#(also there's probably people identifying as bi lesbian for reasons other than that which is also valid | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

orkbutch · 5 months

Text

So I've been seeing A Viewpoint within the bg3 fandom occuring. And I gotta be honest. I disagree that the characters being bisexual in Baldur's Gate 3 means you cannot headcanon them as other sexualities for your own fandom content purposes. I think that's not reflective of how queer people and their sexual identities actually work, and its just antithetical to how fandom has always functioned, which is an exercise of imagination. I wanna clarify up front: I agree that someone saying that a character Can't or Shouldn't or Was Not Meant To Be bisexual because of whatever reason IS biphobic sentiment. The characters in Baldur's Gate 3 are canonically bi/pan, thats made pretty damn clear when you look through all their content. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about headcanons, au's; the kind of imaginitve play that is very much what fandom creativity is about. If you set a standard in fandom that depicting a character as a certain sexuality is Not Allowed, 1. you're kinda flattening sexuality in a weird way, like personally my sexuality is complicated as fuck and has changed over time, and 2. you're limiting creativity. And I think creativity in fandom is extremely important. It's the whole fun of fandom. Creativity is worth protecting and its worth establishing the nuance between Depicting A Version of Character who is X and Insisting That Character Should Be X in canon. Because like... we meddle with character's identities in fandom all the time. That's what headcanons ARE, they change appearance, social position, career, faith, species, traumatic experience, moral and political alignment, and SO much more. I think limiting what people can headcanon within fandom... is less fun! It's just less fun. Imaginative scope lets you do more, weird fun stuff. It lets you depict more complex interesting characters. Example: my Bad Nun AU. In that, Shadowheart identifies as a lesbian. Why is that? Because I wanted Shadowheart's experience within Bad Nun to specifically explore the history and context of lesbians within nunneries, especially how that manifested post Vatican II. These were also eras when 'lesbian' was more ubiquitos, had a different context and more flexibility; a lot of women that would probably consider themselves 'bisexual' now were identifying as lesbians, were in lesbian communities and events and spaces.

On that note: Flattening sexuality. You're gonna say people CANNOT depict these characters as ANYTHING but bisexual? That is not how most queer people's sexualities work. It simply isn't. I've identified as tons of different shit in my sexuality. I'm still not sure about it. For me half the time my "sexual identity" is just the words I use to communicate what I'm looking for, and that changes depends on What I Want at that time, what I'm looking to explore, my social context, ect. ect. like what. This isn't how sexuality works for real people. How are artists meant to be Creative and imaginatively depict real, complex, queer sexuality if they are restricted to depicting only what is within canon?? This is not how any other part of fandom works. Fandom art should work how all art works. If someone makes shit art, it gets dunked on and ignored for being bad or lazy or lame. If someone did Heterosexual Karlach fanfic, I would be like "what the fuck why" because they made Karlach less fucking cool. Het Karlach would be boring and thats More Egregious because they DECIDED to make her heterosexual DESPITE canon. But even then, EVEN THEN, I don't think that should be looked at as off limits shit, because I don't believe art should have many things off limits. Any limits must be very nuanced, because art and creativity is nuanced. Obviously my brain would go "het karlach? you deserve jail time and thats queerphobic", but I honestly believe creative license is more important than those feelings. I WOULD happily comment on their thing, "heterosexual karlach is boring, thats a shit idea" because I'm right

If you want good art and good writing, you need to protext creative license.

#bg3 #I think I'll get shit for this but. I'm right lol

102 notes · View notes

gay-otlc · 1 year

Note

hi honest sincere question how can a man be a lesbian? can amab men be lesbians?

Hi! Thanks for asking respectfully. I am going to answer your question in significantly more detail than you probably wanted. Be warned.

The main reason I think men can be lesbians is: I think people can use whatever words they think most accurately describe their identity and/or experience. These words might not necessarily be words that they are, but still words that they use to describe themselves.

Lesbian does have a lot of feminine connotations, and can cause dysphoria for many men, so men who use both terms have often put a lot of thought into it. I might not understand their reasons, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

You don't need to understand to be respectful, but if you're curious, here is an explanation of why some men choose to identify as lesbians. This got so long that I'm dividing it with subtitles. I'm so sorry if you didn't want to read all this.

Lesbian Trans Men

Men who identify as lesbians tend to be trans men. Of course, wanting to use the label lesbian is a minority of trans men who like women! Definitely don't assume all trans mlw are comfortable being called a lesbian, or call a trans man a lesbian without permission.

At least for me, labels describe how I feel in the present but also the way I have experienced gender and attraction throughout my life. Right now I'm a man who's attracted to women, but at lunch today I was talking about how it felt in middle school to be a "girl" who liked girls, and I used the word lesbian to communicate that.

Trans men who have spent a very long time identifying as a lesbian and being a part of the lesbian community, often decades, might continue using the label lesbian after transitioning. If a trans man feels like he spent his life as a lesbian rather than a straight man, the former might feel most accurate to describe his experience.

Trans men might also identify as lesbian due to being in the closet. Internally, I feel more like a straight man, but that's not really how I'm seen by the rest of the world. I'm out to a few close friends offline, but pretty much all my other classmates or teachers or relatives or acquaintances think of me as a woman.

If I called myself straight, that would most likely be interpreted as me being a straight woman. I'm open about liking women, though, which means I would either have to be out as lesbian or bi. I definitely shouldn't call myself bi, because I'm not attracted to multiple genders. So, I go with lesbian. It's not the perfect label, but it gets the point across. (The point being "I think women are hot.")

Male =/= Solely, Always, Exclusively Male

Men who are lesbians are not always exclusively men. Multigender people exist! I'm one of them. If someone is bigender with those genders being a man and a woman, and they're attracted to women, I don't think it really makes sense to say that they can't be a lesbian.

I'm assuming you (anon) support nonbinary lesbians, since that's the general trend I've noticed among those who are trans-inclusive but don't understand male lesbians. Some nonbinary people will also identify as men. If nonbinary people can be lesbians, nonbinary men can be lesbians.

A genderfluid person might sometimes be a man and sometimes be another gender(s) that are more commonly included in lesbianism, and like women, and use both labels.

This could apply to anyone regardless of assigned gender, so those are some examples of how a man assigned male at birth could be a lesbian.

AMAB Male Lesbians

As for whether men who were AMAB can be lesbians... yes, but I want to clarify that not just any cis man should go "lol I'm a lesbian" because it's funny. Someone would need to put thought into why the feel like lesbian is the best label for them.

In the case of a man who was AMAB, they would probably feel like lesbian is a good descriptor due to having a complex relationship with their gender. Being genderqueer and being an AMAB man or AFAB woman are not mutually exclusive.

Gender Non Conformity

There's a type of identity that I believe is referred to as a cusp identity, or something like that? It is where someone might blur the line or exist in the grey area between two different identities with an overlap in a lot of experiences.

There might be someone who is on the cusp right between being a trans woman and an extremely gender nonconforming man. They might not be sure which one they fall into, or feel like they exist right in the middle. This person might identify simultaneously as or right between "lesbian trans woman" and "feminine presenting cishet man."

There are also some people who identify with their assigned gender, but pursue medical transition in a way typically associated with a different gender. I have a friend who identifies fully as a cis woman, but thinks she might want to get bottom surgery. It's a type of gender nonconformity, you know?

I don't know anyone who's had this experience in reverse, but it's definitely possible. I'm sure there's a cis man out there somewhere who has or wants to medically transition to "female." And I think it would make sense if this hypothetical person wanted to identify as a lesbian.

Trans Women

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying trans women are men. They aren't. (Unless they're multigender, which is cool.) But monogender trans women aren't men, and definitely should not be misgendered.

Similar to how a straight trans man might be closeted and call himself a lesbian, a lesbian trans woman might be closeted and call herself a man. Again, this lesbian trans woman wouldn't be a man. However, a she might refer to herself as a man to stay safe, or just because she's not comfortable being out yet, but might also refer to herself as a lesbian online or around a few people she's close with. She's not actually a lesbian man, but using both labels would still be enough to get cancelled by those violently against male lesbians.

Some trans women might also still be eggs (not yet realize they're trans). I know that prior to coming out as trans, some gay trans people have said something like "I'm a man, but I want to be in a lesbian relationship" or "I'm a girl and I love reading mlm fanfiction, I like to imagine myself as one of the characters." A trans woman just beginning to explore gender could identify or want to identify with being a lesbian, while still not fully realizing she's not a man. Again- not actually a man, but someone who might use both labels.

Arguments Against Lesbian Men

Now, I know there are a lot of reasons this is controversial, and some of them are even in good faith. However, they are still misguided.

"It's Misgendering Trans Men"

Many people are opposed to trans men being lesbians because they're trans men and would feel dysphoric if called a lesbian, or are an ally and don't want trans men to be misgendered.

That's a very understandable concern, but see my earlier note about not calling a trans man a lesbian without permission.

Trans men aren't a monolith, and everyone's comfortable with different things. Some trans men are comfortable wearing dresses and some trans men are comfortable being called "sis" or "queen" or something, but many aren't, and that's all okay!

