#homosexuality means exclusive same sex attraction. we are attracted ONLY to the same sex. we don't have any exception. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

amphibious-thing · 8 months

Note

I would absolutely love to see examples of historical terminology? I feel like I've only scraped the surface.

So I'm going to focus mostly on 18th century English because that's what I read the most (we will dip a little into French but mostly from an English perspective). Even narrowing the focus there's still kind of a lot. Like I'm probably going to forget something cause there is so much to talk about.

Sexuality

The first thing that's important to understand is sexuality labels were action based not attraction based. This doesn't mean people didn't understand sexual attraction, they very much did, it's just that terminology was based on action not attraction. Terminology was essentially separated into men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women. It also important to remember that these terms were not exclusive to men who only had sex with men and women who only had sex with women but also applied to people who had sex with both men and women.

Men Who Had Sex With Men

Sodomy/Buggery

The terms most commonly used in formal/legal contexts were sodomite and bugger. Bugger comes from buggery and sodomite from sodomy, both of which broadly speaking referred to anal intercourse or bestiality regardless of sex/gender but was most commonly associated with sex between men. The legal definition of sodomy in English common law was as follows:

Sodomy is a carnal Knowledge of the Body of Man or Beast, against the Order of Nature; It way be committed by Man with Man, (which is the most common Crime) or Man with Woman; or by Man or Woman with a Brute Beast. Some Kind of Penetration and Emission is to be proved, to make this Crime, which is Felony both by the Common and Statute Law, in the Agent and all that a present, aiding and abetting; also in the Patient consenting, not being within the Age of Discretion.

~ The Student’s Companion or, the Reason of the Laws of England by Giles Jacob, 1734, p239

However colloquially it was generally used to describe sex between men without the focus on Penetration and Emission.

Related to sodomy were the words sodomitical, sodomitically and sodomiting, these terms were used to describe a person, action or place that was related to sodomy (esp. sex between men) but did not necessarily constitute legal sodomy. (for examples see Trial of Martin Mackintosh, 11 July 1726, A Treatise of Laws by Giles Jacob, 1721, p165 and Trial of Thomas Gordon, 5 July 1732 respectively)

From buggery we get the presumably derogatory term buggeranto. (for an example see The London Spy, part III, published 1703)

Molly

The preferred term used by the community was molly. Rictor Norton explains in Mother Clap’s Molly House:

The early church fathers stigmatised homosexuals as molls or sissies, and secular society called effeminate men molly-coddles and homosexuals mollies; having no other self-referring terms except the even less appealing Sodomite or Bugger, gay men transformed Molly into a term of positive self-identification, in exactly the same way that the modern subculture has transformed Gay (which derived originally from ‘gay girl’, meaning a female prostitute) into a term of pride and self-liberation.

Molly (plural mollies) was a noun:

Sukey Haws, being one Day in a pleasant Humour, inform’d Dalton of a Wedding (as they call it) some Time since, between Moll Irons, and another Molly,

~ James Dalton’s Narrative (1728)

Molly/mollied/mollying could also be a verb:

I was going down Fleet-Street, I was just come out of Jail. This Man, the Prosecutor, is as great a Villain as ever appear'd in the World. I was coming down Fleet-Street, so Molly says he; I said, I never mollied you. My Lord, I never laid my Hand upon him, nor touch'd him; I never touch'd the Man in my Life.

~ Trial of Richard Manning, (17 January 1746)

And mollying could be used as an adjective:

But they look'd a skew upon Mark Partridge, and call'd him a treacherous, blowing-up Mollying Bitch, and threatned that they'd Massacre any body that betray'd them.

~ Trial of Thomas Wright, (20 April 1726)

A molly house was house or tavern that catered to mollies. Molly houses would typically serve alcohol and often had music and dancing. Usually there was a room where mollies could have sex known as the chapel. (see Trial of Gabriel Lawrence, 20 April 1726 for an example of the term molly house in use, Trial of George Whytle, 20 April 1726 and Trial of Margaret Clap, 11 July 1726 for details on the chapel, and Trial of William Griffin, 20 April 1726 for molly houses taking lodgers.)

Mollies also had their own slang which I have a separate post on if you want to learn more about that.

Euphemisms

Euphemisms for men who had sex with other men included Back Gammon Player and Usher, or Gentleman of the Back Door. To navigate the windward passage was a euphemism for anal sex. (see The Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, 1785.)

References to the classics were also sometimes used as euphemisms. A common example is Zeus's male lover Ganymede. (for an example see Public Advertiser, 4 Sept 1781)

Anal Sex Roles

The roles in anal sex were known as pathic (sometimes spelt Pathick) or patient (bottom) and agent (top). I have a longer post about the cultural perception of roles in anal sex if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Other Terms for Men Who Had Sex With Men

Pederast: In the 18th century the word pederasty was used synonymously with sodomy and did not denote age simply sex. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1726) defines “A pederast” as “a Buggerer” and “Pederasty” as “Buggery”.

Catamite: In particular catamite often, but not always, denoted the younger partner in a male-male sexual relationship. It was sometimes used to specifically describe boys but it was sometimes used it to describe men. Cocker's English Dictionary (1704) defines catamite as "a boy hired to be used contrary to nature, for Sodomy" but The New Royal and Universal English Dictionary (1763) defines catamite simply as "a sodomite." Catamite was also sometimes used as synonym for pathic.

Gomorrean: Like sodomite this one comes from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. However it wasn't nearly as commonly used. (for an example see The London Chronicle, 4 - 6 Jan 1757)

Madge Cull: This one came about towards the end of the century. It comes from a combination of Madge a slang term for “the female genitals” and Cull slang for “a man, a fellow, a chap.” (see Green’s Dictionary of Slang)

Women Who Had Sex With Women

Sodomy

While English common law did not consider sex between women sodomy this was not true across Europe. (see Louis Crompton, The Myth of Lesbian Impunity Capital Laws from 1270 to 1791) Most English colonies followed English common law however this aspect of the law was not unanimously agreed upon.

