still-a-valid-ace

[still-a-valid-ace]

Image Description: The "I bring a sort of X vibe to X that X don't really like" edited to say "I bring a sort of all these rules are made up vibe to sexuality and gender that exclusionists don't really like"

[still-a-valid-ace]

Just so like... it's clear... anyone who censors words that contain "man" or "men" to anything like "xxn" that's TERF shit.

Any reference to women/womanhood that solely revolves around having a uterus or "womb" is TERF shit.

Any sentence where the OP says they support people being "trans identified" with quotes around ""transwomen"" or ""transmen"" is TERF shit.

I'm seeing a lot of you baby Tumblr gays out there not knowing what these specific TERF dogwhistles look like.

"Wombxxn" is an incredibly dumb way of spelling "woman" that treats the word "man" like a slur and also reduces women to their ability to give birth.

"Trans identified" is their way of saying "this person calls themselves trans, but I don't believe they are."

Saying "People should be allowed to identify however they wish, but we still need to protect women/children" IS TERF SHIT.

Learn to identify this garbage, because not all TERFs are going to spell out their intolerance for you. Some of them are going to try and seem reasonable and polite and normal, and it's fucking dangerous to our community.

Also unpack any internalized transphobia and your transmedicalism, because both those things will have you quickly siding with TERFs and bigots.

[still-a-valid-ace]

Unpopular (?) opinion:

When I was young and wondering why I hadn't experienced a crush yet, the internet said I was probably just a late bloomer. They urged me not to identify as aroace because I could change my mind later on.

And looking back, like… so?

If I had been a late bloomer, who cares?

I was 13. I felt comfort in the aroace community. I didn’t feel like a weirdo for once in my life, surrounded by people who were like me. But I was urged to not join these communities until I became an adult in case I changed my mind about being ace. So I didn’t. And I paid for that.

Who cares? If you’re young and feel like you’re aroace, then you’re aroace. If you “change your mind” later, it’s okay. No one is going to be born and know themselves 100%. I genuinely thought I was alloromantic once, but now know I’m not.

Speaking from experience, I would rather have kids be “wrong” about their sexuality than feel like they have no place of belonging.

We shouldn’t gatekeep aroace folk because of their age. It hurts. It makes kids feel like they are the freaks society tells them they are.

[still-a-valid-ace]

The way that exclusionists treat ace and aro people often reminds me of how the average person would treat me when I started being open as non-binary. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it a thousand times, we are not enemies. Our experiences do not oppose each other, they are intertwined. If you’re ace, if you’re aromantic, if you’re any variation thereupon; your home is here. You belong here, too. You are beautiful, and powerful; and you don’t have to explain yourself to anyone. You are a valued part of this community.

[still-a-valid-ace]

just want to see a thing. reblog for more data.

[still-a-valid-ace]

nothing has been more important to my being queer than when i went to my first pride parade, got seperated from my group, had a panic attack about it and was sitting on the side of the road holding a tiny genderfluid flag and freaking out. then this six foot five drag queen in four inch heels appeared from literally nowhere and sat down next to me. i, this scared-shitless trans bi kid at pride for the first time, very nervously told her she looked pretty and i told her my name and that i got lost and didn't feel like i should be at pride and she held my hand and said "oh, honey, everybody deserves to be here, especially you. pride is for everybody who's ever gotten lost, who's been scared of who they are or where they are. you think we never been scared before? pride's for you, honey, because you're scared. you don't have to be proud right now, but you're gonna be one day, honey, i'm sure of it."

i found my group soon after that and i never saw that queen again but to this day i am convinced i met an angel.

[still-a-valid-ace]

If you've got 5 minutes to spare, could I interest you in a short survey about titles? Everyone of any age, gender or location is invited, and it's open until at least Monday 14th August 2023.

You can see a spreadsheet of participation (including a little bit of demographic data) here.

Thank you!

[still-a-valid-ace]

was thinking about infighting and like. they all see us the same. from the wildest queerest fagdyke to a cis gay guy. we are the same to them. the weird queers are not like. ruining your precious community. we're a part of it

[still-a-valid-ace]

When you live life as a woman, society teaches you that your worth stems from how attractive you are to others.

If you’re sapphic - if your identity is based around being a woman who is primarily attracted to other women - it makes sense for your ideal world to be one without men. You might not consider men to be an important or necessary part of your life because, at the end of the day, your community and relationships are centered around women.

Being transmasc and suddenly losing the community that you had as a woman can be painful. Suddenly, because you are now viewed as a man, you are no longer seen as desirable, and thus lose your worth in the eyes of those people. Suddenly, because you are a man, you are viewed as someone dangerous, someone who cannot be trusted.

People of all kinds back off from you: straight men, because you are no longer a potential object of attraction; straight women, because they think there is a risk of you being attracted to them and so you are viewed as a potential perpetrator; lesbians, for both reasons.

Amatonormativity and heteronormativity play a role in this because it is both assumed that everyone desires a relationship, and that everyone is straight. Being aromantic and asexual, it’s frustrating to be placed into a role that doesn’t even apply to you. When you’re even remotely friendly to someone of the opposite gender, your actions are misinterpreted to be romantic by people who view you through the lens of being cis and allo. Others see you as a creep when you don’t even think of them or their bodies in the way that they think you do.