I think people just need to be clear that even though some trans men are okay with this, it doesn't apply to all trans men.

"Cishet Men Will Pretend To Be Lesbians"

Another reason people are against male lesbians is because they're concerned cis straight men will call themselves lesbians for no reason other than they think it's funny, or they want to make lesbians uncomfortable. Which I agree; that's shitty, and they shouldn't do that.

But I feel like most of the time, they do make it pretty clear they don't genuinely identify as a lesbian. People with complex or contradicting identities generally understand that their labels don't make a lot of sense at first glance, so they tend to offer a short explanation. They have no obligation to go on and on defending their right to exist, but a sentence or two is good and most people are totally willing to provide that.

I've had friends ask about me being both a trans man and a lesbian, and I've given a short explanation, and it works! Because they aren't assholes! The main one that comes to mind happened shortly after I told my best friend I was changing my name, and it went something like this.

Me, after seeing a pretty girl: Oh my god, I'm so gay for her. Friend: Do you still identify as gay? I thought you might want to be called straight now, since you're a trans guy. Me: I'm, like, both a man and a woman? So lesbian and straight man are both fine with me. Friend: Okay, cool. Let me know if you decide you don't want to be called lesbian anymore since I don't want to make you feel dysphoric.

And then that was it! It wasn't a big deal. With just a short conversation, I established that I was a lesbian man because I'm bigender and not because I'm just saying it for the lols.

I do understand the desire to stop cishet men from making lesbian jokes, but the thing is, there's no reliable way to do so that won't also end up harming some queer people. I mean, TERFs argue that trans women can't be lesbians because then what's to stop a straight man from invading the lesbian community by falsely claiming he's a trans woman, you know? But just because some people might abuse other queer peoples' genuine identity, doesn't mean no one can use that identity.

"They're Invading Lesbian Spaces"

Those against male lesbians are trying to stop men from invading lesbian spaces. While I agree that lesbian spaces should be for lesbians, and I think it's wrong for people to attend an all-lesbian support group or something if they know they're not a lesbian, I also know I can't stop them.

What are we supposed to do, go around forcing everyone there to prove they are a Real Actual Lesbian? Who decides what a Real Actual Lesbian is? How do we verify if people are telling the truth on the questions asked to prove Real Actual Lesbian? Keeping 100% of non lesbians out of lesbian spaces just isn't a feasible goal and it's not fair to make everyone prove their identity like that.

If someone in a lesbian safe space is causing any harm to others, they should be kicked out, but this applies even if they are a Real Actual Lesbian. Lesbians are perfectly capable of hurting other lesbians and being a lesbian doesn't give them a free pass to get out of consequences.

Male Lesbians Are Rapists

An extension of the "invading lesbian spaces" arguments is that lesbian men are forcing or pressuring lesbians to date or sleep with men.

However, lesbian men don't necessarily expect or even want other lesbians to be attracted to them. Lesbians don't have to be attracted to every other lesbian in the world! Sometimes, people don't find another person attractive, and that's fine. Sometimes, people are not attracted to a certain gender, and someone of that gender being a lesbian won't change that.

I'm not attracted to nonbinary people, and there are plenty of nonbinary lesbians, and I'm not attracted to them. Which is fine! Them being lesbians doesn't mean I have to be attracted to them, and me not being attracted to them doesn't make them not lesbians. Accepting someone as their identity doesn't mean you have to find them attractive.

I might be attracted to a lesbian and ask her out, and she might respond "Sorry, I'm not attracted to men and since you're bigender I wouldn't be comfortable sleeping with you."

What I would not say: "But I'm a lesbian! You accepted me into your lesbian safe space, which means you have to sleep with me. Checkmate."

What I would say: "I understand, have a nice day."

In the above scenario, if someone in that situation refused to accept that the lesbian woman wasn't attracted to them, that would be shitty no matter what. It would be shitty if that person was a male lesbian, and it would be shitty if that person was a cis woman. Because it is shitty to not respect people's boundaries.

This isn't something only lesbian men are capable of doing. Most lesbian men are perfectly respectful people who would not rape anyone, and if they do? They're shitty, but they're not shitty because they're a lesbian man. They're shitty because they're a rapist.

Claiming that someone would lie about their gender identity to rape people is entry-level transphobia. You cannot believe "male lesbians are just lying so they can rape lesbians" and then call yourself a trans ally. They are mutually exclusive.

Political Lesbianism

Finally, this argument is derived from TERF rhetoric. If you're not familiar with political lesbianism, it's a radical feminist ideology that can be summarized by "don't date or fuck men." Being a lesbian was a feminist choice that wasn't necessarily about attraction to women, but about not being involved with men. This sounds quite a lot like the common lesbian definition used against male lesbians; "non men loving non men." A major component of TERFism is trying to keep men (or those they believe to be men) away from women's/lesbian spaces, and including trans women doesn't change the fact that the ideologies stem from the exact same place. There have been anti male lesbian posts that genuinely sound exactly like a TERF wrote them, which is pretty telling. If you're violently against any men ever being lesbians, odds are you've been drinking the TERF juice, and you probably need to unpack that.

Conclusion

This is ridiculously long and I have been writing it for the last two and a half hours. I am very thankful and also kind of apologetic to anyone who just read every single word I vomited out.

Basically, even if you disagree with someone using both "man" and "lesbian" to label themself, I would recommend leaving them alone. They're describing their identity in the way that works best for them, and they're not hurting anyone. You don't need to like their identity, and you definitely don't need to understand it, but you do need to be respectful. It costs $0 to not be an asshole.

If you're considering telling a lesbian man their identity is invalid, take my advice and simply... don't do that. There are so many other things you could do with your time.

The queer community has a lot of problems. The world in general has even more problems. In the grand scheme of things, someone identifying as a male lesbian literally does not matter.

That's finally all, thanks for reading.

#anon i am so fucking sorry you did NOT sign up for this monster of an essay #rip #also to clarify most of the time when i said you i wasn't talking to anon specifically #just a general you #i know it's confusing so yeah wanted to make sure that was clear #lesbian trans men #lesbian men #male lesbian #multigender lesbian #idk what other things i should tag #lesbian #pride tag #okay i will shut up now

159 notes · View notes

cinemaocd · 9 months

Text

this is probably going to be long

OK, I lived through the AIDS crisis. I was a young person questioning my sexuality at arguably the worst possible time in American history. I discovered the word "bisexual" (hooray I have a label) only to read a few days later in mainstream news about how "bisexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS to the hetero community" which was a take that was tolerated on national news shows at the time. The only sex education I had in my entire public education was a film we were forced to watch about how you could get AIDS from french kissing (you can't) and heavy petting (which we didn't know what it was because it was outdated old people code for oral lol)...

The entire LGBTQIA plus community was not attacked as a monolith, the focus of hate came on gay men, because they were the most obviously effected and also the most visible and prominent in the community. The rest of the community did their best to embrace and protect them. (For example lesbian groups that were on the front lines of caring for people who were sick when no one else would...).

And there were people like myself who identified as allies but were in a place where they didn't feel safe to come out themselves. I did not come out at that time because even though I was in accepting local community at University and working at a feminist journal I knew I would lose friends and family and possibly future work opportunities. Being Bi it was easier to blend in for me and I took advantage of that. Part of the reason I hesitated so long about coming out was I felt a lot of guilt that I didn't come out in the 90s during the AIDS crisis. I felt like a coward who wasn't worthy to stand with such brave people.

It took me a long time to let go of that self-hate to the point where I could come out. A big part of it was acknowledging how fucked up the climate for LGBTQIA folks in the 80s and 90s. We had two family friends (which is how I knew I would probably be rejected by a lot of my family) who died of AIDS. Yes, these were brilliant, creative men who worked in theater. One of them was the props coordinator for Late Night with David Letterman (responsible for building Dave's velcro suit etc.). I also have a peer who died of AIDS in the early 2000s, long after the disease had supposedly been "not a death sentence" who also happened to be an actor.

Despite their lack of political involvement, they were be seen as radical just because they lived openly as gay men in a society that hated them and wanted them dead, and only tolerated them if they were the "fun gays" who weren't actually threatening the status quo...

Being in theater or the arts was a survival tactic for a lot of people ya know because it was a more accepting environment and because it wasn't considered important like politics, medicine, science etc. (Miss me with the gays can't do math jokes. A gay man invented the fucking computer).

The gay men I knew in long-term monogamous relationships survived the worst of the crisis and they automatically became "respectability queers" for having not died and wanting jobs with health insurance etc. Because one dude follows his dream of working in theater and the other quits theater and goes to work at the phone company and buys a house with his partner, one is fun and the other boring? One is a creative genius creating culture and the other is a consumer of cultural pap? Wow. Great take.

FUCK. I'm just getting so angry thinking about this. You want to know why it took me till I was FIFTY fucking years old to come out: AIDS. That's it. ONE Fucking word.

Sorry I have no idea WHY I fucking started this other than I saw a shitty post that said, our culture became boring because all the fun gays died and left only the boring gays who only care about marriage or whatever.

