I asked twice because the app crashed after asking the first time, I didn't know if it sent or not. That didn't really answer my question at all, why is lesbian it's own identity when how you describe it, non exclusive queer attraction to women, also exactly matches how bisexual and queer can be described. And why would anyone need to use bi lesbian if the lesbian identity is already non exclusive? But thanks for being polite anyway.

I don’t really know what to tell you? Because it is? That’s just kind of how language works? Labels and definitions come about the describe personal experience, not the other way around.

It’s like asking why there has to be any other sexuality label at all when we could all just use “gay” or “queer?” The reasons people don’t is because it doesn’t fit them best, they don’t like the term, or they want their own term. That’s just how it is.

“Bi” in many cases is an adjective modifying “lesbian” meaning “attracted to two or more genders” and is used to differentiate between multispectrum lesbians and monosexual lesbians. A lot of lesbian history is monosexual-centric, and you can see this especially within radfem circles but it has bled into a lot of younger queer spaces. As I said in my original thread, there are people who will include (mostly white, AFAB) non-binary people under a nebulous “non-binary” term within lesbianism, while denying that lesbianism can be an mspec identity. They believe you can be attracted to multiple genders as a lesbian, but you can’t acknowledge that you’re attracted to those genders as separate from binary women. And that? That’s biphobia. And exorsexism. And it’s rife within the lesbian community because of political lesbianism.

Tl;dr: So, I don’t really know how to answer your question the way you want. The labels exist, people use them because they want to. The labels exist because people wanted a label to describe their experiences and felt existing labels did not encompass that. Why do you call yourself lesbian at all when you could just use queer or gay? I don’t know, you tell me. I use lesbian because I am queerly attracted to women and because that’s the label I find most comfort with. Everyone uses labels they are most comfortable with, it’s how language works.

Since discovering I'm queer in like the last year 2 years, I've had a bit of an eye-opening experience when watching movie's now.

I'm going back and watching movies that I had an obsessive attachment to when I was younger and I'm seeing stuff.

A couple of examples:

Couple weeks ago, I watched Sneakers. I was suddenly eye-opened that the villain was gay for the MC. No straight best friend suffers betrayal and 20 years in prison and still calls the betrayer their best friend. Definitely queer.

On July 4th, I watched Live Free or Die Hard. At first I thought it was just my ship-loving brain shipping Matt with John McClane because they got vibes, hurt/comfort, character connection, and I like age gap pairings. But then at the end of the movie, the movie canonly ships Matt with Lucy McClane. Lucy is John's daughter and Matt even mentions that she has the exact same personality and traits as her dad. so...

---

There are others. I see a lot of queerness now as I watch tv. it's wild.

So, yeah, this has made movies an experience...

I Don’t Think Stranger Things Queerbaited Me.

With that being said. This is why I didn’t like certain decisions that were made in the writing room, and during production that I find both tone deaf and disappointing. Organized by character.

Robin. I think the decisions they made for Robin this season were okay. I like Vickie. I don’t think the only queer joy we should have gotten from Robin’s perspective should have been through the lens of Vickie complaining about her BOYFRIEND. And I don’t think that scene should have been nearly the only scene of queer joy fans got to see. - I think that’s a 6/10 on the tone deaf scale.

Eddie. Eddie is not queer. I think that’s a mistake but also that’s just my opinion. The real problem here is that Eddie IS an OUTSIDER. And his entire story ends with being punished for that. People hunt Eddie for nearly the entire season. Vecna’s murders to open the gates are called the Munson Murders. The message of his entire character is: Don’t be different. Don’t be an outsider. You will die hated and be remembered not for your heart but for every voice that was louder than the truth. It was cheap. And it wasn’t as impactful as they wanted it to be. An 8/10 on the tone deaf scale.

Will. This one pisses me off. Will’s big gay crush on Mike is fine. It should have been revealed in Season 3, and he should be getting over it now. And he should have been given the opportunity to find queer joy. Also, making Will the queer kid out of the original cast makes sense, yes. But, it retroactively makes the entire first season and subsequent other seasons’ constant Will pain with very little Will happiness taste extremely sour in my mouth. Especially since the first season is now about a queer child being terrorized by monsters in what could be representative of a closet, and most of the town doesn’t miss him, or even continues to bully him in his absence. His “confession” to mike in season 4 is used as a tool to bolster and further the main heterosexual relationship between his CRUSH and SISTER figures. It inspires Mike to tell El that he loves her in the big old grand gesture style. His feelings are not used to develop his character but a relationship he is not in. And that is very uncomfortable for me as a queer person to watch. I know it wasn’t written in any mean spirited way, or with any type of malice, but it did not feel good. 10/10 on the tone deaf scale.

