#the same applies for the opposite scenario with gay people and trans men | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lord-radish · 11 months

Text

I remember the first big biphobic post I saw on Tumblr when that was going around. It was this long screed about bis and their straight-passing privilege and how they hurt the gay community through half-measures and their potential to cause emotional distress through their sexuality - specifically, there was a story about how OP was in a same-sex relationship with a bisexual person and that person left them for the opposite sex, which was emotionally devastating for them.

And the thing is, I can empathize with how shitty that would feel. I can understand why they would be so upset and have a personal aversion to dating bisexual people.

But that turned into "bisexual people have straight-passing privilege and will abandon gay people to save their own skin, and by the virtue of being attracted to both men and women, they can and will Weaponize Their Sexuality against gay people to harm us". It went from "this was emotionally devastating for me" to "bisexual people have the power to harm all gay people as I have been harmed, therefore due to that and being able to pass as Not Gay, they shouldn't be a part of our community and we should consider them to be straight and have the same capacity for malice and bigotry as a television evangelist".

It still fucks me up because again, I can empathize with a bad experience. I'm sorry that happened to them. But the idea that a bi person will leave you for the opposite sex, specifically to hurt you and/or the wider gay community? The idea that every bi person is inherently bad and harmful to gay people for that possibility? Man fuck off with that shit.

Personally? I'm permanently closeted. That's how I choose to live my life, for better and for worse. Is that straight-passing privilege? Sure. I'm also permanently unknowable to everyone I spend time with which takes its own toll. Being closeted is a shared experience regardless of sexuality, and it has its own difficulties and setbacks.

Other bi people want and need to be out about their sexuality, and they want to be taken seriously. And they often aren't, because the same heteronormative tinge of disgust and bigotry that affects gay people is applied just as liberally to bisexual people by homophobes. The same people who are disgusted by homosexual behaviour and attraction are disgusted by bisexual behaviour and attraction, because It's All Gay To Them. Being bi doesn't make us half-straight and therefore more willing to uphold heteronormativity, it makes us half-gay (or all-gay) to homophobes and equally as likely to face homophobic violence.

Bi people are just as likely to be pieces of shit as your average straight person, your average gay person, your average trans person - in that whether someone is an asshole is a solid 50/50 chance regardless of sexuality. There is no "being a worse person" by virtue of one's gender expression or sexuality. No-one is more or less shitty for who they present as or who they're attracted to. It's down to the individual, foundational person.

If you have a personal distaste for bisexual partners due to your own personal experiences, that's your business. But it's not inherent to being bisexual, and drawing a line in the sand about it as if there is something inherently shitty about being bisexual is short-sighted and - in of itself - shitty.

That's a theme I want to hit on this pride month. You might have a particular distaste dating-wise for a particular type of person. That's your business. But turning your personal dating distaste into a broader intra-community witch hunt is fucking awful. I'm sick to death of people being dickheads about the Inherent Harm of sexualities and genders they don't agree with and making it everyone else's problem, trying to splinter the broader queer community because there's a handful of experiences or hypothetical scenarios that define entire groups of people.

Heteronormativity - and cisnormativity, for that matter - affects everyone who's deviant to the ideals of that system. Bisexual people are deviant to the values of heteronormativity. Bi people are in league with gay people, and making it out like we're agents of the Heteronormative Agenda sent in to hurt gay people's feelings is fucking wack.

#biphobia #long post

1 note · View note

butyouvealwaysbeenthecaretaker · 4 years

Text

Shower thoughts, but do you think (some) feminism is so hostile to gay men specifically because they are a threat to patriarchy as a framework?

By this I mean: feminism, naturally enough, is the politics of looking at things through a gendered lens first and foremost; and then some strands of feminism go on to emphasise gendered oppression as the primary/core form of oppression (which I don’t think can be correct, like, every situation is different; gender will always impact a situation, but won’t always be the dominant force, although in some situations it absolutely will be).