#Also: what the fuck is wrong with CATS and ghostbusters???#both are great #both have their value #if you want to bitch about marvel or shitty broadway musicals then do it #please don't throw all the old gays under the bus for being boring while you do it #also there was that post yesterday about Anthony Perkins and I did not realize he died of AIDS #I don't know how I missed it...oh it happened in 1992 when I wasn't living at home and didn't have a tv...#sometimes the sex positive bubble of tumblr will prefer the LOLZ lifetime achievment of fucking take #over the he was conflicted because all of society hated him for being gay and many many shitty people rejoiced I'm sure when he died take #as they did when other prominent gay men died of AIDS #PS: those are the same people trying to pass legislation attacking trans people #the same fucking people

27 notes · View notes

butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway · 1 year

Text

The thread got locked before I was able to post my reply to this but I actually think this reminder is important enough that I'm going to post about it here too. My response:

"This feels like a fitting time to remind people that the split between words like gay/lesbian and bisexual/pansexual/etc is actually fairly recent history still. Lesbian used to mean "any woman who has an interest in women" regardless of any additional interest in men or other genders, and it was, in fact, due to prominent political lesbians (a precurser to modern day radfems which is what the term TERF references) that the term was narrowed to exclude "women who also like other genders besides women" from the lesbian community.

Your sister called you a TERF because the reasoning and definitions you are using come DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY from the political community that term references. Your sister continues to identify as a lesbian sometimes because it is fully her right to do so, and ABSOLUTELY NOT YOURS to deny her language that reflects her experiences. Your response is to continue denying her the right to her language. You should probably read up on some community history before you decide to make another "joke" about this fight you keep starting with your sister.

Maybe you could start here with Stonewall UK's resources on the history of bisexuality: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/short-history-word-bisexuality#:~:text=In%201859%2C%20anatomist%20Robert%20Bentley,understand%20this%20as%20being%20intersex.

From the text:

"But if people in the past didn't use the term 'bi', how did people attracted to more than one gender describe themselves?

There is no simple answer to this question. Some didn’t use an identity label at all, preferring not to categorise their relationships. Some understood themselves as heterosexual, while others identified as gay or lesbian. Others described themselves using percentages or ratios, such as ‘60:40 gay:heterosexual’. When the term ‘gay’ was first popularised by gay liberationists in the 1970s, it often linked radical politics and same-gender attraction, but didn’t necessarily exclude people who were attracted to, or had relationships with, multiple genders.

One interviewee I spoke to during my PhD recalled: “There was a general understanding that sexuality was some sort of spectrum, and that people would move along it from time to time”. It’s also important to note that this terminology is particular to English-speakers in the West, and that elsewhere in the world there has been a diverse range of approaches to sexuality and gender that often reject binary categorisations. In many cases, these approaches have been restricted or prohibited as a legacy of colonialism.

It wasn’t until the late 1970s that the current understanding of bisexuality, as an orientation or capacity for attraction, became widely accepted in the UK as "the more common usage". Around this point, we started to see bi groups and events being established. The UK’s first bi group, London Bisexual Group, was formed in 1981, followed by other groups in Edinburgh (1984), Brighton (1985), Manchester (1986) and Glasgow (1988), as well as a London-based Bisexual Women’s Group. A magazine, Bi-Monthly, was founded, as well as two bi helplines in London and Edinburgh, and the UK’s longest continually-running LGBTQ+ community event, the annual BiCon."

Bisexual inclusion under the language of lesbian or historically equivalent terms was the norm until nearly the 80s, when political lesbian/radical feminist ideaology began to argue that their inclusion diluted or endangered the community. A good place to read up on how this process occurred is Out History: https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/lesbians-20th-century/lesbian-feminism

From the text:

"In essence, lesbian feminists tried to untie lesbianism from sex so heterosexual feminists were more comfortable. But they still had to find an effective way to address the accusation that their masculinity was somehow complicit with men and patriarchy. Lesbian feminists responded by distancing themselves from stereotypes of “masculine roles,” maleness, and patriarchy. One way they were able to do so was by disentangling lesbian sexuality from heterosexuality and re-conceptualizing heterosexual sex as consorting with “the enemy”. They capitalized on dominant assumptions regarding female sexuality, including ideas of women’s romantic and nurturing sexuality versus men’s aggressive sexuality. They were then able to draw a distinction between lesbian sex and heterosexual sex, claiming that lesbian sex was “pure as snow” since it did not involve men. For example, “…the male seeks to conquer through sex while the female seeks to communicate” and “…lesbians are obsessed with love and fidelity” (Echols, 218).

Using this ideology, lesbians successfully billed lesbianism as an ultimate form of feminism--a practice that did not involve men on any emotional level. In this way, heterosexual feminists were seen as inferior because of their continued association with men. Lesbians took on a “vanguard” quality as the “true” bearers of feminism."

Another great paper on this history and the way its impacts continue to present within the community is L v. B and Feminist Identity: Examining Lesbians’ Bi-Negativity and Bisexuals’ Lesbian Negativity Using Norm-Centered Stigma Theory: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359801347_L_v_B_and_Feminist_Identity_Examining_Lesbians'_Bi-Negativity_and_Bisexuals'_Lesbian_Negativity_Using_Norm-Centered_Stigma_Theory

This is a research case study of how one lesbian magazine participated in the construction of an "us vs them" barrier within the lesbian community in order to recast the historic presence of bisexual women as an urgent and unwelcome invasion. While DIVA was surely not the only lesbian publication to participate in this work, it provides an excellent example to understand how that work was done: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17405904.2014.974634

From the text:

"In the 1970s and 1980s, lesbian feminists quarrelled over definitions of lesbianism that appeared at times to include bisexuals (see Rich's, 1980, lesbian continuum, which ultimately elided any perceived distinction between exclusively lesbian sexual activity and ‘woman-identification’) and by turn to cast bisexual existence as unwelcome ‘infiltration and exploitation of the lesbian community’ (Zita, 1982, p. 164). The ‘issue’ of bisexual inclusion became increasingly visible as the gay liberation movement abandoned a constructionist critique of sexuality and gender categories and opted instead for an essentialist, quasi-ethnic homosexual identity. The idea of being ‘born gay’ produced campaign gains by problematising homophobic arguments revolving around choice, but simultaneously reinforced the homo–hetero binary (Barker & Langdridge, 2008; Epstein, 1987; Evans, 1993; Udis-Kessler, 1990). In this way, an ethnic gayness rendered bisexuality indefinitely liminal, outside of both heterosexuality and homosexuality, and claimed by neither. Mainstream media, too, depicted sexuality as dichotomous (Barker et al., 2008).

It is precisely the imagining of bisexuality as something (constantly flitting) between these two supposedly immutable realms that appears to be at the root of any ‘trouble’. Bisexuality has been conceived of by members of the gay community2 as a ‘stage’ between rejecting a heterosexual identity and ‘coming out’ as homosexual (and as Chirrey, 2012, shows, is constructed as such in coming out literature); those claiming it on a permanent basis have been derided as cowards who are ‘really’ gay, but wish to retain heterosexual privileges (Esterberg, 1997; Evans, 1993). Bisexuality in these terms is thus derogated as an illegitimate sexuality (McLean, 2008) and is imagined as an alternation between two separate worlds, for which promiscuity is a necessary condition (even in positive appraisals of bisexuality, Welzer-Lang's, 2008, participants largely describe a sexual identity premised on multiple relationships; see also Klesse, 2005). Both like and unlike ‘us’, the bisexual woman is able to move in either realm, an ‘amphibian’ (Babcock-Abrahams, 1975) whose transgression between categories threatens boundaries and the identities constructed and maintained within – an ‘awkward reminder’ (Baker, 2008, p. 145) of internal difference and potential inter-group similarities where (the illusion of) the opposite offers comfort and validation (Taylor, 1998). The links they forge between the constructed lesbian and heterosexual worlds allow bisexuals to ‘infiltrate the lesbian and gay community, use its facilities for their own gratification, and then retreat into the sanctuary of heterosexual normalcy’ (Humphrey, 1999, p. 233). It is in this light that we can understand McLean's (2008) participants' decision to preserve the assumption of homosexuality in ostensibly queer spaces. Bisexuals have been denigrated as neither committed to gay politics nor oppressed enough to be ‘our’ concern (Evans, 1993; Ochs, 1988). Further, by linking the lesbian and heterosexual worlds, bisexuals form what feminist lesbians consider(ed) a conduit through which ‘our world’ is contaminated by contact with men (see Wolf, 1979). Bisexuals are thus dangerous pollutants, in Douglas's (1966) terms."

You don't need to agree with your sister's decisions around her identity in order to respect them as well as the history she is tying herself too by making those decisions. You DO need to understand that our language as a community is in a constant state of evolution, and many people will have very personal reasons for maintaining older/more historically associated useages of our language/terminology.

50 notes · View notes

91vaults · 1 year

Text

From a Butch lesbian perspective: GC's tend to talk a lot about the "poor lesbians" but as I discovered when really interrogating gender, there is a long history of gender fluidity within the lesbian community. There were always he/him lesbians, lesbians who's only connection to the concept of womanhood was...well lesbianism (of which I count myself) lesbians who performed and experienced gender in a way different to many "biological women". Lesbians who experience gender dysphoria with the "biologically female" parts of their bodies. (I have a body type that lends itself well to androgyny, but lord knows how I might feel if it were different) . Some of them might have been trans men and were they around today and made the choice to transition that would not be a loss to lesbians. We tend to exist in the frameworks available to us at the time.

