)

it doesn't just tie into gender; in fact, it's very much tied to white supremacy as well. to quote gerald torres, in his book "Understanding Patriarchy As an Expression of Whiteness: Insights from the Chicana Movement" (which i highly suggest you read, as i can only say so much on the subject, being white myself):

"Whiteness has a gender. The history of American racial thought held that to be white was to possess certain superior characteristics that on closer inspection turned out to be as gendered as they were racial. Though the content of the construction of race and gender changed over time, the gendered nature of whiteness, and of race in general, remained constant. Whether attempting to claim white privilege for themselves or positioning themselves in opposition to that privilege, America’s racial and ethnic minorities have historically defined and redefined themselves in relation to the core characteristics of whiteness. To be white was to be civilized, rational, moral and in command of one’s emotions. Of course, these are also gendered characteristics. The absence of these characteristics was stereotyped as definitive of lesser races, and was sometimes even characterized as such by the occupants of those classes."

to double back to radical feminism, this actually also ties into a lot of queer issues that people feel much less vicious about; transmascs are seen as traitors by radfems as well, abandoning their womanhood to join "the side of the oppressors", or even that, by being men, they automatically have all of the same privileges that cishet men do, completely ignoring the fact that a LOT of transmascs don't ever get to access the male privilege that radfems believe they have by nature of being men. (gnc transmascs, those who don't or can't pass, etc)

the same goes for the trend of mlm positivity posts being hijacked by women who feel the need to complain about how "ugly" and "gross" men are, or that people with male partners should "dump them and get a girlfriend instead".

this lateral attack on queer people all comes down to the idea that "it's okay because men are the ultimate oppressors", yet another idea that both benefits radfems by implying that, because they're women, they're the ultimate oppressed party, while also ignoring the fact that, by nature of many of them being white, or cis, or dyadic, or allo, they still have power over those who are people of color, or trans, or intersex, or aspec.

all in all, this isn't to say that you have to like men as a lesbian. you don't! you yourself can define your lesbianism as completely absent of men, and no one can stop you from doing that. in fact, i would defend your right to do that just as much as i defend bi lesbians.

the problem is when people try to define everyone's lesbianism by their own personal definition, and/or they decide that to like men as a lesbian (or at all) is some irrevocable sin. it's ahistorical, it enforces gold star lesbianism, which is already a lesbophobic concept, and it completely contradicts the idea of queer liberation and autonomy.

and to any radfems and exclus who decide they're gonna send me some mean messages after reading this: hi <3 anon is off. show me your pretty urls so i can block you.

#asks #radfem cw #exclus cw #long post #discourse cw #racism cw

125 notes · View notes

desultory-suggestions · 3 years

Note

Hi. I have been following you for years now and i feel that you are a safe person to ask this question. How does the community treat people in thr closet? I feel like that the community is not okay with people who chose to stay in the closet unless they have valid reasons. Like you have to have valid reasons for staying in the closet. And I am truly scared of coming out because of it because I have no valid reason and i dont think now is the best time to come out. I am confused.

Hello, love! First of all, thank you so much for sticking around for so long! I am incredibly grateful for your presence in our little community. I think this is a very complex question, but I'll give you my two cents!

Firstly, online spaces are extremely different from in-person ones. Now, you may never want to attend an in-person space for queer people! It may not be safe for you, or maybe just not your thing, and that's okay. But It's important to know that a lot of the gatekeeping and controversy online is well, online. Asexual people have always been in queer spaces, so have nonbinary people, bi & pan people, butch/femme men/enby people, and so much more. In real spaces, you'll often interact with older queer people and get a better sense of the idea that the queer community is sort of a community of individuality. We are all together, and equal, but we are all uniquely ourselves.

Also, many older queer people or even younger queer people today have had to stay in the closet or chosen to so they understand. I think generally both communities (online and IRL, who ultimately are all queer of course!) are pretty accepting.

The problem enters when assumptions are made. A lot of LGBTQ+ people just decide that someone is cishet until proves otherwise, and frankly, that's the opposite of all we've been advocating for decades. An example of this is Becky Albertalli, the author of Simon and the Homosapien Agenda, who was given so much grief for writing queer characters when cishet. But you know what? She never said she was cishet. And in the end, she felt forced to come out as bisexual so that people would leave her alone.

Straight and cis are not the defaults, it really should be that we assume anyone could be anything unless they tell us specifics. All we know is that this person uses she/her? Rad! She's lovely! We've seen this person date a man and a woman? Rad! I'm glad they found people they like. If they want to say what their identity is, then that's wonderful! But it is not a requirement.

Additionally, there is no bad reason for staying in the closet. There just isn't! It isn't safe to come out? That's a good reason. You don't know what you want to come out as yet? That's a good reason. You just don't feel like telling anyone? That's a good reason. You don't really have a reason in mind? That's okay! You don't have to! I know this is a sort of negative answer, but know that there are so many people who will always have your back. No one has the right to know your identity.

TL:DR, the acceptance of closeted people in queer spaces varies but is often not as good online as in person. We need to work as a community to stop assuming people are cishet just because they haven't come out, and there is no bad reason to stay closeted.

-Evan

#asks #anon #coming out #long post #identity #queer #lgbtq

16 notes · View notes

myriadism · 3 years

Text

in today's "i became a better feminist when I embraced trans rights" anecdote; coming to terms with my gender as non-binary and my gender expression as more masc/butch/gnc etc. allowed me to give up the frankly sexist pantomime of complaining about how 'women's clothing suck' and fashion companies are all out to make terrible clothes for women to make them feel terrible (your mileage may vary on the veracity of this one) and Men's clothing is *objectively* better and more functional (not true) entirely as an excuse to shop for and wear clothing from the mens section while still being (as i used to think) a girl.

Like, just being able to give myself the freedom of deciding that Clothes =/= Gender and I can wear and shop for whichever clothes I want without it being some sort of declaration from the rooftops or a vote for office or anything other than a no-strings attached personal decision about presentation and expression... That did SO MUCH for me.

I used to hate the color pink you know? I know a lot of afab people did/do. And pink isn't even a bad color, it's a great color! but I DESPISED it. Thru some combination of internalized 'not like other girls' misogyny and underneath that, a feeling of "oh no I can't let people think I'm a real Girl girl by looking to much like a girl fuck" (btw is that gender dysphoria? is that what dysphoria can be like?) I had to swear off an entire motherfucking color!! when in fact, I never had a problem with pink the color. And I never really had a problem with skirts or high heels or make-up, those are all things that I can see the fun of now and love on other people or even wear myself in different forms or another depending on how I'm feeling.

But I never would have figured any of that out without unpacking all of my ideas about gender.

If I had never heard about genderqueerness I'd still be stuck in my little department store trap, trying on bra after bra after bra and never finding one that I felt actually fit me and blaming myself or my body or Victoria Secret and labeling ALL BRAS as SEXIST TORTURE devices like the whalebone corsets of ancient times (these were also not sexist torture devices, they were always just clothes) when the real secret all along was that No Bra is EVER going to fit me because it turns out that I just don't want boobs in the first place

#non binary #gender stuff #feminism #genderqueer #this one is mostly about clothes #why does gender stuff always seem to involve so much clothes??#when that's really like Not even what its about #but also that is Very Much what its about #idk

11 notes · View notes

goosemixtapes · 3 years

Text

i had to read an infuriating post with mine own two eyes tonight so here’s a reminder from your local lesbian:

a) the idea that masculine women and/or lesbians (and particularly those of us who are both) are “pressured to transition” into men is ludicrous. i’m not saying it never happens - i don’t want to discount real people who may have had those experiences - but to act like it’s a trend is, quite frankly, stupid. masculine girls aren’t told to be men. masculine girls are told to be feminine. people who don’t want lesbians around probably don’t want trans people around either.

b) it is not easier to be trans than to be gay. i’m not saying it’s harder - i think trying to rank systems of oppression is a waste of time. that said, the idea that a gay person can “escape” homophobia by transitioning into a “straight” member of the “opposite sex” is - guess what! - also stupid! transitioning doesn’t get you away from homophobia. people will still be homophobic, because they will still see you as your assigned gender; you’ll just also get some lovely transphobia on the top! /s

c) again. let me reiterate. a butch lesbian who transitions to become a “straight man” is not going to suddenly have an easier time. certain aspects of her existence may, in fact, be easier! but other aspects will be much much harder. there’s no get-out-of-homophobia-free card, oh my god. i don’t know what fantasy world some of you are living in where everyone who hates gay people is magically fine with trans people? if people don’t like you being gay, they PROBABLY aren’t going to like you being trans either!

d) lesbians can and do, and have been doing and will continue to do, “transition.” transition is in quotes here because i don’t mean “become men.” i mean that lesbians can do things like take testosterone and get top surgery and use pronouns other than she/her without thinking of themselves as men, and while continuing to think of themselves as lesbians. read stone butch blues. this Just Happens. it’s just another way of exhibiting gender nonconformity! if your stance is “wait lesbians can’t do that” i’m sorry because we literally are it Just Happens

d1) this includes trans women. trans lesbians can also be nonbinary and/or use pronouns other than she/her and do basically anything afab lesbians can. this isn’t my main point, and i’m hesitant to expand because i am not affected by transmisogyny and don’t want to overstep. this post is focused on afab people because it’s drawn from my personal experience, but it’s important to me that y’all know that trans women are not excluded from this narrative.

d2) this isn’t limited to lesbians, either. bi women, for example, also have complex and personal relationships with gender. again, this post is drawn from my own experiences and i am hesitant to expand re: bi women because i know less about their personal experiences. but they are not excluded from this either.

e) HOWEVER. any and all lesbians who “transition” in this way, so long as they still identify as lesbians, ARE STILL LESBIANS. men cannot be lesbians. this means trans men cannot be lesbians. but lesbians who use he/him pronouns or do any of the other things i mentioned are NOT MEN if they don’t identify as men. trans men and he/him lesbians in particular get conflated a lot - but we aren’t the same! we are not the same; he/him lesbians aren’t trying to imply that all trans men are secretly women/lesbians, nor are they trying to imply that men can be lesbians, because lesbians who do these things are not men.

f) why might lesbians “transition” in this way, then, if they aren’t men? well quite frankly it’s none of your business. but generally it’s very simple: because using different pronouns, or going on testosterone, or having top surgery, or etc etc, makes them more comfortable. lesbianism, and butch lesbianism in specific, is deeply about gender nonconformity. saying that you can’t be a lesbian and do any of the things i’ve been listing doesn’t make sense - where do you draw the line? at what point are you trying to define where someone is “too masculine to be a lesbian?” and why do you feel the need to do that?

g) “but are lesbians doing this because of internalized and external misogyny?” look. i won’t lie. it’s POSSIBLE. misogyny is a hell of a drug. but 1) doing these things won’t let you escape misogyny just like it won’t let you escape homophobia; we’ve been over this and 2) the process of questioning your gender is a deeply convoluted and often torturous thing and i can almost guarantee to you that if you’re thinking “is this person really trans/nonbinary/etc or are they just suffering from internalized misogyny?” that that person has probably also had that conversation with themself a thousand times. i don’t think some of y’all realize how long and gnarly questioning can be. we cover our bases, guys. we examine the nuances. transitioning isn’t a snap decision.

g.5) questioning is not always long and gnarly. if your questioning process was very short, hey, good for you! i’m not trying to invalidate your experiences. i’m just saying that It Can Be and It Often Is.

h) certain celebrities who have recently come out have not, to my knowledge, even specified that they no longer identify as a lesbian, despite, for example, using he/him or they/them pronouns. as we’ve been over, these things can coexist. so saying shit like “it’s so tragic that lesbophobia made so-and-so transition” is not only repulsive and disgusting, it’s also completely unfounded!

h.5) that said, even IF certain celebrities who have recently come out no longer identify as a lesbian - okay! so what! lesbians aren’t an endangered species being encroached upon by The Evil Transes. again: we’ve been over this. lesbians and trans men can and do coexist. if someone who formerly identified as a lesbian says they are a trans man, it’s probably because they are. there is not a shortage of lesbians in the world. we are not flocking en masse to transmanhood.