But the existence of gay men is kinda a “problem” for an oppositional male patriarchy vs female underdog narrative, because they don’t really fit into that framework.

So you get these arguments which, to me, are kind of a “reach” to pull gay men/gay male culture back into this “oppressor” role. Such as:

the idea that drag is oppressive to *cisgender* women as a parody/appropriation of women’s culture akin to blackface (this argument existed in the 70s and 80s and did not refer to trans women, which is a more complex situation)

the idea that yass queen slay culture/being into female fashion/having a lot of female friends/being feminine is in some way threatening to women

talking about the way that (some) gay men are quite handsy with friends as a form of insidious sexual assault (this, I’ll admit, is a more complex one - if you don’t like touch, then of course you’ll be pissed. Still, to my mind it’s very different when you’ve got a gay man who is very expressive through touch, and a straight man who is quite clearly trying to push a boundary he knows exists but is pretending not to)

the idea that gay men articulating a culture which does not involve women is, in fact, an attack on women or a form of misogyny (when it’s really like, the organic equivalent of lesbian separatism. Real talk: quite aside from the politics/activism of separatism as a doctrine, if you are a {gender} which only forms intimate relationships with {the same gender} and spends a lot of time hanging out in {same gender spaces}, then separatism just happens, you know? Yeah, of course some gay men don’t know or care much about women, just as some lesbians don’t know or care much about men, because it’s not relevant to the lived reality of their everyday lives. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a pro-/anti-woman stance)

the idea that gay men articulating a culture celebrating masculinity is misogynist (again, it seems pretty healthy to me for men denied representation & validation as men to create their own culture celebrating their gender and gender expression, and building a culture together)

the idea that gay porn replicates the conditions of straight porn, in which the male/top actor is an oppressor and the female/bottom actor is a victim. That’s an overly reductive approach to porn period, but it’s a problem to assume your gendered narrative is so universal it applies to scenarios involving zero women

the idea that sex acts particularly common in the gay community are inherently degrading and gross, because of a perception that these acts are degrading and gross to women when enacted in a straight context

focusing on “cis gay men” as stand-in, local oppressors in communities where straight men aren’t present/are less relevant, emphasising their oppressive qualities on other axes (racial privilege, male privilege, wealth privilege etc), because it’s important to continue emphasising this “male oppressor vs female victim” narrative even in contexts where another oppression framework might be more accurate/useful.

(Or, in my life experience, focusing on “cis gay men” as stand-in oppressors as a distraction tactic to divert attention away from abusive behaviour by people with more social justice credibility)

And so forth.

Now what I’m not saying is “gay men are exempt from patriarchy/misogyny”, because frankly one of the biggest problems with “patriatchy/misogyny/feminism” as a framework is how complex it is. For example, I’d expect gay men to still broadly benefit from things like the pay gap & career advancement (a lot more gay men make it in creative careers such as film and fashion than women, even when they are making art for women which you’d sort of hope is a thing women would be ideal at); and having a more dominant voice in collaborative scenarios, say in the workplace (although that’s going to be counterbalanced in other situations by, like, gay people who have been through hell having economic barriers or who are visibly non-conforming not benefiting from masculinity in quite the same unimpeded way). And additionally, yeah the context of a man who only dates men and only socialiases at the gay bar, I would expect to not really know all that much about women; but I don’t think it’s anywhere near so much of a real-world problem as straight men who, inexplicably, go through life not understanding the people they desire to form life partnerships with.

But yeah, with the obvious caveat that there is “no such thing as a single feminism”. There is definitely a strand of thought within it which is committed to patriarchy as the dominant/primary form of oppression; and there’s also a collection of efforts (from different feminisms, afaict) to depict gay men as uniquely misogynistic, or to ensure they are pulled back into a role as misogynists which various feminisms need to function. Instead, I think it’s correct to note that gay men are in fact a problem under patriarchy, and their role is one that doesn’t fit neatly into a “male oppressor vs female victim” model - they benefit from male privilege at times, but also are some key victims of toxic masculinity; and they can be best understood in relationship to themselves & their own culture, not in relationship to women.