To put us all in the category of "biological women" and "biological men" limits us and denies our experience. I feel a disconnect from "womanhood" as most define it but this is not some attempt to "escape the sexism that women experience" I am not immune to sexism and will never be. Instead I pick and choose the parts that do speak to my experience. "Woman Adjacent" fits me just fine. It doesn't need to make sense to others.

The relentless pressures of compulsory heterosexuality can make us cling hard to ideas and labels. We are inundated with so much messaging that its all about men, relationships with men, that we'll "grow out of it" or bi phobic myths that girls will mess around with you for fun then go back to heterosexuality. It is natural then to define your lesbian identity more so as the absence of attraction to men rather than the presence of an attraction to women. AMAB people who identify otherwise feel like a threat to the definitions and categories we use to stand our ground in a patriarchal society. I used to feel like that, and balked at the idea of "Nonbinary lesbians" or other labels ("Demi boy??? what is this nonsense") and of course unlike me many lesbians, butch or otherwise identify strongly as women and have fought so hard to be recognized as such. And lets be real, if that's the case and you start being asked what your pronouns are all the time that's probably going to grind your gears (where and when we get asked our pronouns can be a prickly topic all across the LGBT+ spectrum but I digress)

It's also hard to deny that fear, however irrational: " what happens to us when the "lesbians" are all non binary or transmen?" we feel like a minority within a minority, our numbers ever so small and now seemingly shrinking, they'll be none of us left, will I die alone?

what's wrong withing being a lesbian?

makes sense on an emotional level if you've struggled to regain the title for yourself.

It need not be like that though. Lesbians aren't going anywhere, there are many queer woman under the umbrella regardless of how they may identify. Letting go of strict definitions does not erase yours or anyone's identity, rather it makes you more empathetic and understanding. The shifting of the framework in which we identify ourselves is not a threat. It's an opportunity for acceptance and perhaps even exploration.

and ultimately at the end of the day you do not have to date anyone you don't want to for any reason. As long as your not a jerk about it. Sex and connection is complicated and contentious and perhaps does not exist in a vacuum: but personal preference is personal preference.

When GC/TERF ideology is taken to its logical conclusion it hurts us all much more than the "bogey man" trans person in their heads ever could. They talk endlessly about the protection of women: which women? women who are gender non conforming? women who are unable to or do not wish to reproduce? intersex women? women who are subjected to invasive questioning of their gender because they are athletes and present a certain way? (that's not even getting into the ways this disproportionately affects WOC) they claim to understand the reasons and inner lives of those they call women who do not identify as such. To talk over them and insist their "dysfunction" is due to a need to escape sexism, rather than just who they are. (I don't hate or run away from womanhood..I just orbit around it with nothing more to say about it then "...huh, ok")

They are incredibly abelist against autistic people as if they have no understanding of themselves, as if their particular experience with gender is invalid.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull calls for men with guns to guard women's restrooms. What do you suppose would happen if someone like me were to walk in? years ago in America a Masc women was accosted by a cop in a public restroom who demanded to see ID. A man in a female restroom harassing a woman....fancy that.

This is not about protecting women. This is about a hatred of a large portion of the LGBT+ community, its a repackaging of every homophobic trope they used in the past, before we collectively agreed the rights of gay people were not up for debate. It's about enforcing a strict veiw of gender based on biological essentialism, as nonsensical as it is harmful. As though they want to recreate Gilliead (given the alt right friends that's probably not far off the mark)

It might start that way for some, to express """concerns""" about women's issues, but it always seems to devolve into the same thing: obsessing over sexist and restrictive biological ideas about gender, misandry and obsessively nitpicking and mocking the physical appearance of those they hate (Feminism!!!!! :D )

Truly makes no sense.

#butch lesbian #lesbian #lgbt+#lgbt #terf #terfs #fuck terfs #gender #gender critical #trans #trans rights #transgender #queer women #amab #afab #gc #radical feminism #Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

8 notes · View notes

my-strange-attraction · 7 months

Note

i think you might be stupid as hell because that last bit on your posts about studs is what lesbians have been saying about our label for fucking ever when it comes to your demand for the inclusion of men (you KNOW i am not talking about trans women. i’m talking about cis and trans men.) I can feel your cognitive dissonance and it is amazing.

also butch/femme are lesbian exclusive identities because they only make sense in lesbian context (subversion of gender roles, presentation, OFOS, ect ect). same goes for stud. literally you do not know what you’re talking about. PLEASE do actual research when it comes to these labels before talking about them and not a quick look at a fandom wiki.

Ok see the other reason I was hesitant to post my response to that ask was because I KNEW this would be the response from those of you who are still lurking from that drama.

The WHOLE POINT of my response was that race matters are different than other queer matters. They just are. It’s not cognitive dissonance, it’s just the truth, but you want so badly for me to contradict myself that you would pretend otherwise until your dying breath.

Also I’ve never been involved in discussions about the stud label, but I have been in discussions about the others. I downplayed it because it hasn’t been my FOCUS because up until recently I was too nervous to explore them because I didn’t identify as lesbian yet, and I didn’t realize what I know now, which is that, though they originated in the lesbian community, they can describe all sapphic people (this includes bisexuals and others who are not solely attracted to women!).

You said they only make sense in lesbian context but you really didn’t explain yourself there so I don’t even know how to refute it. I think it makes sense in any sapphic context, personally, and a lot of my queer (AND LESBIAN) friends agree. I’m tired of bending over backwards to over explain myself to you people so I’m just not going to do it.

I’m going to say it one last time, even if it will still probably fall to deaf ears: other lesbians saying they can be/have been attracted to men does not “demand,” in your words, the lesbian label to include men. It just does for them, because sexuality is weird and people are different, and there can be a variety of different reasons why someone feels most comfortable using a label.

I use the label personally because even though I can sometimes (??? still figuring it out) be attracted to men, I am not interested in dating any. It’s more functional for me than bi or pan. Would you keep me from using it just because, for me, it includes attraction to men? And if you include me, why not include bi lesbians as well?

I almost deleted this one. At what point does defending myself become redundant?

#cw exclusionism #ask #queer #labels #cloudy rambles

3 notes · View notes

honeysuckle-venom · 2 years

Note

What is the difference of feminine lesbians and femme lesbians? Your tags on that reblog about lesbians on TV made me wonder what you mean.

Hi Anon,

Thank you so much for such a fantastic question! The answer to this is very, very complicated and to a certain extent individual, and I certainly do not claim to speak for all femme lesbians. But there are some things I can say about this.

Most lesbians do not explicitly identify as either butch or femme, but just as lesbians. But some find their homes and identities in those terms and the butch/femme community. Femme and butch are two sides of the same coin, and just as butch does not simply mean "wears jeans," femme does not simply mean "wears dresses." In fact, gnc, nonbinary, and/or transmasc femmes are common. Femme is a specific identity, not just an aesthetic.

For most femmes, in large part the identity is about repurposing and reclaiming aspects of femininity in a specifically queer way, a way that is designed to signal to and attract other sapphics (often, but not necessarily exclusively, butches). Most femmes are very intentional about which aspects of traditional femininity they embrace and which they reject. For example, I keep my hair long and usually wear vintage inspired dresses when I go out, but I almost never wear makeup and I don't shave my legs. For me and others like me, being femme is in large part about examining femininity and performing it intentionally and in a queer way, by only performing certain aspects of it and/or by performing it in an exaggerated manner.

But while aesthetics and external performance of femininity are certainly tied into being femme, it is also more than that. Femme is a complex identity that for many people is their way of defining their gender, connection to history, and/or role in relationships. Many femmes prefer to date butches, but even those who don't usually see themselves as mirrors to butches, as the other half to that community. Butch and femme are also historically based identities with ties to working class lesbian bar culture in the 1950s. I'm not going to get into that as much, but most people who identify with those terms see themselves as part of a continuing history and subculture (if you're curious about this, there are many books out there. One I see recommended a lot, though I haven't yet read it, is Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers by Lillian Faderman. Another classic which I have read is Stone Butch Blues, which takes place primarily in the 1970s. Major trigger warning for police brutality and several rape scenes in it though).

A lesbian who is fairly feminine but does not see themself in relationship to that history, to that subculture, and/or to butches is, in my opinion, probably not a femme. A lesbian who wears dresses because that's what's expected of her but who has not examined her gender and identity and chosen to embrace specific aspects of femininity in a queer way is, in my opinion, probably not a femme. And ultimately, a lesbian who does not identify as a femme is not a femme. At its core, femme is a complex and nuanced identity, not an aesthetic.