i) if your hot take is “i feel sorry for the lesbian partner of this former lesbian icon who is now transitioning because the Lesbophobes and Misogynists and Evil Trans Rights Activists ganged up on their spouse to make them transition,” i kindly invite you to ~block me~

source: i’m literally a lesbian. and also one of those lesbians who does transitional activities. and also a person with critical thinking skills

#max.txt #long post #sj #god how the fuck do i tag this. im sorry followers for just dumping this on your dash but i saw some bullshit today and i am angy.#ok to rb #(also ok to like. talk to me abt this if you disagee with something or have something to add? im not the end all be all expert on this)#(as long as you are coming to me in good faith im willing to discuss)#he/him lesbians

59 notes · View notes

army-of-mai-lovers · 3 years

Note

Yeah HCing someone as one thing will take away rep from another group, but when it’s a canon representation of an underrepresented group I feel like it’s wrong to HC them as something else. Like how it’s biphobic to HC korra or asami as lesbians

Well, now we’re getting into questions of privilege. First of all, equating hcing Korra and Asami as lesbians to hcing Toph as nonbinary is not cool, because it assumes either 1) that bisexuals have some sort of privilege over lesbians, or 2) that gnc/butch cis women and nonbinary people face the same levels of oppression. Bisexuals and lesbians both lack straight privilege, so that’s out the window. And while gnc/butch cis women are certainly going to face obstacles in the world for the way they express their gender, at the end of the day, they’re cis, and nonbinary folks are very much not, no matter how they express their gender. So really, what you’re talking about is a group of cis people getting mad at trans people for trying to create rep where there isn’t any. Hcing Toph as a cis girl is totally fine, but that’s just not going to be everyone’s hc. Like I said in my last post about this, nonbinary people have experiences navigating gendered expectations too. We’re going to see ourselves in Toph. Some of us are going to want to hc Toph as going through the same things that we are. And it feels really weird to me to have a cis woman get mad at nonbinary folks for that.

I was very nice, maybe too nice, answering the last ask about this, but the rhetoric you’re pushing is frankly kind of transphobic. It reminds me a lot of the things terfs will say about butches disappearing from the lesbian community and “becoming men” (because terfs won’t acknowledge nonbinary butch lesbians or butch lesbians who are trans women). Toph may have been the character that you related to most, but I saw a fair amount of tomboy cis girl characters growing up. You know what I didn’t see? Canonically nonbinary characters. And luckily, that’s changing, and off the top of my head I can think of a few nonbinary characters (who I have issues with and most of whom I don’t really feel represented by, but I digress), but I do not fault any nonbinary person creating nonbinary hcs for characters they like. We deal with so much shit out in the world, it’s nice to at the very least be able to create the rep we want to see in a small little corner of fandom. And I understand that gnc cis women are still going to go through a lot, but you are still cis, and it’s truly not a good look to get pissed at a bunch of trans ppl for some hcs that, at the end of the day, are not canon.

#anons #replies #biphobia #transphobia #swearing tw #lmk if you need anything else tagged #on an unrelated note might be making some nonbinary toph hcs later

19 notes · View notes

orionsangel86 · 4 years

Note

You want the boys to separate in the end?

Yes. Because it makes the most sense. I don’t say this because I hate them being together please don’t assume that. I love Sam and Dean together, but I find their relationship very interesting in how they have basically been forced from childhood to depend entirely on each other and to not really know how to function without each other and since at least season 8 the show has been showing us just how unhealthy this is.

When I talk about the toxic codependency, I am not being hateful towards the brothers bond. I am just explaining what I feel the show itself has made very clear - that Sam and Dean’s dependence on each other, and desperation to stay joined at the hip, has caused not only a threat to their own safety and mental health, but also a threat to the world. Their terrible decision making when the other is in danger has been shown over and over again. Their willingness not just to die for each other, but to sacrifice the world for each other, is a huge problem, and one that hasn’t been tackled fully in the show, but we have been making great progress with it in the later seasons.

In fact, so much of Chuck’s storyline relies on Sam and Dean’s codependency. In 15x09, the vision that Chuck showed Sam of the future where “they won” was tied heavily to the brothers inability to let each other go, even when they were both extremely unhappy. They just spiralled until they ultimately became what they had always fought against. Of course, there were other key factors such as Dean losing Cas which caused him to give up leaving his only reason for living being his brother (which is a bleak and horrid future but one that did make sense given the season 13 grief arc), but ultimately it was the reiteration of “Butch and Sundance” and the call backs to the warewolf murder suicide from 15x05. Sam and Dean’s codependency is always their downfall.

When the show has explored the brothers separate desires, dreams, and wants, throughout the series, it has always clearly shown how different those desires are. Sam has previously questioned whether he would continue to hunt without Dean. He has said that he couldn’t do it without him, but so much of the time hunting and Sam are not portrayed positively. It always comes across as an obligation or something he has resigned himself to. Sam has explored taking a leadership role - which he suited extremely well until his set back in season 14, and he has also been a sort of apprentice to our Witch Queen Rowena. More recently, his relationship with Eileen has been framed as a realistic goal for him. She is a hunter too, but they are also both legacies. Sam’s desire to learn and gather lore, his interest in magic and his leadership skills have all been built on and explored more heavily in Dabb era. It stands to reason that Sam’s future and endgame lies somewhere among these things.

Dean, on the other hand, thrives in hunting. Where Sam was dragged back into it much to his own protests, Dean always enjoyed it. Dean enjoys the hunt. He wouldn’t have called Purgatory “pure” if that wasn’t the case. But Dean has also expressed his desire for a beach vacation and also a partner to stay by his side. He says he won’t do the apple pie life, but so much of Dean’s arc has been about finding a happy middle ground between apple pie life and hunting. Dean has a lot of abandonment issues - something the show has made very obvious since season 1, and in later seasons what I have always called Dean’s “pining arc” has continued to subtly play out in the subtext. Sam may have the clear romantic love interest right now, but Dean still very much wants that too. 15x10 showed this through Garth, and through Dean’s dream, where symbolically his platonic dance partner disappears and instead Dean dances with a lamp whilst imagining a love interest. The meaning in that is blatantly obvious.

Given that Chuck’s ending wish is for the brothers to die in some epic murder suicide way, we know that this won’t happen. Sacrifice is also old news on this show, so in fact is death in general since death will never be satisfying in a show that made death trivial in season 2. I believe that part of the endgame will be a massive shake up of the afterlife and the various realms but I still don’t think the show can end with both brothers dead. So how then are we supposed to close out this story if they stay alive and are still just doing what they do? There still needs to be some sort of bittersweet feel to it. It has to feel like the end of an era, but once you rule death off the cards, a brother separation by choice is the only thing that feels right.

Plus it makes sense. The toxic codependency MUST end. That is a big key area that has been laid out as a negative quality in the brothers relationship for seasons now. Sam must choose to find his own path away from standard hunting, and Dean must find a level of peace that allows him to go on whilst also letting Sam go. Dean must choose to let Sam go, just as Sam must choose to walk away.

This is why Castiel and Eileen are so important. Eileen has her purpose by Sam’s side. The liklihood that she is an endgame match for him is very strong. Even if they don’t actually take the relationship any further in text, just her coming back and standing by Sam’s side would be enough now following the kiss for the show to set that relationship in stone.

Castiel has his own journey to make, one that includes fixing heaven, guiding Jack towards his true purpose (my speculation being him taking Chuck’s place as God), and making a choice about his own future. Given every single one of Castiel’s storylines so far in the entire series, Castiel should choose Dean.

Whether this means Castiel decides to permanently give up his halo or not remains to be seen, but Castiel fits the missing space by Dean’s side in every way. I don’t just say this as a Destiel shipper, I say it because the story has placed Cas in this role countless times now. It makes sense. Regardless of whether the surface level relationship between them remains platonic or takes that final step, I am pretty damn positive the ending will keep Dean and Cas together, with the “end of an era” closing bittersweet emotional note being Sam and Dean saying goodbye to one another and parting as brothers who have been on one hell of a journey, but recognise that it has come to an end.

Frankly, it’s my ideal ending for the show. Sam taking Eileen’s hand and making the choice to travel the world searching for other Men of Letters chapter houses, to collect more magical artifacts, and to build a better resource for other hunters world wide to tackle the remaining supernatural creatures on Earth (yes I know i’m entering fanfiction territory here but I love the idea of Sam being a Supernatural artifact hunter in Europe - give me THAT spin off!) and Dean and Cas sitting side by side in the Impala, on their way to the beach - Dean will take Cas shopping first of course. He’ll try to convince him to buy a tiny blue speedo but Cas will raise an eyebrow and pick out the novelty swim trunks with the little bees on them (He’ll alsosecretly get the speedo for later).

Okay okay I’ll stop with the fanfiction :P. Other than my silly ending headcanons, the parting of the brothers just makes sense. If you don’t agree that’s fine. This is all just my spec and Dabb does have a tendency to throw major curveballs at us so who knows what will actually happen. So long as they don’t go all Game of Thrones on us.

#spn speculation #spn meta #spn endgame speculation #destiel #saileen #breaking the toxic codependency #season 15 #my meta #my spec #my thoughts #asks #anon #Anonymous

389 notes · View notes

jaskiersbard · 4 years

Text

The Fantastic Beasts Franchise and JK Rowling

Alright, so...hi everyone.

I don’t know how many people follow this blog anymore because my main blog of operation is now @alwaysahiccupandastrid - I still try to keep this blog relatively active though, just because it was my original blog, I’ve had it since I was 13, and I have so many memories attached to it.

I’m aware that a lot of the people who follow me, especially since late 2016, do so because a) I was a loud and proud Fantastic Beasts fan, b) I wrote some Newtina and Jakweenie fic, and c)...I don’t know. I literally don’t know why people bother following me anywhere because I don’t feel like I have a lot to say. But, anyway, many people probably follow me due to Fantastic Beasts and my posts/fanfics within the fandom.

Those who follow my active blog will already know my feelings and thoughts, but because of the fact many things about this blog - me, the posts for the last four-ish years, the url itself - are Beasts related, I felt it was necessary to come and write an actual post here instead of just reblogging things and calling it a day. I’ve always been very outspoken online, but I’ve been avoiding a certain topic of conversation on this blog for years now, and I’m finally in a place where we can discuss it.

I am, of course, talking about the hot topic that is JK Rowling.

Back in the days between FBAWTFT and FBTCOG, I was a very outspoken defender of JK Rowling and her decision to defend Johnny Depp’s inclusion in the films. Now, this is something I still stand by to this day, and due to the evidence that has since come out, I’m even more steadfast in the opinion that keeping Depp was a great decision. I am fully in support of him and the way he’s currently battling against his abuser. But that’s not what I’m here to talk about right now. As I was saying, back in the day, I was outspoken about the opinion that “we don’t know the full story” etc., and as a result I received very colourful anon messages. Now, to my knowledge, none of these were about JKR being a TERF/transphone, but I think it’s important to mention that at the time I scoffed at the idea she could be one. I openly admit that I didn’t listen to what other people - including actual trans individuals - were saying about JKR and her transphobia because I frankly didn’t want to admit it. I didn’t want to admit that the person who wrote something that saved my life could be so hateful and a bad person - that, and at the time I passed it all off as “wokeness out of control”.

It is now 2020. Up until last Saturday night, I was still in support of JK Rowling - I didn’t agree with some of the stuff she had said, but I was trying to be positive and have hope by telling myself that she didn’t mean to be transphobic, that she just didn’t know what she was doing was wrong, even though the evidence clearly showed otherwise (I.e. her liking transphobic / radfem tweets). I said to my followers on my Beasts page that instead of cancelling people outright, we should be attempting to educate them instead, and if they choose not to learn then fine. And, being 100% obvious, I didn’t want to admit it because I frankly already was feeling annoyed at two different Beasts cast members for different reasons: Ezra Miller (for choking a girl) and Dan Fogler (for his tweet about BLM - admittedly that was probably him being well intentioned but not saying it right). So yeah, I didn’t want to cancel another member of the Beasts “family”.

