#things like no straight or cis people cause they are bad

[swankpalanquin]

not even brave enough to put my actual preferred pronouns or sexual orientation on the doctors form...

#so much for having a good day ha #but like i don't know these doctors people... #why would i make things more complicated when i don't even do anything that relates to these things anyways #like i am in practice basically straight and cis so why check a box that could just cause problems... ugh this why im bad lgbt rep

[aplpaca]

thinking about how I've seen OCD get talked about now, but haven't really seen many posts that actually explain what it is. And like, obviously people shouldn't get all their info about mental conditions from posts, but u can't deny that internet communities and stuff play a major role in people recognizing and putting names to their own experiences.

But like since the general public has like absolutely no idea of what OCD actually is (no thanks to popular media), and a lot of things I see talking about intrusive thoughts don't mention OCD (either bc they originated in OCD circles or bc intrusive thoughts aren't Exclusive to OCD or for some other reason), there should prob be more explanation put out on what OCD actually consists of.

Which is kinda hard in some ways, bc there are so many ways OCD can present in terms of what "themes" a person experiences, so someone talking about what their themes are might not ring a bell with someone who experiences different ones. But like, the core thing with OCD isn't the presence of certain themes, it's a specific pattern of spiraling thoughts and reactions.

Like. OCD is a mental condition/illness where people experience stressful, unwanted, repetitive thoughts. These are intrusive thoughts are what make up the "obsessions" part of the disorder. In response to these intrusive thoughts, a lot of people will perform certain actions or think certain things in an attempt to neutralize or disprove the threat they represent. These are the "compulsions" part of the condition.

For a more "traditional" example, someone experiencing intrusive thoughts that they might catch a communicable disease may obsessively wash their hands or google their symptoms to try to lessen the anxiety. While someone who is worried they might hurt someone (even though they very much do not want to hurt someone) may avoid being near sharp objects or may avoid the people they're afraid of hurting.

One of the issues with OCD is that performing the compulsions provides short term relief, but in the long term it only strengthens the stress caused by the intrusive thoughts, thus furthering the thought spiral and actively making it worse, to the point where, depending on your themes, you may be (almost) convinced that your intrusive thoughts represent the truth or the inevitable or something permanent.

Intrusive thought themes cam be literally anything, but some of the common ones are stuff like

Questioning your sexuality, gender, etc (what if I'm actually straight/gay/bi/trans/cis/etc?)

Being worried about losing control and hurting yourself or others physically, sexually, emotionally, basically any way (what if I want to kill someone? What if I'm a pedophile? What if I'm an abuser? What if I want to stab myself? Etc)

Fear of becoming or being sick

Worrying something bad will happen to you or people you care about

Worrying about your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof (what if I'm actually Christian? What if I'm actually atheist? What if i don't believe in the faith i ascribe to? Etc)

Worrying about relationship status (what if I don't actually love them? What if they're not "the one"? What if they're cheating? What if *I'm* cheating? Etc)

What if I'm a bad person?

Fear of losing things

Fear of things not feeling right (this is often be related to other themes via magical thinking. ex: if I don't have my things organized Just Right then something bad will happen)

Fear of unreality

Compulsions vary by theme a lot obviously, but some common ones include

Hand washing

Organizing things until they Feel Right

Checking and double checking and triple checking to make sure you did something correctly

Obsessively reviewing your memories to disprove a thoughtor make sure you don't believe something

Arguing against the thoughts in an attempt to disprove them

Testing your mental reactions to a thought or to certain kinds of content, to show yourself you don't actually believe or feel something

Obsessively googling symptoms, testimonies, things related to your thoughts

Obsessive prayer

Repeating phrases, mantras, affirmations, etc in an attempt to make thoughts go away

Avoiding things and situations that set off your intrusive thoughts

Repeatedly asking for reassurance from others ("I'm not being xyz, right?")

But yeah this obviously isn't exhaustive but, just, if this kind of thing sounds familiar, you should probably do some research on OCD, bc while intrusive thoughts can occur with other conditions, the intrusive thought-compulsion spiral is the core of OCD and isn't really a subaspect of depression/anxiety/ptsd/etc. and the treatment and management of OCD can look different from other stuff, so its a good thing to look into.

(Also it's important to keep in mind, esp if you're someone that doesn't have it, that someone's intrusive thoughts Are Not "secret desires" or "repressed urges" or anything the person even remotely wants to act on. Someone having harm-related intrusive thoughts is not at risk of actually acting on them, no matter how worried they are of doing so.)