In 1636 Rev. John Cotton proposed to the General Court of Massachusetts a body of laws that would define sodomy as "a carnal fellowship of man with man, or woman with woman". (Crompton, p19)

In a 1779 bill submitted to the Virginia Assembly on crime and punishment Thomas Jefferson explicitly includes sex between women. He quotes Henry Finch's Law, or, a Discourse Thereof; in Four Books which defines sodomy as "carnal copulation against nature, to wit, of man or woman in the same sex, or of either of them with beasts." Jefferson disagrees with Finch on including bestiality because it "can never make any progress" and "cannot therefore be injurious to society in any great degree". However he doesn't dispute the inclusion of sex between women. He proposes that the punishment for sodomy be "if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." (see A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments in Cases Heretofore Capital, 18 June 1779)

While there was some disagreement on the legal definition of sodomy, colloquially if someone was talking about sodomy they were probably talking about sex between men. A clarification would likely be added if they were talking about women e.g. female sodomite.

Tribade

Coming from French tribade was defined in The New Pocket Dictionary of the French and English Languages (1781) as a "female sodomite". Tribade was used in English at least as early as 1585. It originally comes from the ancient Greek word τρίβειν meaning "rub" and is a reference to tribadism. The word tribadism however did not come into use until the 19th century. (see OED)

Sappho was a famous Tribade; as appears by the Testimonies of all the old Poets, but particularly from that beautiful Ode (addressed to one of the Ladies, with whom she was in Love) which Longinus has preserved, and which has ever been so highly esteemed by all the Critics.

~ William King, The Toast (1732)

Sapphic

Sapphic (sometimes spelt sapphick) originally meant "relating to, characteristic of, or reminiscent of Sappho or her writings". (OED) It became a term for sexual activity and sexual desire between women in reference of course to the accent Greek poet Sappho's love poems addressed to women. In fact in 18th century England Sappho was often cited as being the first woman who had ever had sex with another women.

Sappho, as she was one of the wittiest Women that ever the World bred, so she though with Reason, it would be expected she should make some Additions to a Science in which Womankind had been so successful: What dose she do then? Not content with our Sex, begins Amours with her own, and teaches the Female World a new Sort of Sin, call’d the Flats, that was follow’d not only in Lucian’s Time, but is practis’d frequently in Turkey, as well as at Twickenham at this day.

~ Satan’s Harvest Home (1749)

Sapphic is an adjective:

Look on that mountain of delight, Where grace and beauty doth unite, Where wreathed smiles must thrive; While Strawberry-hill at once doth prove, Taste, elegance, and Sapphick love, In gentle Kitty *****.

~ A Sapphick Epistle (1778)

Sapphism is a noun for the act or desire:

it has a Greek name now & is call’d Sapphism, but I never did hear of it in Italy where the Ladies are today exactly what Juvenal described them in his Time – neither better nor worse as I can find. Mrs Siddons has told me that her Sister was in personal Danger once from a female Fiend of this Sort; & I have no Reason to disbelieve the Assertion. Bath is a Cage of these unclean Birds I have a Notion, and London is a Sink for every Sin.

~ Hester Thrale Piozzi, Thraliana, 9 Dec 1795

Sapphist is a noun for the person:

Nature does get strangely out of Fashion sure enough: One hears of Things now, fit for the Pens of Petronius only, or Juvenal to record and satyrize: The Queen of France is at the Head of a Set of Monsters call’d by each other Sapphists, who boast her Example; and deserve to be thrown with the He Demons that haunt each other likewise, into Mount Vesuvius.

~ Hester Thrale Piozzi, Thraliana, 1 April 1789

Lesbian

Originally meaning "a native or inhabitant of the Greek island of Lesbos" (OED) this is another reference to Sappho who was from Lesbos.

However, this little Woman gave Myra more Pleasure than all the rest of her Lovers and Mistresses. She was therefore dignified with the Title of Chief of the Tribades or Lesbians.

~ William King, The Toast (1732)

Tommy

Tommy (plural tommies) is a fairly uniquely 18th century term as it doesn't seen to have been used earlier and is rarely used later. Speculatively it may be etymologically linked to tomboy which dates back to 1656. (OED)

Women and Men, in these unnat'ral Times, Are guilty equal of unnat'ral crimes: Woman with Woman act the Many Part, And kiss and press each other to the heart. Unnat'ral Crimes like these my Satire vex; I know a thousand Tommies 'mongst the Sex: And if they don't relinquish such a Crime, I'll give their Names to be the scoff of Time.

~ The Adulteress (1773)

Euphemisms

The game of flats, game at flats or simply flats was a euphemism for sex between women. Rictor Norton explains it was “a reference to games with playing cards, called ‘flats’, and an allusion to the rubbing together of two ‘flat’ female pudenda.” (Mother Clap’s Molly House, p233)

I am credibly informed, in order to render the Scheme of Iniquity still more extensive amongst us, a new and most abominable Vice has got footing among the W—n of Q—–y, by some call’d the Game at Flats;

~ Satan’s Harvest Home (1749)

In a diary entry Hester Thrale Piozzi repots "’tis a Joke in London now to say such a one visits Mrs. Darner". This was in reference to the rumours of sapphism that surrounded the sculptor Anne Damer. Piozzi goes on to recored a poem concerning Anne Damer's relationship with actress Elizabeth Farren that was being passed around her social circle:

Her little Stock of private Fame Will fall a Wreck to public Clamour, If Farren herds with her whose Name Approaches very near to Damn her.

~ Hester Thrale Piozzi, Thraliana, 9 Dec 1795 (see ‘Random Shafts of Malice?': The Outings of Anne Damer by Emma Donoghue for more on the rumours surrounding Anne Damer)

Absence of Sexual Attraction

With 18th century sexuality labels being action based rather than attraction based we have no exact equivalent for the word asexual. Just as we have no exact equivalent for the word homosexual. There was of course words for people who had never had sex (virgin, maiden) and words for people who planned on never having sex (celibate).

However this doesn't mean 18th century people had no way of talking about a lack of sexual attraction. The Chevalière d'Eon in a letter to the Comte de Broglie talks of "the natural lack of passion in my temperament, which has prevented my engaging in amorous intrigues”. Her lack of sexual interest became part of her self-styling as La Pucelle de Tonnerre (The Maiden of Tonnerre) after Joan of Arc who was known a La Pucelle d'Orléans (The Maiden of Orleans). (see D’Eon to the Comte de Broglie, 7 May 1771. Translated by Alfred Rieu, D'Eon de Beaumont, His Life and Times, p141; also for examples of the English press calling her La Pucelle d'Orléans see the Public Advertiser, 4 May & 11 June 1792)

The Third Sex/Gender

In the 18th century intersex people were predominantly referred to as hermaphrodites (while it is now considered offensive I will use it in this post as I think there is educational value in understanding it's historical use). In The Mysteries of Conjugal Love Reveal'd Written in French Nicholas de Venette explains that intersex people were permitted to "chuse either of the two Sexes". However if they strayed from the chosen role of man or woman they could be "punished like a Sodomite". (p465)

In the 18th century the words sex and gender were used somewhat synonymously. The word hermaphrodite along with third sex and third gender were used to describe not only intersex people but also gender nonconforming endosex people. Your clothes, interests, speech patterns and the way you move were all considered part of your sex.