I had JKR’s tweets on notifications, and for the most part over the last few weeks, it was all about the Ickabog. However, on Saturday night I noticed that she had suddenly tweeted something completely different, and I looked at it. Given that I had adamantly defended her and said “freedom of speech” for so long, it’s telling that my first thought upon seeing her tweet was literally “for fuck sake, Jo, why”.

I won’t post her tweets here but to sum that first tweet up, it was her being annoyed over the term “people who menstruate” being used in an article instead of “woman”, and mockingly saying “there used to be a word for that” before pretending she didn’t know the word. She knew that tweeting it would start arguments and anger, and yet she still made the decision to do so. Her follow up tweets frankly dug the hole deeper; she tried to defend herself by saying, to sum it up, “I have a butch lesbian friend who agrees with me” “I just care about women’s rights!” And “IF trans people were marginalised I’d march with you!” (“If”, of course, being the real kicker here because what do you mean IF. They ARE. Every DAY.)

Since then, JKR has written an essay on her website defending herself and her opinions, and yes, I read it. I read it a few times, in fact. At first, I felt my anger simmer and felt I had been too hasty to make anti JKR jokes, that I was wrong...but then I read it again properly and realised that what she had written was a piece that turned herself into the victim, and that despite putting on the appearance of her saying she supports trans people, including the phrases “I support trans people” and “of course trans women are real women”, she still spewed much transphobic vitriol and hate. She cited no sources for any of her proclamations or statements about statistics, implied that trans men transition to escape their “womanhood”, that trans women are men in dresses, that trans women are dangerous to “real” women (aka cis women) and shouldn’t be allowed into women’s changing rooms or toilets. There was also the autism comment, and the implication of autistic girls somehow not being able to make decisions or whatever.

I’m going to get straight to the point: I don’t support JK Rowling or her radical feminism.

As someone who is a proud feminist (libfem?), I can honestly say that never have I felt threatened or like I was being silenced by the inclusion of trans women in feminist spaces or conversation. Never. In my second year at sixth form, I was in charge of the LGBTQ+ club until a new leader with better leadership skills could step in, and - put simply - that year, the club was made almost entirely of first year transgender students. Even though I had called myself a trans ally for years, I realised there was a lot I didn’t know, and I learnt quite a lot from these students. I continue to still learn today. They were some of the nicest and most intelligent people I got the chance to meet, and I can truly say that at no point was I ever worried to be in a room alone with a trans woman, nor was I concerned about which bathroom they went in - bathrooms are bathrooms. Speaking of bathrooms...when I was at uni during a particularly tense rehearsal a few weeks before our final show last year, a guy in our group made me cry and I ran to the women’s bathroom to escape. Not only did the other girls come to comfort me, but you know what? The guy came in and apologised profusely to me. Did any of us girls give a shit about having a guy in our toilet? Absolutely not. It’s a fucking toilet. And, on that note, I was never worried about a trans woman or even a cis man attacking me in the toilets. You know who DID attack me in the toilets regularly? Other cisgender women.

As a feminist, I fully support trans women and am not threatened by the inclusion of trans women in women’s spaces or in women’s rights discussions. While I agree that cis women and trans women inevitably go through different struggles, at the end of the day, we all identify as women and are women. I think that if your feminism is so threatened by the existence of trans women - TERFs, RadFems, JKR, looking at you - then your feminism is flimsy and not feminism at all.

As a woman, I find it highly offensive that JKR and many RadFems focus so much of womanhood and feminism on an involuntary biological function that, frankly, many of us would rather do without. Yeah, I’m talking about periods - no matter how proud I am to be a woman, I still fucking hate periods and would get rid of mine if I could without erasing my chance of having kids someday. I can hear the RadFems accusing me of “internalised woman hatred” for saying I hate my periods, but you know what, they suck and they hurt and fuck them. The fact that JKR (also the the radfem movement) reduced “women” to just people who menstruate and can have children, and vice versa, is incredibly offensive and misogynistic. For a start, trans men menstruate, intersex people can, non binary can etc. Next, not even ALL cis women have periods - women who are menopausal, young women who haven’t started puberty yet (some do start very late), some women don’t have regular cycles, some women have medical problems that affect their cycle, some women are on birth control that can stop their cycles. So the idea of women being defined as “those who menstruate” is offensive not only to trans/intersex/non binary individuals but also to cis ones too.

As I write this, I’m a 22 year old woman who is still learning and changing every day, and one of the things that I’ve found myself thinking about recently - especially since we’re in lockdown and we have nothing BUT time to think - is about myself and my identity as a woman. What prompted this was when I saw Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s beloved book, “Little Women”, which I’ve since read, for my birthday back in January, and I left the cinema feeling exalted and powerful with my own identity as a woman. (I’ll be returning to LW in a bit)

After some thinking, I’ve realised some things. For me, my identity as a woman is not just because once a month my uterus decides to shed; I do not identify as a woman just because I have certain physical features. I am not a particularly feminine person either, and I’m what some may call a “tomboy” (a phrase I actually don’t mind but I know a lot of people do for understandable reasons since it’s a phrase designed to differentiate people who don’t conform to society’s expectations etc) because I prefer video games and more geeky stuff to shopping or dressing up or make up.

For me, there is no one way a person has to be or appear in order to identify as a woman. Women are beautiful, complex human beings; we are not defined by our genitalia, by an involuntary biological process. Women are strong, intelligent, and interesting people - no two are the same. For example, some decide to raise families, some choose to pursue a career, some do both - all of these are valid and none are more “feminist” or “womanly” than the others, because it’s our as women. I guarantee that if you lined up every single woman in the world - cis AND trans - no two would be the exact same.

I mentioned “Little Women” earlier, and as I was pondering over what makes me identify as a “woman”, I thought a lot about a certain quote from the 2019 film that has stayed with me since it was first said in the release of the trailer. It’s spoken by Jo March to her mother, and I’ve started to understand what for me makes me a woman.

For me, being a woman is all of this: having minds, hearts, souls, ambition, talent, and being beautiful each in our own ways. Women are capable of love and empathy, capable of desire, capable of the most complex and human feelings and emotions, and coming out the stronger for it.

Sex is one thing; gender identity is another.

I won’t dissect every single thing JKR wrote in her essay, but I will just say this: her comments regarding autistic girls are extremely tone deaf and she does not speak for those with autism. I’m going to be honest and admit something here I haven’t before: I have not been diagnosed with autism or aspergers but I AM currently on the waiting list to see someone who COULD diagnose me. Apparently I show signs of a potential diagnosis, so...we’ll have to see. But I have friends who are autistic, and they’re disgusted by JKR trying to use them to support her TERF arguments. Autistic and other neurodivergent people are absolutely capable of making decisions and are NOT people who need to be babied or have their hands held, to be told who they are. It’s incredibly ableist of JK Rowling frankly.

I would also like to point out... I’ve seen people saying “but she doesn’t hate autistic people, Newt is autistic!!!” - yes, but JKR didn’t write him as autistic. Eddie Redmayne chose to play Newt as autistic - JK Rowling didn’t do shit.

It’s also time that I acknowledge that both Potter and Beasts inevitably hold JKR’s problematic views, and that by denying her ownership of her work, we’re not holding her accountable for the horrible things she’s done. This includes - but is not limited to -:

Anti-Semitic stereotypes in the goblins

Lycanthropy being used as a metaphor for AIDS - an illness that is heavily associated to the gay community, and also there was the panic of the AIDs crisis in the 90s where much misinformation and homophobia was generated and spread because of it.

Adding further to the lycanthropy point, one of the infected individuals - Greyback - is stated to have a sick preference for infecting children. Not only are werewolves tied to harmful gay/AIDs stereotypes, but also to the disgusting and frankly wrong notion that gay people are pedophiles.

The only Asian character is called Cho Chang. Cho Chang. That’s two steps away from outright just calling her “Ching Chong”. It’s not a name an actual Asian person would have.

The Goldstein sisters are probably distantly related to Anthony Goldstein, who JKR confirmed (on Twitter of course) is Jewish, meaning that Tina and Queenie are most likely Jewish too (and Goldstein is a Jewish surname). However, despite the fact that the first FBaWTFT is set DURING Hanukkah in 1926, there’s zero signs of them celebrating or observing it. Maybe that’s more on set design than anything else, but come on - if I, a fanfic writer, can do some research, JK/the crew of a major movie can too!

Adding on from that, gotta love how one of the JEWISH main characters then decides to join the Wizarding world equivalent of Hitler. I already had problems with Queenie’s characterisation in CoG, but that’s the icing on the cake.

POC/Black characters - in both series but since I’m a Beasts blog... Seraphina Picquery, a Black female president serving a term during a MAJOR wizarding world crisis, is severely reduced to have only 3 lines in CoG. Nagini’s only purpose is to be the only friend of Credence, a white man, before he joins Wizard Hitler and abandons her; she’s also an Asian character who we know one day permanently becomes a SNAKE, and who goes on to actually have a piece of Voldemort’s soul inside of her?? And some do see her as his slave, though you could argue that she’s actually the only being that he holds any love or respect for. Leta Lestrange is a half-black woman who is killed/literally sacrifices herself for TWO WHITE MEN, and who’s death was literally confirmed to have been added in last minute.

Also, the whole Lestrange storyline was fucking nasty: white Lestrange Sr imperius-ed a black woman (Yusuf Kama’s mother), raped her, and she then died in childbirth. I’m sorry, what the fuck??

In Harry Potter, Seamus is a terrible stereotype of an Irish person - he likes to blow things up. Look up the IRA and their bombings. Fucking Irish stereotype. As someone with Irish grandparents and who is proud of their Irish heritage, this really pisses me off.

Let’s not forget the whole Native American cultural appropriation. That truly speaks for itself.

So here is where I speak candidly to everyone who follows me and/or sees this post. While Beasts is no longer my No. 1 fandom these days, it and Potter still hold a huge piece of my heart. I have 5 wizarding world tattoos, so much merchandise, and I can safely say that being a fan of both series has shaped me as a person. Both of those series helped me get through the darkest days of my life, including bullying at school, my Nan passing away, and my mental health struggles.

This is why what’s happened has impacted me so much and broken my heart. For me, it feels like it’s tainted now because of Jo and her views. I know that we should separate the art from the artist, but when her views are so clearly woven into the very fabric of the Wizarding world, it’s a huge problem.

Here’s another part of the dilemma - I do not wish for the Beasts films to be cancelled. I’m well aware that the *cough* people who dislike me will say I’m trying to be negative, trying to boycott the series blah blah blah, but that’s truly the last thing I want. I still love the story, the characters, the soundtrack, and I want to know how it ends, if only for my own piece of mind. It’s also important to add that by boycotting Beasts, it’s also harming the hard working thousands of others who worked on the films: the cast, the crew, the extras, the musicians, etc., not to mention the fans who actually are invested in the series and have taken solace in it. It’s not fair for them to all suffer over the actions of one TERF.

This is one of my biggest worries, however: the Fantastic Beasts films do NOT have a good reputation as it is. The second film was boycotted by some due to Depp, and now there’s talk of people boycotting number 3 because of JK Rowling. Lots of people already talk hatred about it, and this will only fire that hatred up even more.

There’s also talk of Eddie Redmayne potentially being kicked from the franchise due to a “leak” that he doesn’t want to work with JKR anymore, but this could be sensationalist news reporting. But if it came down to it, I can honestly say that I would rather continue to have Eddie play Newt than keep JKR as a writer. Eddie has done more for Newt than even JKR has, and if he goes, then that will be the last straw for me within the fandom. That will be when I take a sharp exit out, sell my FB merch and have my tattoos covered.

To add, the Fantastic Beasts scripts are...not great. Or, at least, what we saw on-screen wasn’t. Maybe that’s David Yates being the literal worst (fuck you, Yates, you suck) and cutting all the parts with strong female characters, but I honestly don’t think that JKR can write screenplays well at all. I think she’s clearly better at writing books, and that’s fine - books obviously allow for more time to explore characters and story/plot arcs etc, and film scripts offer way less of those chances. I don’t think screenplays allow her to write what she needs to in order to tell the story she wants to, hence why CoG was kind of a hot mess. So maybe it’s just that she’s not suited for screenplays and should stick to books.

Honestly, I kind of just wish that WB would hire another person to finish writing the Fantastic Beasts movies - obviously they’d have to keep JKR on board to tell them the actual plot, but get someone who can actually write screenplays and not be problematic to write them.