Anyway this was a long post and I don't have a neat way to wrap it up and also I accidentally added a poll and now can't get rid of it so here's free poll. I'm running on nyquil and a small amount of straight gin (which works very well at numbing a sore throat) rn gnite

#ocd #actuallyocd #actually ocd #intrusive thoughts #my hand is fuckin stiff from typing this all out on my phone rip

[larsthefishoil]

As I'm actively reflecting on the new hbomberguy video, but more specifically James Somerton, certain things are clicking into place with resounding clarity.

I've watched Somerton's videos for years. At first I thought he was kinda overly dramatic, and had outdated stances on how little lgbtq+ was seen in modern day. He always seemed to talk like we are still living in the danger of the 80s with staight/cis people's apathy and hatred. In truth the phobias have just shifted in how they present and things have genuinely improved in a sense.

But the thing that is actually getting to me rn is the misogyny thing. I think he actually injected really shitty thoughts into my brain that I absorbed like a fucking kitchen sponge. He's protectiveness over queer people but specifically gay men from "prevented white women" actually got to me. For over a year, I was walking around occasionally thinking about how "women are sneaking BL manga into their bedrooms and grotesquely drooling."- im not citing someone theres quoteation marks cause its a dumb thought. But i thought this because that's how bad Somerton made it seem.

But the thing that got me out of that head space was this video by talistheintrovert.

https://youtube.com/@talistheintrovert?si=vmpEa_TPP2UE9eQk - here's the link to her homepage on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/08pCrSBw5EY?si=bECaT_xC16IfN5TI - vid about Good Omens

https://youtu.be/zzSlRZhS_qY?si=unQzSbCQUaTqhSbv - Heartstopper vs. Only Friends

sorry for the ugly link I'm on mobile.

I forget their pronouns so I'm using they/them but I might be wrong. I watched a lot of their videos all at once, so a lot of their ideas interlinked between videos to connect points. But they frequently talked about how straight and queer people interact with queer media and the complexities that unfold. Their underlying message was always that an individual's sexuality doesn't matter when interacting with media when it comes to gatekeeping who gets to appreciate queer content. Still most people consuming are queer people, but straight cis people also benefit and that's okay, it's great even.

Talistheintrovert shooed away icky feelings of straight women fetishizing queer men, which was a fear I got from James Somerton!

Idk this is a long post, but hbomberguy's ending soliloquy about trying to find happiness kinda reminds me of the many countless queer YouTube channels- big and small. Most of us aren't clawing for the position of top dog and like Somerton and seem a lot happier dispit of everything going on nowadays.

Anyways, stay safe, be accepting, and cite your sources or else hbomberguy will have to crawl out of whatever hole he hides in for the better part of each year and make a five hour long video about you :/

#hbomberguy #james somerton #youtube drama #misogny #shout out to dashcon somehow getting mentioned in the plagiarism video???

[genderkoolaid]

Hi!

I (24 nb) am having a serious issue with girls my age being quite misandric and using radfem rhetoric in their speech.

The issue is I understand their fear and mistrust of men in patriarchy and with many of them having horror stories to share about bad heterosexual relationships. But i am deeply uncomfortable with misandry and i don't know how to effectively point out that no it's not good feminism to hate on men.

Do you have any resources you could recommend me to build a good argument? I want to be prepared for this kind of discussion because it keeps happening more and more frequently.

I know it's not the main topic you cover on your blog but as it is closely related to transandrophobia I was hoping you (or your followers) could still give me some advice.

I wish you a wonderful day

My advice would be to start with talking about the negative impact of misandry on women first (although don't use the word misandry, at least at first). Starting off with "it hurts men" in any regard will likely not go over well, but if you first bring up the issue in relation to a group they already really care about, they'll be more likely to listen. Also, I would reaffirm that having trauma or bad associations with men isn't the problem, they aren't obligated to associate with men in ways that make them uncomfortable or exhausted, and that they have a right to feel their emotions, be angry, be annoyed, etc. Affirm that your concern is with how their actions and attitudes could be causing real harm to others, and that anger being valid does not mean you don't need to take responsibility for how you choose to act.

Some potential talking points:

When women are perceived as manly or masculine, they tend to get viewed with the worst traits of masculinity: butches and trans women are seen as aggressive, violent predators who prey on sweet, feminine straight/cis women. The patriarchy doesn't just hurt women through their femininity, but through their (real or perceived masculinity as well.