Consider The Fribbleriad by David Garrick. Garrick was an actor known for playing fops. In the poem he portrays his critics as a group of effeminate men who were angry at him for they way he mocked them in his work:

In forty-eight— I well remember— Twelve years or more— the month November— May we no more such misery know! Since Garrick made OUR SEX a shew; And gave us up to such rude laughter, That few, ‘twas said, could hold their water: For He, that play'r, so mock’d our motions, Our dress, amusements, fancies, notions, So lisp’d our words and minc’d our steps, He made us pass for demi-reps. Tho’ wisely then we laugh’d it off, We’ll now return his wicked scoff.

"OUR SEX" is understood to be the sex of effeminate men. A sex distinct from that of acceptable manhood or womanhood which is defined by their "dress, amusements, fancies, notions" as well as the way they "lisp'd" their words and "minc’d" their steps.

John Bennett in his popular conduct book Letters to a Young Lady on a Variety of Useful and Interesting Subjects advises young women against wearing riding habits warning that they would "wholly unsex her". The Guardian reports that some people had "not injudiciously stiled" the riding Habit "Hermaphroditical". And The Spectator complains about riding Habits calling them an "Amphibious Dress" and describing women who wear them as "Hermaphrodites" and a "Mixture of two Sexes in one Person". (The Guardian, 1 September 1713, reprinted in The Guardian edited by John Calhoun Stephens, p 486; The Spectator 19 July, 1712)

The word amphibious is one that comes up a lot in the 18th century in regards to gender. A dictionary of the English language (1794) defines amphibious as "living in two elements". John Bennett describes effeminate men as "poor amphibious animals, that the best naturalists know not under what class to arrange."

Alexander Pope famously called Lord Hervey an "Amphibious Thing!" that acts "either Part". Lady Mary Wortley Montagu said that "this world consisted of men, women, and Herveys". And William Pulteney describes him as "delicate Hermaphodite", "a pretty, little, Master-Miss" and "a Lady Himself; or at least such a nice Composition of the two Sexes, that it is difficult to distinguish which is most predominant." (Alexander Pope, Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot; The Letters and Works of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu edited by Lord Wharncliffe, v1, p95; William Pulteney, A Proper Reply To a late Scurrilous Libel)

Macaroni, amazon, virago, fop, petit-maitre, coxcomb, amphibious, unsex, dandy, namby-pamby, he-she things, lady-fellow, master-miss, fribble, dubious gender. These were all terms to describe gender nonconforming people. Many of these terms were used in a derogatory way but not all of them were intended as such and some GNC people identified with some of these terms. For example a young Charles James Fox described himself as a petit-maitre in his 18 Oct, 1763 letter to his father. While at Eton, which he found "more disagreeable than I imagined", he laments "you may see the petit maître de Paris is converted into an Oxford Pedant."

Many of the people who were labeled as third sex/gender would not necessarily have identified as such. With even the smallest deviation from the norm giving rise to the label. Including one 1737 article which claimed that "Ugly Women" may "more properly be call'd a Third Sex, than a Part of the Fair one". (Common Sense, or The Englishman's Journal, 28, Feb)

Gender Presentation Through Gendered Language

While there is no real equivalent for the word transgender in 18th century English this doesn't mean people had no way of expressing their gender though language. People referred to themselves as being men, women, both or neither. Gendered names, titles and pronouns were also used to express one's gender.

The Chevalière d'Eon

D'Eon asserted her gender identity though gendered names, pronouns and titles. When she started openly living as a women she changed her first name to Charlotte making her full name Charlotte-Geneviève-Louise-Auguste-André-Timothée d’Eon de Beaumont. However she preferred the name Geneviève and would often write her name simply Geneviève d'Eon.

[Admission-ticket for Geneviéve d'Eon, with red seal; c.1793; via The British Museum (C,2.3)]

D'Eon used she/her pronouns. Here is an example of her using she/her pronouns for herself when writing in third person:

[Invitation from the Chevalière d’Eon to Lord Besborough; c.1791; via The British Museum (D,1.268-272)]

As she was French d'Eon used French titles even in English. She would sometimes use the title Mademoiselle (a title for unmarried women) but other times she used Chevalière. In 1763 she was awarded the Cross of Saint-Louis and with that came the masculine title Chevalier. When she started openly living as a women she switched from the masculine Chevalier to the feminine Chevalière. Perhaps the most fun example of her using the feminine Chevalière is the sword she gifted to George Keate which was inscribed: "Donné par la Chevalïere d’Eon à son ancïen Amï Geo: Keate Esquïre. 1777"

[The Chevalière d’Eon’s Sword, hilt: c.1700s, blade: c.mid-1600s, inscription: c.1777, photos via the Royal Armouries Museum (IX.2034A)]

Public Universal Friend

The Public Universal Friend claimed to be a genderless spirit sent by god resurrected in the body of Jemima Wilkinson after she had succumbed to a fever in 1776. The Public Universal Friend gained a small but devoted group of followers that understood and respected the Friend as a genderless being. When one traveler asked for directions to "Jemima Wilkinson's house" a women replied that "she knew no such person; "the friend" lived a little piece below." (A Ride to Niagara in 1809 by Cooper Thomas, p37)

For the most part followers of the Public Universal Friend avoided using gendered pronouns for the Friend*. However they did not use gender neutral pronouns (such as they/them) but instead avoided third person pronouns completely. You can see an example of the sort of gender neutral language used for the friend in this letter from Sarah Richards to Ruth Pritchard:

Dear Ruth This is to be a Messenger of my Love to thee. Hold out faith and patience. Thy letter was very welcome to me. I want Thee should make ready to come where the Friend is in this Town. The Friend has got land enough here for all that will be faithful & true. Dear Ruth, I will inform thee that Benedict has given the Friend a Deed of some land in the second Seventh in the Boston perhemption, which Deed contains five lotts and the Friend has made use of my name to hold it in trust for the Friend, and now I hope the Friends will have a home, and like wise for the poor friends and such as have no helper, here no intruding feet cant enter. Farewell form thy Affectionate Friend, Sarah Richards