By now I’ve gone on long enough that I’ve forgotten my original intent while writing this, so I’ll try to sum up and end now. In short, I am extremely disappointed in JK Rowling and do not support her or her views any longer.

I don’t know how any of you guys are feeling but I would be interested to hear other people’s thoughts, especially other Fantastic Beasts fans. I want to also add that, as always, my DMs and inbox are always open - if not here, then always at @alwaysahiccupandastrid where I’m more active nowadays.

Finally, you guys don’t need me - a white cis woman - to tell you this but you’re all valid and magical and fuck JK Rowling. Her characters would all be ashamed of her, and the characters we grew up with would not stand for the bigotry and vile hatred she spreads under the guise of ““protecting women””. Several of the amazing actors from Potter and Beasts have spoken out against her and her tweets: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Bonnie Wright, Katie Leung, Chris Rankin, Eddie Redmayne. Some have been...less inspiring (Tom Felton, Evanna Lynch, looking at you two 👀)

I’m sending love to everyone right now. I wish I could say something more useful but I’ve spoken enough - I’ve made my opinion clear. I love you all, please stay safe.

#fantastic beasts and where to find them #fantastic beasts: the crimes of grindelwald #jk rowling #harry potter

24 notes · View notes

gettin-bi-bi-bi · 4 years

Note

1. A lot of times on lgbtq media, I’ll see things that include all wlw but will be labeled as for lesbians. Like “lesbian term”, “this song for lesbians”, or they’ll be posts or media talking about “lesbian only” experiences that could apply to all wlw. What bugs me is that bc lesbian has a very strict definition, I really don’t feel included in these. Whereas “gay” is an umbrella term and I often feel like I wouldn’t have these problems as a bi man cause I feel like gay covers me.

2. Lesbians of course have their own things, but I’m only talking about stuff that def includes all wlw but is called “lesbian”. Like “lesbian” couples that may have a bi women in them. I feel like there’s this split between communities bc any time I see a bi girl use the term lesbian(not as a label; for anything else) there gets so much crap thrown. While I know bi men prob feel that same sometimes, gay is such a universal term that I don’t see it as much. Idk if that’s invasive of me to feel

disclaimer: I was typing and typing and.... this kinds turned into a rant so. Take it or leave it, I don’t know how much sense I’m making. You know, up until ~50-60 years ago the word “lesbian” just meant every woman who had sex with women. That 100% included women who also had sex with men. (Note that at the time those labels were about sex acts and not about an identity based on attraction.) So many lesbians back then were what we would now call bisexual or pansexual.

However, lesbian separatists and “political lesbians” (basically the OG radfems) decided that a true lesbian should not have anything to do with men. And thus they started to exclude bisexuals from lesbian spaces and terminology and we were forced to make our own community. Which we did.

Now in the last couple years, especially on tumblr, there’s been this attempt to “reunite” lesbians and bisexual women into a shared community called “wlw” or “sapphic”. Unfortunately there’s still lesbian separatists. And that’s how you get entire campaigns on tungle dot hell where people recycle radfem rhetoric to tell bi women we aren’t “allowed to use butch/femme because those are just for lesbians” and other historic revisionism like that.

Most of the time I see people use “wlw” or “sapphic” it's bi/pan women who make that effort. And I notice a development in which the same thing happens to wlw/sapphic as it did to “lesbian” back in ye olden days: bisexuals are being told to keep their mouths shut about their male partners because “this is wlw safe space and this shouldn’t be about Straight Things” and as a result many think that “sapphic” is just a synonym for “lesbian”.

And note that this is all something that happens in relatively niche online communities like tumblr. When we’re looking at mainstream media then it’s a whole other piece of cake because mainstream media, especially when created by and for cisgender heterosexuals, just doesn’t fucking care about these distinctions. Sometimes it’s “just” ignorance and not even malicous - they just really don’t know the difference. Sometimes (often times!) it’s textbook bisexual erasure.

Personally, I totally get how you feel. I don’t feel connected to the “lesbian community” at all. I have a couple of lesbian friends but I don’t engage in any lesbian community events (even though Berlin has plenty to offer). I don’t feel like I have anything to add there and frankly, I don’t feel like I can openly talk about the fact I am bisexual and dating a man.

Even terms like “wlw” and “sapphic” - even though I do use and appreciate the sentiment behind them - don’t really give me a sense of community or belonging. Maybe that’s also a generational thing. I also don’t feel like I have one type of attraction that’s sapphic and then another type of attraction that’s [insert adjective] for men (and another again for enbys?) - all of my attractions are bisexual so I don’t feel comfortable describing my attraction to women as “sapphic” bc it implies that it’s something different than my attraction to other genders. But again, that’s just my personal feelings. I don’t mind those terms and I don’t mind if someone would use those as umbrella terms for me or as identity labels for themselves - go for it. I just don’t feel any significant connection to them personally.

I’m also a petty asshole though so if some event or media or whatever is advertised as “lesbian* .... party / movie night / pride / book club” then I’m just like, well, I’m not a lesbian so that’s not for me, guess they’ll be missing out on getting to know me. And I get even more pissy when they add in small print “*also welcome to bisexuals” because if you wanna make an event for lesbians and bi women then why not advertise it as that? Putting us in parantheses or small-print is at best tone-deaf and at worst an expression of how little they value us.

Many lesbians aren’t actively biphobic and would never want to exclude us and would actually genuinely welcome us. So, don’t take this as me slagging off all lesbians. However... many, especially the younger ones, are still incredibly oblivious to the history of their own label (because radfems work very hard at erasung that history so it doesn’t include bi and trans women) as well as ignorant about the struggles that bisexual women have to face in particular both in mainstream society as well as within the LGBTQIA+ community. They often don’t realise how alienating it is for us to always only being an after-thought at best. Which is kinda hilarious given that they often (rightfully!) voice the same criticism when everything is made about cis gay men and lesbians are just the after-thought.

So long story short: I get it. It sucks. That being said, bisexual men also face a lot of issues and biphobia affects them in some specific gendered ways that are also pretty shitty. They really don’t have it better or easier then other bisexuals when it comes down to biphobia.

Now, you can either say “fuck it, lesbian stuff is for me, too” and ignore all the separatism and basically reclaim your rightful place in this community. Or you can stick to the bi community and seek out media/events that are explicitly for all the queers.

Maddie

#I may have said this before but I'll put it here again:#I feel a stronger connection and can relate better to gay men than to lesbians #*shrug emoji*#Anonymous

10 notes · View notes

ettucamus · 4 years

Note

except you.. literally can separate the work from the writers intent very very easily and people have been doing it for many many years before you came around or h*rry p*tter was thought of. lovecraft and shakespeare for example. it’s actually very easy is you use that ‘critical thinking’ skill you guys are always yelling about.

i don’t know why everyone always uses the classics as a gotcha for this concept because i vehemently hate the classics. they are overtly sexist, racist and antisemitic and many other disgusting things that are very blatantly included within the texts of these works and i do not care to read them beyond what is required of me for work or school?

as a person of colour, a jew, and a butch lesbian, i have been forced to create my own canon of “classics” because i just don’t derive any please in reading works where i am positioned as inferior being to cishet, christian white men. some of my personal favourite written works that have made it into my personal canon are: bad feminist by roxane gay, a restricted country by joan nestle, stone butch blues by leslie feinberg and pretty much all alison bechdel works. these works are by no means perfect, and to expect so would be preposterous, but my point is that there is literally so much fantastic work, and critically acclaimed work out there by women, people of colour, lgbt folks, jewish people that Don’t include blatant messages of bigotry and you cannot call yourself a feminist or an ally to any of the aforementioned groups if you do not wish to acknowledge how deeply disturbing many “great texts” are. ignoring bigotry allows it to flourish, which is exactly what you are doing when you “separate the art”. (also. lol @ the fact that you are praising lovecraft, who was known in his time as ridiculously racist, even by their standards. some things we just gotta let die, bro.)

furthermore, every artist knows that you cannot separate your work from yourself. art is as much a living breathing part of you as anything else, it is the direct product of your life experiences, your hopes, wishes, fears, and dreams. as an artist myself, i know this better than anyone. i also know that the art i present to the public is probably my least daring work, my least honest work. the things that i truly would love to make are generally too radical and niche. many of my other artist friends have also agreed with me on this. if all of these bigoted authors are putting out work that is blatantly harmful and oppressive to minorities, imagine what they are saying behind closed doors.

also, just because you do not have the same boundaries i have does not make mine invalid and actually makes you a huge asshole for suggesting that some people should just get over their boundaries??? i am allowed to not like things and i am also allowed to be frustrated that people Don’t Care about my oppression, and that doesn’t make me weak or less intelligent than anyone else. media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. media is both a product of our culture, and helps build future culture. as many other feminists would agree, “the archive” and what is included in it, what is uplifted, directly correlates with oppression. at some point, we have to actively make the decision to break the cycle of continuing to praise cishet, christian white men for their, quite frankly, disgusting works, and instead use that energy to care about the works of marginalized people who will never get the same platform, attention, or praise. buying a lovecraft book will just fill the pocketbooks of whatever publisher is reprinting a public domain work, buying a book from a marginalized person may very well give them the first meal they’ve had in days.

you can talk all the talk you want about caring about marginalized people, but until you start to make change in your life to support those who are most vulnerable, then you’re just co-opting a movement for the brownie points.

if you would like to do more feminist reading on the archive, and the importance of caring for marginalized voices, i highly suggest Everything that bell hooks has written on the subject. the door is always unlocked, but you have to be the one to open it.

#answered #slo.txt #long post #and like. why did you bring up harry potter? do people think that post is about fucking harry potter because... yikes.#please go outside more for the love of G-d #Anonymous

6 notes · View notes

warmbeebosoftbeebo · 5 years

Note

I watched B’s livestream earlier and it got weird. His friend text him, “Hey dude I have something you might want to see. Here’s me going to town on a dude.” B looked and a video of his friend fucking some guy. B said his response to him was just, “Thank you.” Does his friend send him these videos often? Maybe the reason he sent it is because he knows that it turns B on. I wonder if Sarah knows this? Or how she would/does feel? I would feel uncomfortable knowing my husband gets videos like that.

uhhh… i need to see this for context, if anyone has a clip or link with around how many minutes in it happens… my initial thoughts were: was the other guy and/or b joking around? eg he says what’s quoted above, but it’s a funny dog or cat vid or something haha. another was: this is the first reference afaik about b watching material with male-male sex in it. another: two dudes going at it, filming themselves n sending it to a friend of the one or the both of them. i may not disapprove myself haha [i’d need to see the video, know the guys n how they felt about others seeing it and the sex they had, etc]. a forth: it sounds like a clip of pia. even homemade/between partners and hook ups, etc porn revolves around pia and piv.

another: it doesn’t seem like sarah wouldn’t know, because it doesn’t seem like b hid it at all, and anything on twitch could get back to her. it’s likely she already knows he gets stuff like that from friends. i can also imagine they’ve watched stuff together, inc gay material, but that’s more speculative. maybe he shows the better ones/ones she is likely to like to her? they seem to have a loosey-goosey definition of monogamy considering what we know he’s gotten up to in themselves eg making out with guys he knows well like jake sinclair n butch walker n probably doesn’t really know too in bars.

i want to have a moment of appreciation for sides in particular, because they get so erased, pia is treated as the main or even only sex guys have together. statistically it’s actually the least engaged in sex act between men in general samples, meaning even men who id as tops, bottoms engage in pia less often than other sex acts like frottage [eg between thighs, buttcheeks, buttocks, on the tummy…], outercourse [penis-penis rubbing], manual, oral… but also a shout out to verses. and men who have preferences around pia but only engage in it sometimes during sex. holla at all of ya. it’s all sex, hons, stop telling yourselves it’s foreplay or whatever. because a lot of them do, which is weird because pia didn’t even start being practiced widely by gay/bi men till the late 70s, and even then a lot didn’t, or tried it and found it overrated, or did it once or twice and were NOT doing that again. [the switch to a focus on pia frankly decimated a generation of gay/bi men. they obviously couldn’t have known in the 70s, and it’s not deserved, but it goes to show how risky not just for sti and hiv transmission it is, but for physical injury, and how blase a subset of gay/bi men had become about high/higher risk sex, numerous stis, other infections, sex while high/drunk, anonymous sex, etc. this all combined to weaken their immune systems, leaving them more vulnerable to hiv. gabriel rotello, larry kramer and Michelangelo Signorile are three who wrote about that.]