Did I have a good time watching? Yes.

Was I uncomfortable at every one of these instances and feel invalidated and icky? Also Yes.

It can be and IS both of those things.

I know it's not a unique thing to point out the contradictions in anti-trans rhetoric (the whole "enemy is strong yet weak" thing), but it will never stop being weird to me that they get away with arguing both:

1) that the effects of medical transition are almost purely cosmetic and will never alter a person's body enough to change, say, some innate athletic advantage

And 

2) that the effects of medical transition are so strong and irreversible and damaging such that the person will live a, like, Doomed Existence (medically) always and forever just for having ever started or received it

Not proud to be here.

--

Ok, here goes draft like 5 of this fucking post. I spent 4 hours tossing and turning in bed last night thinking about this, and then this morning I found a tumblr post that really helped me understand what I was trying to say.

The post talks about how aromantic "advocates" claim that "aros don't take up resources, so there's no reason not to include them!" And if that's actually what people believe, I think I can finally articulate why it is that I feel so alienated in queer spaces.

It's because aspecs in general aren't "welcomed" by much of the queer community. We're tolerated. We perhaps get the luxury of not being contradicted on our own identities, or not being specifically kicked out of LGBTQ-only spaces, but that's the whole point: what we get out of the queer "community" is people NOT doing things, not actually doing things FOR us. And that, frankly, is not enough. We deserve conversations about us. We deserve to have others consider our feelings, even when making lighthearted jokes. We deserve varied, respectful representation in media. We deserve the active deconstruction of amatonormativity in society. We deserve to have space made for us, rather than at most being told we should "go take up more space!" ourselves.

Of course, the reality is that my being aspec is a personal matter that does not inherently affect anyone else. But the same can be said for literally any queer identity. Your being gay doesn't say anything about me, so of course I shouldn't hurt you for it, but why should I help you either? Because your happiness and comfort are important. The same goes for aspecs.

And most of the time, I don't even need anyone to make space for or expend resources on me; I can live fine in everyday, non-queer-specific places without mentioning my identity at all. But it's the queer community that claims it will make that space for me, doesn't, and then acts defensive and morally pure if I call out the hypocrisy because "we're queer too, you can't erase our identities to advocate for yours!!!!"

Again, this post isn't about specifics. I have queer friends who are incredibly thoughtful and supportive about my identity, just as I have non-queer friends who are. I find more solidarity in aspec-only communities, as well as trans/genderqueer ones, although there are still many exceptions. This post is also not about amatonormative ideology, which is extremely common from queer and non-queer people alike. This post is about the reason I've felt so betrayed by the queer community.

--

On a personal note, I remember being so excited when I started identifying as aromantic (and later asexual). Fitting myself into labels has been a lifelong struggle for me; to this day I still can't confidently say if I'm White or PoC, neurotypical or neurodivergent, abled or disabled, cisgender or not cisgender. I continue to struggle making friends because I don't fall into social cliques. To discover that I officially, certainly, was LGBTQ+ lifted a huge weight off my shoulders. And now I'm just so sad to find that despite that, I'm still stuck in the middle. I didn't get rewarded with a community. I still feel alienated from both queer and non-queer people. I know it was silly to get my hopes up when there's such vast diversity in both groups, but it really was a disappointment. Going to my first Pride parade last year was really the moment where I realized this.

Tumblr for me is like the gay neurodivergent version of Twitter (as someone who has used the app maybe twice?)

The only people I care about keeping up with are on this app (Neil Gaiman)

And I only use it to dump my useless and universally unwanted opinions.

It's the same thing, but instead of talking about politics, people talk about David Tennant.

The thing about "I always thought you were super straight" is it implies Tim was thinking about whether Bernard likes guys. And didn't question why he wondered about that.

perfect tingler after todays discussion

----

Mumblo Peeps has one last presentation to give if he wants his master’s degree, but to finish it on time would be nearly impossible. Mumblo just doesn’t have it in him. Fortunately, Mumblo’s friend Jordon is also giving a final presentation, which just so happens to be about the works of erotica author Chuck Tingle. Mumblo is confused on how his friend intends to fill an entire project, since Chuck Tingle just creates fake books covers, only to realize that Chuck Tingle books are, in fact, real. Now Mumblo is locked into a passionate tryst with the physical manifestation of his bizarre assumption that Chuck Tingle books are just covers and not actual books, teaching Mumblo that anything is possible if you just put your butt into it.