A final note: The original post I left tags on that made you ask this question was talking about femme lesbians and lesbian characters' costumes on TV. I would argue that perhaps lesbians on TV don't necessarily need to identify out loud as femmes to be femmes (it's hard enough getting tv shows to say the word 'lesbian' or goodness forbid 'bi'), but the reason I don't see most of them as femmes is because most femmes specifically incorporate elements of gender-nonconformity and/or gender exaggeration into their presentation and/or mannerisms. Most lesbians on TV are just wearing traditionally feminine, fashionable outfits identical to the straight girls around them; that does not read as femme at all to those who know how to read those cues. Also, I wrote this specifically about femme lesbians because that's what the original post was about, what your question was about, and how I identify, but most if not all of this is true for femme bi women as well.

#answers #gosh this was hard to write and not at all comprehensive #there's so much to this #but hopefully this answered your question #for now i'm letting this be reblogged but if people get discoursey i'm blocking and turning it off #i'm not putting it in community tags though #that's a step too far #anon (or anyone else) if you have more questions feel free to ask!#also i just reblogged a post that has a better explanation than the one i just gave so you should read that

20 notes · View notes

riseofthecommonwoodpile · 2 years

Note

"i don't think fracturing communities into ever-smaller microlabels, implying vastly different community needs, and enforcing rigid distinctions between them is really as helpful as you think it is."

I will have to disagree with you here. This is one of the main point exclusionists use and it doesn't sound right. You're not one of them I'm pretty sure, so it's probably a misunderstanding.

Microlabels are not "fracturing" communities. They're giving voice and space to people who don't feel like they fit in the mainstream. That's the whole reason why Queer as a community exists, why MOGAI is a thing, too (that's also the reason why "queer is a slur" is a thing, because it's too broad and fits too much individuality and self-expression, and "mogai is cringe" is a thing, because of its micro identities feel like a threat, it's too freaky and abnormal and not like the palatable LGBTs).

There's more to people than being Lesbian, Gay, Bi or Trans. Some people don't like being the + in the LGBT+ and they have all the right to come up with their own terms, words and labels, create their own spaces and have their own rigid definitions. LGBT people have rigid definitions too, that's why microlabels exist.

We can be strong as a community even if we have individual needs, and strengthening individuals so they can find what works better for them, strengthen communities. It can work from the top to bottom, of course, the community influencing individuals. And it can also work from the bottom to top, where individuals influence the community. One thing doesn't negate the other, or invalidate them. Trying to gatekeep or exclude people does it.

Ok, I wasn't gonna respond to this, but I guess that I'm going to, because I like to put way too much effort into things that I should really just let go.

To start, I don't understand what you mean by "exclusionist" here. Excluding...who, exactly? The exclusionary, gatekeeping people you are speaking of and throwing me in with (which, although you say i'm probably "not one of them", the rest of the ask certainly implicates me of being), what are they gatekeeping? It seems like you're saying they're keeping people who don't explicitly identify as one of the Big Four letters (L, G, B, or T) out of the queer community, which is. idk. a kinda wild claim? Who precisely is being pushed out of the community by me saying "hey it's kinda weird when some pan people claim that bi people don't like nb people"?

If you're talking about a group of gatekeepers who don't think, say, people who use MOGAI terms should be part of the same LGBT community, yeah, those people sure do sound shitty. Never met one literally anywhere but online though. I've been an out trans lesbian for 12 years, lived in Illinois, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Washington, and Colorado during that time, and have that entire time only really socialized in LGBT / queer or queer-adjacent spaces, and I can genuinely say I have *never* met a person who, if you said you identified as pan, would try to stop you from being in that space. Again, I'm sure those people do exist, and if you encountered them IRL, that fucking blows and you shouldn't have been treated that way, I'm sorry. But that's such a wildly specific and small group of people that you are placing a huge amount of importance and blame upon.

In a similar "let's please talk about the real world" sentiment, saying that MOGAI labels are rejected by people because they are seen as "too freaky and abnormal and not like the palatable LGBTs"...holy fucking shit. I cannot leave the house without being stared at, and that's actually just been getting *worse* as the conservative attacks on trans people (and especially trans women) ramp up. Like half of the states in the US are being inundated with laws attempting or succeeding at criminalizing aspects of trans-ness. The overturn of Roe recently just opened the door to the reinstatement of anti-sodomy laws in 20-fucking-22, and multiple elected officials have already said they would support or enforce such laws. The idea that a gay trans woman is more socially palatable than a demisexual person is like, completely untethered from reality, I apologize, there's no nicer way to say it.

People 100% do have the right to come up with their own terms! I have no problem at all with that, absolutely none. Having a word to describe yourself is good, and I support all of them having a home in the whatever-you-want-to-call-this community. The issue with micro-labelling in the way I am speaking of it is that it can cause people to fall so far down the rabbit hole of specificity that they become atomized instead of seeing themselves as part of a larger movement, a larger history. And, not to assume, but the way you are speaking of categories like LGBT as having "rigid definitions" completely backs up this claim, because that is wildly, wildly, *wildly* ahistorical. The incredibly rigid definitions you think they have are recent, and have coincided with an increased desire to make those identities marketable in terms of politics, culture, and consumption. They have been made rigid in order to enable them to be sold back to you.

"Lesbian means you are a woman who is only sexually and romantically attracted to other women" is an invention of the last 20 years, if that. For a long time it was a term to refer to any women who had any intimate relationship with other women, to any degree. it's why, if you listen to any older dykes, i've never seen them phased by ideas like "bi lesbians", "he/him lesbians", etc. etc., because the term was purposefully open-ended. It spoke of an axis of one's romantic or sexual life, but it didn't close it off. It was supposed to be a beginning, a breaking through of the walls of straight society, not a new set of walls.

And it was the same with the other terms as well, with gay just in the last 100 years meaning everything from crossdressers to only men who are penetrated to only men who romantically like other men to men who like both men and women to men who just like men and a million variations in between and beyond. Trans has mutated so many times because its definition is inherently contextually defined against the current mainstream treatment of gender in society, which is constantly and forever changing. The "T" today we say means transgender, and we say it means specifically anyone who identifies as a gender other than the gender they were assigned at birth. But what if we went back in time? What if we mean "transsexual", or "transvestite"? Do we mean pre-op, post-op, non-op, non-passing, passing, man, woman, other, some, all, none? What about drag kings and queens, what about effeminate gay men, what about butch dykes who go by Daddy? These definitions are not rigid. You've been tricked by their mainstreaming into thinking they are. You are being sold something, and you'd do well to stop buying it.

Ultimately, this is the criticism I started with. Rigid definitions and the creation of ever-more-individualized microlabels, yes, may help someone understand what they are feeling, when those words can be so hard to find. But it can also isolate them. Let us bring in the bi / pan distinction once more. What is gained by either bi or pan people from harsh lines, harsh distinctions, rigid definitions, separate spaces? Any differences they may or may not have, aren't all of their lives made richer by having other people in them? Not a single one of them has had the same experiences as the other, and the point is not to try and match one's exact neurological state in that moment as close as possible to someone else's. The point is to get support, to learn, to receive and give care. If we are talking about community, communities are for that support, are for care, are for helping and advocating with others, for group action. If we want to have an actual community and not just one that snipes at each other constantly, we should be creating a bigger tent, not a tent city defined by ever-ongoing mitotic individuation.

There's no way for me to say this nicely, so I apologize, but this ask reads really intensely like someone who is a.) very unfamiliar with queer history and the history of these labels (or the modern ways in which they are used), and b.) is Very Online. You seem like you mean well, and you do care about making sure everyone is heard, and that's exactly the right attitude. Use any label you want, use it however you want- if it works for you, then that is ultimately why it's there, and why it matters. But do not use those labels as ways to define yourself only in opposition against other labels you (hopefully) care about. Ultimately, if we want to bring it back to my original post that inspired any of this, the reason I really dislike when people say that pan is a more inclusive label (by which they mean it literally includes more people under its umbrella of attraction) than bi is that it gives one group an identity at the expense of the other. This is what I mean by fracturing communities, and this is the exact thing I dislike about so much online discourse about these terms and labels.

That said, if you just get offline and meet real communities of real people, none of this matters to people who aren't internet poisoned like you and i, so that's always a nice comfort.

25 notes · View notes

cescalr · 2 years

Note

thalia x reyna from percy jackson for the ask (i'm pretty sure you've read heroes of olympus but if i'm wrong, ronance from stranger things)

I will answer both and this is gonna be soooo controversial (for the second) lol ack

Also; I'm on mobile, and this is going to get long, and i cant link any suppirting posts that explain my perspectives better than i can, lol. If you want, i'll dm the metas. I hope I get the keep reading thing right, but if it doesn't work... sorry. Summary:

Tl:dr; I could see reynalia working, maybe, but I'd need to read some to get a proper feel for it. It might be one of those cases where I prefer it in polyamorous form, aka reynaliabeth. Reynabethalia. Or maybe when put alongside pipabeth (idk piper/annabeth...) Idk. As for ronance, just not my cup of tea for a variety of reasons. I prefer robin crossover ships, like my tiny little dingy of tarabin. (Tara Maclay/Robin Bucley).

Reyna/Thaila (reynalia??) Is not something I've ever considered, to be honest. I'm not sure how compatible they'd be, but I do ship annabeth/thalia (I should really look up pjo ship names, huh) and I've even given thalia/percy a go, because I'm firmly in the camp that you should give most ships a chance before you write them off completely (as it stands, the most controversial pjo ship I've ever read would either be luke/percy or nico/Sadie - that was written before he was confirmed as gay, though, so it's a grey area, like pre-confirmation romantic stobin fics, or willow/oz content, though differently so for the latter*).