Even inside queer spaces, butches are expected to fulfill toxic masculinity: they are expected to be sexually dominant tops, not be emotionally or physically "weak," not do feminine things, etc. Butches can get ridiculed by others, even partners, for not fulfilling these things. Things like balding and small penises, that are traditionally seen as failures of masculinity in the patriarchy, are also made fun of in queer spaces; it seems like queer spaces have issues with how they deal with (real or perceived) masculinity.

When spaces make jokes about hating men, put a lot of emphasis on gatekeeping men, etc., it makes it a lot harder for trans women and nonbinary people assigned male feel safe. Some trans women & genderqueers might not realize their gender because they are kept out of spaces that could've helped them realize because of how queer & feminist spaces act regarding men. Butch trans women and genderqueers often face heightened scrutiny because of their masculinity, from both inside and outside their communities. (Also, send them this article.)

^ As a result of all of that, maybe we need to be more careful with how we think and talk about masculinity. It seems like we are reusing a lot of negative patriarchal stereotypes about men & masculinity in ways which hurt marginalized people the most.

From there, you can bring up marginalized men: you can talk about how trans men, multigender/nonbinary men, men of color, Jewish men, fat men, disabled men, etc. are negatively affected by negative patriarchal stereotypes about men & masculinity- I emphasis that because its how I would go about referring to "misandry" or "antimasculism" without actually using a word. Since misandry (and anything that sounds similar) is such a trigger word for many, its important to set the foundation that there is a big difference between the MRA concept of misandry, and the transunitist concept of misandry. Transunitist misandry focuses on how sexism & genderism* is used to target marginalized groups (specifically trans* people). Transunitist misandry does not say that misogyny doesn't exist, or that men are oppressed in the exact same way women are; its saying that the patriarchy (as a part of kyriarchy) uses gender and sex to harm not just marginalized women, but marginalized men too.

My goal with this would be to introduce and try to convince them of the idea that Misandry Is Harmful Maybe, and then once they realize how its harmful, bring up the idea that this kind of stuff needs to be named. Once they generally agree with these ideas, I think it will be much easier to help them understand why misandry is bad even beyond marginalized men: because the patriarchy relies on harmful ideas and expectations for men, even as (dominant/non-marginalized) men have a different place and more rewards; because liberationist feminism must be concerned with universal liberation, and that means it must be concerned with everyone's wellbeing and liberation; because we cannot disnantle the master's house with the master's tools, and letting any patriarchal thinking in poisons the well of your feminist praxis; because it just makes you a meaner and shittier person. In my experience people who think in the ways you described are resistant (not necessarily for bad reasons) to any kind of criticism towards sexism/genderism towards men, so my tactic would be starting with areas (like women) that they are concerned with not hurting and show how misandry hurts that group. Connecting the harm of this way of thinking to something they care about is going to make them more open to seeing it as an issue in general.

*I use "sexism" to describe the system of oppression based on physical sex, and "genderism" to describe the system of oppression based on gender identity/presentation/roles.

#m. #ask box

[wen-kexing-apologist]

Top 5 platonic friendship moments

Thank you SO much for asking me this, I love friendship!!!!

Nick and Sand Kissing in Only Friends, Ep. 9

gif by @aprilblossomgirl

I know you have your thoughts on Only Friends at this point because of how it ended, but there were a lot of things I do think Only Friends got right, one of my favorites being the platonic make out session between Nick and Sand. I mean, we talked about this before. It felt so queer, and it also did a really great job showing the difference between platonic and romantic feelings, because the kiss gave us nothing, and did the same for Team Second Option. I will forever love the fact that they made out, giggled, cuddled, and then giggled some more about it because it was kinda awkward and a little embarrassing, but they love each other as friends and that kiss changed literally nothing about their dynamic.

Porjai giving Mhok a Massage in Last Twilight, Ep 6

gif by @khaopybara

I like that some of the shows this year are starting to get in to the relationship dynamics of exes who stayed friends after. Like, listen, I've never been in a relationship before, and I know why it does happen where exes never really speak again, but it never made sense to me why 99% of the ex-partner relationship dynamics I've ever seen are bad. Like, this is a person who matter so much to you, and then you're just never going to see them or talk to them again? I love this massage moment that Porjai has with Mhok especially because it feels familial and familiar and friendly, and it is the scene that made me be like "man I can't believe they used to date" in exactly the same way that Porjai was confused when Day called Mhok her boyfriend.

