#this post is about all the queer groups that get ostracized for not being oppressed enough or having ‘too much privilege’ | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

azvainia · 22 days

Text

He/him lesbian discourse is stupid, and here’s why; bare with me this may be a bit bumpy of a ride but I promise I have a point

CONTENT WARNING: mentions of heavy topics such as bigotry and SA. if you’re not mentally up to it, just scroll. inane discourse is not worth your mental health.

Throughout my time existing in the queer community, I’ve noticed that there is always a group that’s ostracized for being too “different” from the rest of the pack, or are hard for others not in their situation to understand.

The worst part is it doesn’t just happen in the queer community, it seems to happen everywhere, in every space that humans inhabit and form groups in. you may have noticed, for example, that queer people are an outgroup to those who are cis/straight. It’s a line of people, each more niche than the one before them, all saying “You? You can’t be with us. You’re not one of us.” until we get to the end and we’re talking about problems on the fringes of the internet, like this very post.

Don’t get me wrong. There are some people who need to be ostracized to keep the peace as well as maintain safety in a space—Including, but not limited to: Nazis/fascists, racists, homophobes, pedos/zoos, etc. specifically when they are actively causing harm to others (remember rehabilitation though, if someone has grown out of a previous pattern of behavior that aligns with something that caused harm, I don’t think they should be permanently barred from our communities). At the end of the day, there’s always going to be people like this who are hateful, and I believe it’s important to keep in mind that relationships are complicated too. Some people will tolerate certain harmful behaviors because of circumstances like jobs or familial relations, and some would immediately cut them off. I think it’s all down to your preferences. It’s your life, after all.

My issue with this Ostracization comes in when it’s done to those who are not causing harm. I’ll start big picture here. I’m thinking first and foremost of the historical rift between women and men. I’m no expert on ancient bigotries, but if I had to guess I would expect misogyny to be an older one. I can hear it now. “They’re meek and they’re biologically engineered to be weaker than us!” Are they causing any harm? Is there any real reason to treat them worse than men? Next I think of racism, which is inconceivably annoying. “Oh no, their skin is a different color! They have different customs than I do!”boo hoo.

Of course next we can look at queer history. First, straight people push out gays. Because they can’t have biological children? Because they’re threatening masculinity? Whatever. Then, in spite of black trans women like Marsha P. Johnson leading the Stonewall Riots, cis queers ostracize trans people to make themselves more palatable (despite the fact that when given the chance, bigots would be fine with all of us wiped off the face of the earth). And when trans people become a bit more widely known and accepted (relatively so)? Soon, gender-non-conforming trans ppl like non-binary, agender, and genderfluid people are the next target, forming the trans-medicalist debate while trans people in general are still struggling to fight the narrative that they would assault people in the bathrooms of their aligning gender.

So we’ve finally caught up. In many modern queer communities, gnc trans people are accepted as just another part of the alphabet mafia. But there must be another sacrifice. Neopronouns and He/him lesbians. Years of oppression, and we still can’t seem to break the cycle. To those who have issues with people who use these labels, I ask you sincerely. Why?

If you are a lesbian, no one is forcing you to date someone who identifies as a lesbian while also being “male-aligned” in some way. The same way no one is obligating cis people to date trans people just because they’re an ally or whatever. Please consider; are these people you so despise and call lesbiophobic truly doing any harm other than existing? I thought that the trans community was all about breaking gender norms and being your truest self. Is excluding lesbians who are masculine or use he/him not enforcing the whole “blue= boy” shit all over again? Yes, “he/him” is most often used for men or masculine people, but just like gender roles and gender itself, it’s just a concept we humans made up. With time, everything shifts, changes, and grows.

Let us grow together. Let us feel the magic of queer joy together. Even if you don’t entirely understand it, live and let live.

Realistically I know that gatekeeping and discourse like this will never end, but even if one more person reflects and tries to be more inclusive, more thoughtful, more empathetic, I will be happy. If you got this far ily, take care of yourself and live your best life.

#queer #queer community #he him lesbian #discourse #live and love #there’s so many problems in the world all the time #I just feel like there’s so much more pressing shit to worry about #than the way someone chooses to live their life #can’t we all just get along #anyways #love yourself

4 notes · View notes

blonkk · 1 month

Text

i’m getting so close to fucking up my life and posting this on insta. like a lot of people i know are normal but a LOT are trans rights activists, a few are “trans” and one of my jobs is super gendie. like i’m the only one there who refuses to state my pronouns and i can feel the air get heavy and awkward lol…and obv my friends /coworkers and even the owner follows me so like.

like i’m being so serious though there is an actual calculated massacre of palestinians happening. as it has been for decades. no i’m not gonna call it genocide just yet because as i have seen repeatedly using words incorrectly totally erases their meaning. like the trans community! how do you seriously justify using that word to describe what you believe is your experience of oppression? NO ONE is targeting trans people. no one. you have the lowest murder rates. you co opt every single social group and movement and reorient it around yourself and ostracize/vilify those who refuse to comply. not even just those who openly oppose you, but those who won’t follow along.

we see this ongoing brutalization of real actual people who don’t have a strong/effective governing body by a world superpower with military allies and funding around the globe. THAT’s violence. that’s oppression. not being told you’re actually not at the centre of everything that’s ever happened in the world

i really am gonna out myself publicly soon idk idc i can’t take this anymore the silence is actually physically hurting me. i just know i’m gonna lose so many friends even those who don’t gaf about trans shit because they’re scared.

but enough is enough. it’s the most privileged thing in the world to be able to dominate every single issue comfortably from twitter and your crumb filled polycule in your cozy safe western home. i don’t give a fuck about perceived threats to you especially if you’re a tim; no one is hurting you people, it’s actually the other way around. and you’re demonstrating your male socialization and entitlement by making sure that as the world witnesses the devastation of more lives from that same tired region of the world once again, you’re the ones in danger.

shut up about holocaust denial. you have no idea what the holocaust was. you have no idea what it’s actually like to be targeted and persecuted because of how you are born, who you are culturally. jews and cross dressers and disabled people and actual gay people from that time do know. and we all know, as clearly stated in the third reich, that the holocaust was instituted to remove undesirables from society, NAMELY jews.

jk rowling is pointing out that you can’t position trans people at the centre of the holocaust. AND that the concept of “trans” then was not what it is now — people (mostly males) were gay and due to rigid gender roles they may have cross dressed or called themselves some version of a man-lady etc. and that many of the doctors being credited for trans research actually engaged in uhhhh mutilation human experimentation and eugenics. not quite the same as critical life saving research fuckfaces

even by admission from historians touting “queer” theory, trans people did not suffer tremendously at the hands of nazis. please look at the death tolls of the actual persecuted parties. please consider how vain and evil and corrupt it is to rewrite history and appropriate unimaginable suffering for attention and sympathy, to further your own selfish and ill founded agenda.

idk why the link won’t work but please for the love of christ. good god. read something real for once. not pseudo history

& once again i implore you to really think bout what you’re doing to get another woman with the tits to not comply. look what you did to sinead o’connor and amber heard and brittany spears and all the women in the world who didn’t behave . cowards

like what you’ve done to women; erased our history, erased our experiences and are erasing our right to say who and what we are . a trans woman threw the first stone at stonewall! wrong. that was a gay cross dressing man. you are shitting all over him and his life for taking his right to say who he was from him. trans women are breaking boundaries — woman of the year! fastest swimmer in the world! heavy weight champion! youth basketball prodigy! wrong. you’re excusing male entitlement and theft of womens spaces and accomplishments. you’re celebrating the rollback of sex based rights. you’re dismissing the experiences and dreams and goals and hard work and basic rights to acknowledgement and respect of females.