~ Sarah Richards to Ruth Pritchard, March 1793 (printed in The Unquiet World by Frances Dumas, p166)

* In contrast to followers that avoided gendered pronouns completely ex-follower Abner Brownell claimed that some followers called the Friend "him." (see A Mighty Baptism edited by Susan Juster & Lisa MacFarlane, p28)

It's impossible to seperate the Friend's genderlessness from the claim that the Friend was a messenger sent by god resurrected in the body of Jemima Wilkinson. The followers of the Public Universal Friend used genderless language as a way to indicate their religious devotion. In "Indescribable Being" Theological Performances of Genderlessness in the Society of the Publick Universal Friend, 1776-1819 Scott Larson explains:

The language one chose to describe the Friend indicated whether one was part of the community of the saved or part of the "wicked world." Conversely, community members and followers used the name "the Friend" quite deliberately, and that use became a marker of belonging. This sense of belonging could last longer than the community itself did. Huldah Davis, who was a child when the Friend left time in 1819, shared her memories of the Friend in 1895. In her recollections, Davis refers to Jemima Wilkinson but is careful to note that her parents, followers of the Friend, always referred to "the Friend," and Davis uses the community's language through most of her account. Language choices could also mark points of entering and exiting the community, as the apostate and denouncer Abner Brownell refers to "The Friend" in diary entries written during the time of his membership in the Friend's community but then calls "her" "Jemima Wilkinson" in his later published denunciation, Enthusiastical Errors, Described and Decried.

Mollies and Maiden Names

Gendered language could be used to express queer identity without necessarily expressing a transgender identity. Mollies took on feminine sobriquets known as maiden names. A maiden name was a typically made up of a combination of either a feminine title or name (molly and variations being the most popular) and often a reference to something notable about the individual. It could be a reference to their profession for example Orange Mary was an orange merchant, Dip-Candle Mary was a tallow chandler and Old Fish Hannah a fisherman. It could be a reference to where they were from for example Mrs. Girl of Redriff was presumably from Redriff. Some maiden names were somewhat suggestive like Miss Sweet Lips or Molly Soft-buttocks.

(Sources for maiden names: Orange Mary, Dip-Candle Mary, Old Fish Hannah, and Mrs. Girl of Redriff are mentioned in James Dalton's Narrative; Miss Sweet Lips is mentioned in The Phoenix of Sodom by Robert Holloway; Molly Soft-buttocks is mentioned in Account of the Life and Actions of Joseph Powis)

While mollies took on these feminine names, they more often than not still lived as men. Most mollies wore men's clothes, used he/him pronouns and referred to their partners as their husbands not their wives. (for the use of husband in the molly subculture see the trial of Martin Mackintosh, 11 July 1726 and the trial of George Whytle, 20 April 1726)

However some mollies did wear women's clothes and used (at least some of the time) feminine pronouns. Take for example Princess Seraphina who during the trial of Thomas Gordon (5 July 1732) is described by Mary Poplet as follows:

I have known her Highness a pretty while, she us’d to come to my House from Mr. Tull, to enquire after some Gentlemen of no very good Character; I have seen her several times in Women’s Cloaths, she commonly us’d to wear a white Gown, and a scarlet Cloak, with her Hair frizzled and curl’d all round her Forehead; and then she would so flutter her Fan, and make such fine Curties, that you would not have known her from a Woman: She takes great Delight in Balls and Masquerades, and always chuses to appear at them in a Female Dress, that she may have the Satisfaction of dancing with fine Gentlemen. Her Highness lives with Mr. Tull in Eagle-Court in the Strand, and calls him her Master, because she was Nurse to him and his Wife when they were both in a Salivation; but the Princess is rather Mr. Tull’s Friend, than his domestick Servant. I never heard that she had any other Name than the Princess Sraphina.

On a final note I would also recommend looking up many of these terms in the Oxford English Dictionary (you might be able to access this for free through your library) and Green's Dictionary of Slang both of which include multiple examples in use.

#sorry this took so long I couldn't resist making it far too long #if you want me to talk your ear off just ask me about 18th century queer language its my favourite topic #queer history

145 notes · View notes

menalez · 8 months

Note

Oh i dont have empathy ? You guys use our labels like it doesn't mean anything, because you believe it to be a safer alternative and im the insensitive one ???

If all of this stemmed from the fact that you had a hard time accepting the fact youre gay you could've kept on prentending you were straight. Its all pretend anayway so why pretend youre bi.

Being bi isnt some fucking label you get to identify as then just throw it away when it doesn't seem to serve you especially when a lot of you here knew you were gay but still used it anyway

catch up, we aren't talking about intentionally pretending to be something you're not. we are talking about literally not accepting that you're not OSA but having accepted that you're SSA. if a gay person thinks theyre into both sexes, they will logically claim to be bi because that's what its called when you're into both sexes. you do lack empathy for gay people because you cant even seem to comprehend that accepting one's EXCLUSIVE same sex attraction is difficult to do in a world where our entire worth revolves around having an opposite sex spouse & reproducing (especially for women).

this says it all btw. while youre complaining about the 1% of "bi" people who know theyre only attracted to the same sex (as opposed to gay ppl who are genuinely convinced theyre bi and havent accepted their genuine sexuality), 16% of "gay" people are well aware they're into both sexes and are knowingly appropriating homosexuality.