17 notes · View notes

laundryandtaxes · 6 years

Note

is there any way of truly knowing if ur a trans man or a dysphoric butch? i prefer he/him pronouns i detest my birth name and think about top surgery/hormones all the time but i just feel so deeply connected to lesbians that i can’t bear the thought of a lesbian seeing me and not recognizing one of her own. how far can i push womanhood’s parameters before im completely removed? i dont feel at home among trans men as i do with lesbians, but i wonder if im just too afraid to face the truth?

I think the primary question is not what you “are” but how you want to live the rest of your life, and what actions get you to that placr. It seems to me that framing the question this way allows you to decouple your desires from the politics you may hold about what you should be, or what feelings have x political meaning vs y political meaning, etc. When you use this framework the question becomes whether you want to pass full time, including not being recognizable to other lesbians. This question is one you’ve already answered for yourself.

I will also say I get why some butches and some trans men are into conceptualizing ourselves as two groups with very little overlap or with a thick line between them, but I personally think that’s pretty easily belied by the fact of a bunch of shared experiences whether we like that/it makes us feel nice or not. I also don’t think you’re obligated to end up with language that someone else likes or understands. It’s hard to be like this for a lot of us.

I do think that, unless you end up deciding transition is in fact what you want, you shpuld probably try not to lean on dysphoria-reducing measures that ultimately often increase dysphoria when removed or not available. If it is possible I think it is a good IDEA to try things like using they/them or she/her instead of he/him, to not bind, etc. There is nothing wrong with any of those choices as measures to reduce dysphoria. But frankly I think they lead a lot of us to basically dissociate from ourselves, and they make instances of someone recognizing us as female more painful, including recognizing OURSELVES as female. If you have a partner you feel comfortable trying these steps around, I suggest it. I understand if it doesn’t feel possible or genuinely isn’t and you don’t owe me or anyone else the effort of reducing your reiance on these kinds of coping mechanisms. But I think reconciling with the fact of what our bodies are and look like, what kinds of people can use she/her and that the pronouns do not imply femininity, etc, are going to have longer lasting positive affects than basically ignoring these questions because it is emotionally easier. I would also strongly suggest some form of exercise- not just for muscle growth/strength development but also because so many of us are dissociated in some sense from our bodies that actually using them on PURPOSE and while thinking about what we are doing does wonders for our relationships to them.

I do have a “dysphoric women” tag I encourage you to check out. But the point of this is that I don’t think you need to believe that transition is inevitable for you- if it feels like a looming threat I want you to know that you don’t have to do or be anything that you don’t want, and thst includes anything other than a lesbian, no matter how many people make you feel like you don’t belong. I hope this is at least a little helpful and I am sending you lots of love.

#dyphoric women

100 notes · View notes

autumndiesirae · 6 years

Text

Response to @bigmeangatekeeper’s ‘Why I’m Exclusionist’ Page

So recently I came across by far one of the most bigoted exclusionists I’ve seen in a while, that being @bigmeangatekeeper. Normally I block and ignore these sorts of people but given the exceedingly harmful and frankly disgusting rhetoric espoused on this person’s blog, I felt it was necessary to make a formal response, even if the person in question isn’t going to listen to reason or care.

I’m going to be mentioning @herefortheace and @justaphobethings in this post for their reference, as the arguments presented here are common exclusionist rhetorics and also to share my resources with more inclusionist blogs.

DISCLAIMER: This is not intended to be a ‘callout’, not is it intended to call upon my followers/anyone to attack this blog. This is merely a response to tired old exclusionist rhetoric by an asexual who is sick of people legitimately trying to act like their gross views haven’t been time and time disproven. I also won’t be addressing this blog’s status as a truscum as that isn’t relevant to this post.

TW FOR RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT DISCUSSION AND RAPE APOLOGISM.

PAGE LINK

First thing’s first. While I do not automatically exclude LGBT aces, I exclude cishet aces AND homo/transphobic or homo/transphobia apologist aces. It’s not just about the cishets. It’s about so much more.

As stated hundreds of times before, there definitely are homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, sexist, and racist asexuals. There are also apologists for these asexuals. Absolutely no one is arguing that these are problematic people. However, exclusionists like to pretend that the occasional ‘bad’ asexual is somehow a representative of the entire community, to which I respond ‘how then do you feel about TERF lesbians or biphobic gay men?’ Because if a few bad members of a sexuality are enough to warrant that entire community being removed from the LGBT community as a whole, then this rhetoric should be applied to every single sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet, asexuals and aromantics get singled out for this time and time again. It’s almost like exclusionists are unwilling to admit that they just want to remove asexuals as a whole and are only grasping for excuses so much that they will use the occasional problematic ace as a gotcha to push forward their ideologies. It’s funny because half the time what exclusionists define as ‘homophobic asexuals’ are often either blatantly obvious trolls or minors simply making jokes or having fun with their identity.

Also, thank you for including SOME aces! We appreciate you soooo much for driving a wall between our community! /s

The standard of “SGA and trans” as requirement for entry to the LGBTQ community is used nowhere outside of aphobic tumblr, and it seems crafted specifically for the purpose of excluding aces, aros, NBs, intersex people, and others not deemed “gay enough”.

There are also many “SGA and trans” aces who are against the gatekeeping and feel that they are hated by these aphobes.

You’re not protecting me by being an ace/aro exclusionist.

What we hear when you say “I only support SGA Asexuals/Aromantics”

my favourite thing is when aphobes try to tell me that their aphobia doesn’t apply to me / affect me because “[i’m] queer for other reasons”

okay, you wanna know why I’m for including all aces in the LGBT+ community?

Why your acephobia and arophobia is really just bullshit

it really annoys me when I see Discoursers say they support LGBT+ aces, just not cishet ones.

when you say “i accept sga and trans aces and aros but not cishet aces/aros because they’re straight”

Suffering! Suffering?

when people ‘accept’ sga/mga/non-cis aces and aros, but not others, what it actually means is they accept the part of you that isn’t directly tied to your asexuality/aromanticism

if ur gonna fuckin claim those four letters cover them & the whole damn community, they sure as fuck can cover aces as well

“Ace discourse” is really a Tumblr-only thing

I’m a lesbian ace and I’ve never felt more worthless and disgusting than this ace discourse

The reason even trans and bi/gay/pan/etc asexuals get defensive when you talk about cishet aces/aros not being part of the LGBT+ community is because you’re erasing a part of our identity??

If you talk shit about aces/aros with the disclaimer “cishet” it still affects all aces. Saying “notably cishet aces should all go die” still makes all ace/aro people feel like they are being called out.

Your “discourse” is harmful to all asexuals. And PS, your rhetoric is literally indistinguishable from TWERF rhetoric.

It’s about the blatant homophobia, transphobia, and serophobia in the ace community.

Again, this may exist in some members of the community, but that does not magically erase the status of the community as being LGBT. If it did, TERFs lesbians would have caused the lesbian community to be no longer considered LGBT.

It’s about there being no consistent definition of asexuality, thus allowing literally anyone regardless of relationship status, libido, etc to claim the ace label, and thereby try to shoulder their way into the LGBT community.

There is a consistent definition of asexuality. It’s ‘a lack of sexual attraction’. Libido, relationship status, etc, do not have any role in the asexual label. This has been the definition of asexuality for years. Looking up ‘asexuality’ on Google literally explains this:

I found these in one quick search. What’s your excuse?

The reason there appears to be ‘no consistent definition’ is the fault of non-asexuals and exclusionists pushing their own definitions of what asexuality is so that they can later pretend that its the asexuals who are changing the definition. The idea that asexuals never have sex was a misconstruing of the description of sex-repulsed asexuals. The idea that asexuals don’t have a libido also came from this. Asexuals can and do masturbate (for pleasure or stress relief), have sex (for pleasure or to have children), etc. These are not related to the definition of asexuality.

Additionally, if the fact that there isn’t a consistent definition of asexuality bothers you, then why not address how bisexuals and pansexuals don’t always have a consistent definition for their sexuality either? Some bisexuals claim the bi label is only for men and women, some say it includes nonbinary people, some say bisexuality is a transphobic label compared to pansexuality, etc, etc.

It’s about asexuals telling traumatised people/mentally ill people/dysphoric people/autistic people/CHILDREN that they’re ace rather then encouraging them to consider other reasons why they might feel sex repulsed.

Telling an individual ‘have you considered you may be asexual’ is not the same that saying ‘you are asexual, no arguments, you just are’. A person suggesting a label is not forcing anyone to co-opt that label. In addition, sexualities are fluid. I know many people who identified as ace at a younger age and then identified differently at an older age. I know many people who are the reverse. Are there individuals who identified incorrectly as ace at one age and feel upset or angry about it? Absolutely. But that is not the fault of any asexual who suggested the label. And, again, sex repulsion is not the requirement for being asexual.

It’s about asexuals not understanding that asexuality is not comparable to other sexualities bc it’s about how you feel attraction instead of who you feel attraction to

“Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied over time, it lacks a precise definition.” From Wikipedia

A Definition of Sexuality

Sexuality is no longer just about ‘who’ you experience attraction to.

It’s about asexuals hypersexualising all other sexualities (most particularly gay people) and making us out to be fucking sex craved deviants

Citation fucking needed. Also, yet again, a few asexuals doing this (not that I have ever seen any aside from one extremely obvious troll doing this) is not somehow a representation of the entire community.

It’s about asexuals pushing the toxic and harmful split attraction model even though it’s been shown time and time again to allow people to explain away their internalised homophobia/biphobia, and encouraging microlabelling that just confuses people more and causes divisiveness in the community

What we call the split-attraction model was first described by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a gay advocate from the 1800s, as “disjunctive uranodioning”. (source) (credit to this post)

There is absolutely no evidence aside from exclusionist rhetoric to uphold the idea that the SAM is homophobic or toxic. Additionally the SAM is used by non-ace and non-aro people regularly - I am familiar with many people who make that distinction in their romantic and sexual orientations, such as one friend who is pansexual but heteroromantic (in that she will have sex with all genders but prefers to romantically date men). It seems your bigger issue is the existence of microlabelling, which while that is a debatable problem in this community, at the end of the day it really isn’t any of your business. The only real source of divisiveness in this community is gatekeepers like you.

It’s about asexuals erasing gay history and literally just fabricating false stories for asexual representation, usually at the expense of gay people

Citation needed, once again.

Asexuals recorded as “Group X” in the 1948 Kinsey Reports

What is asexual history? The 19th and 20th century

From The Westminster Review, a political magazine, in 1907; an essay by Helen Fraser called Women’s Suffrage, on how if women got the vote, butch and ace women were gonna dominate the whole thing and screw it up for all the Real Ladies.

The Spinster Movement, and how they were treated as queer

From “Feminism,” by Correa Moylan Walsh, 1917

the “aces/aros were part of the bi community until they very recently chose to split off, so stop telling them that they have never been queer or that they don’t belong in ‘the LGBT community’” masterpost

asexuality existed before David Jay and AVEN

“Where were you when…?” A History of Asexual Inclusion (Part One)

“Where were you when…?” A History of Asexual Inclusion (Part Two)

It’s about asexuals stealing autistic terminology, and creating false axes of oppression that make literally everyone who isn’t ace their oppressors

The ‘actuallyasexual’ tag supposedly being stolen from the ‘actuallyautistic’ tag was never proven to be a legitimate claim. Autistic people have repeatedly come forward saying that this was never the case. Since I am not autistic, however, I won’t press on this particular point. If anyone is autistic and has some information on this, please DM me.

It’s about adult asexuals literally acting like children and using the ‘uwu im a pure ace’ response

Citation needed. I’m sensing a trend here.

Any asexual who partakes in, excuses, or explains away this behaviour in the ace community is dangerous and could easily cause harm to the LGBT community.

