#i got as many mspec flags as i could | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

posi-pan · 2 years

Note

Just thought I'd share that

As much as I dislike the new pan flag and think it's unnecessary, someone explained me that the new pan flag has better meaning than the old one.. Like the old one has "attraction to men, women, and nonbinary people" while new one has "attraction regardless of gender". I always thought that people who use new flag use it just because "eww the creator of old one thinks bi lesbians are valid!!" (which is such a dumb reason to use flag or to make a new one cuz i bet that if we would try to search, we would find any creator of queer flags being "problematic" at some point. Plus there's something like reclaiming and separating creator from their work) but I just met pan people that identify more with the second definition and thats why they use the new flag

So yeah I learned something today, and im happy for that

Of course I know that we can reclaim pan flag and change it's meaning, but ig some people just prefer the new one and im just happy not everyone use it just because they want bi lesbians to die. Makes me feel a little better

i wanna preface this by saying i'm not mad or annoyed with you anon or trying to be a debby downer. this is just a topic i've been seeing people talk about lately and i have Thoughts. so this is my obligatory "i'm not mad at you or being aggressive, this is just how i talk" disclaimer.

i don't agree that the exclusionist pan flag has a "better" meaning. i don't see anything wrong with the pan flag's meaning. and there is no need to "reclaim" the pan flag or change its meaning. what's wrong with women, nonbinary folks, and men? because "it makes nonbinary a third gender"? it doesn't though, and it's not like there could be infinite stripes for all the different nonbinary genders.

because "some pan people relate more to regardless of gender"? that doesn't make it "better" because plenty of pan people don't. and like, a flag's meaning doesn't actually have to be or include the label's exact definition or an individual's personal definition, as there are many definitions of each label and they can't all be shoved into the meaning of a flag.

panphobes say "pink for girls and blue for boys? ew" but don't say shit about the trans flag. or say "the pan flag has pink for girls and blue for boys and yellow for ~that other gender~" when that's not even where the creator was coming from. people projected so much shit onto the creator, and when that got debunked, they projected onto the meaning. it just feels like people are grasping at straws for reasons why the pan flag shouldn't be used and the exclusionist flag Isn't Bad Actually.

(the creator even tweeted last year about how people claiming the flag's meaning is a "gross oversimplification" of pan is ridiculous and ?????? and that people can just say they don't vibe with the flag instead of making shit up to make them look bad to justify not using the flag.)

and as far as not every person using the exclusionist flag because they're exclusionists...........if they don't agree with hating mspec lesbians then why would they use a flag that was created specifically to express exactly that? if they want a flag with a different meaning, they could make their own or find a non-shitty alternative pan flag.

again, any annoyance is general, not specifically at you, anon. and i'm sorry if this feels like raining on your parade, since you were happy to know not everyone uses that flag because they hate mspec lesbians.

#asks #anonymous #long post #pan flag #exclusionism #mspec lesbian antagonism #pan antagonism #& i would just like pan flag ~discourse to not be a thing every single year around this time. like. let's give it a rest PLEASE i'm tired

87 notes · View notes

redtail-lol · 7 months

Text

Flag discourse opinions

Most of these will surprise no one.

Most will be below the cut but this one is important:

Flag discourse isn't super important and I don't care that much if people disagree with me. Many opinions I will fiercely defend and can't stand people who disagree but this isn't one of them.

Opinion #1: You don't have to support the creator to use an ORIGINAL flag or support the things that got them canceled.

This goes for the lipstick lesbian flag and the original bigender flag especially. Their creators were bad people but their flags don't necessarily stand for those beliefs. The lipstick lesbian flag might be a little iffy since it's pink and is anti-butch iirc? But the bigender flag never stood for the things the creator had said or done. Using the original isn't necessarily supporting them

Opinion #2: It's still better to not use them

I can't stop anyone from using the canceled flags but if you think someone's opinions or actions are bad enough to warrant not using their creation, it's probably for the best that you didn't use them. Especially if there's any way these creators could profit from their designs being used. It openly shows a lack of support for them and an alliance with their victims, while using the old flags might make people wonder about you.

Opinion #3: You don't have to support any creator in their entirety to use their flags

Original, alt, or replacement flag, you're allowed to use any flag without supporting the creator's every opinion and action. This is why bi lesbians can use the sunset flag. Even if we fundamentally disagree with Emily Gwen, their flag doesn't stand for the purpose of excluding us, it stands for the purpose of including trans and butch lesbians

Opinion #4: If you use a replacement flag, you must support the reasons that it was made.