Given all the above, I can't say I don't ship it, but I can say I'm not sure. I think given I like thaliabeth (??) and reynabeth, it wouldn't be a stretch to ship reynalia, though!

(*willow is controversial because of a clash between people who interpret her being called a lwsbian as biphobic vs people thinking calling her bisexual as lesbiphobic, its a whole deal I don't want to her into rn but... eeh, I guess I should state that I'm in the camp that her being bisexual is the most logical reading of canon, her status as a lesbian is a self-identifier because she swore off dating men, not because she isn't attracted to them - she cheated on Oz with Xander for purely lust related reasons, her whole thing with the will be done spell, and her actions with Amy when she goes off the rails (magically forcing men to dance half naked In cages in the bronze, along with other questionable acts) is... uh, not particularly lesbian behaviour, generally speaking; imo, Willow uses being gay as a mask for her insecurities same as she does her witchy power and her choice of fashion - to distance herself from the 'pathetic' girl she used to be. Its a whole psychological thing tied up in era-typical bigotry, unfortunately. It was the 90s. She wasn't going to be addressed as bi, even though she so clearly was. There's a reason I really like 2000s doctor who - it was the first positive representation of a bisexual I'd seen on screen, and being bisexual is clearly going to affect my opinion, here. Like. Duh. Same with lesbians who interpret her as lesbian. I don't think we should be arguing- at the end of the day, we all technically want the same thing; personal representation of our own lived experiences, and that's not a bad thing. Theres a good video on youtube about the controversy, which. Theres always a good video on youtube, lol.)

Um. Oops, rambling. Anyway.

So, ronance. Oh boy.

I see Nancy as straight. I'm also not fond of how she treats Robin in the little time we see them together. Im also not a fan of robin dating the ex that broke her bestie's heart. So, ergo, I don't ship them. I'm genuinely, as much as it probably doesn't seem that way, more of a fan of friendship, at the end of the day. I would see it as a betrayal (same way I see scolia and stydia as a betrayal). I tend to use romantic/sexual relations as a way to explore character because that's easiest to get my points across, but I prefer friendship. Romance is, at the end of the day, conditional. Friends can be friends still after three years of no contact, but that's a signal for the end of a romance. So what I'm getting at here - you can be tentative friends with someone the way robin and Nancy act (as is their canon dynamic), but I wouldn't be conformable with them dating. Nancy barely tolerates Robin. She displays annoyance at pretty much everything she does, from rambling to venting to expositing her mental state, Nancy's countenance just screamed 'I'm waiting for this to stop'. I don't like that in friendship, and I like it much less in romance. Even with my most controversial ships, there's still a kind of passion. Hate is not the opposite of love - it's apathy. Nancy seems often apathetic to Robin's mental state, her worries and concerns. She dismisses a lot of what robin says and does, at least from my perspective watching them. And it must be said - and I'll freely admit - I'm not Nancy's biggest fan, but I love Robin, she's my girl. That's going to cause some problems. Even with ships that are objectively questionable, I have to like both characters for me to get behind it, or I have to like both characters when in the context of the ship. This makes little sense, so I'll extrapolate.

In the Vampire Diaries, I don't really like Stefan Salvatore, and unpopular opinion time, I hate Klaus. I really, really hate him. At this point, it's straight-up loathing. But I greatly enjoyed their dynamics, from 20s to modern day, and that they shared an ex was funny to me (same way it is with Zutara, and making jetko kinda-canon for that reason alone half the time, akfjqlfjwk) as well as being an interesting thing to happen. (I mean, what are the odds, really?). So there's that. I also liked stefan and Katherine's whole weird deal, which played an aspect. What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that there's a certain respect even in my most dubious ships (jetko, steo, fuffy, spuffy, etc) that I feel is completely lacking in ronance. There's a video by Jill Bearup about enemies to lovers ships that might give a good reason to one aspect of why I like it - they take each other seriously. There's an understanding of competence, an acknowledgement of thought processes, a certain level of understanding. Nancy has none of that for Robin.

When I compare the two ships of the 'fruity four', as people have taken to calling them, steddie and ronance strike me as two very different kinds of ships. And I only half get steddie (very not fond of popular portrayal) - there's no real chance for me to get ronance. It is what it is, I suppose. People like what they're going to like. If you want me to extrapolate on any of this, I'd be happy to! My thoughts are oft all over the place and need a bit of direction to make sense, though, fair warning. I think about a lot of stuff and only rarely coherently akdhlwkfkq but I think there is a throughline. At the end of the day, mutual respect is mandatory for me, in romantix relationships especially, but not only for that. If I can't really get behind ronance platonically, there's no hope for romantically. And for the record, as stated above, I did give it a shot. Read the most popular fics and then a couple of the most recent, as I always do. They didn't agree with me, and they left me feeling distinctly... well, not so distinctly because I can't find the right word, but I couldn't help feeling the way I do about the popular portrayal of Hermione is happening to nancy? She's perfect and flawless and a girl boss and has never made a mistake ever and I just.... eeh. Also the treatment of Robin is... not always great. But that's a whole 'nother topic I've already rambled long enough, I don't need to add that.

Basically, tl:dr; ronance is kind of disquieting, probably because I'm not fond of their characterisations within ronance fics, and I'm often affected by the fanon regarding a ship. I never liked Sterek, for example, but I could've tolerated it if a) it wasn't so prevalent in fandom that it appears often untagged like an accepted part of canon when it is not and b) if it didn't so wildly misinterpret the characters, plus didn't include a character that doesn't sit right with me (Derek - Nancy) and a character I love but portrayed in a way that doesn't even remotely align with my interpretation of them 95% of the time (Stiles - Robin).

Er. Yeah. Oof.

:).

(As you can probably tell, I have... lots of very complicated feelings about shipping Robin (and like, shipping in general, being honest) with canon ST characters. I'm much less strict abt Riordanverse characters as a whole, for reasons I'd be perfectly willing to extrapolate on/discuss if you'd like to do so!).

♡♡

#ask game #♡♡♡ this was difficult but a good exercise in trying to put my thoughts into words thank you!!#:)#st #pjo #hoo #anti-ronance #jic i dont want to upset anyone #its not anti-anti but im not a crosstagger or an asshole so ergo #its like just not my cup of tea for a variety of reasons #that this tries to explain some of :) hope thats okay lajglqogkqjfp #idk what you think of ronance or reynalia? hope our opinions dont clash too much lol #at the end of the day. at least we both ship steo alfjwldjkwhfkqjdkajfk #all fun and games anyway! silly not to get along bc of something as dumb as differences in ship opinions lmao #♡

9 notes · View notes

choppedupnotkilled · 2 months

Text

Essay on The Gutter

Under the cut.

Queer people in Skid Row are even lower on the totem pole than everyone else there, since it’s reassuring to have a group to punch down on. The Gutter is a (relatively) safe space for them, and most queer people in Skid Row end up working there or spending a significant amount of time hanging out there (in a section that’s basically a gay bar) for at least a small portion of their lives. Gay/aro/ace trans eggs and people who are asexual and/or aromantic without being queer in some other way are exceptions to this rule, since they don’t know that they are queer. They’ll sometimes be drawn towards it without knowing why, but they don’t tend to keep going to it for very long, and they are treated with neutrality at best and slight hostility at worst there.

The only queer label that is widely used in the community surrounding The Gutter is ‘gay,’ so pretty much everyone in it, including those who would probably consider themselves to be bi or transhet if they lived in the modern day, exclusively identifies as gay. They know about the distinction between the labels ‘gay,’ and ‘lesbian,’ but mostly everyone uses the label ‘gay’ because they don’t want the community itself to become divided when it’s already been separated from polite society, although this effort kind of failed, since the community, or at least the portion of it that is actually employed by The Gutter, has become split into two fairly separate sex-based groups that mostly stick to themselves.

Most of the AMAB people who work there work as, in modern terms, femboy sex workers, and most of the AFAB employees do other jobs, such as waitressing, bartending, and running gambling games. This system was set up because a creepy customer who doesn’t understand consent is theoretically much less likely to be able to overpower an AMAB person, although, in practice, a significant portion of the sex workers and non-sex workers are on HRT, and this reasoning doesn’t work with them. The founders of The Gutter figured that the residents of Skid Row are too down on their luck to care about the sex workers being AMAB or to be able to afford to go to a different, much further away night spot if they did care, and their gamble paid off.

This fact is very well known amongst The Gutter’s customers, and it’s disclosed at the door and in their slogan “Unlike life, our “girls” provide aftercare,” so there are no consent issues, at least with the customers. It is not uncommon for the sex workers’ more sleazy customers to make jokes along the lines of “On Skid Row, we’re so poor that we can’t even afford real women.” Roughly ¾ of the sex workers are cis femboys, but ¼, including Audrey, are transfem eggs. They usually end up spending huge amounts of money on very sketchy black market estrogen, claiming that they are doing so because the customers like the results, and they can make more money off of them this way, which is the worst ‘still cis though’ excuse of all time.