Wataru Being a Little Shit on Shiro's Birthday in What Did You Eat Yesterday? Season 2, Ep. 7

Wataru is such a little shit, and I love him desperately, and his whole relationship with Shiro and Kenji is so strange. He's such a complainer, and while it can feel like the four gay men in this show hang out and are friends because they are the only gay people they know, it is moments like these that sell their actual friendship for me. Sending your friend a bouquet with a MASSIVE 50 balloon in it because you know it'll piss them off is pique best friend behavior.

Gay Boy Cuddle Pile in A Boss and a Babe, Ep. 9

gif by @paisky

I am not immune to a gay boy cuddle pile. I will never be immune to a gay boy cuddle pile.

Having had multiple conversations with a straight male friend about how much cis men lack platonic, physical touch from friends I now get emo about when boys hug, cuddle, kiss cheeks, hold hands with each other especially if they are not dating or hoping to date.

Rose Trying to Steal Charn's Phone in Laws of Attraction, Ep. 4

gif by @panncakes

It's such sibling energy, and I love it so much. As an immature adult, I love when adultier adults than me are shown being childish/immature themselves. No one should be expected to be put together all the time, and I moments like these show such a beautiful form of love.

and cause Laws of Attraction is technically a lakorn...

Sailom and Yiwa in the entirety of Wedding Plan

They love each other so much they were going to enter a Lavendar Marriage just so that Yiwa especially could be free. I can't say much about them because if I start talking about them I won't stop. But it is by far the most sacred form of platonic love we've had all year.

ASK ME MY TOP 5 OF ANYTHING BL 2023

#ask game #best of bl 2023 #only friends the series #ofts #last twilight the series #what did you eat yesterday? #kinou nani tabeta? #a boss and a babe #abaab #laws of attraction #wedding plan the series

[musings-from-mars]

For so long there has been this constant radfem fearmongering about “the male gaze” and “fetishizing” and whatnot about literally anything that’s meant to be sexy and titillating, and that’s led to way too many people, especially queer people and especially trans people, to be ashamed of experiencing any kind of attraction and desire or just plain horniness that goes outside an arbitrary pure innocent submissive boundary. And this attitude has spread to so many other communities that it’s inescapable. Can’t be attracted to trans people because that’s “fetishizing.” Can’t be attracted to disabled people cause that’s “fetishizing.” Can’t be attracted to people who are fat or muscular or petite or any other specific body trait or type cause that’s “fetishizing.” 🙄

To me it all stems from this overblown disgust with what cishet men are supposedly into and making a sweeping generalization from that, that anything that a hypothetical cishet dude might find sexy is bad and “male gazey.” We deviated too far from the actual concerns about the needless sexualization in general cisheteronormative society and instead decided to start policing actual adult content that is specifically meant to be sexualized.

Hot take perhaps (sarcastic) but cis straight guys being horny is not an inherently bad thing, and the things they like aren’t inherently bad either. Yeah even the fetishy stuff is fine, really. Unwanted objectification is the real issue, and that’s not what I’m talking about here. So same with how any cishet guys reading this should not feel guilt or shame for being horny about stuff, so shouldn’t anyone else feel guilt or shame for being horny about similar things.

Being sexually attracted to women or having the desire to top or be dominant doesn’t mean you’re “no better than some gross straight dude.” It’s not an indictment of your character, nor “proof” that you aren’t who you really are. Whether you’re cis or trans or whatever gender, kill the radfem pearlclutching homophobe in your brain and be free. You’re doing no one any good, especially not yourself, by curtailing your true desires. There is beauty in your sexuality. Don’t let anyone, including yourself, convince you otherwise.

#ok to reblog #not tagging this otherwise tho lol

[undobutton]

I agree with you totally and to add something, Im white and it is extremely easy to be respectful? Like you dont have to be too smart to know that because you are white that doesnt mean everyone else reading is, and the people that are like “im just not used to it/ idk how to not write white reader/ being inclusive is too difficult" and else are really self-centered and probably kind of racist people, not only to black people but to any POC. If you are going to describe the reader as white, dont even call it an "x reader"🙄

this! this! i gotta say:

WHITE IS NOT THE DEFAULT.

STRAIGHT IS NOT THE DEFAULT.

FEMALE IS NOT THE DEFAULT.

CIS IS NOT THE DEFAULT.