This is why I don't think radinclus should use the "new" pan or aroace flags. Original flags don't necessarily stand for their creator's bad behavior, but flags intended to replace them do stand against them. These "new" flags exist solely to take away from the creators of the pan and aroace flags because of their support of mspec lesbians.

Not only do those flags clearly and explicitly state "this user is not a person you can safely trust and be out around" but using them directly gives the creators what they wanted. They don't care what you believe. They want people to stop using the originals, and if you're using theirs instead, you've done exactly that. This is why an exclusionist cannot use my lesbian flag. It stands for including bi lesbians because I made it due to not being comfortable using a lesbian flag made by someone who didn't support mspec lesbians.

Opinion #5: All replacement flags must be made with genuine reasons as to why the creator doesn't deserve to be the official creator of the x flag. Otherwise, it's just an alt flag.

Basically, you can't just go "oh well it's kinda ugly so I think we should cancel this flag" because being bad with colors isn't a crime. You've just created an alternative flag and if it happens to become more popular then good for you. You gotta be accusing the creator of being a bad person to warrant a cancellation.

#flag discourse #insignificant opinions

1 note · View note

mogaimagic · 8 months

Note

i have a genuine question about your stag coining post that i'll be respectful and willing to learn about, so please don't. like. idk. dismiss me easily or treat me as dumb?

but anyway, assuming it comes from the set of "doe/stag", can i ask why it's not exclusive to mspecs? the only reason i was always in favor of it being so is because those terms were coined directly in response to bisexuals being told we can't identify as butch or femme, and of course i'm in favor of bi+ people identifying as such due to the terms and history having always belonged to us too (i, myself, have claimed one of them) so this may well come across as hypocritical at first. i just feel like people who gatekept terms from us and told us to make our own instead would be wrong in also identifying with exactly the said terms that we came up with; not as a means of "giving them a taste of their own medicine" or being a petty exclusionist the way they are/were, but simply because it defeats the whole purpose. otherwise i would have absolutely no problem with, say, lesbians "stealing our terms" as many of them like to call it. so i'm curious as to why you designed stag flags for lesbians & gays as well, and am willing to read your perspective, but that's just my understood opinion as of now.

of course, i could also be wrong and maybe you meant it as something completely separate from the terms i know, but that's what i got from as similar of a definition as "a nonbinary/queer person who subverts or reclaims masculinity" so... correct me if that's not the case, i guess?

I’m sorry I think you’ve misunderstood, I didn’t create these flags and these flags weren’t for mspecs specifically, @nonbinary-culture created these flags back in 2018, I just redesigned them for fun, since I wanted to try making my own versions, and they’re not for like, any particular sexuality, the only requirement is that you’re nonbinary! Sorry for the confusion

0 notes

cat-sapphics · 2 years

Note

Queer history and labels are my special interest so imma ATTEMPT to educate you, as someone who used to identify as bisexual, and now chooses to identify as pansexual.

Now, I'm not sure how much you know, so I'm gonna start from square one! First off, pansexual has been a label for a very very long time, longer than you or me has been alive! It's been in the queer community for a long time as well. It's been used many times in old queer writings.

Pansexual is something called a microlabel. It's a label that fits underneath another one, but specifies it a bit more! Another example of micro labels would be nonbinary, demiboy/demigirl, genderqueer and anything under the trans umbrella. A good non-queer example is dog breeds, specifically I'm going to use corgis. We all know what a corgi is, but there are two kinds of corgis, the Pembroke Welsh and the Cardigan Welsh. Very similar, and the corgi first thought of is the Pembroke (tailless). But the Cardigan Welsh also exists and is lesser known. Neither are harmful to the other.

Now, you wouldn't say nonbinary is harmful to the transgender label, would you? Because it isn't! It can stand on its own or be paired with trans because it specifies what you mean when you say you are trans.

Now! Pan is a mircolabel for bi. The only sense in which it's harmful for the bi community is when it's misdefined. The "gender blind" definition is wrong, and was made to confuse people. It's not the widely accepted definition, which is just "all". Bi is two or more, which can mean all but doesn't necessarily mean all. Not every bi person can id as pan, but every pan person can id as bi. It really depends on what is more comfortable for the person.