This deeply confuses their cis colleagues. Even though the customers are very aware of the femboy situation, Audrey feels guilty for what she sees as tricking their bodies/biological urges into thinking that they’re having sex with a real woman. She would never apply this logic to her coworkers, since she is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have to work there and don’t have other options (she also pretty much has to work there, but she doesn’t see that as legitimate), and even if they didn’t have to work there, she reasons that they’re not doing anything wrong because they’re not using a significant portion of the money they get from the customers to fulfill a sick, twisted desire to be in a woman’s body (notice how she moved the goalposts for them, that’s that classic low self image.)

Audrey learned about HRT from her coworkers and started saving up for it almost immediately after arriving at The Gutter, and she’ll go out with any customer who asks her out (unless she already has a partner) because she figures that, since their money is funding her quest to make her body more feminine, they have a right to use it as they see fit and eventually enjoy the results of HRT on it when she manages to get it. The customers who are bold enough to ask out the sex worker they are currently paying inevitably end up being abusive, but Audrey never ends these relationships herself.

Ever since she found out about HRT, her worst fear has been being forcefully detransitioned after starting it, so she has spent as little money as possible and managed to develop a decently sized nest egg (by Skid Row standards) so that she wouldn’t immediately be screwed if an emergency happened, although it still took her a few years to start making enough money at The Gutter to transition. At the last second, she panicked and took a job at Mr. Mushnik’s flower shop as well, just to be on the safe side. Audrey started working at The Gutter in the first place because her mom kicked her out of the house after finding her stash of girl clothes (this happened when she was 18 and just about to graduate from high school.)

On her first day working there, she wore a nurse’s uniform with a nametag that said “Audrey” on it for her last customer, and when her boss recommended that she pick a female name for the customers to call her, she went with Audrey (her internalized transphobia caused her to believe that she doesn’t deserve a deep and meaningful name, she would have gone with the name Lucy if she didn’t believe this because of how important I Love Lucy has been for her, she has become more fond of her name after hearing Seymour say it lovingly so many times though :)

She is close with many of her coworkers, and their social support helped her survive all the abuse she suffered after she started working at The Gutter. She abruptly lost that social support when she had to start spending all her time running the flower shop after Seymour started avoiding her, which made the situation even more stressful for her.

1 note · View note

illgiveyouahint · 7 months

Note

hey so I probably should give more context

I am bi and that’s the first time I’ve been referred as a f*g hag. The person who referred me to that was a gay guy who’s a bit younger than I. If I’m being honest I really don’t like the word f*g or f*gg*t. I feel like it’s one of those words that no matter how much we try to reclaim it it’s not a good word. I feel like I probably should do more research into it because there’s probably some misogyny involved in that word.

I think you’re correct in saying what you said in my previous answer and if it happens again I’ll be sure to tell him but yeah - it’s tricky waters tbh which I don’t want to get into but I think you know what I mean.

I'm so sorry anon that it happened to you.

My experience with people who use the term f*g hag is that it's almost always privileged white cis gay men who will not use the word queer or lgbt but rather call it the "gay community" and "gay flag" and "gay bars" and "gay cinema". They have a very narrow understanding of the community and will claim that reason we have pride is because of gay men. They've never really known or cared about anyone who isn't a potential sexual partner and so they have never seen a lesbian film or anything with a trans character. They tend to be biphobic and transphobic and also indeed misogynistic. They will call you straight and want a prove of same-sex attraction if you correct them on your bisexuality. They will then proceed to call you lesbian even if you again correct them. They will tell you that you're just a lesbian who hasn't yet fully came out yet and that your bisexuality is just a stepping stone. They will ignore man's bisexuality and get angry if said man is attracted to a woman. This has been my experience at least but it seems to be a particular set of person. I have yet to meet anyone who'd use this word in a reclaiming or positive sort of way.

As for the word f*g itself it's difficult. I personally don't like it and would not use it but I do know some people who will occasionally use it in a reclaimatory way. I think it's up to each individual (at least for now - there are words that are by and large reclaimed and are not considered slurs like the word queer). I would never use the words on others but what they choose to call themselves it's up to them. Like I know plenty of lesbians who use the word dyke as a self-identifier and I know roma people who identify as "cikán" (g*psy in my language), I have a trans friend who jokingly refer to herself as a "tranny" from time to time but for her I think it is sort of a self-deprecation and I do want to talk to her about it. Nevertheless I think one shouldn't really be using the word on others and if you connect it to the word hag it makes it automatically have misogynistic connotations.

#i've got mail #Anonymous

0 notes

nightcoremoon · 1 year

Text

foot fetishists can be weirdos but not always.

so if you like feet, that’s cool. whatever. you have a kink. you have a fetish for a particular body part. that’s fine! it’s totally normal. the moment it stops being okay is when you start begging for feet pics or harassing people over it or creeping on random strangers in flip flops out in public or forcing other people to see your foot porn.

same with any other body part. armpits. shoulders. legs. fingers. tummy. thighs. hands. genitals. nipples. tits. ass. whatever. if you’re sexually attracted to any body part in particular, you have a VALID HEALTHY SEXUAL FETISH.

you really like penises, you fantasize about having them in your mouth or ass or vagina or rubbing on your own, holding them in your hands, that’s fine! you’re totally ok. you really like vaginas, you fantasize about putting your own body parts on in or near them, that’s cool too! you like both, the more the merrier! you like neither, I mean you’re probably asexual in which case you’re valid too. but nobody is going to tell you that you’re a bad person for only being attracted to one or the other, because it would be foolish at best and a passage to bigotry at worst. you can have kinks for body parts, it’s fine.

but your kinks don’t determine your sexuality.

if you like feet, it doesn’t say if you’re straight gay bi or whatever. if you ONLY like the feet of men, then you’re only into men and have a kink towards them. if you ONLY like the armpits of women, then you’re only into women and have a kink towards them. if you ONLY like vagina but you’re into cis women and trans men, congrats! you have a vagina fetish. which, again, is fine. but you’re pan. which is bi. cis men who’d fuck trans men, you’re queer. cis women who wouldn’t fuck pre-op trans women, you have a vagina fetish. which is fine. but you’re not straight if you’d have gay sex, you’re not necessarily a lesbian just because you have a vagina fetish, and kinky aces are still aces because that’s how they identify. if an asexual has a fetish it isn’t that they’re lying about being asexual. it’s because they delineate between fetishes & sexuality. because there is a difference.

I like men, women, and people who are both or neither. I am capable of experiencing sexual attraction to people of any and every gender identity. I am functionally pan. I legit identify as bisexual because I like the colors more, that’s the only reason. in fact I came out as pan a little over a decade ago (when coming out was a lot more of a thing than it is now), and slowly quietly shifted it to bi. I also have a handful of kinks and fetishes I won’t get too far into detail about here, but there are body parts that I am attracted to more so than other parts (that are not genitals, chest, or ass). some are dependent on gender, some are not. so I get it. I get it completely and 100%.

but just because you won’t fuck someone doesn’t justify treating them like hot garbage. if anything you should go out of your way to befriend them and understand them and shit like that. but It’s too bad transphobes are cunts.

0 notes

mishafletcher · 4 years

Note

Are you a Gold Star lesbian? (Just in case you don't know what it means, a Gold Star lesbian is a lesbian that has never had the sex with a guy and would never have any intentions of ever doing so)

So I got this ask a while ago, and I've been lowkey thinking about it ever since.

First: No. I am a queer, cranky dyke who is too old for this sort of bullshit gatekeeping.

Second: What an unbelievable question to ask someone you don't even know! What an incomprehensibly rude thing to ask, as if you're somehow owed information about my sexual history. You're not! No one—and I can't reiterate this enough, but no one—owes you the details of their sex lives, of their trauma, or of anything about themselves that they don't feel like sharing with you.

The clickbait mills of the internet and the purity police of social media would like nothing more than to convince everyone that you owe these things to everyone. They would like you to believe that you have to prove that you're traumatized enough to identify with this character, that you can't sell this article about campus rape without relating it to your own sexual assault, that you can't talk about queer issues without offering up a comprehensive history of your own experiences, and none of those things are true. You owe people, and especially random strangers on the internet, nothing, least of all citations to somehow prove to them that you have the right to talk about your own life.

This makes some people uncomfortable, and to be clear, I think that that's good: people who feel entitled to demand this information should be uncomfortable. Refusing to justify yourself takes power away from people who would very much like to have it, people who would like to gatekeep and dictate who is permitted to speak about what topics or like what things. You don't have to justify yourself. You don't have to explain that you like this ship because this one character reminds you a bit of yourself because you were traumatized in a vaguely similar way and now— You don't have to justify your queerness by telling people about the best friend you had when you were twelve, and how you kissed, and she laughed and said it was good practice for when she would kiss boys and your stomach twisted and your mouth tasted like bile and she was the first and last girl you kissed, but—

You don't owe anyone these pieces of yourself. They're yours, and you can share them or not, but if someone demands that you share, they're probably not someone you should trust.