trans women have no representation! wrong. every where you go, everything i watch i’m bombarded with trans women being forced in, added like they’re an organic part of social groups, particularly female ones. i remember back in 2020 watching euphoria and realizing that schaeffer has a duck and my initial disgust and discomfort that it had been so sneakily spring on me; it’s so innocent, two sad lonely teen girls lying in bed, harmless. and then you’re supposed to not react when you see this grotesque bulge in pink frilly girl panties. you’re supposed to not show revulsion at that. or wonder why a young lesbian girl is shown to be attracted to a male. shown to not have any problem with a penis. even if rue was straight it would be disturbing and inappropriate. stop trying to force your dicks into everything. shock people into submission. fucking freaks

jk rowling will not stop and no amount of this dishonesty and bandwagoning will make her. i honestly don’t know if people will feel shame for doing this to her, i have my doubts seeing how things have gone. but this is wrong over right that’s happening right now, and everyone too stupid and cowardly to realize it or say something is complicit. congrats! you’re a woman hating, woman fearing witch hunter

2 notes · View notes

ciswomenofficial · 6 months

Note

(i didn’t want this to be on your post because it seemed inappropriate so i’m sending an ask)

do you think that trans women can behave or act oppressively towards trans men? if it’s alright could you give some examples of oppressive behavior you’ve seen from trans men? you’re absolutely not required to answer and this ask comes in good health, ive been under the impression that trans men / trans women as entire groups can’t be oppressive towards either respective group but i’m not either so i don’t have much experience with the topic and would love to hear from someone firsthand ! /srs q

I mean, some individual trans women might be oppressive towards trans men, but not on account of their gender. In those instances, there’s usually another factor involved, in the USA, my context, most often class or race. This isn’t to say there’s no chauvinistic behavior among trans women, but for an action to be oppressive in particular there needs to be a structural element to it.

On the other hand, while they aren’t at the reigns of the American regime, there are structural forces that enable trans men and other tme trans people to gain relative amounts of influence compared to trans women and tma trans people. Passing trans men (who are more common as a result of the less scrutiny placed on mens bodies) are given access to jobs that women are not, are taken seriously when women are doubted, and those “women”include post-transitional tma people. This allows passing trans men the ability to use these systems to whip up misogynistic vitriol, to get away with abusive behaviors, etc.

On the other hand, trans men who aren’t passing have other systems, that don’t necessarily benefit them over all women, but that do allow them power over trans women. These systems are most open to whites, but I have seen them leveraged by members of the USA’s internalized neocolonies as well depending on context. These are the same institutions by which women can leverage femininity to oppressive ends (compare: the concept of white women tears, the concept of the tenderqueer). Trans mens access to these institutions is definitely more shaky than cis women’s access, but does exist, whereas trans women are rarely allowed access to these institutions, very occasionally one may be if she’s passing and presents femininity in a rigidly conventional way, but even that may require the right time and place of her.

Essentially, these institutions of femininity allow an individual to present themself as vulnerable for an amount of social capital. If they want to shut someone else up, or remove or ostracize someone from a space or community, all they have to do is act vulnerable. Whether this behavior is conscious or unconscious, it is certainly oppressive insofar as it uses systemic power to marginalize those with less power than them.

I have had both of these sorts of oppressiveness used against me. I have had trans men talk over me and bring my ideas within my own area of expertise into doubt on account of the fact that I was not as much of a masculine authority on the matter as they were, and I have also had trans men and cis women present themselves as vulnerable and treat me as a threatening presence and ruin my reputation based on misinformation in queer spaces. My experiences are also influenced by the fact that I am unashamedly a lesbian, mad, and a political radical, but I don’t doubt for a moment that the fact that I am a transsexual woman played a role, especially because me speaking up about transmisogyny often made me a target.

This kind of inter-community oppressiveness is not unprecedented. Gay men being oppressive to gay women was a factor in the shift of many lesbians away from the gay liberation movement and towards the feminist movement. Gay men do not run our heterosexual society, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t part of it, a part who gets certain benefits that gay women do not.

From being present in the trans community, I know plenty of trans women who are assholes, who have a lot wrong with them as human beings, but they still didn’t have access to this kind of systemic oppression to use against white tme people. Mostly they’re unpleasant at an individual scale and don’t have anyone to back them up. On the other hand, an otherwise good individual may act oppressive if you put them into the right context. Oppression isn’t about whether someone is nice to be around, or fundamentally good/bad it is about systemic oppression.

6 notes · View notes

scourgethewhorehog · 2 years

Text

long post abt social spaces specifically online and offline, unrelated to any recent events so don't put words in my mouth it just is part of me reflecting on trauma shit+ journaling + understanding why i lacked boundaries for so long and trying to sympathize with why other people may Also lack boundaries even if it doesnt , excuse certain shit

man does anyone else realize that condemning people as evil or dismissing them or insisting they are inherently bad to continue existence in a way they feel doesnt align to their worldview for things that dont actually cause harm on other people and are actually decent outlets to redirect traumatic experiences n passing judgement on them to the point theyre isolated to an incredibly small group of people to seek acceptance actually makes everyone worse off

and makes people question themselves and their morals to the point they eventually give up on trying to be a good person and actual bad people use this to infiltrate these groups of rejected traumatized people because of this us vs them mentality that comes from being rejected by wider society both by virtue of a lot of these ppl experiencing irl oppression 98% of the time and also have to deal from rejection even from any support group they may have to help them deal with very real life issues because everyone is inventing online problems and reasons to ostracize people more for like what for power for feeling like theyre better themselves in the face of all they also face in real life...

anyways this is just me thinking of how many people i see from a distance that have so much common ground with me and otherwise would be fine to be around but would hate me for being like a dirty evil queer with the kind of autism that isnt cute enough for tiktok who doesnt understand social cues or having the wrong kind of system or too bizarre of an identity as it is so when someone who comes along that checks so many of the boxes of just at least not fucking hating you you put up with So much shit. and thats what lead to like half of the abusive close relationships we've been in babey!

and when you talk to people outside of these circles, trying to get away from all the people who hurt you in them, there is subtle victim blaming, recovery spaces admonish you for having been in these spaces in the first place, insisting if you hadnt been who youve been you wouldnt be around these Inherently Bad people....

it doesnt help that in real life we did Everything right to not be the Bad Child, never dyed our hair until recently when we had enough, and never spoke out and paid all our bills on time and most gay people are disgusting perverts but youre quiet enough and never come out to your parents friends and never are too loud about it even if youre dying inside and want to cry when you have to say your partner is just your friend whose coming over because its a death sentence, god forbid we get into gender because even if we're trans in the end its just some sort of dykefag anyways and nothing gets acknowledged except the same imagined scenario of like. being a dirty depraved sex pervert even if you struggle to touch other people and are terrified to tell anyone about that.

being an assumed danger to other people no matter how harmless you are sucks. its like, i come online to all these people where, at surface level expression, maybe would like me, because physically everyone near me wouldn't if i was half honest, but i'm still too much for them too now and i'm left feeling exactly like i do day to day. the internet isn't really escapism anymore its the same shit with a new coat of paint. i go through life thinking these people are good people and would be cool in any other circumstance, and i wish them the best, but the minute i am me i am a problem and something is wrong and all the kindness and good will they have and their favorite dessert and birthday and the things i recognize of them and love and care about wont matter anymore because i stopped being a person to them, and it happens to me online now too! and that sort of blows but at least i actually have real friends now who are like family and ill count my blessings on that.

#infection #reader beware

0 notes

miraculouslumination · 2 years

Text

There's a lot with panphobia that is just so fundamentally, historically, and accurately wrong. It's much like all other types of exclusionism; it's petty, pointless, has no credible foundation, ahistorical, and all it's good for is traumatizing, slandering, and ostracizing a group of queer people. It's no different from ace and aro exclusion, or bi exclusion, nonbinary, xenogender, MOGAI, mspec lesbian, any other type of exclusion.

Yet I've noticed it may be one of the most prevalent in online spaces. Of course, so is general mspecphobia. Fandom spaces are notoriously hostile towards mspec people. Bi ships and characters are tossed and written off as homophobic, pan ships and characters are erased, omni and ply are completely ignored and forgotten about, and so on.