All the "pan is harmful to bi" arguments I've seen rely on assumtions, which are never good. A lot of panphobia relies on the assumption that someone who is pan ids that way out of biphobia, which wouldn't make a lot of sense since both are mspec labels and could, in a sense, be interchanged easily. I've yet to see any actual proof that pansexuality is harmful or biphobic.

Now, we're going to discuss "dismissing" someone's sexuality. Saying you "dismiss" someone being pan is, quite literally, like saying "she's a lesbian but Im dismissing that". Pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it go away, and doing that is, honestly, childish. In the end, the pan and ace flags are hung at stonewall. Both labels have been used in history. I'm assuming you're very young, so I'm hoping you can learn to drop the misguided hate in your heart and try to learn about actual history. Have a pleasant day <3

this is... super disinforming for "queer" history supposedly being your special interest (not to invalidate it as a special interest because trust me, i know all about getting my favorite things wrong quite a lot) - but anyway, how many times do i have to tell y'all NOT to call us ALL queer just because YOU have no issue with the word?? i couldn't care less if you want to reclaim the slur for yourself but calling everyone queer is not the way to go.

but to start off, no, pansexuality has no great time period of history behind it and i have no idea where you even got that idea from. the way you talk about it makes it sound like it was around when lesbian separatism was a big deal and it wasn't. if i recall correctly, it first existed as a term on a blog in around 2005-2010, give or take (that's extremely recent comparatively - we're talking a decade or two here), and its initial definition was problematic - y'know, the "bisexuals can't love trans people like we can", "hearts not parts!!", things like that.

secondly, i've heard many times that pansexuality is simply a microlabel under the "bi umbrella" and initially when i was newer to this side of discourse i wasn't so bothered by it, so long as those identifying with it understood that they were still bi at the end of the day and accepted that pansexuality really is no different. but that doesn't change anything, because the pansexuality we are against is the kind that stands out on its own claiming to be different at all. regardless of the number of people now identifying with it as a microlabel, it's not enough. the damage has been done. it is still seen after your attempt to "reform" and "redefine" as the "woke" bisexuality and inclusive of trans people, implying that no other sexuality can be, which obviously is anything but true. it is still preferred by inclusive self-identifying queers, still preferred by those experiencing internalized biphobia due to harmful stereotypes and assumptions that have not largely stigmatized the pans so much. too many pansexual people refuse to date bisexuals because of how they view us as being inferior to their "progress" in the lgbt community and it's quite frankly disgusting as hell. this is no thing of the past either, mind you; the rising spike in which this all started has of course passed, but these are still things that very much happen and won't stop for as long as pansexuality is praised, accepted, and preferred as much as it is. i've seen this shit go down in real life within the past year and i am admittedly not of much experience beyond online discourse.

i'd honestly have to say that i'm confused by your comparisons to nonbinary gender identities being under the trans umbrella and uh... dog breeds?? i think the difference you're missing here is that nonbinary actually is always inherently trans, and that both groups mentioned actually have noticeable definitive differences among them, not to mention that being nonbinary really is so vast and that being such is in no way harmful to the (binary) trans community, nor does it imply anything negative. the two trans categories are meant to coexist, hand-in-hand, because nonbinary truly is a microlabel under trans, as well as an umbrella term of its own - and yet even then, [they aren’t always inherently intertwined all the time, as the “distinction matters to some” argument actually holds quite a bit of decent weight here]. it has its own categorical system and was never before used to imply a deserving space above transgenderism as a whole. this isn't comparable to bisexuality as an umbrella term because it has no definitive subset, as not all trans people are binary but all nonbinary people are trans - until pansexuality has a difference to bisexuality, it cannot be reasonably classified as bisexuality "with more detail" because every single pansexual person IS bisexual. in addition to that, bisexuality is incredibly fluid, so there isn't a way to define pansexuality as being broader when bisexuality could not possibly be any broader or fluid. the former has absolutely no difference to the latter in any way at all except a problematic history and flag design - i challenge you to define pansexuality in a way that is not bisexuality, AND does not imply harmful things about the bisexual community. never before have i ever seen someone give a decent response to that, only something circular that just proves the point.