#instead of complaining about the growing trend of hets pretending to be bi ofc u lash out at gay ppl #who are simply in denial bc accepting that ur not OSA is a difficult thing #anonymous

24 notes · View notes

thelesbianpoirot · 6 months

Note

Yes, exactly. I have very close female friends too, but I will always crave sexual intimacy as well. Even though I'm the kind of person who will only have sex with someone if I've known them for a while and I'm in a relationship with them, that doesn't mean I don't want to have it. And I honesly don't understand how your partner can bring you to orgasm and then you don't want to do the same in return? I know it's not a transaction and you can get something out of it even if you don't orgasm, but surely you want to pleasure your partner too because you're attracted to them and want them to feel good and it feels good to you to do that? Like I'm not against the concept of asexuality, I do think some people do have such low libido that it might be a useful descriptor, but it's just questionable to me how many asexuals identify as lesbians (or just how many are women in general), whereas I don't think I've ever seen a gay man say he is asexual...it's cool to just want to be celibate with your female friends but that's doesn't make you a lesbian

Forming close female friendships will make a lot of women more normal about their sexuality. It is crucial. You'll quickly see the difference between that and a real romantic relationship, even if there is a lot of over lap. We might raise a kid together, but it is no different to me from my mom living her her two friends for years because they were all single moms trying to get by. Women need each other, and you can experience that yearning for that, for female only spaces. But it is different from sexual desire. It isn't a transaction, but it should be a desire of yours to want to return a good feeling. It is a natural response of being attracted to someone, wanting to give them pleasure. I am fine with celibacy, and asexuality, but I do not believe asexuality is compatible with homosexuality, I think is it's own separate thing. Homosexuality is exclusive same sex attraction, asexuality is experiencing no sexual attraction, you can't remove sexuality from homosexuality, sorry. Low Libido lesbians exist and only want to have sex under their preferred conditions, committed relationships, without penetration, once or twice a month etc. I'm fine with this. I don't want all lesbians to conform to some standard, we are a diverse group like anyone else. You hit the nail on the head. There is no asexual gay man. There are gay man with sexual boundaries, and loads of preferences, who have been celibate for loads of reasons but you won't find one who says, "I don't experience sexual attraction to men but I still call myself a gay man". Yet online you'll find a bunch o' women who call themselves asexual lesbians, trying to barter their way out of eating pussy while calling themselves lesbians. I think we women are often insecure, and constantly trying to find ourselves, and in the process can get lost if there aren't understanding people to steer us in the right direction. And I want to kindly say to celibate "asexual" women, who don't experience sexual attraction to women, i.e don't want to eat pussy, that you are perfectly healthy, entitled to your boundaries, and deserve lifelong female companionship, but you aren't lesbians.

#thelesbianpoirot

6 notes · View notes

piqued-curiosity · 1 year

Note

Honestly i slightly start to think that lot of non gay “queer peoples” homophobia comes from not having all attraction you ever showed or known being treated as an offense. Like gay people don’t have “queerness”… their baseline attraction is same sex. And that means that unless you are lucky most your first crushes are not only unrequited but actively being seen as “a threat”. Meanwhile if you like the other sex your rejection is treated differently like of course there are exceptions but in general a rejection is something more sympathetic “oh he’s just mean you deserve better” not the implications of “how dare you sexualize a girl who sees you as a friend”. So gay people carry rejection and preferences as something expected in a different way people who don’t exclusively have that experience to. Like if all your attraction has an higher chance to rejection you internalize that a bit more in regular life. Again not to generalize and there are enough bisexual people who do had a first same sex crush or are febfems but like, I don’t know the way I sometimes feel people talk about rejection from gay people especially just feels like… yeah as gay person that’s part of the deal. Meanwhile all “gay” trans people and bisexuals do know that a bigger dating pool is available in their references of life so if you fail while genuinely trying and having a connection at first it’s deeply “unfair”.

Like especially “gay” trans people have this weird mix of at once knowing they have made their datingpool smaller and yet assume that because gay and lesbian people promoted all “LOVE IS LOVE INCLUSION FOR ALL” they just join the “weird people group that will date me as they praise acceptance” with a tiny bit of not realizing that if you were bad at dating before you now thrown yourself in a smaller dating pool full of flawed individuals compared to the heterosexual bigger dating pool of flawed people. Like we are all also just humans who just happen to be gay. Sorry I’m rambling but I’ve been thinking about this a lot and while it’s true that talking to people who are same sex attracted we aren’t as split and just all people with one thing in common, some “online discourse” does make me think there are differences in experiences.

I definitely think you’re onto something!

All OSA people, straight people in particular, grow up having their OSA encouraged. We’re talking from day one with toddlers being called a ladies man, or asking a little girl if she has a boyfriend. All the media they grow up with spotlights straight couples. And most kids aren’t going to even have a gay couple in their family so there’s virtually no exposure for a lot of us. So already, you have the difference of OSA people seeing people like them everywhere celebrating their attraction, and SSA not getting that or even getting the opposite (active hostility towards SSA), right from childhood. That means that navigating OSA in teen years will be easier and celebrated, while navigating SSA will be new, scary, and discouraged. Like you said, a same sex crush is considered predatory and threatening. So SSA people, especially gay people since SSA is all we can experience, learn to hold back and to accept that love isn’t a guarantee to us. OSA people, especially straight people since OSA is all they can experience, learn that there’s plenty of fish in the sea and it’s completely fine to pursue any of them.

In short, you’re absolutely right to say that gay people in particular learn that rejection is going to be common, and that it might even be hostile. I’m sure this is why you notice with homosexual TQ+ people, they aren’t as invasive and demanding as OSA ones are. When was the last time you saw a “straight man” TIF demanding that women fuck her or they’re evil transphobes? Probably close to never, or at least not often, because she’d have been raised a lesbian, meaning she learned early on that even asking a girl out could be considered predatory, never mind demanding she sleep with you (which obviously is predatory). On the flip side, when was the last time you saw a “gay man” TIF demanding that men fuck her or they’re evil transphobes? Probably in the last couple days. Because she’d have been raised a straight girl, meaning she learned early on that she’s entitled to an opposite sex partner as it’s just part of life. And I’d say all of this applies to bi people in the same way, because you rarely see them making “get over your genital preference” demands to the same sex…it’s usually just the opposite sex.

As I said, I think you’re right! There’s absolutely a certain entitlement I notice from “queers” regarding the opposite sex that I don’t notice SSA people having towards the same sex. Just look at the entire genital preference/cotton ceiling/boxer ceiling debate, it’s basically just trying to shame gay people for not being OSA. It’s hardly ever directed at straight people. It only makes sense to me that it would come from how we’re raised to approach OSA and SSA and how these attitudes are internalised. Thank you for sending me your thoughts! 💕

#asks #anon

15 notes · View notes

positivityforlesbians · 2 years

Note

Hi! I'm a gay trans man; no matter how much you say you're not transphobic, you are. "Females who identify as nonbinary should just call themselves tomboys and live as women~" Guess what, I called myself a tomboy from 5-15 years old and used "I'm a tomboy" to contradict anyone calling me a girl because I was never a girl but had no words to say it. I am disgusted with your assertions that someone can be a lesbian (woman attracted to only women) while attracted to trans men. WE'RE MEN. OUR BODIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. Same goes for anyone who isn't cisgender. I would fucking vomit if a lesbian came onto me knowing I was a trans man, because that would be her saying "I disrespect your very being as a human person and only see you for your genitals as a sexual object." You don't see how fucked up that is? That's what some cishet men do all the time to anyone they think is a cis women, do you think that's fucked up?