But even just regular spaces, I have seen time and time again people showcasing panphobia. Entire posts dedicated to "proving" how pan is biphobic and transphobic, with often thousands or tens of thousands of notes. And I rarely see anyone question it. I rarely see a post discrediting these claims get as many notes.

Exclusionism in online queer spaces is often loud and violent. Asexual people got threats of all kinds, bi people got screamed at that they weren't welcome, aromantic people were told they were narcissistic sociopaths that should be locked away, etc. etc.

Pan exclusionism has its moments of being loud and violent. But that was back when the discourse was in its prime. Nowadays, panphobes are quieter, but much like how a predator stalking its prey is silent on its feet.

Panphobes love dogwhistles and strawmans. And I feel this is a strategy done on purpose. Because, with dogwhistles and strawmans, it becomes a guessing game for the victim(s). They end up having to comb through every word, every meaning it could have, find out what the intentions are, and more.

That way, when the person does find something, and does call attention to it, there's a mighty fine chance that they'll be attacked for it. I know this term has been thrown around a lot, but I really do feel like these reactions can lead to an accidental, or even purposeful, gaslighting.

"They didn't REALLY mean to be panphobic", "well *I* read the post and I didn't see *any* panphobia, so you're wrong", "are you going to say that EVERYTHING is panphobia?", "You don't actually know what panphobia looks like", "you're just trying to slander bi people", and so on, and so on.

I also feel like there's a sense of evil in the fact that, more times than not, the perpetuators of panphobia are bi people. Note that this is a minority in the bi community, and that, historically speaking, the bi community has largely been accepting of other mspec labels more many, many decades now. Once again, this just proves that panphobia is founded in ahistorical nonsense. Now, historically speaking, as well, bi people have a lengthy history of being excluded, ignored, erased, ostracized, slandered, and more. And I feel, in a way, that for some bi panphobes, it genuinely feels like they are punching up. Fighting back against their real oppressors - the true cause for why people are biphobic!! When, really, they are punching to the side. And, really, their true oppressors continue to stand aside and laugh.

There's a large trauma held in the bi community. And it's one that needs to be addressed and healed. However, turning to exclusionism - taking upon the same, abusive role of your own abusers - is not the way to do it. Queer people cannot oppress one another.

Ultimately, all of this panphobia eventually does turn around in a 180, and returns to biphobia. And, much like how panphobia has become much quieter, more dogwhistled, and much more covert, so has the biphobia in it.

When a bi panphobe says "bi ONLY means being attracted to all genders", they are hurting bi people who do not want nor identify with that definition. Of course, some panphobes will try to back track and try to correct themselves, saying that "well, okay, bi CAN mean being attracted to all genders.." But, more often than not, they will just keep swinging. Even if they end up hitting one of their own.

Not only that, but the argument of "pansexuality only encourages people to continue having negative ideas about bisexuality!" Such as "pan makes bi people think we're all just a bunch of heartless sluts!" Yes, this is an actual argument I have seen many times. But, this is where they end up hurting their own. Because it implies that any bi person who is sexually promiscuous and does not partake in romantic relationships (whether it be because they're arospec, loveless, or whatever reason) is the wrong type of bi - that they're going to be giving the bi community a bad rep. That the only good bi is someone who is willing to be dedicated to romance (oof that arophobia) and who doesn't sleep around a lot (oof that sex puritanism).

Another is "pan will make people think bi is binary!" When there is an issue in the bi community of fellow bi people insisting that bi is only binary. It may be a minority in the bi community, but it is still there. There are bi people who will harp about how bi should only be binary. And, besides, so what if there are only bi people are attracted to the "binary" genders? As long as they aren't transphobic or enbyphobic or anything like that, but instead only find themselves attracted to men and women, what is so wrong about that? Are they going to be sending the message that bi is binary? Are they being biphobic? Are we still arguing that bi means all and ONLY means all? And, hell, what about bi people who ARE only attracted to two genders? Not even binary ones - say, a bi person who only likes women and nonbinary people? Or a bi person who only likes nonbinary and xenogender people? Are these people going to trick non-bi people into thinking bi only means two?

“Pan people keep trying to redefine bi/rewrite our history!” Yes, there are some pan people who try to instill one and only one definition of bi. However, there are countless other people of countless other sexualities that do this. Including bi people! Once again, the push for “bi has ALWAYS and ONLY means attraction to all genders” is ahistorical and inaccurate. Bi has not always meant that. And not every bi person has described or defined themselves as such. Change in definitions is common and natural, especially as our language and world evolves around us. However, to say bi has always been so and always will be so is false. Because bisexuality is flexible and diverse and its own color spectrum - bisexuality and its definitions cannot be put into a box of “only” and “always”, because that would mean all other ways of defining bisexuality is wrong, inaccurate, and biphobic. The only thing that can be said true of an “always” within the bi community is that, historically, they have stood by the sides of fellow mspecs. And they stood strong with us, as we did with them. The bi community has always accepted other mspec labels. Any panphobe or anti-mspec individual who says so is, guess what, rewriting bi history.

Also, not only that, but panphobes are notorious for trudging up old definitions of pansexuality as a “gotcha”, and also constantly erase and ignore pansexual history. Anytime I see someone say that pansexuality was born in the 2000s/2010s as a way to make a more Woke Bi, it feels like my head is being slammed into a wall. Anytime I see a panphobe say “learn bi history!!!!! ACTUAL bi history!!!!” as a panphobe recruitment tactic, I feel my heart drop. Anytime I see people talk about how pansexuality was born out of biphobia or a misunderstanding of bisexuality or formed by transphobia, I roll my eyes.

I really could go on, but I think I’ve said what needs to be said. Panphobia is rampant and has been unchecked for a while now. Panphobes know to blow their whistles at a frequency where you have to either train yourself to hear it or be traumatized/educated enough to already know it. All claims of pansexuality’s “true nature” are not founded in any credibility, and are, more often than not, far more harmful to bi and trans people than anyone else. I’ve encountered many a radfem, terf, and more that are self admitted “panphobes”. Panphobia hurts everyone, and helps no one. Not bi people, not trans people, no one.

There is no “good” or “right” way to be panphobic. Whether you’re an outright panphobe or are one of those “I don’t hate pan people!! I just want them to know their history is Bad and Messy and that their label Makes Me Upset and is redundant and that I actually hate them but I don’t!! But I do” panphobes a.k.a “I love the sinner, and hate the sin!” 2.0., it doesn’t matter. You are still hurting a group of people who are just trying to mind their business, and MORE. If you’re panphobic, then you’re a pebble’s throw away from being biphobic and transphobic. Yes!! Even if you are bi and/or trans! If that makes you upset, then suck it up and spit out the kool-aid. And, most importantly:

Educate yourself

#Jean rants #Panphobia #Long post #Biphobia #Fuck exclusionists

122 notes · View notes

gnostic-heretic · 5 years

Text

And when I say a lot of t*rf posts end up on my dashboard I mean it and it’s always so hard to try to separate between the people who are ultimately well meaning and didn’t know and those who spread this stuff maliciously. That post is right tho if you know what r*dfem transmisogyny and transphobia looks and sounds like it’s harder to fall for these posts... the shitty thing about t*rf shit is that it trickles down, in a progressive scale from their blogs to seemingly “neutral” (but never actually neutral*) blogs that maybe sound a little iffy but never outright call themselves g/ender critical or name trans people, onto complicit popular discourse blogs and then on people’s dashboards. *Hell one time I saw a blog that seemed like an innocent supergirl femslash blog just to find she reblogged constantly from t*rfs posts that were just on the borderline and never outright mentioned trans people, only buzzwords and this is what I mean by “neutral” blogs that are actually complicit. This blog has a lot of followers. How many of them reblog these posts uncritically? And I wish there were more lists of said buzzwords and how to recognise them but

The reality is that we trans people especially trans women have to be constantly on the watch for shit like this. We know the arguments and we know why they’re bullshit. Meanwhile cis people don’t really know the specifics of their ideology and seem to fall for it over and over. And the worst thing about it is that t*rfs use this as confirmation bias that their ideas are actually good and everyone would agree with them if they just present it without the slurs and mocking. But the slurs demeaning and mocking are a fundamental part of it, and of trans exclusion in general. Fear mongering and dehumanising trans people are the mean to wiping us out of existence.