the thing is that anti-pan arguments do not rely on assumptions, they are based on what has actually happened over time and how it continuously weakens the bisexual community. the internalized biphobia argument is based on the fact that panphobia isn't real, which is based on pansexuality being exactly bisexuality but a deemed less-valid label. serious panphobia that y'all face is biphobia, but i'm assuming what you mean is criticism towards the label itself, which... is not a bigoted -phobia in and of itself. i don't know what proof you're looking for in terms of pansexuality being biphobic because you can't possibly have missed it by now. do you need statistics? i can give you some sources at the bottom, considering you gave me none.

before that though, i really want to personally address your last bit and why it frustrates me. ignoring minx identifying as pansexual is not comparable to saying that if she was a lesbian because lesbianism is a real sexuality that doesn't require woke identification to be. i'm not dismissing her sexuality because i acknowledge her as bisexual seeing as they are the exact same thing to the very last letter. by “dismissing”, you obviously seem to mean not openly validating something i criticize with solid reasoning, but that doesn't necessarily mean disrespecting her as a human being with a potentially complex relationship to her sexuality, either. being "childish" would be going out of my way to be petty towards her, obsess with her personal choices, make fun of her for the hell of it, harass her and her fans for disagreeing with my stances, and the like; obviously i do none of that and consider myself to be the opposite. could i still be more mature yet?? probably, although i don't see how except to just continue on silently ignoring it the way i did before getting anons asking for a reaction to how she identifies.

i also don't know how young you consider to be "very young", but i'm 16. i assume you're probably several years to a decade older and you consider yourself some "queer elder" who knows better than someone like me, and i find those people annoying because they make it crystal clear that they were very much not present during stonewall. i don't care as much as you seem to think i should that pan and ace flags are waved at pride, because who am i to stop that? there are also plenty of kink and sexual flags, nude & crude adults being indecent, misogyny, biphobia, cops, and plenty of other things that i am against being there (and that's not to compare cops to pansexuals, so i'm sorry if it comes off that way, i'm just making a point that there are plenty of things at pride events that i wish weren't). all i do on this hellsite is speak my mind against pansexuality as a valid label separate from bisexuality and the inclusion of cishet aros & aces into the lgbt acronym. i never claimed to have the power to act, shown by how i say time and time again that i am passionate about discourse topics but i don't take them seriously to the point where they negatively affect my day-to-day life or who i interact with regularly.

lastly, i'm not hateful. i was never hateful. i'm critical. i don't despise people who identify as pan and i don't hold anything against them personally unless they are intentionally biphobic, as i expanded on in [this post here]. and i'm certainly not misguided either. not everything is valid and not everything has to be, nor should it be. your personal feelings about your labels are not more important than the negative effect that pansexuality has had on its parent basis, and if you truly can't see that at all then you're a part of the problem, whether you mean to be or not.

anyways, here are some good sources, and i hope you also have a good day/night. please do not twist my words and paint me as some hateful stupid child if you're going to reply:

[the cultural impact of pansexuality] (google doc, with even more resourceful links within it)

[debunking pro-pan arguments] (google doc, a table of contents that address harmful misconceptions)

[why pansexuality is inherently problematic] (courtesy of @femmebisexuelle)

[addressing the reality of label preference vs. label impact] (courtesy of femmebisexuelle)

[the history of pansexuality] (it mentions the word's first definition coming up in the early 20th century, which i think is what you meant anon, but it did not have the same meaning of an individual sexual orientation as it did a hundred years later and absolutely nobody identifying as pansexual now is resonating with it because of its earliest mention, nor do they state so)

[an entire overview timeline of pansexual history] (describing pansexuality as either an instinctual behavior or... well... bisexuality)

[panphobia is not a real thing outside of biphobia] (what i said above about that in particular, but better tbh)

#ask #anon #long post #added commentary #response post #pridecat rants #lgbt discourse #pan discourse #anti pan #bi vs pan #bi discourse #discourse #exclusionist #exclus #pro pan #q slur #source #lgbt resources