POUNDED IN THE BUTT BY MY BIZARRE ASSUMPTION THAT CHUCK TINGLE BOOKS ARE JUST COVERS AND NOT ACTUAL BOOKS

I think there's a genuine conversation to be had about how aro spaces have begun pushing QPRs in a similar way that amatonormativity pushes romantic relationships onto people but a majority of aros just refuse to engage in the discussion because they see it as an attack on QPRs or people saying QPRs are romantic relationships lite instead of actually looking at the fact it's critiquing how some Aros have begun pushing it almost like an alternative to romance and something all Aro's want.

No one is saying QPRs are bad but rather that there is too much push that the idea of a QPR will fix people's problems. "oh you're lonely? just find a QPR!" "You dont have to be in a romantic relationship you can be in a QPR!" "QPR is MORE than friendship" etc etc.

There's a genuine critique here of QPRs being used to continue to push amatonormativity by again assuming that every aro wants a partner - even if not romantic - and I think we can have a genuine conversation about this rather than going at each other throats over a fake argument of "QPRs bad"

Just saw a "feminist" video essay (by someone who just happens to only talk about feminism in relation to cishet white able bodied women) say that the Hays Code was good for women because it "prevented them from sexualizing women by preventing onscreen depictions of sex". Never before has a video said something that made me vocalize my disgust of it's takes, but this did it.

I didn't think I would have to say this but if you defend the Hays code you are horrible and not in any way progressive. And if you don't know what it is please look it up because it's probably the most important piece of history when it comes to all media analysis in the western world.

This a genuine good-faith question. Why is lesbian a separate identity from bisexual if it just means queer attraction to women. Wouldn't that make all bisexuals, or really all women-attracted queers lesbian by default?

Okay, I’m gonna answer your most recent ask since I’m assuming you didn’t mean to send them twice or just worded it differently but I’ll also put the screenshot here and image id below my response. I’m also assuming this is from the screenshots posted of my 2S thread? I’ve already explained quite a bit there, but the reason I define “lesbian” as “(non-exclusive) queer attraction to women” is because it is, currently, the best language I have that does not inherently abandon or alienate a wide variety of people from the definition. It centers the important, historical definition and does not leave out those in history who were labeled or found comfort under the label “lesbian” who may, in this age, choose another label instead.

“Nmlnm” and “non-men” as I’ve explained in that thread are reductive, colonial terms attempting to force a neobinary onto all people, and it is particularly cruel when those terms come from a dehumanizing, anti-Black origin that has also been applied to Indigenous people. I balk so much at being called “non-man” not just because it doesn’t describe me or my gender at all, but because I’ve been called “non-human.”

Other lesbians can define their own definition of lesbianism however they want, I frankly don’t care. It’s when definitions are forced on others to conform, cut off, or harm them that I have a problem with it.

In short, no, it wouldn’t mean bisexuals are lesbians by default, because no label or definition of said label means that everyone is that label by default. I also find prescriptivism ridiculous in it’s entirety, and I use labels and definitions in terms of descriptive identity, so that should make more sense.

[image ID: Screenshot of an ask by moscitto time stamp sent two hours ago text reads “This is a genuine good-faith question. Why is lesbian it's own identity if it just means queer attraction to women? Wouldn't that make all bisexuals, and all women attracted queers really, lesbian by default?” End text end image description.]

Dawn of the Dead, 1978, dir. George A. Romero

Hannah Montana’s Guide to Life Under Capitalism

Haven’t posted in a while but made a new video :)

"afab trans women/transfems" are terf shit btw. the intent is to make afab detrans folks work against their own interests by attacking trans women who try to point out that that's not the way those words work. trans and detrans folks have a lot of the same needs, don't let bigots drive a wedge between us.

First things first: The world of Nimona is a marvellous piece of worldbuilding. That being said...

The local cuisine quite clearly is skewed towards Tex-Mex dishes.

And can we please talk about that lovely little startle of the waiter. Such a great animation! I finally fell in love when they showed him for one additional, sweet split second. With the now obsolete nachos. Poor guy. Excellent movie.

its so weird seeing posts that mock uncle jim for worrying about li ming's queerness as though his dead boyfriend's parents (legally) stealing his entire life savings and leaving him to manage a restaurant business specifically because gay couples aren't legally recognized as couples wasn't what put him in a cycle of crushing debt and endless poverty in the first place