I won’t explain why those ideas are wrong because I’m starting from the assumption that my followers are not transphobic and don’t find statements like “trans women are women” controversial, but buzzwords include (warning for blunt discussions of transphobia):

- expressing “concern” about men invading women’s spaces or the “purity” of said spaces (they don’t use the word purity but as a concept in general). This concern is never explained, only stated, because once you look into it you find that it’s actually about trans women. As a side note, the whole “invasion” thing is a popular one and it is reminiscent of white s*premacist bullshit ... this idea that since gay trans people are “actually straight” we will eventually outnumber “the real” gay people by calling ourselves gay and invading their spaces. the more you know ... if this doesn’t ring a bell you need to look into actual n*zi theories like “the gre//at re\\placement” and then we can talk again. The jump from t*rf to alt-ri/ght trad mom is shorter and swifter than either of those groups would have you believe

- “males can’t be lesbians” a pretty non controversial statement if it wasn’t that male is code for trans women. “Men who fetishise lesbians” is also a tricky one because while this is indeed a real issue, they’re referring to “auto/g/ynephilia” aka the idea that the reason lesbian and bi trans women transition at all is just because they fetishise the idea of themselves as a woman/lesbian (contrapoints has a good in depth video about this that explains better than I ever could) — on the same note talk about how “male sexuality” is something inherently corrupt, oppressing, and violent, and cannot be healthy ever, without any other context given is also usually code for “trans women are perverts and sexual predators” . The word “p//ornsick” also comes up often so watch out for it.

- the pervasive idea that a group of “straight people fetishising being gay/a lesbian” is out there and threatening REAL gay/lesbian spaces starts from here. I’ve mentioned a/utogy/nephilia but “fujoshi” is usually code for gay trans men, with a similar idea behind it. We’re not really gay men, just straight women who fetishise the idea of ourselves as a gay man... at least that’s the idea behind it.

- which brings us to the point. “straight people invading gay spaces” is usually if not always code for gay trans people.

- kinda related to the above point, honestly you’re all fools if you think the whole ace discourse bullshit wasn’t just eventually a path to trans and bisexual exclusion. Trans and bi people have been saying this for years but no one wants to listen. That’s not to say that exclusionists are t*rfs but those ideas were popularised by them... that’s just to say learn where your ideology comes from before you endorse it and embrace it

- similarly “queer is a slur” started there so you might want to reconsider why you’ve been convinced to tag your posts “q slur” by people who use other homophobic slurs pretty liberally lol . “Queer means straight people invade our spaces!” + any talk about gnc straight men/women and how it doesn’t make them queer or lgbt, Yeah, this was about never about “gnc” it was trans people all along. The implication is that trans people don’t exist, so we can be nothing but gnc “males/females”. Congrats! You’re a fool! Now don’t make me read this bullshit ever again.

- stuff that makes fun of said “gnc people” “queers” , man buns, undercuts, brightly coloured hair, specific names (aiden comes to my mind) careful about posts that mock the concept of “queering heterosexuality” they’re usually about gay couples with one trans and one cis person, or where both people are trans but with different asab. (ie a gay trans man dating a pan cis man, a trans woman and an afab nb person dating will get mocked as “straight people” who are just pretending to be anything but) sometimes it’s also about bi people jsyk but...

- “forcing young lesbians to not identify as lesbians”/“stop telling young lesbians they should be/are men” is also a big thing. implies that trans people are out there recruiting teenagers who would otherwise be cis lesbians (or more rarely cis gay men) and forcing them into identifying as trans. “young lesbians” also doesn’t always mean young lesbians it’s usually meant to misgender trans men who already identify as men (but in this theoretical framework trans as a concept is nonexistent, a perversion, a delusion, so what could we be but porn/sick straight people or delusional, misguided cis gays who fall victim of a conspiracy)

- entire blogs dedicated to d/etransition (or “reidentifi/cation” as they call it now) experiences that don’t bother to acknowledge that their experience is not universal and au contraire seem to want to push detransition as the one way to happiness especially for afab people. Yes I do think that people who detransition should be able to talk about it, but if the conclusions you draw are “this didn’t work for me so it’s toxic and bad for everyone”, and openly advocate against trans people’s existence, you’re full of shit. Only a small percentage of trans people detransition: over 90% of us are satisfied with the results. It’s all just concern trolling.

- posts about how dysphoria is either a “delusion” or a “normal female experience”, posts that sound a lot like body positivity but they’re actually pushing for detransition (ie you should accept your body as is, surgery is mutilation of your already perfect body etc etc) this is also tricky but it’s all in the language. Phrases like “young women who undergo surgery to fix their already good bodies” could refer to a variety of things but it’s all in the context. Words like “reconnect” “reidentification” are usually presented as alternative. Dysphoria is usually not named and referred to as a delusion or social pressure and something that should never be considered real, ie if you see something like “young women undergo surgery to chase a delusion” it probably comes from a t*rf. be wary of any surgery talk in general is my point because it’s usually presenting gcs as on the same level of lip fillers and Botox (ignoring that trans people face infinite struggles to access surgery and social ostracism for pursuing medical transition so it’s not the same AT ALL)

- talk about stuff like “hrt is dangerous actually” and “binding is horrible actually”? Yeah. You can guess where it comes from. It’s important to acknowledge the risks of hrt/binding but sensationalism about how it’s dangerous and could kill you and so on... it’s just overblown concern trolling to convince people that medical transition is mutilation and a conspiracy to kill the above mentioned “young lesbians”

- sentiments akin to “t*rf is a slur used against lesbians” even if not presented this way are also a red flag, sorry. If you don’t want to be called a t*rf, maybe don’t speak and act like one.

- the sad news is in the end there’s no way to discern whether someone is a t*rf or not because a lot of the time these same talking points come from blogs that have little “t*rfs don’t interact tee hee!” Banners on their description. A lot of r/adfem blogs out there are side blogs of people you wouldn’t usually suspect. Maybe they are vocal against trans exclusion, and in support of trans people, and then switch accounts to hurl about how horrible it is that they feel forced to welcome us “sexual pervert straight people” into their spaces. That’s why imo it’s more important to recognise the ideology than it is to look for clues. Again, if it sounds like one, it’s probably one :’)

#sorry i had tk get it out there #discourse /////

22 notes · View notes

andihowl · 5 years

Text

Polyamory is queer.

Or rather, Polyamorous folk are queer if they self-identify as such.

Below, I’ll be explaining why any attempt you make to deny that is by definition gatekeeping, and why you need to stop. This will be added to / updated as I talk to more polyamorous folk and hear more of their stories. This is not a debate, I will liberally use my block button, I’m just sick of repeating myself over and over in group after group because polyphobic assholes think they can throw polyam folk under the bus and we won’t say anything. Read. Think. Do better.

Given the shared premises that “queer” is being used in it’s non-pejorative, reclamative usage as an umbrella term representing sexual and gender minorities who have been marginalized and oppressed as a direct result of their identities, and that gatekeeping members of it is an inherently shitty thing to do (goodbye swerfs, terfs, aphobes, etc.), the main reasons I see for people denying polyamorous folk into queer spaces, or into queer discussions generally read like this:

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

it’s a kink

it’s a choice

it’s a practice, not an identity

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

These arguments can be categorized more or less into the following main sections:

The Disregard

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

By disengaging conversation about this, you are preventing the growth and learning of the community, and you need to knock your shit off. Only through critically assessing our own behavior and the behavior of the community with which we engage can we ever hope to make ourselves, and our world, any better.