56 notes · View notes

izzyliker · 3 years

Note

hey - this is one of the mods of the bi jon project. we don't actually dislike or disagree with pan jon at all, we just want to make a project focused on and celebrating bisexuality. our carrd is a bit rambling, but frankly we were trying our best/overcompensating to try and make sure people didn't misunderstand us and do - well, this. our intentions are good, and it's really kind of disenheartening to see all the hate we've gotten for what was meant to be a positive project. (1)

you're under no obligation to answer these, but i saw some of your posts in the tag and felt like reaching out because you did give us even the tiniest bit of slack in good faith. honestly, if you have any advice about what in our carrd is so overwhelmingly bad, we'd be happy to hear it. we've been trying to respond to the overwhelming amount of criticism we've got in a positive way, and take peoples' suggestions. (2)

as for why 'no anti-antis' was at the bottom of our rules list, it's legitimately bc we were trying so hard to be preventative about this negativity that we forgot to add it when we first posted the blog, and just remembered later. again, you're under no obligation to answer these, i just feel like no one's really actually letting us defend ourselves/are taking things in as bad faith a way as possible. (3)

im not exactly sure how the posts showed up in the tag bc ive been very purposefully not tagging them, also ive blocked all of you back (not sure why you blocked me if you actually want feedback, so it seems more like you just want free positive pr and not actual feedback) so its unlikely youll see whatever it is that i reply to this but whatever.

the issues have all been repeatedly brought up to you so i dont really see how me repeating all of them once again could help. when i last looked at the cardd the things that stood out immediately included.

pitting ace & bi identities and people against each other REPEATEDLY,

starting off with a guilt trippy tone and maintaining it throughout (in my experience this is the #1 best way to receive backlash because people do not want to participate in events where you feel like youre being guilted into it, which going into scrutinizing detail over there not being enough content and passing judgement onto authors or artists over it is something that comes across as guilt trippy.),

repeatedly equating asexuality with sex repulsion (not to get into the misleading information about modteam aspec identity breakdowns, since you claimed that 3/4 of the team are aspec, which is technically correct, but what you didnt say was that only one is acespec. surely you know that [allosexual] aro and [alloromantic] ace are not interchangeable) and calling using biromantic over bisexual a “misunderstanding” of the identity as if how to define romantic vs sexual attraction (how to divide, if or if not to divide, use interchangeably different labels) isnt a deeply personal choice ace people who experience romantic attraction make,

claiming that bisexual jon is canon (he isn’t. this is why people are suspicious of anti-other mspec identities sentiments. which theyre right, if youll be so kind as to stick around til the last paragraph) and repeatedly implying that the reason there isnt “enough” content centering bi jon because the aces are simply unable to not fixate on his asexuality (again, pitting identities against each other),

making the banned ship list way needlessly confusing and including ships that dont even include jon to it, which simply comes across as some kind of a list of bad ships, idk. a way to bypass this would simply be to say “we are looking for portrayals of healthy relationships!” and that couldve just been it. if you felt that that wouldnt exclude specific ships (eg. jondaisy that a lot of people write as a relationship between trauma survivors who have done very bad things trying to get better and learning to trust each other) it is possible to simply say “the modteam is squicked[/triggered] by ships with daisy/elias/peter and we’d like to read all of the works submitted so we’re asking not to receive submissions with those ships.” hating ships is literally completely normal but making rules hard to parse is going to attract questions, especially when the implication is that ships are excluded on the grounds of morality, and a blatant power difference ship (jonelias) is equated with jondaisy, which is from what ive seen almost exclusively shown to be a relationship between equals. that makes people EXTREMELY confused about where the line is. thats why youre getting so many questions about this.

in general the carrd was spotty, guilt trippy, and needlessly moralizing where it definitely did not need to be. the key to getting people to engage without getting backlash is to make the event seem fun. when your carrd is filled with stuff about unrelated negative stuff people are not going to think it’s a fun event at all.

and none of this even gets into the fact that at least one of the mods has a history of open hostility against pan people. i heard through the grapevine that he has since made a fauxpology about it, but frankly it already shone through in the language used in the event descriptions. its extremely hard to take any of this is good faith when it is easy to see that one of the organizers is quite fucking clear about thinking pansexuality is biphobic and the carrd is or at least used to be full of anti-pan (and other mspec identity) dogwhistles, and is notorious in some of the tma fic author circles for being extremely fucking nasty about trans men writing fic he doesn’t like to the point of pretending that we’re all cis people (in case youre not keeping track that is misgendering us by implication) because he doesn’t like it. i think some of you (or maybe all of you? idk) in general could stand to examine whether your engagements and participations in the fandom have been at all about having fun or adding positivity to anything, or simply making posts about what other people are doing wrong. it seems that every post i see from anyone in this group is guilt trippy and authoritative, and sadly this translated directly into the event.

when youre, say, a trans man whose first touch to one of the mods was a post about how fic where trans men have piv sex with cis men is hurting him personally and making it a moral issue and not a matter of a simple preference to the point where he feels comfortable making claims about the trans men (and transmasc nonbinary people) writing fic about trans characters re: their gender or whether theyre fetishizing trans men, your willingness to engage in good faith with an event hosted by him that features numerous red flags is not going to be unconditional.

im sorry to hear that it has been bad for your mental health, and idk whats fucking going on with this event anymore, but my good faith interpretations have diminished significantly since i saw the shit tmc specifically has been saying about pansexual people and pansexuality as an identity label. i have no clue where the rest of you stand but tmc has repeatedly, consistently shown himself to be unable to act in good faith towards anyone other than people who agree with him.