This is my focus, I think: the pragmatics of politics, the who is this hurting and why, and how can we make it stop? I don’t think taking on “gay male misogyny” is a meaningful way to improve life for the average woman; I think it’s punching down. Especially when straight women promote these narratives - women who, perhaps, do not have much involvement/insight into queer culture.

#the feminism tag #the mlm tag

4 notes · View notes

dkettchen · 5 years

Text

BLACK MIRROR S5E1 “STRIKING VIPERS” E X P L A I N E D

-with the help of gender and game theory-

Y’all asked for it so here we go

Some things before we start: -If you were watching the episode looking for gay/trans shit, and got disappointed, I’m sorry but I can’t help you because that’s just not what the episode was about and that is ok. It explored some aspects of queer experience, and the limbo between queer and cis-straight experience, that isn’t usually addressed in such an honest and indepth way, which I think is just as important as trans or gay rep. -I will focus my analysis on the core theme of what certain academics writing about androgyny call the “moment of transgression” so in this case the question of ‘what is Karl/Roxette’s deal & what does that mean for Danny/Lance’s feelings toward and interactions with them?’. -CW: transphobia, homophobia, toxic masculinity, (rpg) uncanny valley stuff, you get it, you know what subjects we’ll be talking about here.

Now!

I’d like to start by pointing out the title “Striking Vipers” to get the phallus talk out of the way right off the bat x’D: It’s a very blatant penis metaphor, and Vipers specifically are venomous, so represent toxic masculinity. The image of them striking signals danger. The repetition of phallic symbols represents the threat of castration (see medusa turning them bois to stone & the heroic masculinity of the mirror shielded boi who managed to defeat her), which to phallocentric masculinity is the scawiest thing there is (losing the phallus = losing manhood = death?? I guess??). Striking Vipers means that toxic masculinity, by nature, is a threat to itself. (I could talk for hours about the exact warped logic of phallocentricity but Imma spare y’all cause I don’t think it’s relevant for this, I’d even go as far as saying this episode was anti-phallic (which I use here as a more inclusive word for “feminist”, as the episode’s core is about two guys, but still focused on them experiencing and embracing feminine power and freeing themselves from phallocentricity(/patriarchy)’s grasp, just like “what men want” was preoccupied with the toxic masculinity of its female protagonist)) That sets up the kind of horror the episode will be about, the male fear of castration, of loss of identity, of having to face the fact that traditional masculinity is toxic even to the people who conform to it. 10/10 title choice.

Next up: the core question of what label to put on Karl and Danny’s VR interactions (‘Fellas, is it gay to fuck ur best friend in a lady body in VR?’). Which leads to the first question which is: what gender is Karl when he’s playing as Roxette? An essentialist might say: ‘Well he’s a man irl so he’s still a man even if he plays with a female avatar. Danny’s attraction to him is either him being trapped or just plain old gay.’ But I don’t think that’s the case. It’s not a trap scenario (have some videos on traps and how they’re not real actually: (x.), (x.)), because both people involved know the exact parameters of the situation. Danny knows this is Karl in Roxette’s body, there’s nothing hidden, no misunderstanding to be had here. I also don’t think it’s gay because if it was this would’ve happened irl or with two male avatars, but it only happened once one of them was in a female avatar, that was the change that made it happen. It’s not a fetishising phallic/trans women scenario either, because it’s the opposite, it’s a man’s mind in a woman’s body. There’s no doubt about Karl being a man irl, a queer man sure, but definetely a man. He’s just too into -womanhood while playing her for me to say he’s still male when he’s in that form, like Karl as Roxette isn’t a trans guy as a man’s mind in a female body usually would be (like f.e. Ranma 1/2), I also don’t think Karl as Roxette is an androgyne/non-binary/third term either, because again, he’s embracing her womanhood and the role that comes with it, to the extreme that is hetero PiV sex, too much. I’d argue what we see is the closest to the liberation and euphoria described by other queer men when doing drag, she’s just a more extreme version of drag, of crossplaying, making the fantasy real, wearing not only the clothes of a woman but the body too. Roxette as Karl’s avatar is an alter ego, who is female, so -on the risk of sounding like the biggest performativist since Judith Butler- Karl as Roxette presents as female, so, for all intents and purposes, is female in that moment, regardless of his irl persona maintaining his male gender outside of that.