People who know nothing about you will ignore your sexuality and lived experiences to focus on the fact that in this moment, you are a man.

If you’re someone who thinks, “all men are shit except for my trans friends/gay friends/my current partner,” you still have some work to do. Because there are men you will come across who are trans, and you’ll have no idea. There are people who will look like men but are actually transfem or nonbinary or masculine women, and you’ll have no idea.

It’s unfair to determine whether you will treat someone with respect or not based on their gender alone. You cannot know someone’s personality or experiences just by looking at them. It’s unfair to treat someone as if they’re some sort of insentient creature who can only ever act a certain way, just because they’re a different gender than you.

[still-a-valid-ace]

I will always advocate for every queer person's right to be a fully autonomous sexual being-and that always must and always will include asexuals. Recognizing the significance of queer sex should not mean that every queer person should be mandated to meet an arbitrary sexual prerequisite in order for their queerness to be affirmed. Centering queerness around sex leaves very little room for queer folks for whom sex is insignificant, or for whom sex is never or rarely possible, or for queer folks who have never had sex before, or for queer folks whose only sexual experiences have been violent. It also leaves a lot of queer people, especially young ones, feeling pressured to have a certain amount or certain type of sex in order to legitimate or prove their queerness to themselves or to someone else.

-Sherronda J. Brown, Refusing compulsory sexuality: A Black Asexual Lens on Our Sex-Obsessed Culture

[still-a-valid-ace]

pls give me 1(one) reason aces have ever been oppressed, and 1(one) example of aces being a part of lgbt history(before 2004 at least) and then maybe i’ll consider the idea that aces belong in the lgbt community lol

[still-a-valid-ace]

Happy Pride Month to ALL LGBTQ/MOGAI peoples!!!

Pan lesbian flag by @bi-lesbian :>

[still-a-valid-ace]

I think too often, people's definition of "good-faith [queer] identity" is "anything which doesn't make me uncomfortable" and honestly, nowhere in any sense of good-faith identity does it require your personal approval.

I've said this theme again and again, but I say it because it's important. When we ostracize people on something trivial like personal comfort rather than somebody's actions or behaviour, it will never bode well for you. The foot is in the door for the target to be thrown your way, even if you think you're safe. Queer people aren't safe in queerphobic society; therefore, we must protect and defend each other. The sooner this is recognized, the sooner we can make a safer world for us.

[still-a-valid-ace]

hot take but I think the "we're only talking about people who identify as queer when we talk about the queer community" thing was and is one of the worst arguments in defense of the word.

I am talking about you when I say "the queer community", and "queer people", and "queer studies". I'm describing a thing that a large group of people have in common, and you share that thing in common. Your individual comfort with the word doesn't change the definition of it.

I'm sorry you don't like that word. You don't ever have to call yourself that, and you don't have to like it, and I won't ever call you that if you don't want me to.

What I am going to do, however, is decide what language I use based on A) how inclusive it is, and B) how well it communicates my point to the relevant audience.

"Inclusive" here is an important criteria; this refers to the number of people who should be included, that are included, ideally without some kind of weird hierarchy (like we see in "LGBT+" and variations). The technical definition is what we're talking about here- putting personal comfort aside, could the word "queer" describe you?

There will always be someone who doesn't like a particular word for themselves- even if it could apply. Lots of people don't like "LGBT+" (I don't really), even if it technically applies to them. You're not more important than they are.

You can identify one way on a personal level, and still understand that when we're discussing the larger community of people and the histories attached to it, you're included in that- even if you don't personally identify with the specific word we're using. Your story, your voice, and your presence matters.

Y'all need to learn to distinguish "broad term for an experience I share with others" from "personal identity label I use to describe my individual experience to others". ASAP.

[still-a-valid-ace]

Happy pride to my aro aces, my gay aces, bi aces, straight aces, my trans aces, cis aces, grey aces, sex repulsed aces, sex neutral aces, sex positive aces, my boy aces, my girl aces, non-binary aces, young aces, old aces, closeted aces, recently self discovered aces, loud and proud aces, literally wherever you fall on the ace spectrum happy pride!!

[still-a-valid-ace]

happy pride month to asexuals and aromantics and everything in between. i want each and everyone of you to know that you are loved and cherished by the community even though there are some who try to diminish us. you are a valued, important, and valid part of the lgbtqia+ community. thank you for simply existing this pride 🏳️‍🌈🖤🤍💜🖤🤍💚

[still-a-valid-ace]

So what I’ve learned from the past couple months of being really loud about being a bi woman on Tumblr is: A lot of young/new LGBT+ people on this site do not understand that some of the stuff they’re saying comes across to other LGBT+ people as offensive, aggressive, or threatening. And when they actually find out the history and context, a lot of them go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry, I never meant to say that.”

Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like… oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”

So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it. 

That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and  unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender. 

When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.

And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.

But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and…” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.

But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”

And that? That gives me hope for the future.