The Bad Actors

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

This is one of the weakest arguments against this, and one of the quickest debunked. Simply put, all identities have bad actors. I've certainly interacted with gay men who haven't taken no for an answer. I've certainly met bisexual people who have used their sexuality as an excuse to cheat on their partners. Just because bad actors exist within a community, does not invalidate the entire identity. You cannot hope to have such a diverse group of people from such diverse backgrounds and upbringings and mental health statuses and economic statuses and expect them all to behave and think the the same homogenous way. Not all gays are alike. Not all trans folk are alike. Not all polyam folk are alike. Deal with it, move on.

Conflation

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

it’s a kink

Polyamory =/= polygamy. Stop conflating the two. Polyamory (when referring to the practice) is the egalitarian ethical practice of non-monogamy between consenting adults. Polygamy is an authoritarian tool used by patriarchal societies to oppress and silence women, most often without consent. Stop conflating, and move on.

Also, Polyamory is not a kink. To call something a kink, you are tacitly and wilfully admitting that the behavior in question is and should be seen as deviant in society, and derives sexual pleasure out of that deviancy. Polyamory is not, at least not in any healthy relationships I've seen, practiced in such a shameful manner. If you're equating the two, maybe you should address your own underlying phobias regarding polyamory rather than gatekeeping others.

The Choice

it’s a choice

it’s a practice, not an identity

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

These are a bit trickier of a discussion. No, the United States, nor any other country offcially recognizes polyamory as a valid sexual orientation to be protected under federal law. And yes, some people feel they opt-in to a "polyamorous lifestyle". There have been studies conducted on this, and while many respondents to do not classify their polyamory as an orientation, many others did respond saying that they felt they were wired that way, that they felt they were that way since childhood, that monogamous relationships always felt wrong for them.

The polyamory community houses both types of folk, those who feel it's a lifestyle, as well as those who feel it is deeply engrained. As polyadvice writes (specifically toward other polyam folk):

Is polyamory an orientation? Why do we care? Why are we so caught up in whether the way we love other people is a way of being or a way of doing? Why do I get this question so often, and why are we all so invested in the answer?

If you experience your polyamory as an innate part of your self, as something you are rather than something you do, great. It’s part of your orientation. We can split semantic hairs and say it’s a “relationship orientation” as opposed to a “sexual orientation.�� Some people don’t experience it that way, and that’s fine too.

What’s not fine is if we start fighting about it and make it some big political or identity-political issue within the [polyam] community. Because you know what? The rest of the world doesn’t care nearly as much about the nuances of our definitions. They’re prepared to deny us health insurance, child custody, media representation, hospital visitation, and plenty else regardless of whether we sort this out amongst ourselves. If we start turning on each other, there’s no one to have our backs.

Simply put, it's none of your damn business if it's an orientation or a choice. Even if it is a choice, as Michael Carey with Slate wrote:

We are all human first. Everything else—nationality, sex, race, orientation—is secondary, and irrelevant to our fundamental rights. As Brian D. Earp recently argued in “Future Tense,” even if homosexuality becomes a choice, mutable under pharmacological “treatment,” it should still be regarded as part of the normal range of human behavior. We should agree on the principle that anyone pursuing consensual, loving, respectful relationships, forming happy families, and participating productively in society should be welcomed, not ostracized in the name of irrational, ossified stigma.

Not Oppressed

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

Hooooooooold up there partner. Y'all gotta be kidding me. Let's put aside the fact that one of the most common thing's polyam folk hear when they come out to people is "well, that's nice, but I could never do it myself". Let''s put aside the comments/sneers of "so you just sleep with whoever you want?", or the automatic assumption that polyam folk are sluts/skeezes/sex-addicts/cheaters.

The fact of the matter is, for someone who is polyamorous, there are no legal protections for them, whether they be for housing, employment, or medical care (in any of the 50 United States or any other country that I'm aware of). That means if someone is outed at work, they can be fired on the spot for that reason. They can be kicked out of their apartment, lose their home, or be denied medical coverage because of it. Polyamorous relationships are not recognized as valid spouses in hospital situations, they cannot receive tax benefits for their relationship, and they are routinely denied next of kin rights and inheritance. Loss of child custody is common, as family courts do not recognize polyamory as a valid responsible child-rearing environment (which experience and common sense can tell us otherwise)

It's bad enough that Ann Sweeny argued in 2010 in favor of legally expanding the definition of sexual orientation to include polyamory to help protect polyam folk against these kind of grievances (you can download the original pdf argument at that link, it's a long but interesting read). An excerpt:

... polyamorists risk custody loss, workplace discrimination, loss of friends, alienation from their families, and ostracism from spiritual and other communities as a result of revealing their polyamory. In addition, their children often face discrimination at school. Indeed, in one study, nearly half of [polyam] respondents reported having experienced prejudice as a result of their polyamory. Additionally, Emens has noted that the “social hostility [against relationships involving more than two people] sustains various legal burdens on polyamorists, including two-person marriage and partnership laws, adultery and bigamy laws, [and] residential zoning laws.” Furthermore, Rambukkana documented negative reactions to the formation of an on-campus polyamory group that included the university newspaper’s public ridicule of the group on the basis that the group was comprised of “a bunch of ‘culty’ sex maniacs” and the suggestion that the group was a “recruitment machine” that sucked people in “‘with promises of sex and more sex.’”

She goes on to argue:

These forms of discrimination are considerable, and they have the potential to impose severe, indeed devastating, burdens on individuals who espouse polyamory... The many ways that monogamy (as represented by marriage) is privileged under the law, while non-monogamy is burdened, demonstrate that non-monogamous persons, including polyamorists, are oppressed under an “organising principle of inequality” and therefore that they meet Cooper’s test for extension of legal protections.

Honestly, go read that article. It lays out a lot more than I could ever hope to properly summarize here, and outlines pretty succinctly why polyamory is an oppressed class.

What goes for me goes for everyone

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

First off, wonderful! Thank you for being polyam and for demonstrating your courage and representation in a world that wants to erase you. Full stop.

Second off. It's fine if you don't feel like your polycraft is inherently part of your identity. That's allowed. Many Nonbinary folk don't feel trans describes their experience; many gay men don't like to use the term queer. That's fine, that's your biz. That doesn't mean that holds the same for everyone else, though, and you shouldn't be limiting the voice and power of others because you have enough privelege to disregard opression you may experience. They do deserve a voice, they do deserve rights, and you consistently chiming in saying "Well I don't" isn't helping the conversation, it's distracting and beside the point.

One person's experience with a community is not necessarily representative of an entire identity's experience with it, and you don't get to claim the right to silence the voices and experences of others in your community.

The Personal Appeal

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

Well, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable. Honestly. It sucks. However dealing with an expanding and inclusive community is and should be uncomfortable. It should force us to ask questions we didn't want to ask. It should make us rethink things we once thought were firm and held dear.

But just as -allo was added to cis-het bring light to the added axis of identity and oppression that is the asexuality spectrum, it's about time we added -mono to that, to bring to light the fact that being polyam, and being polyam + other identities, brings with it unique problems and unique pride that is deserving of attention, and deserving a seat at the table.

Included Links and Additional Resources

CW: some of these links use the nickname "poly" for "polyamorous" rather than "polynesian". Inclusion here is not an endorsement of that kind of usage, as I have tried to refrain from that usage here and in my everyday conversation. Additionally, I have replaced its usage in the above quotations with [polyam] to prevent further crawlers linking to it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201610/is-polyamory-form-sexual-orientation

(http://polyadvice.tumblr.com/post/114048167048/this-might-be-a-question-you-get-often-but-is

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/10/is-polyamory-a-choice.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632653

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/10/polyamorous-excluded-queer/

https://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2013/12/dan-savage-is-poly-queer.html

https://www.autostraddle.com/six-queers-on-polyamory-and-identity-419254/

#polyam #polyamory #queer #gatekeeping #don't @ me #i will block you

7 notes · View notes

bemouldenblog · 5 years

Text

Labels: Revisited...4 Years Later

Have you ever looked at the “On This Day/Memories” section of Facebook, scrolled through and thought, “Dear gawd! What the hell was I thinking?”