But that wasn’t what we wanted to know, was it. Because even if, in the moment that Karl plays Roxette, we can say that person is female, that doesn’t eliminate the fact that Karl, outside of that, isn’t and that he’s still the one playing her. It’s the notion of how the player/actor/performer and avatar/character/persona aren’t the same thing and can have different relationships with someone in real life vs in the game, and how that can be confusing to think about because there is no clear line between the two, something that is called “bleed” in ludology(/game studies, from lat. ludus: game or school; referring to the gladiator schools in like the colosseum), despite their relationships being fundamentally different (in this case friendship irl vs passionate love in game). Take TAZ as an example: The McElroys are related, but in playing a trpg, the DM, usually Griffin, takes up the mantle of all NPCs in the game world, including love interests. Griffin played Julia, Kravitz, and Danny (different Danny lol), but he’s talking to his brother, except he isn’t, is he, cause it’s not Griffin talking and it’s not his brother responding, it’s two characters interacting. A similar uncanny valley can be found in actor/character bleed: Take Ludi and Pom (the actors for Lance and Roxette) in this one: like 80% of their screentime was spent making out or having fake sex. These actors aren’t dating (as far as I’m aware lol), this is their job, to fake love each other on screen, imagine having to do that with a coworker you feel nothing for. It’s the characters that feel something and you have to play that feeling (which is so meta at that point, they’re playing characters that are avatars being played by characters in the show). Also, talking of role-playing, can we appreciate the scene of Danny & Theo at the bar where they’re role-playing and she’s like that was hot and he’s like mental note bae’s into role-playing, because DAMN that foreshadowing of the erotic potential of roleplay as a concept.

But it’s not role-playing really either with Danny and Karl, is it? They’re playing in avatars other than themselves but they’re not fully a different person. They still very much feel the same just in a different form. Their emotions are real even though they might only apply to part of their experience, the in-game part. Yet they obviously take them seriously and personal and get influenced by them outside the game. Maybe the question is what is and is not role-playing? Where does the bleed start and end, and do we even need to know the answer to those questions? They answer those questions for themselves in the end by testing out their feelings irl to see if they track or not, fully ready for both possibilities (which 10/10 character development love it). They want clarity. It’s about the emotional limbo fantasy brings with it. It’s the same question “Are traps gay” is about. (Not the “Is it ok to feel attracted to androgynous ppl” one necessarily, but) “Does feeling attracted to the fantasy mean you feel attracted to the “real” thing underneath?” Are the feelings for the fantasy alone or also for the reality? Are they only applicable to the latter and does that change something about what you thought you knew about yourself? It’s a question about the fringe edges of limited/monosexuality and the very fabric of reality.

Let’s return to Karl to look at his experience as Roxette. We’ve established that she is female, but what is Karl while playing her? In the spirit of queer drag as liberating, it’s almost like he’s taking a break from being Karl when playing as her. Drag, crossplay, or this extreme version of it, functions as a break from the toxicity and limitations of traditional gender roles (so in this case traditional masculinity). It is freeing, though what does it free? Some genderless spirit inhabiting each person? But then how do you explain the firm gender identity lots of people, including for all we know Karl, experience in everyday life? As a trans person I know that there is SOMETHING to gender on some level that can create gender dysphoria (social and/or physical) for people when put in a body they don’t identify with. As a drag performer, trpg enthousiast, and notorious crossplayer, I know that taking a break from that reality and being somebody else can be relieving, a break from your own problems. So what is that part of us that translates into fantasy? I feel like this goes into transhumanist territory which I don’t know enough about to even attempt to provide an answer. I think what it comes down to in terms of gender theory is, this is a situation at the height of where performativism is true and relevant. There is a relativity to the nature of reality and gender itself. Whatever base essence there is that causes gender dysphoria at a mismatch between outside and inside, doesn’t apply here. Both notions (of essential and performative gender) are real and have an impact on people but neither is always the case and neither is never the case. They’re not mutually exclusive.