Not quite sure why you're sending this here now but since you're trying me I will answer. You're attributing quotes to me that I quite simply never expressed, you lack nuance.

Buddy, we don't give a fuck that you're homophobic and think it's "disgusting" that lesbians can be attracted to trans men. We are homosexual. No matter how weird you think it is. This has nothing to do with gender, behaviour, style. A trans man who is not medically transitioned yet look exactly the same as a woman, if they are looking masculine and we don't know the person then how exactly do you think we can know the difference and not think the person can be a masculine woman who possibly is same-sex attracted too ?

This is being realistic and honest about our sexual orientation. If you don't like hearing it then it's quite frankly not our problem. Lesbians can fall for trans men and not even know they (trans men) identify this way. Even different pronouns and not identifying as a woman doesn't necessarily stop us from being into someone who is female, you should know that since now the (English) language is shifting so much to include in lesbian attraction non-binary people (again, incredible how it's not all people who identify as non-binary, we are not bisexual). You think we magically can tell how someone identify from just looking at them ?

I know you're not used to it at this point but lesbians are tired of staying silent and being disrespected just for existing. Our sexual orientation doesn't exist as a validation machine. You identify as a trans man ? Great for you ! Now have the decency to listen to us when we talk about our experiences, to just open your eyes and see what's going on around you, to actually document yourself on homosexuality and the history of dating in both the lesbian and trans men community. We share something, it's not a coincidence, even though you seem to deny that. Not all lesbians will date trans men, far from that, but it's really not uncommon, notably for couples that were already together before one of the partners transitioned. There are trans men right now that don't take T or have stopped taking it (while still identifying as trans men) that are 100% desirable to lesbians, that's not what you want to hear but we cannot just stop being attracted to someone who is of the same sex as ours just to be in line with what homophobes like you want everyone to believe.

Does this mean lesbians will "come onto you knowing you're a trans man" if they are attracted to you (assuming the person isn't medically transitioned) ? No. If they don't want to change their label. But also yes. If they are willing to change their label, not to force themselves but because they truly believe it changes something - or out of respect (but then they don't give that respect to their own self). It won't change their nature, their sexual orientation stays the same. Being exclusively attracted to the same sex does not mean "I disrespect your very being as a human person and only see you for your genitals as a sexual object", it means we fall in love with people for their personalities, their passion, their laugh, their smile, every cute detail about them, but that it simply cannot happen if the person is from the opposite sex.

It was very much understood in the lgbt community as a whole up until maybe 12 years ago that trans men and lesbians sometimes date, just like trans women and gay men sometimes date. Trans people themselves were (and still are to some extent, of course), not seeing a contradiction because, you know, they/you are trans, meaning we have the same sex. Hope this helps.

#anonymous #lesbophobia #my answers #trans men #lesbian community #dating #lesbian herstory

75 notes · View notes

thatdykepunkslut · 3 months

Note

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

Extremely funny to me that you framed this from the POV of what I, a lesbian, think about gay men, but I'll do my best anyways.

I mean it depends, like yeah certainly for some gay men it's masculinity or masculine presentation, they like beards and big cocks and chest hair or whatever. But there's also a lot of gay men who are just attracted to people who claim manhood.

"It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement," isn't a critique, you could lie about any part of yourself to fool someone into liking you, that's just catfishing. "It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan," also isn't an argument because like... we don't know that? Like some animals seem to have genital preferences that lead to same-sex fucking but ANY human identity is not applicable to other animals because other species can't self-identify.

I think your problem is that you're trying to collapse entire cultures down into a mechanical logic puzzle. Queer identities often have more to do with community than strict definitions or identical shared experience. Like lesbians are lesbians because they want to call themselves lesbians, not exclusively because they're attracted to predominately or exclusively women. There's trans men who call themselves lesbians because that's where they started out and idk, good for them! I also think that bi and pan are equally culturally constructed as any other identity, even just the like half dozen ways people define bisexuality in the first place shows this (I will say the "men AND women" definition is kind of dumb because that's not how our other terms are constructed and it's ahistorical but oh well that's a whole other rant)

Idk like I don't think there's an answer to this you just gotta like ask individual people's opinions about it if you really want to know.

#ask that dyke #anon

5 notes · View notes

max--phillips · 1 year

Note

genuine question but if being heterosexual or homosexual has nothing to do with genitals then what are those of us exclusively attracted to one sex or another supposed to do or call ourselves...

I’m going to do my best to respond to this in good faith, but you’ll have to excuse me if I get a little snippy because I am not the only person who has addressed this and trans people are, rightfully, kind of tired of having this conversation. That said, this is probably going to get long.

The short answer is: why do you feel the need to differentiate yourselves? You just keep using whatever label makes you happy.

The long answer has several parts. It has to do with division, medicalization, communication, and, of course, attraction.

First: division. This is a slightly longer version of my short answer. If you identify as a lesbian, and you truly are only interested in having sex with people with vulvas, you’re still a lesbian. There’s no need for you to differentiate yourself from the rest of the community. I’ll expand a little on that with communication.

TERFs reeeeaaaaaaaally want lesbians to be their own little island within the LGBT community, as if we don’t have a long, rich history that overlaps with bi women, trans women, trans men, and nonbinary folks. Bi women face similar discrimination. Trans women have always been a part of our community because they are women. It isn’t unheard of for a trans man to refer to themself as a butch lesbian, or vice versa, and for that to be completely valid (and there is a ton of overlap in our experiences otherwise!) Nonbinary people have always been a part of our community, too. While labels are important to many people, we need them to stay labels and not become boxes. The world is not black and white, and neither is gender and sexuality.

Second: medicalization. I realize that the terms homosexual and transsexual are being actively reclaimed by our community, but I do not know very many folks who choose to label themselves as “homosexual.” (Not that you can’t, of course, it’s a perfectly valid label to choose!) The reason they’re being reclaimed is because they came from the field of psychiatry to pathologize our lived experienced because they were seen as wrong or deviant or abnormal. But, words change meaning over time. In the context of the LGBT community, “homosexual” just means gay or lesbian. It no longer means its biological definition, which is two animals of the same sex engaging in sexual activity. Therefore, someone who uses the label homosexual is typically not implying that they are strictly attracted to someone of the same sex, but rather as someone who is attracted to the same gender.