Once again - TERF lesbians, transphobic gay man, etc. should also be included under this rhetoric if you’re going to treat asexuals this way, otherwise you’re just being a hypocrite.

Asexuals are not oppressed under homophobia or transphobia. The LGBT community was not built just to combat oppression, because that would mean women and POC would automatically be LGBT, which is absurd. The community was developed specifically so that SGA and non-cis people would have a place to get away from societal homophobia and transphobia, and to push back against legally instituted oppression, like fighting for gay marriage, and to get laws put in place that protect us from hate crimes.

Firstly, SGA (same-gender attraction) is a term that was used and is still used in Mormon conversion therapy, so as one can understand,a lot of people are very uncomfortable being labeled with this description.

Secondly -

“The LGBT community has always been about fighting homophobia and transphobia/we came together to fight homophobia and transphobia”

“Homophobia and Transphobia”: What does the LGBT+ community fight for?

The modern American movement was first known as the “gay community” when cis gay men refused to even accept lesbians, then the “gay and lesbian community”. (Good reading on the subject.)

“After the elation of change following group action in the Stonewall riots in New York, in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, some gays and lesbians became less accepting of bisexual or transgender people. Critics said that transgender people were acting out stereotypes and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were afraid to come out and be honest about their identity. Each community has struggled to develop its own identity including whether, and how, to align with other gender and sexuality-based communities, at times excluding other subgroups; these conflicts continue to this day.” (source)

“From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States. Not until the 1990s within the movement did gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people gain equal respect.” (ibid)

These are scans of a gay magazine from 1999 showing that 48% of those surveyed did not believe that trans people should be a part of the gay community.

The community’s boundaries have always been in flux

Insisting that LG people have always been accepting of bi and trans people is incredibly revisionist and does a great deal of injustice to those who have been excluded.

While I agree that asexuals go through some discrimination, ‘aphobia’ is not an axis of oppression because it is not institutionalised. The discrimination asexual and aromantic people face is based within rape culture, toxic masculinity, traditionalist values, and misogyny.

You sound like transphobic sexists who claim trans men do not experience transphobia that is specific to trans men (transmisandry) much in the same way that trans women experience transphobia specific to trans women (transmisogyny).

First of all, what do you use as the definition of ‘institutionalized’?

Second, why are you acting like asexuals are seen as some ‘other’ group rather than a part of the LGBT community when institutionalized discrimination is being discussed?

Third, ‘institutionalized discrimination’ was never a requirement to be LGBT. By that logic, a gay man who lives in a country/state where gay marriage is legal, conversion therapy is banned, and who has never experienced any form of anti-LGBT discrimination in his life is straight. That’s an asinine proposition.

For some examples of asexual-specific discrimination -

“My parents keep telling me that I’m something else, and it’s making me doubt my sense of judgement, not just about my sexual identity, but also about everything in general.”

“My family, friends, and co-workers keep referring to me as an inanimate object in a manner that’s clearly meant to humiliate and devastate me. Nothing I say will get them to stop.”

“My parents vocally/bodily forced me to undergo medical examinations, some of them concerning my sexual organs, many of them concerning blood tests and other trauma-centric procedures.”

“My family is intervening with my private life by changing my schedule to include exercise, socialization, friend influences, and whatever they think can ‘change’ me.”

“My friends/co-workers no longer respect my bodily boundaries when I came out to them, because they no longer see me as someone who should be respected. They regularly touch, fondle, grope, and prod me without permission, and/or verbally harass me, and don’t take my objections seriously.”

“My family, friends, and co-workers no longer just harass me, but also anyone I’m currently dating because they view my significant other as pathetic, underserved, or even being abused.”

“My date got irrationally angry and confrontational when I came out to them, in a manner that made me fearful.” (SO many of these.)

“My date immediately lost any respect they had for my boundaries, no longer asked for consent, and {tried to} force themselves upon me.” (A lot of these, too)

“My date tried to verbally circumvent any boundaries and issues I confessed to, and it made me feel like I was in danger.”

“I didn’t come out to my date at first, and when they found out, they radically changed their behavior in an attempt to control and manipulate our new relationship to their benefit.”

“My partner has forcefully and radically changed our long-term relationship after finding out about my asexuality, and I’m now trapped and controlled in a way that I wasn’t before.”

“My partner broke up with me/is fighting with me because of my asexuality, and trying to make it seem like I’m hurting them. It’s made me doubt myself and my ability to trust my own intentions.”

“My partner is slowly changing from what was once supportive of my asexuality, and I’m wondering when I have the right to be worried and when I’d be overreacting. I’m aware of the worst case scenario, but I also worry that I’m being selfish and childish - which are things I’ve been told all throughout my asexual experience.”

“I don’t trust my ability to say either yes or no in sexual situations, and this has extended to my life in general. I don’t feel comfortable in my ability to self-determinate.”

“The lack of authority, definition, and schooling of the concept of asexuality has made me very uncomfortable with what I think I am, and that uncertainty haunts me every waking moment.”

“I think it’s too late/too early to tell if I’m asexual, but the longer I hesitate, the worse my mental health and emotional wellbeing gets. I’m effectively stuck.”

“I see no benefit in coming out, or even identifying as asexual. There’s no positivity, role models, or supportive community for what I consider a big and scary part of my overall identity.”

“I think this was sexual abuse, but I’m wondering if I’m just being selfishand childish.”

“I think I was treated badly by my parents/friends/partner, but I’m wondering if I’m just being selfishand childish.”

“I want to believe that I’m deserving of equal freedom and human respect paid to other, not asexual people, but people tell me I’m being selfishand childish.”

“No one encourages this part of me. And that makes me feel forgotten and abandoned in general.”

Dr Gordon Hodson wrote this about his 2012 study:

In a recent investigation (MacInnis & Hodson, in press) we uncovered strikingly strong bias against asexuals in both university and community samples. Relative to heterosexuals, and even relative to homosexuals and bisexuals, heterosexuals: (a) expressed more negative attitudes toward asexuals (i.e., prejudice); (b) desired less contact with asexuals; and © were less willing to rent an apartment to (or hire) an asexual applicant (i.e., discrimination). Moreover, of all the sexual minority groups studied, asexuals were the most dehumanized (i.e., represented as “less human”). Intriguingly, heterosexuals dehumanized asexuals in two ways. Given their lack of sexual interest, widely considered a universal interest, it might not surprise you to learn that asexuals were characterized as “machine-like” (i.e., mechanistically dehumanized). But, oddly enough, asexuals were also seen as “animal-like” (i.e., animalistically dehumanized). Yes, asexuals were seen as relatively cold and emotionless and unrestrained, impulsive, and less sophisticated.

When you repeatedly observe such findings it grabs your attention as a prejudice researcher. But let’s go back a minute and consider those discrimination effects. Really? You’d not rent an apartment to an asexual man, or hire an asexual woman? Even if you relied on stereotypes alone, presumably such people would make ideal tenants and employees. We pondered whether this bias actually represents bias against single people, a recently uncovered and very real bias in its own right (see Psychology Today column by Bella DePaulo). But our statistical analyses ruled out this this possibility. So what’s going on here?

If you’ve been following my column, you’ll recall that I wrote a recent article on what I called the “Bigotry Bigot-Tree” – what psychologists refer to as generalized prejudice. Specifically, those disliking one social group (e.g., women) also tend to dislike other social groups (e.g., homosexuals; Asians). In our recent paper (MacInnis & Hodson, in press), we found that those who disliked homosexuals also disliked bisexuals and asexuals. In other words, these prejudices are correlated. Heterosexuals who dislike one sexual minority, therefore, also dislike other sexual minorities, even though some of these groups are characterized by their sexual interest and activity and others by their lack of sexual interest and activity.

This anti-asexual bias, at its core, seems to boil down to what Herek (2010) refers to as the “differences as deficit” model of sexual orientation. By deviating from the typical, average, or normal sexual interests, sexual minorities are considered substandard and thus easy targets for disdain and prejudice. Contrary to conventional folk wisdom, prejudice against sexual minorities may not therefore have much to do with sexual activity at all. There is even evidence, for instance, that religious fundamentalists are prejudiced against homosexuals even when they are celibate (Fulton et al., 1999). Together, such findings point to a bias against “others”, especially different others, who are seen as substandard and deficient (and literally “less human”). “Group X” is targeted for its lack of sexual interest even more than homosexuals and bisexuals are targeted for their same-sex interests.

From news coverage of a recently published study (2016):

What should the average person take away from your study?

Since I first became interested in the issue, I have come to conclude that U.S. society is both “sex negative” and “sex positive.” In other words, there is stigma and marginalization that can come both from being “too sexual” and from being “not sexual enough.” In a theoretical paper, I argued that sexuality may be compulsory in contemporary U.S. society. In other words, our society assumes that (almost) everyone is, at their core, “sexual” and there exists a great deal of social pressure to experience sexual desire, engage in sexual activities, and adopt a sexual identity. At the same time, various types of “non-sexuality” (such as a lack of sexual desire or activity) are stigmatized.

For this particular study, I identified thirty individuals who identified as asexual and asked them first, if they had experienced stigma or marginalization as a result of their asexuality, and, second how they challenged this stigma or marginalization. I found that my interviewees had experienced the following forms of marginalization: pathologization (i.e. people calling them sick), social isolation, unwanted sex and relationship conflict, and the denial of epistemic authority (i.e. people not believing that they didn’t experience sexual attraction). I also found that my interviews resisted stigma and marginalization in five ways: describing asexuality as simply a different (but not inherently worse) form of sexuality; deemphasizing the importance of sexuality in human life; developing new types of nonsexual relationships; coming to see asexuality as a sexual orientation or identity; and engaging in community building and outreach.

I hope that average people would take away from this study the idea that some people can lead fulfilling lives without experiencing sexual attraction but can experience distress if others try to invalidate their identities.

Some of the social isolation we aspecs experience comes from religious communities. Indeed, the popular myth that religious people revere aspecs is very much NOT TRUE. For example, read “Myth 8″ from the VISION Catholic Religious Vocation Guide:

MYTH 8: Religious are asexual

Question: What do you call a person who is asexual?

Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist.Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they’re most likely unhappy. All people are called by God to live chastely, meaning being respectful of the gift of their sexuality. Religious men and women vow celibate chastity, which means they live out their sexuality without engaging in sexual behavior. A vow of chastity does not mean one represses his manhood or her womanhood. Sexuality and the act of sex are two very different things. While people in religious life abstain from the act of sex, they do not become asexual beings, but rather need to be in touch with what it means to be a man or a woman. A vow of chastity also does not mean one will not have close, loving relationships with women and men. In fact, such relationships are a sign of living the vow in a healthy way. Living a religious vow of chastity is not always easy, but it can be a very beautiful expression of love for God and others. Religious women and men aren’t oddities; they mirror the rest of the church they serve: there are introverts and extroverts, tall and short, old and young, straight and gay, obese and skinny, crass and pious, humorous and serious, and everything in between. They attempt to live the same primary vocation as all other Christians do: proclaiming and living the gospel. However, religious do this as members of an order that serve the church and world in a particular way. Like marriage and the single life, religious life can be wonderful, fulfilling, exciting, and, yes, normal. Yet, it also can be countercultural and positively challenging. It’s that for us and many others. If you thought religious life was outdated, dysfunctional, or dead, we hope you can now look beyond the stereotypes and see the gift it is to the church and world.

NOTE: YOU CAN BE A GAY CATHOLIC PERSON BUT NOT ASEXUAL, BC ASEXUALITY DOESN’T EXIST (yet somehow we’re also “most likely unhappy” and “oddities”). I sincerely hope and believe that not all religions characterize us aspecs this way. But here are some personal accounts I found on a reddit site answering the question “Do any religions have a negative stance toward asexuals?”:

Please note that the Christian pastor in the last example was fearful (or something?) that an asexual was helping to lead a youth group and kicked them out of the church as a result.

(Not to mention that there is now a published dissertation with a whole chapter dedicated to understanding why a-spec people have been erased from history and virtually invisible up until recently, which is a very real issue in this debate that cannot be ignored).