You don’t have to lie. You don’t even have to admit it to me. I know you have. I even know that I’m not the first person to ask you that question. I just want you to it admit it to yourself. I sure as hell know I have. It happens more than I’d like it to, but that is Facebook for you. (Who’s even just gone ahead and deleted the egregious regrettables? Ok I’m done…)

You do, however, stumble upon those posts every now and then that make you step back and say, “Wow…this is a part of my journey? I forgot about that. Yaaasss!” I stumbled upon one of those recently: the customary social media “coming-out” post. (This is not mandatory. Your journey is your journey. My hope is that you do eventually live your truth...but in your own time of course. No pressure.)

As of late, I’ve charged myself to delve more into the autobiographical artistic explorations of young black queer creatives. (ie. Janelle Monae’s Dirty Computer and Darnell L. Moore’s No Ashes in the Fire: Coming of Age Black and Free In America. PLEASE support and submerge yourself in these phenomenal yet underexposed creations. A-MA-ZING!) I feel great pride and gratitude seeing myself reflected so clearly in the work and lives of other young black queer people who are absolutely killing the game. This shows me, yet again, the importance and undeniable necessity of representation, not only for the next generations but also for peers. Experiencing works of art that reflect a desire to be free, to be comfortable with self, to love and be loved, to have community is reaffirming my place in a community often overlooked and misunderstood. These works of art are reminders that no one person should have to suffer alone because of how they identify or experience freedom.

After coming out on Facebook, I remember one of my friends asking me why I had done so. Although it wasn’t aggressive, it did come across slightly confrontational and accusatory. It was as if the friend was asking “Why in the hell would you do that?!?” I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I recall my answer being very nonchalant as a way to hide the fact that I felt very put on the spot. If asked today, I definitely would say it was because I was tired of feeling invisible.

Seeing the words that my 23 year old self wrote as a declaration of liberation re-ignites the fire to do what I will always seek to do in anyway I can: to give a voice to the misunderstood, the ostracized, the oppressed…the underdog. So Facebook Memories are not always shameful.

Here is “Labels”:

One of my biggest fears/pet peeves is the idea of labels. That sounds pretty pathetic, I know. It really bothers me when people learn one thing about me then take it and run with it, making a judgment or simply assuming that they know me based on one detail. I think it’s lazy. I shouldn’t care, but I’m learning every day not to care as much as I did the day before. I try my best to avoid making these rash oversimplifications of other people’s identities. I take my time to figure out why a person is the way they are and to take them as they are in every moment (which also includes deciding if I want them in my space or not).

I remember watching that interview Raven Symone did with Oprah. You know the one where she says "I don't want to be labeled 'gay.' I want to be labeled 'a human who loves humans.'…I'm tired of being labeled.” Then she goes on to say "I'm an American. I'm not an African American; I'm an American." And we all collectively think the thought that has manifested on Oprah’s face, “You so damn dumb…”

Even as I sat in front of my screen, piqued and perplexed by her erasure of her blackness and queerness, I also remembered my own dislike of lazy labels. But then I had to ask myself: What is so bad about a label? Though labels have the power to separate, they also have the power to bring people together. This is evident both with those who are a part of the same groups as well as those a part of different ones. Some…damn...most labels themselves aren’t detrimental; however, the ignorant ideas that get attached to them are the detriments. So these harmful ideas associated with the labels have very little to do with the labelled but with the ignorance of the labelers.

Having said that, for quite some time I have felt as though I have not been my complete self out of fear of the ideas attached to certain labels with which identify. So here goes. For those of you who do not know (and for those of you who have been trying to guess and always had a feeling and wanted to ask but never did) I am indeed a gay man. BOOM! WHAAAATT? Crazy, right?

For what I would say 18 of my almost 24 years of life, I have felt pretty “different.” I remember when I was little I honestly didn’t see what the big deal about my differences were. I didn’t care! You can ask my family. I was a pretty unapologetic, lively, confident, and expressive child, but as one gets older, society begins to dictate what right and wrong, cool and uncool, acceptable and unacceptable, etc. You either conform or you rebel and be ostracized for it. I chose the former. I lost my magic, man! I became everything that everybody and they mama and papa wanted me to be, as I witnessed the persecution of the “rebels.” I’m also ashamed to say that sometimes I was a persecutor as well! When you are taught that “different” is a bad thing, you do what you can to avoid being the victim.

When you are in the early days of the masquerade, it’s easier to maintain, but you are never aware of how damaging it is until the growing pains set in. Feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and hopeless became overwhelming. I was confronted with the idea that my repression may result in my demise. I had to take the time to unlearn and relearn and accept who I am. “Hindsight is always 20/20,” and I started to see and feel all the pain, not only of my own but of others as well. All the people with sad faces and heavy spirits who abandoned their own ideas of life, success, happiness, love, joy and peace for contrived forms just for the “luxury” of normality. All the people that tried to end it all. All the people whose lives were cut short. All the people who in someway succumbed to the pressures of society.

I recently had a very in depth conversation with my grandmother during which I told her that I was gay, and her response was “…well…I wish you would have told me earlier, my man…it would have saved you a lot of pain…” When she said this I found myself laughing through my tears. Somehow, her response was what I expected; it was also very true.

For some time, I would wrestle with the idea of living and speaking my truth. “Don’t do this, Brandon. The world already has a reason (albeit an ignorant one) to hate you.” (You guessed it: my blackness.) However, I should not care if the realities of my existence and identity causes anyone else to find reasons to hate me. I’d rather be hated for what I am than loved for who I’m not. The raging storm of distress and loneliness within me over the past two decades is far worse to endure than any hate that I will receive because of my identity. I am so grateful for the support system I have found in my family and true friends. Even when some needed time to process and adjust, the love and support was always there. Y’all make it so much easier to maneuver through the hateful and bigoted ideologies of this world. Believe that.

I just want to live my life and own my “labels”:

Black

Artist

Musician

Gifted

Son

Brother

Friend

Gay

The list goes on and creates my ultimate label, Me…Brandon. I’m cool with that. This list will grow and change as I continue to grow and define the man that I am. I hope my life is an example for those who have ever felt the same way I have no matter their background or “label”. With all that I do, I want to give a voice to the misunderstood, the ostracized, the oppressed…the underdog. That is my purpose. We are loved. We matter. We are excellent. Our differences should be embraced.

I’m open to questions, love, hate, prayers and “prayers”…and whatever else. But I know that I love you all and am excited to grow with you!

youtube

1 note · View note

freedom-of-fanfic · 7 years

Link

I made an ‘about’ page. you can check it out at the link above. the contents are as follows:

What this blog is:

freedom-of-fanfic is an anti-harassment, anti-censorship blog focused on fandom spaces. It is focused on criticizing and deconstructing the current trend of using moral valuation as an excuse for intimidating fandom contributors into censoring themselves or leaving fandom.

The major points that come up over and over:

everything is permissible in fiction, whether it’s in ‘good taste’ or not

it is the responsibility of creators to tag and flag their content appropriately. it is the responsibility of consumers to blacklist and avoid content/content creators that will bother them or are not age-appropriate for them. (Caveat: current social media makes this difficult.)

nuance is important. there’s a balance between activism, awareness, and indulgence.

word definitions matter.

anti spaces (anti-shipper, anti-kink, anti-dark content) tend towards authoritarian thought patterns. they encourage black and white thinking, groupthink, isolation from all other points of view, and harassment of outsiders.

anti spaces tend toward exclusionist thought patterns. They encourage policing of others, identity/experience erasure, and gatekeeping content/resources.

harassment, death threats/suicide baiting, doxxing, assault, and slander/libel, whether directed at fanwork creators or people dedicated to tearing down fanwork creators, are never okay.

everyone is a fully formed human being with good sides and bad sides, and there is always value in considering another’s point of view, even if you reject their conclusions as harmful and false. (this blog spends a lot of time analyzing the conscious motivations and internal logic of antis.)

95% of the posts on this blog are long-winded text walls.