Third: The idea of gold star lesbians is a profoundly bi- and trans- phobic idea, often reducing gender to genitals and the long, shared history of queer women of all identities to a stark, artificial divide where some identities are seen as purer or more valuable than others. This is bullshit on all counts.

There's a weird and largely artificial division between bisexuals and lesbians that seems to be intensifying on tumblr, and I have to say: I hate it. Bisexual women aren't failed lesbians. They're not somehow less good or less valid because they're attracted to [checks notes] people. Do you think that having sex with a man somehow changes them? What are you so worried about it for? I've checked, and having sex with a man does not, in fact, make your vagina grow teeth or tentacles. Does that make you feel better? Why is what other people are doing so threatening to you?

Discussions of gold star lesbians are often filled with tittering about hehe penises, which is unfortunate, since I know a fair few lesbians who have penises, and even more lesbians who've had sex with people, men and women alike, who have penises. I'm sorry to report that "I'm disgusted by a standard-issue human body part" is neither a personality nor anything to be proud of. I'm a dyke and I don't especially like men, but dicks are just dicks. You don't have to be interested in them, but a lot of people have them, and it doesn't make you less of a lesbian to have sex with someone who has a dick.

There's so much garbage happening in the world—maybe you haven't noticed, but things are kind of Not Great in a lot of places, and there's a whole pandemic thing that's been sort of a major buzzkill? How is this something that you're worried about? Make a tea, remind yourself that other people's genitalia and sexual history are none of your business, maybe go watch a video about a cute animal or something.

Fourth: The idea of gold star lesbians is a shitty premise that argues that sexuality is better if it's always been clear-cut and straightforward—but it rarely is. We live in a very, very heterosexist culture. I didn’t have a word for lesbian until many years after I knew that I was one. How can you say that you are something when your mouth can’t even make the shape of it? The person you are at 24 is different to the person you are at 14, and 34, and 74. You change. You get braver. The world gets wider. You learn to see possibilities in the shadows you used to overlook. Of course people learn more about themselves as they age.

Also, many of us, especially those of us who grew up in smaller towns, or who are over the age of, say, 25, grew up in times and places where our sexuality was literally criminal.

Shortly after I graduated high school, a gay man in my state was sentenced to six months in jail. Why? Well, he’d hit on someone, and it was a misdemeanor to "solicit homosexual or lesbian activity", which included expressing romantic or sexual interest in someone who didn’t reciprocate. You might think, then, that I am in fact quite old, but you would be mistaken. The conviction was in 1999; it was overturned in 2002.

I grew up knowing this: the wrong thing said to the wrong person would be sufficient reason to charge me with a crime.

In the United States, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, clarifying that according to the federal government, marriage could only ever be between one man and one woman. It also promised that even if a state were to legalize same-sex unions, other states wouldn't have to recognize them if they didn't want to. And wow, they super did not want to, because between 1998 and 2012, a whopping thirty states had approved some sort of amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Every queer person who's older than about 25 watched this, knowing that this was aimed at people like them. Knowing that these votes were cast by their friends and their families and their teachers and their employers.

Some states were worse than others. Ohio passed their bill in 2004 with 62% approval. Mississippi passed theirs the same year with 86% approval. Imagine sitting in a classroom, or at work, or in a church, or at a family dinner, and knowing that statistically, at least two out of every three people in that room felt you shouldn't be allowed to marry someone you loved.

Matthew Shepard was tortured to death in October of 1998. For being gay, for (maybe) hitting on one of the men who had planned to merely rob him. Instead, he was tortured and left to die, tied to a barbed wire fence. His murderers were both sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison. This was controversial, because a nonzero number of people felt that Shepard had brought it upon himself.

Many of us sat at dinner tables and listened to this discussion, one that told us, over and over, that we were fundamentally wrong, fundamentally undeserving of love or sympathy or of life itself.

This is a tiny, tiny sliver of history—a staggeringly incomplete overview of what happened in the US over about ten years. Even if this tiny sliver is all that there were, looking at this, how could you blame someone for wanting to try being not Like This? How can you fault someone who had sex, maybe even had a bunch of sex, hoping desperately that maybe they could be normal enough to be loved if they just tried harder? How can you say that someone who found themself an uninteresting but inoffensive boyfriend and went on dates and had sex and said that it was fine is somehow less valuable or less queer or less of a lesbian for doing so? For many people, even now, passing as straight, as problematic as that term is, is a survival skill. How dare you imply that the things that someone did to protect themself make them worth less? They survived, and that's worth literally everything.

Fifth, finally: What is a gold star, anyhow? You've capitalized it, like it's Weighty and Important, but it's not. Gold stars were what your most generous grade school teacher put on spelling tests that you did really well on. But ultimately, gold stars are just shiny scraps of paper. They don't have any inherent value: I can buy a thousand of them for five bucks and have them at my door tomorrow. They have only the meaning that we give them, only the importance that we give them. We’re not children desperately scrabbling for a teacher’s approval anymore, though. We understand that good and bad are more of a spectrum than a binary, and that a gold star is a simplification. We understand that no number of gold stars will make us feel like we’re special enough or good enough or important enough, or fix the broken places we can still feel inside ourselves. Only we can do that.

The stars are only shiny scraps of paper. They offer us nothing; we don’t need them. I hope that someday, you see that, too.

#queer stuff #lgbtq #gold star lesbians #long post #sorry #Anonymous

18K notes · View notes

lilium-major · 2 years

Text

my “glee” sexuality headcanons

MR. SCHUE - straight. and probably thought being super straight was a good thing when that was happening on tiktok a few months ago and he only stopped calling himself that when he started getting cancelled (again)

FINN - straight. but in a “aw token straight of the friendgroup” way and not a “lol ur straight ok” way

PUCK - straight, in an “lol ur straight ok” way. i wouldn’t put him past experimenting though. he probably did.

KURT - gay. i don’t know i feel like explanations are not necessary, he is exclusively homosexual i think.

BLAINE - this is tricky bevause my first instinct would be to say he’s also exclusively gay but i am hesitant to say that also. so maybe homoflexible? like he only sees himself setting with a man but he has short-lived interest in women. or is that just gay with comphet idk i’m a confused lesbian so me too blaine

ARTIE - pan? like i didn’t like any of his relationships on the show but i don’t feel like i see him with any of the guys on the show either. i feel like he definitely could have ended up with a person of any gender. so i’m gonna say pan. also he was definitely a gsa kid i said what i said

SAM - bi. chaotic bisexual energy through and through. i don’t know who i ship him with… maybe tina? maybe? it’s better than artina fs. i don’t ship blam, though, so i’m sorry if you came here for that.

BEISTE - gay? bevause i think he really into cooter in the beginning of that relationship. but i feel like he identifies as queer and just leaves it at that. i don’t really know though.

JESSE - bisexual through and through, i will not be taking questions at this time.

MIKE - straight? i really did like mike x tina. maybe heteroflexible though, or bi, with a heavier preference for women.

JOE - straight. and homophobic tbh. let’s not forget his first appearance.

JAKE - straight. again, like his brother, you can bet your ass he experimented with guys though. and denied it later.

RYDER - bi, i think. i don’t have a lot to say about his character in general, but i can see him ending up with a guy or a girl.

RORY - straight. hehe he loves women.

RACHEL - okay so i always thought she was straight while watching the show but then i fell in love with faberry and i now hc her as omniromantic, demisexual. i could go on and on and i might make another post about this later but yeah that’s my hc.

QUINN - is a lesbian. obviously. but i feel like she only uses the terms lesbian or sapphic to define her sexuality, i just feel like she wouldn’t call herself “queer” or “gay”

SANTANA - lesbian, but she does use queer and gay to describe herself. maybe moreso than lesbian, and she doesn’t use terms like sapphic or wlw at all.

BRITTANY - yeah i like her canon description. bi!

TINA - pan! i don’t really have an explanation, i just think she just wants to love and doesn’t care who.

SUGAR - straight. but she’s giving gsa vibes, so i’m thinking she’s one of those straight girls who comes out as bi but is repulsed by the idea of dating/sex with women. again, gsa kid.

UNIQUE - hmmm i want to say she’s unlabeled. she’s giving gay vibes, but i also think she definitely likes men to an extent. so yeah i’m going with unlabeled for unique.

MERCEDES - i think straight for mercedes. she’s definitely kissed a girl once but it wasn’t her cup of tea.

SUE - i think sue is aromantic, and heterosexual. which i guess is ironic considering she’s played by an irl lesbian but jane lynch is just so good. sue shows love in a lot of other (and often very strange) ways, and i think the reason that her storyline wasn’t romantic was because she just didn’t feel that. she didn’t need that in her life.

MARLEY - i think she’s pan! but everybody thought she was straight for a good year, and people started calling her the token straight of the friendgroup and she was like no actually i am gay

KITTY - the reason i hate her is because she’s like quinn, but straight. that literally takes away all the fun.

EMMA - straight. there is literally nothing more to say about that. no she likes men. she might be demisexual though. or maybe a sex-neutral asexual.

TERRI - i’m not going to lie she’s giving gay bimbo a little bit and i’m not against it. i’m probably going to regret saying that, though. uh…

68 notes · View notes