We need to learn, as a society, that yes, gender is a construct, but so is sex. It is two arbitrary categories for people with “typical” genitalia and other secondary sex characteristics. Yet, many people fall outside of those categories, and may not even realize it their whole life; many DSDs/intersex conditions are wholly undetectable unless specific medical tests are run. Sex is just as complicated a subject as gender, and once again, folks (especially TERFs) want so desperately for everything to be black and white that they ignore this fact when having this conversation.

I’m going to mess with the order here a little bit. Third: attraction. I’m going to say something that is going to make you defensive, but I ask that you hear me out. You are not attracted to a specific sex. Let me explain. Let’s say you see someone on the street. You know absolutely nothing about this person, but you find them sexually attractive. Given the opportunity, you’d gladly have sex with them. But, you still don’t know anything about their chromosome makeup, or their genitalia, or anything other than the outward facing secondary sex characteristics you can see. This may give you an assumption as to their sex, but it does not guarantee anything either way. You don’t know anything about their biological sex until you get into their pants or ask—and even then you STILL might not know.

There are trans women with vulvas. There are trans men with penises. Yet, technically, only the orientation of their genitalia was changed, not what sex they were determined to be by their DNA—be that peri- or intersex. Yes, bottom surgery used to be referred to as a sex change, but the language has evolved to be gender affirmation surgery (which also includes other procedures, such as top surgery and FFS.) Ultimately, at the end of the day, you are not attracted to a specific sex. You are attracted to a specific gender, and you have a genital preference. Which is fine! And leads to my last point.

Finally: communication. Look, I know that there was a pretty strong camp a while back that was like “if you have a genital preference you’re transphobic” and while I will always encourage people to examine why they have a genital preference (is it trauma? Is it genuinely just preference? Or is it internalized transphobia?) I don’t think that having those preferences is inherently transphobic. That said, there is a correct way to go about communicating that preference.

Just be fucking polite. If you’re flirting with someone and think you might get busy, you just tell them, “hey, I think you’re really cool, but I just want to let you know I’m really only comfortable with this specific genital situation. Is that going to pose an issue?” And if they say like, sorry but I don’t have that situation, you say “bummer, but no worries! You’re cool though, I’d still like to hang out/be friends/whatever.” And if they say no issues here, steal me away, then y’all go do whatever you wanna do.

Key takeaways: you put the onus of the genital preference on yourself, not on the other person. No “what’s in your pants,” no “so have you had bottom surgery,” none of that. And you also don’t react negatively when and if they tell you one way or the other. This is not an invitation for you to lash out at them or be violent or anything crazy like that.

Ultimately. Stop trying to force the world into pure black and white categories and realize that everything has overlap and complexities that you cannot and will not root out. Separation only makes us easier to conquer. And they won’t stop conquering with the minority du jour. They will come for you, too.

#tori answers questions #max answers questions #anonymous #terfs do not touch this is not a fucking invitation to argue

8 notes · View notes

thoughts-of-a-heathen · 2 years

Text

Some thoughts on the homophobic bias that exists within certain sections of the heathen community:

Just because a concept exists within several cultures, it doesn't mean that all of these cultures have the same, or even a similar, understanding of said concept.

The understanding of a concept might also change quite drastically over time, even within a single culture.

For example, the law against "unnatural fornication" ("otukt som mot naturen är," 1864) is sometimes referred to as Sweden's "anti gay law." But in reality, the law was used to control sexual activity that was deemed unacceptable (like anal penetration, and beastiality).

In the 19th century, the law was mainly used to prosecute people for actions that would still have been illegal today (like CSA). The gender of the people involved was of less importance than the action itself. Sodomy wasn't deemed any more acceptable because it involved a man and a woman. Similarly, consent didn't matter. (What mattered was the perceived damage that the action had caused to society's "morals").

As some of you may have already figured out, the way the law was applied meant that men could have sex with eachother without being prosecuted for it - as long as they stuck to petting and oral sex.

The police couldn't prosecute men for sucking dick, which meant that many men indeed did suck a lot of dick. In public places, even. (This actually became a bit of a nuisance in some parks in Stockholm.)

At the very end of the 19th century, the application of the law started changing (because of many different factors, including the popularisation of the word 'homosexuality'). Some decades into the 20th century, the law was almost exclusively applied to sex between men (now oral sex was understood to be a "forbidden" activity). The number of people who got prosecuted for having sex with someone of the same gender increased dramatically in the last decade before the law was abolished in 1944.

The law wasn't abolished because people got less homophobic. Quite the opposite. The only reason why the law was abolished was that people pitied the "poor, mentally ill homosexuals."

Homosexuals went from being seen as normal people doing immoral things to being seen as sick and immoral individuals.

Another thing to consider is how lesbian sex wasn't included in the original understanding of the law.

Even after the understanding of "unnatural fornication" changed, very few women were convicted of it. Between 1880 and 1944, 10 women were prosecuted for same sex sexual activity (compared to over 1400 men).

The law didn't start out as an anti gay law, but it eventually turned into one. Because the way people understood "unnatural fornication" changed.

Our understanding of concepts is always changing.

So yeah, even if anal sex between two men was considered unacceptable in iron age Scandinavia, it doesn't mean that men couldn't express romantic and sexual attraction towards each other.

When people claim that "Vikings" didn't accept same sex attraction (or sexuality), they're really just expressing their own bias.

I have yet to find any [reliable] sources on Norse men not being allowed to cuddle with another man. Or kiss another man. Or hold hands with another man. Or suck a dick. Or whatever, really.

There are so many things that we will never know about the past. And frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of people filling in the blanks with American conservatism.

And while there is a point to be made about how it wouldn't matter if the Norse did have the same views as modern day homophobes, and that we don't need to repeat their mistakes, it's just as important that we don't just accept biased narratives as facts.

Source: Jens Rydström, Sinners and Citizens

#heathenry #history #norse society #homophobia #lgbtq #perspectives #rambles #probably

31 notes · View notes

bisolationist · 9 months

Note

First off: sorry for the long ask but I've been thinking.

Its just that when she said that "saying bisexuals experience both biphobia and homophobia is like saying they experience double the oppression." Is an example of how our sexuality is obscured in language.