How this blog uses words:

anti-shippers: nice definition: fandom members who self-identify as being opposed to fandom interest in, discussion of, or depiction of romantic or sexual interaction between two or more characters on moral grounds and believe in stopping content creation by any means necessary.

in simpler terms: they don’t want the ship they oppose to have any fan content whatsoever because they believe it is harmful to the moral fiber of fandom spaces, and they’re willing to go to great lengths to stop creators from creating for it.

this blog’s take: fandom members who subconsciously use a person’s ships as an excuse to ostracize and bully them out of a need to assert control over part of their environment.

anti-shipping: nice definition: public opposition to fandom interest in, discussion of, or depiction of romantic or sexual interaction between two or more characters on moral grounds, up, and taking aggressive action to discourage content creation.

in simpler terms: the act of making public fandom spaces feel hostile to fan content/content creators for the ship they oppose via public venting, anonymous harassment, hostile reblogs of positive fan content, and worse.

this blog’s take: the act of subconsciously using morality and ‘safety’ as an excuse for controlling the actions of others by scaring them into submission.

antis: anti-kink, anti-dark content, and anti-shipping in aggregate. anti-shipping frequently features anti-kink and anti-dark content arguments (all ships they oppose are 'incest’, 'pedophilia’, or 'abusive’, by dint of twisting the meaning of these words to apply to whatever ship they want.)

anti culture/movement: the semi-organized, cult-like faction of fandom that isolates, indoctrinates, and radicalizes fandom members, encouraging them to attack and abuse others under the banner of making fandom 'safe’ again. The methodology is:

surface-reasonable arguments (you can’t support something only in fiction, that’s like people who like yaoi but hate gay people. so you can’t support incest in fiction without support incest in real life. right?) to draw in sympathetic ears,

removing dissenting voices ('uh that person ships incest, you should unfollow them.’) and

demanding members pass loyalty tests ('we’ve been mutuals for years, though, they’re a good person.’ 'you can’t be friends with an incest supporter!’),

changing word definitions ('incest is any ship where the characters say they have a family-like relationship, even if they’re not actually related’) and

delegitimatizing nuanced opposition ('if you get technical with me about it you’re just doing it to excuse how harmful you are. incest apologist!’),

leading naturally to dehumanization ('incest supporters are monsters who support sexual abuse, and people who ship incest are indistinguishable from them’) and

persecution of the hated group ('nasty shippers deserve to die’) and/or

persecution of anyone who doesn’t oppose the hated group with equally hostile aggression ('if you think it’s okay to 'ship and let ship’ you’re supporting incest and just as gross as incest shippers’).

exclusionist: anyone who supports excluding people from spaces meant to support underprivileged groups (feminist spaces, LGBT/queer spaces) because they’re not oppressed enough.

REG: Reactionary Exclusive Gatekeeping. Excluding people whose identities supposedly don’t get enough hate or aren’t different enough from cis/straight identities to need support from LGBT spaces - usually erased minority groups such as nb/ace/aro people.

radfems/TERF/SWERF: radical feminist groups whose core beliefs are: dfab people are brainwashed by misogyny/the patriarchy into not valuing themselves or their femininity, and dmab people are inherently exploitative and dangerous to dfab people.

SWERFs: radfem group who believes dfab people are brainwashed into and exploited by doing or enjoying certain things, such as being attracted to/being in relationships with dmab people, not being attracted to fellow dfab people, enjoying kinky sex/relationships, getting into sex work, getting turned on by fictional depictions of things that would harm them irl, consuming porn, consuming m/m content, etc.

TERFs: radfem group who believes dfab people are all women and dfab people are the only people who can ever be women. Trans men and all dfab-nb/generqueer/agender people are women who have been brainwashed into rejecting their femininity. Trans women are men seeking to infiltrate women-only spaces.

This blog’s take: antis borrow a lot of arguments from radfems about how dfab people in fandom are self-harming by enjoying 'bad’ ships and nsfw fanworks and don’t know what’s best for them, though they tend to take a 'and that makes them nasty’ twist to it.

I think this covers the major things. I’ll add more on request or if I think of more.

#incest mention

38 notes · View notes

nangbaby · 5 years

Text

More Bigoted Nonsense

There was an awful post I tried to reblog, but couldn’t for some reason. The original post is too long and contains too many points to refute, so I’ll stick with the middle section for my sanity.

it gets even messier when you bring up the idea of a highly sexual or sex-addicted asexual. in recent years, there appears to have been a split between the concept of sexual attraction and the act of having sex. and while, yes, you can have sex with someone without being attracted to them, this has been taken to an extreme in the ace community. meaning, technically, a self-identified asexual could have a high libido, masturbate, fantasize about having sex, want to have sex with a specific other person for recreational purposes, actually have sex with said person, enjoy it, and still be a valid asexual.

the question then becomes, if an ace person can do all of these things and still be asexual, where is the line drawn? what is the exact criteria for being ace outside of saying that you are one? what is the fundamental difference between an asexual and an “””allosexual”””? and most importantly, how can a system of oppression exist for a group that could, by this definition, include literally anyone?

The problem with this line of questioning is that it uses performative behavior to determine identity.

Sexual orientation is not like race, which is permanently imposed on an individual without any choice through physical markers. It is something that someone discovers internally that can, but not necessarily, manifest itself in terms of behavior.

Actually, anyone can claim to be any sexuality; sexual identity is fundamentally an identity of self-determination because it is based on attraction, and practically only the self can really know if one is attracted to someone or not.

If you start claiming asexuality cannot be defined because asexuals have sex and the definition is too all encompassing, then what about men who are bisexual but only have sex with women despite being attracted to women and men? What about women who are lesbians but have only had sex with men? Claiming that asexuality must be valid if and only if one isn’t having sex is veering close to “it’s not rape if you like it” territory of divorcing the issue (attraction in the case of asexuality; consent in the case of rape) from the act. If you accept that performance is separate from identity, then it’s easier to accept that sexual attraction is separate from actual sex.

if asexuality is a spectrum, and asexuality is an ostracized, “queer” identity, this implies that there is a “normal” amount of sex a person should be having to be accepted by a society that allegedly oppresses asexuals. so, where is this normal? exactly how little sex should a person be having before they are considered asexual? how on earth is a cis person who only has sex with the opposite binary gender after developing an emotional bond any “queerer” than any other cishet?

Again, you seem to be insisting that “asexual” means “not having sex.” You’re actually making a good argument that celibacy and abstinence are discriminated against in a post-sexual revolution society, issues that while related to asexuality, are distinct.

But even with this assertion, the funny thing is you answered this very rhetorical question in the next point.

society wants us to have sex, but only a very specific kind of sex, that being conventional sex between a cisgender man and a cisgender woman.

Anyone who is NOT in that group or declares themselves to be not part of that group is marginalized. Simple. The “not having sex” people are included in this. Society excludes; you as the marginalized party can’t force it to include those it has excluded and defined as yours.

to imply that a gay person has institutional power over a person who doesn’t have sex is to blindly disregard the history of homophobia and the body count it has left behind.

And again, like many activists, you ignore one of the basic rules of power, privileges, and “isms.”

Institutional power...is variable based on environment.

This is a very basic tenet that people gloss over. Take for example, a beauty parlor staffed by mostly women and only a few men. Outside the beauty parlor, women are societally oppressed and victims of sexism. However, inside the beauty parlor, those same women are the ones in power; thus if they discriminate against men inside the parlor, then yes, women can be sexist because they hold the power.

When you form a community, you also create power within that community. By excluding people from the community you wield power against them. In the case of those engage in “conventional sex between a cisgender man and a cisgender woman” (which actually can include those who experience same-gender attraction) this can be argued as a necessary evil; you have to take power from those who oppress you. But for someone “who doesn’t have sex” and is not part of the “conventional” this person is abused by the “conventionals” (again, your term) and the gay person with power of the LGBT institution.

You’re not punching up. You’re punching down. That’s what oppressors do. Be better.

0 notes

closedspeciesdrama · 7 years

Note

"for being cis (even though I am pansexual)" hun... i dont think you know what cis means..