ABLE-BODIED IS NOT THE DEFAULT.

i feel like some people need to hear that. there is no default besides being human. and hate to burst anyone's bubble but we're all fucking humans. You and your experiences are not universal.

not everyone blushes visibly, or has hair that fingers can be ran through, or can go straight to cuddling someone as soon as they get through the door.

sometimes our skin is too dark, or our hair is too thick, or getting free of our outside clothes is the most important thing to do when getting home. and thats okay.

adding a little "written with white reader mind" or "written with straight reader in mind" or "written with able-bodied reader in mind" helps so much. like let. us. know. please.

cause it hurts to be knee deep in a fic and then have to recalibrate and ask yourself if this character would like you if you're not white. and feeling like the answer is no? that shit SUCKS ASS.

and if you feel called out by this? That's fine. you don't deserve death or a curse on your whole bloodline. just make the effort to acknowledge this and add those warnings in the future. adjust the tags you use in your fics! I'll do it too!

If I make a mistake tell me! don't tell me to die bc i forgot a warning. be humane.

the problem is when people act like they are above adding these warnings. or acknowledging that they accidentally considered their fic inclusive when it wasn't.

im not writing all this to make people feel bad. I'm just passionate and like making bold words and using all caps. If you realize that you've been doing some of these things just make your future works more inclusive or add those warnings.

if you "don't know how to write a non-white reader" or something. the xreader tag is for everyone, sure. but you can tag your fic as xreader and xwhite!reader or xfem!reader. it's not hard, really.

i also don't want to take away from anon's original statements. so i just want to ask anyone reading this to maybe reread what they said. since i drifted away from that topic and i think they said it very well!

also wanna add that xwhite!reader isn't even really a tag? like it didn't pop up as i typed it so.. maybe we can make that a thing?

-button 🌺

#x reader #atsv x reader #hobie x reader #miguel x reader #haikyuu x reader #mcu x reader #x black reader #x white reader #xwhite!reader #x black!reader

[aromantic-diaries]

a ton of aromantic heterosexual cis men, at least in uni, are awful. two of them were my friends. i trusted them, we bonded over them saying they were both straight aroallos and I was a bisexual oriented aroace and we got along so well. then one of them added me on accident (or maybe "on accident") to a group chat where they were like a group of like the european equivalent of frat guys and they were making fun of my identity and talking about my 'tight pussy' (cause I'm a virgin, I guess). i scrolled up and one of them was on grinder hooking up with pre-transition trans men because they're "easy" and apparently can be easily convinced to not use a condom. he didn't see any of them as men, just as tomboy-ish looking girls. he was also sending screenshots of some of the cis or cis-passing guys and calling them slurs.

I don't want these people in the queer community, i got them to join our gsa and they were talking shit about that too. i dont know what their goal with me was, clearly they were just mocking me and the queer community. maybe eventually they wanted to try to have sex with me or something, idk. but after that experience i genuinely do not trust cishet aroallo men.... its like saying that polish people should be allowed into spaces for "ethnic minorities" as theyre called here. like they might be a little oppressed. but also theyre all so racist and theyd make the space much worse for the more oppressed people who are strongly affected (like african immigrants) and can't just change their surnames to escape xenophobia.

Alright, before I even say anything I need to specify that I am not trying to invalidate your experience or go "not all men" on you, and I'm not defending these men.

What I do need to say is that any category of people will have shitty people without exception. These guys you talked about are shitty people without a doubt. But using polish people being racist as an example kind of falls flat because while that is true a lot of the time, it doesn't mean that their problems don't deserve to be fixed just cause a lot of these individuals are bad. I don't know the people you've talked about so I can't jump to any conclusions about them but listen. They weren't like that because they were cishet men who were aromantic, they were like that because they were shitty people, labels aside. And I'm sorry but queerness, or any minority status is not an indicator of morality. A lot of queer people fucking suck. A lot of them are terrible people. Someone can be a minority and still have their own -isms and -phobias against other minorities and that does not fucking mean they no longer deserve to live in a more progressive world or have any type of sympathy for their struggles. And yeah the polish people thing is uh... Yikes, I would have kept that to myself if I were you

#hi hello yes can we not uh. can we not fucking stereotype an entire nation. yes eastern europe has a racism problem #but don't act like the west doesn't. and uh sorry that the scary polish guy is not as prorgessive as you'd like #but i think being historically fucked over halts social progress

[olderthannetfic]

A lot of people in your inbox are doing the thing from that Tumblr post about how way too many people only think of feminism discussions in terms of the Most Oppressed Man and Least Oppressed Woman. Y'all really need to stop comparing marginalized men to white cis straight female CEOs, and instead compare them to women who are similarly marginalized.