So, seeing as it seems impossible to pinpoint what gender Karl/Roxette qualifies as (other than all and/or none), let’s look at the nature of Danny/Lance and Karl/Roxette’s interactions and feelings toward those interactions and each other to try and contextualise what label(s) they might fit under. The desire on Danny’s side when faced with Roxette’s form shows itself in a way he’d never feel toward Karl. That visual change, and the social changes it brings with it (in gender role), makes it so extreme, because it pairs the parts of his friend he appreciates and enjoys (personality and whatever deeper connection a close friendship brings with it), with a form that is attractive to him. That change translates to Karl too. In playing with this new form that has a different role and a different effect on someone he’s known for so long, he flows into that, melts into this new persona and lives it up! The way they interact in game isn’t gay. It is very much reflecting how straight attraction and female sexuality works. On one hand it’s based in undeniable difference (hetero = different), and on the other hand Karl/Roxette’s enjoyment thereof is based in being desirable, in having that power of seduction just by existing, that notion of feminine power and the freedom that comes with it. It’s not autogynephilia, that would imply he gets off on the idea of himself as a woman, which is not the case, he gets off on being desired as a woman, which is what female sexuality is about (source: ContraPoints’ Autogynephilia video (which I recommend, it’s very good))

Still whenever Karl tries to get Danny to keep having VR sex with him/Roxette, he talks about her in 3rd person, like a persona. In saying “it’s just like porn” he poses something that is very much a different activity (acting out the porn by -doin’ it-) as a homosocially (social as opposed to sexual/romantic) acceptable one (watching porn together which I’ve been told is a thing). He attempts to differentiate himself from his female persona and enjoyment there-of (by objectifying her, like a porn actress to be watched rather than identified with), himself and Danny from the queerness (in enjoying femininity and in Danny being down with basically fucking a drag-queen) and to retreat back into heteronormative traditional masculinity, away from the scawy unknown of exploring your sexuality. His internalised homo- and transphobia makes him suppose that Danny, as a supposed straight guy, will only respond to the safety of assured non-queerness, which, honestly, I don’t think is the case with him. Karl supposes his cancelling on him and not wanting to do it anymore is out of the fear for his sexual identity or whatever, but from what I can tell, while Danny also seems to be rather confused about what it all means, the reasons he cancels their nightly sessions, and rejects Karl/Roxette, are always about not wanting his marriage to fall apart. He quite clearly prefers hot VR sex to hanging out with his wife, and cancels out of duty to her rather than fear. Even the first time they kiss, Karl is the one to freak out first. Danny seems much calmer about the attraction part of the situation, to the point of in the end being the one to take initiative and make them try it out irl to put an end to the confusion.

The episode hits hard because it takes the way men play video games and brings it to its logical conclusion. Video games are mens safe-space, and they do play with that playful flirty banter. The show takes that and makes it real, including taking it to its extreme conclusion that is -doin’ it-. It infiltrates the male safe space by taking normalised behaviour, and taking it so far that it puts traditional masculinity and heteronormative attraction in question, the very thing the safe space was supposed to protect them from. That’s why it’s existentially horrifying for the main characters (and viewers that identify with them) and qualifies as a black mirror episode even without having a homo-/trans-/biphobic ending (like other media that put traditional masculinity in question usually do, not to mention all the horror based in queer-coding)