Why is everyone so triggered over gender/sexuality/whatever? Just be happy with yourselves, respect others and move on. If seeing some “hetero-related” thing on the internet brings your world down you should probably seek counseling. There’s a lot more awful aspects that need to be pointed out in closed species communities and ya’ll are going into war over the pettiest assumptions ever. Stop taking things out of context just to feel offended

is cis/hetrphobia drama really happening on this blog oh my god. cis/hetrophobia doesn’t exist, y'all just mad when a queer person tells u ur being rude. suck it up.

Even if they did have gender pronouns, I doubt they specified if those two were cis or not? Not every couple who identifies as female or male are cis lmao, maybe one or both of them were trans. Cael projected really hard with this whole thing, way to make assumptions and be intolerant eh?

Cael is just always stirring up drama in closed species. GOD FORBID should some imaginary creatures have an npc portrayed as straight. There are plenty of people in the bagbean community who are LGBT+ who didn’t take offense…Cael just needs to stop being a god damn shit stirer.

“Short for cis-gendered, meaning someone who identifies with the sex they were born as.” I do know what this means. I also know what pansexual means. But thank you for your concern.

Hey mod can we stop accepting asks about the heterophobia existing/ not existing debacle? Not trying to be rude, I just don’t see this ending at all seeing as half of tumblr is on fire bc of this debacle as is. Sorry for not being cs related

Suck it up anon: read a little more into the situation before opening your mouth & letting that garbage fall out. I wouldn’t call it a phobia but cis people get shit on just like LGBT do & it doesn’t make it right either way. Your sexuality doesn’t make your argument anymore valid than anyone else’s. Assholes come from all backgrounds. Being gay/trans or even cis doesn’t magically give you a halo and absolve you from being a mega cunt to people, no matter how you’ve been treated in the past.

Cael lets try something - “lets be honest, Caels designed it and all of their pairings are gay so the intention is really clearly a gay couple. plus they look like stolen colors people have used 100s of times, just in CS form. yes this cs have no gender, but that doesn’t make them immune from looking like a stereotype to me or strict gender roles to me, sorry. plus i dont have proof but i’m still right. Gay couple GUH” also fwi Kandy has gay couples, mod let me know if you want proof

am i the only one who thinks that cael was just bringing up something they were upset with? like, i feel like you all are taking this way too seriously

jesus. i come to check csdrama and it’s entire front page is nothing but unrelated asks about gender and orientation? uh? where’s the relation to cs???

hey i hate to add to this maelstrom that is the gender/sexuality issue but; oh yeah i bet those cishets struggle real hard doing things like, idk. adopting, getting married, getting/maintaining jobs. definitely bet you’ve had to deal with being ostracized by your families, physically and emotionally abused because of your gender/sexuality, or murdered because of it! miss me with that, you don’t know what discrimination is. mean words online are nothing. try living in fear in your every day life.

why is everyone so defensive heterophobia is fake and lgbt people are allowed to hate their oppressors? you can talk about a general group of people too like "straight people" or "white people" and as long as you understand there's exceptions that aren't horrible you can have a general dislike for the group of people who's responsible for oppression. griff directly has said otherwise regarding lgbt people, and so have many people on this blog. i can provide screenshots for griff (1/2)(2/2) and when I get to my computer, you will get some screenshots about griff. Just because I don't have proof once doesn't mean I won't next time around. -Cael (logged out on mobile)

All together now! -pet

Proof is always wanted -petCurious, would you rather we delete these asks or keep putting them in one post? -pet

1 note · View note

gothhabiba · 7 years

Note

i'm anon from yesterday. so this (ostensibly white) trans man, who is rather popular at my school and in my social circles, posted online the other day about how its unfair that BLM is so well-known in america because what about lgbt people, etc. ->

and that he wishes there could be a similar movement for other marginalized groups. he literally said “not to sound all ‘white tears’, but don’t all lives matter?” I said that his argument sounded antiblack (I am also white) and that there have been plenty of popular movement for lgbt people, and that generally speaking white lgbt activists are better received than BLM is. I pointed out that his comment was indistinguishable from “white tears”. this made him really mad and he said he has native heritage and that it was wrong of me to speak over him as a person of color. however neither myself nor any of my friends have ever heard him talk about being native, he’s from a place where the heritage he’s claiming doesn’t really make sense, and he’s always (for lack of a better term) culturally signified himself as white. anyway so I said I was sorry, I didn’t realize he was a person of color but that he and I both had a stake in antiblackness. he then blocked meand now the rest of the social group (it’s 99% white) has ostracized me. my partner follows the guy on tumblr still and I guess he tags with an “I’m white” tag. I’m just confused, it feels like he’s lying but I don’t want to be an asshole? anyway tl;dr my questions for you are, was what I said wrong? should I try to talk to the others in the group at school to see if they understand? they aren’t my only friends but its rough not being able to go to my school’s GSA/etc.

so first of all, I’m sorry that you’ve (at least temporarily) lost a space because of this–that sounds rough and you don’t deserve it just for speaking out about something

secondly, nothing that you said was wrong. there’s a very real history of nonblack people resenting activist movements for focusing on Black people, even when those movements were built by Black people and even when the people in those movements do very much advocate for other oppressed groups. a lot of people ignore the fact that, if pro-black organisations are widespread or well-known or get a lot done, it’s because Black people have worked & organised & advocated for themselves in order to get every bit of that attention (and, as I think you pointed out, it’s not always positive attention). people just want to sit back and allow black people (& usually black women) to do labour for them, without advocating for black people in return and without advocating for themselves. they want their causes to just, somehow, be recognised, without putting in any work. it’s antiblackness & it’s entitlement.

it also ignores the fact that, again, BLM does advocate for LGBT people. 2/3 of the founders of BLM are non-straight women, & many members and supporters are LGBT (”The character of the folks that we were bringing out I think was really important in terms of having a group that was significantly women, significantly queer, having Black transgender people in the space. And that’s possible because of them and the national team that they built up around them.”). in fact, just in general, Black people & people of colour more broadly are more likely to be LGBT. I’m not going to get into the long & sordid history of white supremacy and colonialism and how they’ve shaped and imposed narratives of gender and sexuality onto nonwhite peoples up until the present day, but suffice it to say that you obviously can’t divide movements up into “Black people” and “LGBT people” as if there isn’t significant overlap, and as if people of colour’s genders & sexualities aren’t figured in ways that are often closely tied to our racialisation.

honestly anyone who says “all lives matter” might be too far gone, but I do hope that you can talk to some other people in the group about this away from him. there’s a definite trend of white people conveniently only bringing up native heritage in order to deflect from accusations of racism (as if indigineity were only about blood, lmao) but I can appreciate why it might be sticky for you as a white person to bring that up in that kind of climate–regardless, he certainly is capable of being antiblack, & if you’re going to try to explain anything that’s what I’d focus on.

I know I’ve read critiques of the exploitation of Black people’s political work specfically but I can’t find anything in my tags– perhaps some of my followers can help? regardless, something similar applies to culture & black creativity more broadly:

Social media has exacerbated the idea that blackness is common property, a public good that must be shared and consumed by everyone. A public good to be profited off of — unless you’re actually black. Black people shouldn’t own anything. Nothing belongs to us — not even what we produce and invent. Not even our experience, our existence. Everything ours is yours (is there even such as thing as “ours”?). Blackness is constantly flied over by vultures, under threat of being decomposed, consumed and annihilated. When we do claim ownership, we are told we are venal, greedy. When we refuse this looting of our identity, experience and culture we are selfish and capricious. (Fanta Sylvia, WOC vs. Black Women)

so basically I’d suggest searching for related information on online & trying to bring this up once or twice more if that’s what you want to do, but if people are being resistant to it there’s not much that you can do about it. regardless, I’m glad that you at least have other friends outside of this group & I hope that this toerag sees the light eventually

#Najia talks to people on the internet #Anonymous #questions #long post /

22 notes · View notes