#disk horse #long post #Anonymous

74 notes · View notes

famous-aces · 5 years

Text

Bartholomew "Barti Ddu" Roberts

Who: John Roberts (better known by his later alias Bartholomew Roberts) (the nickname Barti Ddu/Black Bart was given to him after his death but has been used widely in the 20th century and beyond)

What: Pirate

Where: Welsh (active in the Americas and West Africa)

When: May 17, 1682 - February 10, 1722

(Image Description: the portrait of Roberts from the 1734 printing of Captain Charles Johnson's famous history A General History of the Pyrates: from Their First Rise and Settlement in the Island of Providence to the Present Time. It is an engraving of Roberts on the beach. At the top of the page it says "Page 228" on the bottom it says "Capt Bartholomew Roberts." And is signed "I. Basire sculp." The setting is a beach with cliffs in the background. There is vegetation and human bones on the shore. There is a man climbing up onto the beach from the ocean behind. In the ocean there is a ship seemingly in combat against a fortress built onto a hill jutting out over the water. There is a lot of smoke. There is a second ship on the horizon. Roberts is front and (nearly) center. He has a round face, a black hat with a huge feather, he is clean shaven and has a slight smirk. He wears very fancy clothes including necklaces, sashes, and ribbons. He is holding a cutlass. End ID)

Captain Bartholomew Roberts is quoted as calling a pirate's life "a short life, but a merry on." This proved to be extremely prophetic. He became perhaps the most successful Golden Age pirate in terms of booty, capturing over 400 ships, despite being active just three years. He was an intelligent, forceful man, and by all accounts a popular one amongst his men who enjoyed his pirate's life.

He had never intended to be a pirate, but he was captured by his soon-to-be crew when serving on a civilian vessal. Within six weeks of his kidnapping he was elected captain after a mutiny, due to his strong personality and incredible navigational skills. Upon his election he "[said] that since he had dipp'd his Hands in Muddy Water, and must be a Pyrate, it was better being a Commander than a common Man." (Quoted by Charles Johnson in his previously mentioned 1724 book [title shortened to] A General History of the Pyrates).

Soon Roberts's flag struck fear into even the bravest sailor. He was ruthless, intelligent, highly strategic and successful when it came to pillaging and plundering. While he could be cold to his victims, he was well-loved by his crew for his fairness and skill.

He was in some ways the archetypal pirate and in others he was completely contradictory. His sex life was one difference, but that will be expounded on later. He was a teetotaler, consistently choosing tea over rum. He was religious, made his men swear on a bible, and may have even enforced observation of the Sabbath (although that day of rest may have also just been to give his men time off). While he was not especially cruel to his prisoners he was not kind either. The fates of his victims tended to be left up to vote among the crew. While he was in favor of murder and pillage, rape was strictly forbidden.

Ultimately Roberts was killed by grapeshot to the throat, fired from the British Royal Navy's HMS Swallow. Roberts's crew, drunk on success from their recent capture of the Neptune, and also the Neptune's booze, were caught off guard. His shocked and horrified crew were able to fulfill his wish to bury him at sea with his arms, fine clothing, and outrageous jewelry. They were then captured.

Roberts remains one of the most influential pirates in popular culture. His pirate code still exists (the rules his men had to agree to) and many writers take influence there. He is one of the inspirations for Long John Silver and the origin of the Dread Pirate Roberts. He has made appearances in everything from One Piece to Assassin's Creed. In Wales he has become something of a mythical figure appearing in many poems and novels.