Hope y’all enjoyed this journey into a bit of mind-bending game and gender theory! Pls don’t expect me to do this like ever again bc I need to go work on my actual essay rip x’D

#long post #Black Mirror #BM: Striking Vipers #games studies #gender studies

86 notes · View notes

erozcze · 7 years

Text

5 Ways People Have Subconsciously Internalized Homophobia and Transphobia

I’m sure most, if not every, LGBTQ+ members has or will experience some form of homophobia or transphobia at some point in their lives. In fact, it was documented in a 2007 study by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that about 86% of LGBTQ+ youth reported being harassed at school (link). However, while some homophobic and transphobic thoughts or actions are easy to spot, there are others that are straddling the line, but still nonetheless inappropriate.

1. The “In Denial”

These are type of people that are the more obvious ones when it comes to spotting homophobia, and also the type I have most frequently encountered before and after coming out as pansexual. These are the type of people who say things like “I’m not homophobic or anything, but…”

You might have caught on how it sounds exactly the same the the phrase “I’m not racist, but…” because they are exactly the same in terms of their effect; to target a minority group. Sure, the start of this phrase may sound harmless, however what follows after “but” is usually something extremely homophobic. It has the same effect as when someone tells you “no offense” before they offend you. It’s a different version, but the translation is still the same.

Fun Fact: The cousin of “In Denial” is what I like to call “Willful Blindness”, and these are the type of people who say things like “okay, I don’t care if you’re gay/trans, I just don’t want to see or hear about it.”

2. The “Gender Confused”

This applies to transphobia in terms of both transgender and transsexual people. I have seen this first hand by some of my older family members. These are the people who say things like “is that a boy or a girl?” and “s/he a man/woman now”.

I personally find this very insensitive. That person has gone through great lengths to appear more like the opposite sex by either dressing like the opposite sex or going to the lengths of full blown surgery. The fact that people ask questions like that, and even go so far as to ignore their preferred pronouns drives me crazy.

3. The “Bi Stander”

This type of person usually annoys the crap out of me, because they are usually very up in your relationship life. This doesn’t apply to everyone on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, but these are the type of people who are usually so shocked that you can be attracted to more than one gender.

They say things like “wait so you’re with him now? I thought you were with a girl before?” “wait, so how do you know you like girls/guys if you’ve never been with them?” “wow you’re so selfish! Save some for the rest of us lol”

And the answers to all these questions, in order, are: (1) yes (2) because I am attracted to them (3) and fuck outta my house, Stephen.

4. The “Hormonal Teenage Boy Syndrome”

Sadly, I have seen this happen way too many times, and the targets are usually a female same-sex couple. These people, usually teen boys who have no filter, are a trap. If you tell them you’re a lesbian, they say things like “you two are a couple? OMG, make out” and “Oh, you’re a lesbian? So if a girl walked by here right now would you make out with her?”

This has happened way to often in my experience, and even though they are teen boys looking for some jerk material, it still makes the person uncomfortable and is very rude to say to someone.

5. The “Girl’s Best Friend”

Okay, so I wrote “girl” because I find this often happens the most with straight, cis-women, although I have seen this scenario with guys. Nevertheless, these people, usually women, are the ones who want a gay best friend. They usually seem to have this idea that “I want a gay best friend so we can go shopping together or talk about my boyfriend!”

It’s no surprise that they get disappointed when they find out that not all homosexuals are the same (i know, it’s such a shocker, right?”).This disappointment often comes from the fact that there is this expectation of gay men to act more feminine, and gay women to act butch, which is usually not the case.

Personally, the majority of people I know are gay and you would never be able to “tell” unless they showed up with their same-sex partner or felt comfortable enough to tell you. So stop stereotyping people and assuming that all gay men want to go shopping and here about your boyfriend troubles, Helen.

And there you have it! *Note: This was by no means a post to attack certain groups of people. This is only speaking from personal experience and from those I have witnessed.

#lgbtq #homophobia #gay pride #transphobia #lgbt #equality

0 notes