To explain this we have "homophobia" (The word used in context of hatred/discomfort/intolerance towards same-sex attraction) and "homophobia" (The hatred/discrimination of SPECIFICALLY homosexual people because they are attracted to the same sex and don't feel attraction towards the other sex). The problem is that these are the same word because to many people is exclusively the same thing. Why? Because they forget bisexual people are attracted to the same sex or simple don't care, so discrimination against SSA = discrimination against homosexuals in their minds.

Laws against SSA in general, against equal marriage, churches and people saying all that "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" is seen as ONLY affecting homosexuals even though bi people are also same-sex attracted and therefore affected by this.

That's why people feel comfortable saying bisexuals only experience "misdirected" homophobia. Because they don't see it as someone who hates SSA and attacks someone for having SSA, they see someone who hates SSA (and therefore hates only homosexuals) and attacks someone who has SSA (believing they are homosexual.)

It was clear you said bisexual people experience "homophobia" (general intolerance against SSA) and "biphobia"(Subset of that homophobia specifically aimed at bisexuals) the conclusion is that homosexuals experience both "homophobia" (general intolerance against SSA) and "homophobia" (Hatred specifically because they are homosexuals) but because there isn't a distinction between these two meanings she thought you were saying they experience "only" homophobia even though you said they are affected in their own way by straight people.

Oh yes, exactly!

Maybe a great first step would be to have a specific word for homophobia (oppression of exclusively same-sex attracted people).

Because yeah bisexuals do not experience that, and that is a major component of what gay people experience.

I don't see how talking about biphobia (Subset of that homophobia specifically aimed at bisexuals) undermines that inherently.

It's just a fault of language that we don't quite have the right words for things.

#Ty for the very thoughtful ask

5 notes · View notes

vintage-bentley · 2 years

Note

Hey there! You are very right about the homophobic fandom and I absolutely agree with you there.

It just bothers me that, like in your satiric text, you make afab gay men seem like an exaggeration for being afab, and that you kinda ridicule and bad-label trans people in general. That’s… kinda not okay. ^^“

As a trans person who doesn’t support the gay erasure in the fandom either, even supports the counter side, it kinda hurts to be dragged into the role of the bad ones when literally not being on their side.

There are also a lot of cis+binary people invalidating gay allo men, you know?

It’s not supposed to be hate, just please don’t generalize/attack people who aren’t doing anything wrong!

I'm going to be honest, anon, I stared at this for a good minute trying to figure out if you're being satirical or serious. I'm going to treat this as if you're being serious so I'm sorry if you're trying to joke around and I didn't catch on lol.

First of all, I'm glad we can agree on fandom being homophobic. But I think we're in disagreement over who is the target of this homophobia, and what a gay man/person is.

I'm guessing that this is the satiric text you're referencing, and specifically this line;

I read so much mlm fanfic it’s unreal. And that helped me discover that I’m literally a gay man (afab) so I literally can’t be homophobic???

(And yes, I have seen multiple women cite fanfiction written by women for women as how they "discovered" they're a "gay man")

To be clear, I am absolutely ridiculing the concept of "afab gay men" and those who consider themselves such. Because it's ridiculous! Gay men are male homosexuals. They are men who were born men, and born to love men.

Saying that heterosexual females can claim the label of gay man is homophobic and incredibly disrespectful to gay people (especially gay men). It diminishes the experience of actual gay men and treats the word "gay" as something you can identify into by changing your pronouns, instead of a word to describe the exclusive same sex attraction of homosexuals. Note: this exclusive same sex attraction is the baseline requirement for being gay, and it is something "afab gay men" do not experience. They are females attracted to males. Heterosexual. And before you try to say that being gay is actually same gender attraction...it's homosexual, not homogenderal. "afab gay men" are taking a word/term that doesn't belong to or describe them, and claiming it for themselves. This all quickly leads to the whole "gay men must be open to dating females (’afabs’) or they're transphobic" debate, which is just conversion therapy rhetoric in pretty packaging.

Understandably, as a lesbian I have a huge problem with straight people not only using and appropriating the language gay people use for ourselves, but then taking it one step further and demanding we play along. It’s “kind of not okay” that I ridicule the people who do this? It’s very not okay that they’re pretending to be gay in the first place. Their blatant lack of respect for homosexuals and our sexuality is extremely not okay.

I'd recommend this speech by MrMenno, or really any of his content covering this topic, if you want to hear it from the mouth of a gay man.

I will say that I don't mean to badmouth trans people in general, since I'm sure there's some trans people out there who aren't buying into the sexism and homophobia that the majority of their community sells. However, I am badmouthing the community for that reason; that it's wildly homophobic and sexist. I feel the need to call that out and be clear about where it's coming from. If trans people want to do that themselves, they’re more than welcome. But currently, it’s being left to gay people to defend ourselves.

Also, I think it's important to note that my being critical of gender ideology means I don't follow the same ideology that the trans community does. Making fun of the concept of "this heterosexual female is a gay man" is the same for me as making fun of the concept that "Jesus our saviour is the son of god".

I'm sorry that you feel hurt that you're being lumped in with The Bad Ones. But the very fact that you believe there is such thing as an "afab (female/woman) gay man" tells me that you are perpetuating the exact homophobic rhetoric that I take issue with. It's good that you can acknowledge and be against some forms of homophobia, but you need to be against all forms of homophobia. That includes being against heterosexuals claiming they're gay.

If you don’t want to be seen by many gay people as one of the bad ones, Stop claiming that women can be gay men, and that gay people like myself should not speak up against the notion that they can. Stop expecting gay people to be okay with heterosexuals appropriating our language and experiences.

"There are also a lot of cis+binary people invalidating gay allo men, you know?"

Now you're not even speaking my language lol. I don't use the word cis or allo, and "validation" isn't the problem. Gay people aren't like the trans community; we don't need constant validation. We just need people to stop being homophobic, and to start respecting homosexuality.

You say this isn't supposed to be hate, yet you're telling me, a lesbian, that I need to stop calling out heterosexuals who call themselves gay because apparently they aren’t doing anything wrong. But appropriating homosexuality for the sake of one's "identity" is doing something wrong. Saying there's such thing as an "afab gay man" is wrong. Expecting homosexuals to let heterosexuals walk all over us while claiming to be one of us is wrong. I'm going to continue attacking homophobic rhetoric, and continue making fun of heterosexuals who pretend to be something they aren’t.

#thank you for being polite at least #asks #anon #my ramblings

31 notes · View notes