(Image Description: Roberts's flags. The first is his first [and less famous] flag. It shows Roberts [a simple drawing of a man in a hat and fancy shoes] on the left and Death [represented as a skeleton holding a spear, also quite simple] on the right. Between the two of them they are holding an hourglass. The figures are white on a black flag. The second image is Roberts's second flag. It shows Roberts holding a sword in one hand and standing on two simple skulls. The skulls are labeled "ABH" and "AMH". These stand for "A Barbadian Head" and "A Martiniquan Head". Still white on black. End ID)

Probable Orientation: Gay ace, demi, or maybe aroace with a male/male QPP (also potentially a trans man due to his privacy and the fact that his body was so quickly disposed of by his crew. Of course this is far from definitive proof, a cis man can be a private person and very likely his crew did not want their beloved Captain to be displayed in death by the royal Navy, but it is a theory. Actually the theory was he was a woman in drag, but there is little evidence he identified as a woman in any way. If he was DFAB he would probably be trans.)

Like Elizabeth I, Qing Dynastic history, Shakespeare, and Medieval history, Golden Age piracy is something of a special interest of mine.

And guys, trust me, pirates are hella Queer. Just. So very, extremely queer. The queerest.

Not necessarily gay in the sense of homosexual (although it often was), but always Queer in the sense of being complicated, not fitting inside cishet relationships, and crossing far over the line of what was (and still is) considered acceptable.

Life on a pirate ship blurred the lines between homosocial, homosensual, and homosexual. Pirates often had partners called matelots that were very much like Boston Marriages, sometimes romantic, sometimes sexual, sometimes queerplatonic, usually between the three. But they were recognized within the ship. They got benefits if their partner died. A lot of pirates were former navy men, some left because of the harsh treatments, unfair pay, or because they were press ganged, but some left because they were gay/mspec /otherwise queer, which was a dangerous thing to be. What does an unemployed seaman do? Often turn to piracy because of the fairness and freedom.

As indicated by Roberts's election as Captain pirate ships were Democratic, something that certainly didn't exist on Navy or commercial vessels. Likewise you were better paid. Far better.

A short life, but a merry one.

So now Roberts specifically. Pirates may have had their matelots but they were infamous for their conduct at brothels, they would spend their whole share of their booty there on sex and booze. It was practically tradition. Roberts never visited a brothel. Ever. He was extremely chaste, for the most part he appeared to be entirely uninterested in sex.

He had a matelot, George Wilson, a surgeon (though not on his ship), with whom he was extremely close. It is not clear whether it was romantic/sexual or queerplatonic. The men were described as "intimate" by people who saw them together (from context it meant emotional intimacy) and their connection as being affectionate and emotional. It was also noted that Wilson borrowed nice clothes to visit Roberts and was considerably excited.

Quotes:

"[Wilson] was very intimate with Roberts, they two using often to say, that if they should meet with any of the Turnip Man's Ships, meaning the King's Ships, they would blow up, and go to Hell together…"

-the testimony of pirate Joseph Traher (quoted in A full and exact account, of the tryal of all the pyrates, lately taken by Captain Ogle, on board the Swallow man of war, on the coast of Guinea. 1723)

"[After being haled by Roberts, Wilson] borrowed a Shirt and Drawers of the Deponent saying, he would go on board and see Roberts, and haled the Pyrate as they came under his Stern, calling to Roberts, that he was glad to see him, and would come on board presently."

-Summary of surgeon Adam Comrie's testimony from the same trial account.

(Roberts wore extremely fine clothing, lots of weapons [like pistols crossed across his chest), and exuberant jewelry (including a gold and diamond cross necklace] so Wilson probably wanted to look his best.)

(Image Description: a sketch of Roberts standing on the shore in front of some of his ships. He wears very fancy 18th century clothing and a lot of jewelry. It is topped with a feathered tricorner hat and he has high stockings. He holds a thin sword in one hand and the other hand rests on his hip. Behind him is a jagged shoreline. There are eight ships in the bay beside/behind him [the whole thing has wonky perspective]. The closest is his flagship, the Royal Fortune, it is a big three-masted ship and is flying his flag [described earlier]. There is a compass rose below that. The image is signed "B. Cole Sculp" There is a caption in italics on the bottom of the drawing reading: "Captain Bartho. Roberts with two ships, Viz. The Royal Fortune and Ranger, takes 11 sail in Whydah Road on the coast of Guiney, January 11th, 1721/2". End ID)

#lgbtq #queer #asexual #ace #history #demi #demisexual #gay #18th century #british #trans #pirates #sailors #Welsh #Wales #europe #Barthomew Roberts #Black Bart #bio

33 notes · View notes