This argument is as tired as the rest of the ones you’re putting out. And since i know you’re just going to ignore this with some backhanded commentary -

If we give primary sources based on lived experiences (which is the basis of qualitative research, which founded so much of the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and more, and is still used today as a very common research practice), such evidence is dismissed because it’s not academic or in a news publication. Never mind that this practice of citing tumblr blogs for personal experiences is similar in practice (if not as rigorous) as netnographic research (a practice developed by Rob Kozinets, whose book on it has close to 1500 google scholar citations, and whose seminal article on it has over 2000).

If we give articles from press outlets, they are dismissed as commercial and therefore not acceptable. (I could find a lot more of this, but look, it’s happened a lot and not main point here).

If we give academic citations, such as the study that was published a few years ago (what I’ve seen referred to as’ the Group X study’ by discoursers), they are dismissed (read, not ‘debunked’ because that is a different thing) because popular press such as psychologytoday.com dared to cover the story, or because they don’t believe the need for such study exists, and because someone hadn’t read the original research so felt free to critique it’s methods (????). Slightly more legitimately, I’ve seen it dismissed based on the use of convenience samples (though I can’t find the link), but it’s worth pointing out that the actual research also used a sample drawn from the general public. And if you’re dismissing a study based on the use of a convenience sample, you can also throw out about 90% of academic research done in psychology and related fields in the past 40 years. Almost all research uses convenience sampling, and this study actually went beyond that anyway.

(For the record, that study also goes a long way to explain why intra-community aphobia exists, if you read the full article, and finds that the more biased people are also more right-wing authoritarian and endorse social-dominance orientation, basically meaning they “endorse dominance and inter-group hierarchies”).

Source with more information

Literally every argument for ace oppression, like corrective rape for example, is not ace exclusive. On the other hand, gay and trans people face specific pointed prosecution for being non-cis or SGA.

“The term ‘corrective rape’ was coined by South African lesbians and should only be used by lesbians”

No one means any disrespect to lesbians or other victims of corrective rape, but this is not a correct statement.

“We’ll Show You You’re a Woman” describes the violence directed towards LGBT people in South Africa, stating, “Negative public attitudes towards homosexuality go hand in hand with a broader pattern of discrimination, violence, hatred, and extreme prejudice against people known or assumed to be lesbian, gay, and transgender, or those who violate gender and sexual norms in appearance or conduct (such as women playing soccer, dressing in a masculine manner, and refusing to date men).” It goes on to say, “Much of the recent media coverage of violence against lesbians and transgender men has been characterized by a focus on “corrective rape,” a phenomenon in which men rape people they presume or know to be lesbians in order to “convert” them to heterosexuality.”

The Wikipedia article on corrective rape in South Africa states that, “A study conducted by OUT LGBT Well-being and the University of South Africa Centre for Applied Psychology (UCAP) showed that “the percentage of black gay men who said they have experienced corrective rape matched that of the black lesbians who partook in the study”.”

It is not only lesbians, but also bisexual women, transgender men, gay men, and gender non-conforming people in South Africa who experience corrective rape. This is not in any way meant to minimize the horror of the epidemic or shift attention away from lesbians, but other victims, including asexuals, deserve attention as well. Do not silence or speak over victims of rape by policing their language.

And regarding ace-specific discrimination, I provided a wall of it, if you’d like to scroll up and read it again.

I’ve been beaten bloody while called a fag and a tranny and left for dead. I’ve had a guy rape me while aggressively misgendering me and telling me what a freak cuntboy I was. Those attacks were specifically because I’m trans and gay. Ace people are attacked because they won’t have sex, not because they’re ace. It’s just good old fashioned rape, there’s no hate crime element I guarantee it.

I’m very sorry that happened to you.

I was repeatedly molested by my first boyfriend because he told me that “wouldn’t be ace anymore when he was done with me”. I’ve been punched, thrown to the ground, and had my nose broken because I wore an asexual flag pin on my backpack, with people calling me a disgusting queer. My girlfriend of five years, the person I intended to marry, cheated on me with a mutual friend because I was asexual and ‘didn’t validate her body’. And, as I already shown, my experiences are commonplace for asexuals. Your trauma, as horrible as it is, does not give you any right to say that an asexual who is raped and told “I’ll fix you” is not ‘good old fashioned rape’.

Please read this and tell me about how there’s no hate crime element to it:

“‘I just want to help you,’ he called out to me as I walked away from his car,” she explained. “He was basically saying that I was somehow broken and that he could repair me with his tongue and, theoretically, with his penis. It was totally frustrating and quite scary.”

Sexual harassment and violence, including so-called “corrective” rape, is disturbingly common in the ace community, says Decker, who has received death threats and has been told by several online commenters that she just needs a “good raping.”

“When people hear that you’re asexual, some take that as a challenge,” said Decker, who is currently working on a book about asexuality. “We are perceived as not being fully human because sexual attraction and sexual relationships are seen as something alive, healthy people do. They think that you really want sex but just don’t know it yet. For people who perform corrective rape, they believe that they’re just waking us up and that we’ll thank them for it later.”

“There is a real fear even among the asexual community that people who identify as anything other than heterosexual will be harassed and assaulted,” wrote “Angela,” a self-identified aromantic ace. “They have a reason to be upset and a reason to be afraid, it has happened to many people before.”

In response to the post, an anonymous user wrote, “[A]sexuality is not a thing. You are just ugly and no one wanted to date you, so you made up a thing to cuddle your lonely self as you cry into your pillow. Also, I hope you get raped. It has a dual benefit, you’ll get laid finally AND put you into your place as well.”

The comment triggered a firestorm, with some asexuals speaking out and sharing their own experiences involving sexual violence.

Asexuals and ace activists say the conversation about sexual assault in the asexual community is part of the wider societal discussion about rape culture generally and about corrective rape in the queer community specifically. They also say it speaks to a bias and an invisibility that asexuals face in everyday life.

Source

Asexuals and aromantics are notoriously homophobic, transphobic, and serophobic in their arguments. I personally have seen them say things about inclusionists like ‘I hope they get antibiotic resistant gonorrhoea and crabs in the same week’ (actual quote), I’ve been told ‘you probably have aids’ because I’m a gay man, I’ve seen them argue that non-ace people can’t be raped because we constantly want sex and have had my own assaults denied, etc. This wasn’t just one incident, it’s a pattern. Over and over ace people wish violent sexual threats on non-ace people. They call us disgusting. They call us filthy. They call us ‘the oppressive monogays’ and ‘filthy allos’. I’ve had them go so far as to fling homophobic slurs at me, and say we deserved the aids crisis. Sorry, but any group that is totally fine with even some of its members being that actively, unabashedly homophobic has absolutely no place in this community. I wouldn’t let my grandfather who called me a pathetic fag into the community either, no matter how much sex he did or didn’t have.

I like how you say ‘actual quote’ and yet do not provide a single link, screenshot, or even falsified anonymous message as proof of this.

For the 100th time - the behavior of a few asexuals does not represent the entire community, otherwise TERF lesbians, transphobic gay men, biphobic trans people, etc, would mean their entire community are no longer considered LGBT.

Would you like a glimpse at some of the behavior exclusionists that are ‘real LGBT’ bestow on asexuals?

Comparing aces and aros to Trump (and pretending this is funny)

Comparing aces to Pence

Comparing aces to Ronald Reagan (and pretending this is funny)

Comparing aces to a literal slave owner

Making fun of aces not being accepted by their parents and of aces finding this upsetting (making it into a crytyping “joke”)

Making aces feel shitty/shaming them for telling their parents they’re ace because it’s supposedly “unnecessary”

Saying if we tell family about being ace, it’s no wonder if they send us to therapy

Doing their best to sexualize the orientations of aces, in so many cases. The link before these two is also connected to that. They treat our orientations like (graphic) details about “our sex lives”, frequently acting like if we want to talk about them ever we’re gross/creepy

This one is also “nice” re sexualizing aces (one of many examples of ppl also engaging in sex-shaming while they’re at it, saying only one’s partner should know anything about one’s “relationships with sex”. Except this person goes kinda even further)

More sexualization, when I say this freaks me out as a WoC, I’m told this white person gives no fucks and wants me to be miserable

Another person who says the identities of aces but also of aros need to stay between them and their Partners because they’re “TMI” and inherently sex-shaming somehow

Oh yeah did I mention, much the same with sexualizing aros and ppl frequently link our identities to misogyny and to using people while they’re at it

Making light and fun of ace WoC asking to not be sexualized because don’t we know aces have done Bad things and so we deserve it/don’t get to complain

One of many examples of white people who hate aces+aros talking over PoC and trying to erase us from our communities (+usually when we call that shit out they don’t care. This is actually one of the more cordial responses I’ve come across despite the lack of apology lol. [Eta: my wording here was misleading before, they weren’t talking to me - I’d also called them on this but they ignored me. Sorry for the confusion!] Also, I have a tag somewhere with several non-black/white ppl who made Rachel Dolezal comparisons to shit on aces/aros). Another example of talking over us here complete with condescendingly lecturing a PoC about racism

People like this saying outright they hate aces

Saying sex ed shouldn’t teach about asexuality

Outright stating they think being ace/aro gives people privilege (because supposedly aces+aros both benefit from conservatives pushing for abstinence)

Outright invalidating the identities of aces (who don’t have the attitude towards sex they think they should have)

Calling asexuals demons

Outright calling aces and aros a “plague” and saying aces/aros regardless of other identities all need to be kicked out of the LGBT+ community.

Erasing the identities of people who speak out against anti-ace/aro shit to declare them “straight” or “cishet” …or saying that treatment is what they get for being “traitors to their own community”

Ignoring the boundaries of aces/aros who have them blocked and don’t want to be vagued to make fun of them …

…or even to continue sexualizing them after they have made it very clear that shit freaks them out (cheerfully doing this to a WoC)

Someone saying asexuality does not exist and “encourages slut shaming”

Spamming the ace positivity tag with vile hate (ppl have talked a lot about how this harms and endangers especially mentally ill ppl)

“aces are embarassing“ in the positivity tag

Posting nsfw content in the ace positivity tag and being completely unapologetic, apparently using the reasoning that our identities are inherently nsfw anyway (see the “TMI discourse” aka people sexualizing our identities)

Calling aces and aros a “sexuality fandom” while pretending we’re a group full of people with every privilege imaginable, bored of being accepted by everyone and of having no Actual Problems in our lives. This kind of nasty erasure constantly goes on and is a big tactic in this mess tbh

Wanting aces to be “exterminated”. For good measure putting this in the ace positivity tag

This disgusting vile shit that I don’t even know how to sum up but it includes wishing death on someone

Talking about wanting aces/aros dead after somehow misunderstanding(?) a post that was very clearly not about asexuality or aromanticism

Graphically telling aces to die

Specifically telling ace kids to kill themselves

Did I mention that many people in this mess have wished death on aces and aros and that they often put it in positivity tags. Some of the most messed up shit I’ve seen is missing because I didn’t reblog/respond to it at the time or can’t find it right now

And I know anons don’t count as hard “proof” for anything but have the less graphic one of the death/rape threats I got in my inbox for speaking out against anti-ace/aro shit (still kinda eerily detailed though. Not linking the other one because it is extremely graphic)

Comparing aces to a literal white supremacist (in the positivity tag)

Again someone invalidating the identities of aces who don’t have the attitude towards sex they think they should have

Sexualizing aros again, not caring about how it affects particularly aro PoC. And here two other ppl sexualizing and demonizing aros, like in posts further above claiming (non-ace) aros just use people for sex (said on positivity post).

Someone sexualizing aces again and engaging in sex-shaming at the same time, as usual with the claim that literally no one but a partner “needs” to know our orientations

Those Rachel Dolezal comparisons I mentioned made by non-black/white people who want to use antiblackness for what they call “ace discourse”?Yeah here is one white person doing it and here is another, even worse example where a white person goes “this is like if I pulled a Rachel D. and put on blackface and used the n-word…” (paraphrasing here). Here is the latter person utterly dismissing me being upset by their antiblackness (because black ppl’s pain only matters when it’s useful)

[For ppl who don’t know: Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who pretended to be black and built her career on it. White people sure as hell do not get to compare this shit to anything that is not antiblackness and use black people’s pain for their own purposes.]

A white person using antiblackness as a weapon against aces and aros in general (aka “ace tumblr”), acting smug regarding how supposedly we’re all so racist and “get triggered” by black people existing. (I am so tired of white ppl using racism as a cheap “gotcha” against aces and aros - groups which include PoC. And who then ignore or belittle PoC who call them out)

White person randomly informing WoC aces/aros can have white privilege

Again someone claiming ace privilege exists and here another person doing it adding to the post further above, claiming aces/aros have privilege for being ace/aro and that this is the case bc people who don’t have sex are privileged (wrong definition of asexuality… also of aromanticism??… and also no. No.)

What I mentioned about ppl telling us asexuality/aromanticism are not orientations but only ever modifiers? It’s happened a lot but here’s one example. And here’s someone outright saying aro aces don’t have an orientation but only modifiers.

Here’s the same person who said aro aces don’t have an orientation later turning around saying the orientation of aro aces is determined by how they behave and who they have sex with.

Another person putting nsfw shit in the ace positivity tag (link is to nsfw text)

And people try really hard to justify despising aces and aros by pointing to shitty people who share our identities/orientations. Honesty is secondary in this. Here you have someone taking a shitty post from an obvious nasty troll blog to say this is why ppl hate aces, and later when having the troll thing pointed out to them saying they already know. The post got over 3k notes.

“asexual shouldn’t even be a way people identify themselves”, with a second person in the thread agreeing

If you’re interested, some way back I also made a link-less post that is important to me talking about how nasty and harmful the racism and erasure of ace and aro PoC in all this has been

These are not even referring to more recent horrors that the exclusionist community has forced down our throats.

They don’t have a coherent definition of asexuality. Literally there’s no cohesive definition. None. Some of them say it’s people who feel no sexual attraction, some say it’s people who feel no sexual desire, some say you can have and enjoy sex and still be totally valid uwu, some say you can only have sex to please a partner, some say you have to be sex repulsed, the list goes on and fucking on. If we let in a group that has a definition that’s this fucking loose, we are opening the door for literally anyone to shoulder their way into this community.

I’ve already addressed this. There is a consistent definition. One Google search gets you that definition.

And even if there wasn’t, or if certain people reframe the definition to better mesh with their own personal experiences, why are you not extending this same rude-ass rhetoric towards bisexuals and pansexuals who constantly argue over the definitions of bi- and pansexuality? Why are you not extending this towards cis lesbians who argue if trans women can or cannot be WLW? Why are you not extending this towards cis gay men who argue if trans men can or cannot by MLM?

No one is ‘shouldering’ their way into any community. The asexual community is already a part of the LGBT movement. They’re not leaving just because you make rude posts like this.

Almost every single exclusionist I’ve spoken to has thought at some time or another that they were ‘demisexual’ or ‘grey-ace’ or some other bullshit ‘aspec’ term.

Exclusionists who do identified or have identified as asexual are not some sort of ‘gotcha’ for how the asexual community is bad. Once again, ace people expressing their experiences and suggesting to someone ‘you might be ace’ are not somehow homophobic or forcing people to be LGBT any more than the people in my life who told me I may be trans or agender were transphobic or forcing me to be trans or agender. If someone no longer identifies as asexual because of any given reason, that isn’t the fault of the asexual community for expressing that the option exists.

Have you ever spoken to an asexual who first found out about the definition of asexuality? Let me share my experience - when I first discovered the definition of asexuality and realized ‘oh, that’s me’, I sobbed tears of joy and relief for hours. I spent ages pouring over asexuality resources and participating in forums and embracing my new identity. And my experience isn’t some one-off thing - if you look into asexuality forums and websites, this is something many of us experience. In a world so overcharged with sexuality and people constantly telling us ‘you’re broken’, ‘you’ll find the right person’, etc, etc, an allosexual will never ever know what it’s like to have this feeling of relief that an asexual experiences when they first find out that’s an option.

Asexuality isn’t a spectrum. You either want sex/feel attraction to some degree (non-ace) or you don’t (ace). You don’t need a label for not wanting to fuck strangers. In fact, most people don’t want to fuck strangers. Demisexual is the norm!

“Why is there no coherent/consistent definition of asexuality???”

“Here is my (wrong) definition of asexuality! If you disagree with it you’re a homophobe!”

And that’s why the ‘asexual community’ should never be allowed in bc it’s an excuse for cishet people who don’t like hookups to invade spaces that were specifically made to get away from cishets.

We’re already allowed in. The ace community isn’t some out-group trying to get into the LGBT community. We’re here, and we’re staying, even when whiny exclusionists like you try to make these gotcha-style posts. Asexuals aren’t cishets, no matter how much you cry about it.

“Straight” isn’t a sexual orientation, it’s a position of power.

A-Spec Identities are Not Secondary.

Invisibility is Not a Privilege.

“passing privilege” is not a real thing.

Straight-passing privilege: a myth

Bad arguments against allowing a-spec to identify as queer

Having your identity erased is not a privilege.

asexuality, like bisexuality, is deliberately misunderstood by out groups in order to exclude us.

ace/aro people don’t “only” experience attraction to the ‘opposite gender’ or any other. that’s the point. we also experience a lack of attraction, either romantically or sexually, and that lack of attraction is part of our identity.

Straight is not default.

How many straight people do you know that want to kill themselves because of their orientation?

The closet is not a privilege

On that point—you can absolutely be ace and cishet. First of all, you can be asexual, cisgender, and heteroromantic (or aromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual). That’s pretty obvious. If you can have gay ace people, you can have straight ones. But that’s not even the most important point.

Yes, you can be a ‘cishet ace’, in the contexts you described. The reason people despise being called ‘cishet ace’ is because it’s being referred to in the traditional ‘cishet’ context of ‘non-LGBT person’. Some het aces identify as straight. Some het aces don’t identify as straight, they identify as asexual, and it’s not your place to label them against their will. There is no world in which aroaces, people who experience no attraction to anyone, are straight.

Let’s talk about the marginalised sexualities in the LGBT community. Prior to the introduction of the wholly unnecessary, toxic, and damaging split attraction model (I’ll get into that on my next point), homosexual meant homosexual and homoromantic. The sexual suffix designated the sex of people you’re attracted to. Homo meaning same, thus, same sex attraction, because that’s how Latin works. Same for bi. Same for hetero, even. Asexual is the only one that attempts to redefine this system. It should mean a- (meaning none, or lack of), therefor attraction to no sexes. It’s pretty simple. But the pure aceys saw the sexual suffix and immediately thought ‘oh that means fucking right?’ And decided they had to change shit.

Once again, citation needed. Stop trying to redefine asexuality and speak on behalf of asexuals. Asexuality IS ‘attraction to no sexes’. You’re so desperate for material that you’re pulling shit out of your ass to pin on ace people.

The split attraction model is massively harmful. It encourages internalised homophobia and compulsive heterosexuality. My gay ass for AGES was like ‘I’m grey-ace homosexual biromantic uwu’ because I thought I couldn’t just be a filthy homo, I had to be special somehow, I had to make myself available to women in some way even if it wasn’t sexual availability. The SAM causes LOTS of developing LGBT kids to struggle with denying their own identities under the guise of embracing them through microlabelling. Among teenagers it’s almost like a damn contest, like who has the most obnoxious, convoluted label. It’s stupid and damaging.

Can you provide any non-tumblr sources about the SAM being problematic? Because I have only ever seen exclusionists on this hellsite trying to claim this. Additionally, your experiences are not universal, they are not a ‘gotcha!’ for the ace community, and they are not a valid argument. I spent 5+ years believing I may be transgender, before establishing I likely was not. I do not in any way blame the transgender community for making me think that way, because it was not the fault of any trans person for providing resources for me and supporting the possibility. Healthy exploration of one’s sexuality and gender is OKAY. It isn’t a bad thing, despite what exclusionists like to claim. If you identified one way for a while, and then no longer identify that way, that is HEALTHY EXPLORATION AND GROWTH, not internalized homo-/transphobia and not the fault of any asexual.

Also, the SAM is only commonly used amongst ace and aro people anyway, since it offers a chance for us to distinguish what kind of ace we are. If you can acknowledge that ‘cishet aces’ exist who are heteroromantic and asexual, then you shouldn’t have any issue realizing that biromantic, panromantic, homoromantic, etc aces also exist and may, you know, want to acknowledge that part of themselves? I am romantically interested in men and women - should I ignore the SAM and just call myself aro/ace anyway even when that isn’t an accurate description of who I am? Am I hurting myself by giving myself a more specific label?

Another serious topic I need to discuss: Ace advocates encouraging children and teens to identify as asexual. Literal children shouldn’t be experiencing sexual attraction. I’ve seen ace people telling a TWELVE YEAR OLD that she was asexual because she didn’t feel any interest in sex. She’s a child. Of course she didn’t. I was told when I was 14 that I was ace and I, being a vulnerable child, embraced the label and carried it til I was 17.

No one ‘encourages’ children and teens to identify as asexual, ESPECIALLY not children. Once again, someone saying ‘you might be ace’ is NOT forcing that label onto someone. YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT UNIVERSAL. YOUR HATRED FOR THE ASEXUAL COMMUNITY IS NOT A STANDARD.

I was 14 when I discovered asexuality. I was ruthlessly mocked in school for not having a boyfriend. Many people in my class were discussing how they had lost their virginity and the sexual endeavors they took part in. Yes, at FOURTEEN. 13+ year olds are not innocent children who do not experience any form of sexual attraction or libido. It is far more damaging for teenagers growing up to NOT know there is an option to be asexual and force themselves into dangerous and harmful sexual situations to ‘fit in’. The number of asexuals I know or have spoken to who were forced to have sex, send nude pictures of themselves, or otherwise been put in a sexual situation they didn’t want to be in, simply because they didn’t know that being asexual was a valid option that existed and thought they were broken, is immense. THAT is a unifying asexual experience that an allosexual will never understand.

The reason you can be too young to identify as asexual and not too young to identify as lesbian/gay/bi, is because LGB people experience attraction of ALL sorts to the gender(s) they are attracted to, and romantic attraction develops much earlier than sexual attraction (that’s why we have puppy love and not puppy lust). Asexuality as it is defined presently is purely about sexual attraction.

I thought you said there WAS no coherent asexuality definition? Can you at least try to have a coherent argument?

By your logic, 12 year olds who feel they are transgender and go on permanent body-changing hormone blockers/HRT that they may eventually regret are more valid than a 15 year old using the label of asexuality that they may eventually move away from without any damage. That is asinine.

Honestly it’s far more creepy that way exclusionists constantly talk about minors and sexuality. You guys are more obsessed with it than any asexual who suggests or acknowledges the existence of asexuality to someone.

Lastly, asexual and aromantic people absolutely deserve a sense of community, a sense of belonging. They absolutely need a place where they can interact with people who are like them! The problem is, LGBT people and ace/aro people don’t have that much in common. At all. We don’t face the same issues either. If LGBT people could make our community amidst serious legal and social ostracisation and oppression, without the help of the internet, ace/aro people can absolutely make their own community in the cyber age that is relevant to the issues they face so that they don’t talk over the serious topics the LGBT community discusses.

You cannot in one breath say “Asexuals are valid” and in the next deny their experiences. Spend five minutes in the community and you will see testimony after testimony from aces describing their abuse, their sexual assault(s), the countless times people have called them confused, broken, wrong, mentally ill, inhuman, sinful, and how these experiences have left them feeling hopeless, alone, alienated, subhuman, depressed, and suicidal. Almost every asexual out there will tell you a story of how their orientation has caused them pain and struggle, and you can’t call them valid while at the same time calling these experiences invalid and nonexistent.

Bonus: This is a list of all the mainstream LGBTQ groups that include asexuals.

Also, we do have our own community, because every letter in the acronym has its own community and yet is still part of the acronym, and yet you fucking shits won’t stop sending us hate and bombarding us with shit meant to trigger and harass us.

I genuinely don’t expect you to read or attempt to acknowledge any of this - that’s simply the way exclusionists are. However, you are wrong. You are not helping anyone by being an ace exclusionist. You are simply a vocal minority and a bigot - nothing more, nothing less.