I think the gender pay gap in many countries - an objective reality with tons of statistics to back it up - is a good way to illustrate this. Yeah, if you're a man in a low level at a company, the women ranked above you probably make more than you. But what about the women at the same level as you? That's what the pay gap is referencing: that women tend to make less than men (of the same race and other factors - there's also a racial pay gap, and black women make even less than white women but also less than black men) for doing the same work, at the same level, etc.

(And sometimes the disparity isn't even between people on the "same level": Claire Foy played Queen Elizabeth II on The Crown, a show ABOUT Queen Elizabeth II, and she made less than Matt Smith did playing Prince Philip until she found out and drew attention to it and the studio was forced to pay her what they owed her.)

The argument of comparing more privileged women and less privileged men, though, is one that anti-feminists like Men's Rights Activists use to deny the gender pay gap. They'll argue that because some individual women in higher-powered jobs make more than they do, that the pay gap doesn't exist, even though those women are likely making less than men in similarly high-powered jobs.

We need ways to talk about these systematic realities because we can't really address the problem if you don't know what causes the problem. But I also hope people realize that this particular thought distortion can be applied to pretty much any type of marginalization.

And, in fact, outside of Tumblr, it DOES get used that way. I've seen people do this with race: suggest that the existence of multimillionaire black athletes and actors alongside the existence of, say, homeless white people, means that white privilege/racism isn't real. Or use the existence of affluent gay people or gay politicians like Pete Buttigieg, or the fact that a lot of white cis gay people can buy into racism or transphobia, to suggest that homophobia doesn't exist. Just about every disabled person I know has a story about someone suggesting their disability "can't be all that bad" because of other advantages they had in life. Yeah, having an advanced degree and supportive family, friends and spouse means my ADHD doesn't affect me as badly as if I didn't have those things - but if I didn't have ADHD I'd still have fewer struggles. That's the comparison point.

When you're designing an experiment you can't alter every variable at once. You have to stick to just one variable at a time.

--

[aropride]

trying to draw lines of who's queer and who's not is unhelpful and a waste of time and i find it's an impossible task to categorize something as uncategorizable as attraction and identity. i've started thinking of it as more of a sociopolitical label as well as an identity label, and in my opinion that's a lot more useful than sitting around trying to decide if a guy who's only ever been attracted to women and ryan reynolds counts as queer or not. because i feel like if, for instance, a straight cis man who does drag and regularly engages in trans activism and sits down with his state senator to discuss making trans sanctuary laws or whatever. wants to identify as queer. i don't really care? i don't think that affects anyone negatively. i think if someone's involved in queer activism and the queer community and they want to use the word queer for themselves i think that's fine and i think it's not any of my business.

also there's this tendency, especially online, for people to go "well what if an allocishet person uses the word queer for themself even though they arent!" and that doesn't feel like a helpful thing to worry about because like.. what if? who is really getting hurt if a gender nonconforming cishet person identifies as queer? or a woman with two husbands? i saw a post along the lines of "we've got straight girls calling themselves fagdykes this is why inclusionism is bad" and i mean. first of all i genuinely just do not believe that. i don't think there are cishet women calling themselves fagdykes. i don't think people who wouldn't be considered queer by cishet society are often proudly declaring themselves part of the queer community in general. people don't paint targets on their backs for fun. i think it's much more likely that the person they were mad at was nonbinary or bi or otherwise queer. but even if they were, like. if for some reason a completely cis completely straight woman wanted to reclaim slurs for herself, she probably has a reason for that. and it's not really our business anyway.

and i think if someone actually is "only identifying as queer to infiltrate queer spaces and cause discord and hurt people," i think that's a them problem, not a "person who uses labels i don't fully get" problem. and i don't think that happens often except for possibly in discord servers, and i think that's generally called "lying" and "being an asshole."

whenever i see stuff trying to draw a line on who's queer and who's not, whether this person can say fag or not, whether it's okay for this person to use they/them pronouns or not, whatever. "are polyamorous people queer?" "can a cis guy use they/them pronouns?" i think of ace/aro exclusionism and bi exclusionism and nonbinary exclusionism. because the arguments sound the same. something about not being "oppressed enough," about "stealing resources" (what resources?), about "well these ones are okay but those ones aren't," about fakers, about people reclaiming slurs they can't use, about how they're "making us look bad," how they're "not queer enough," whatever. and i think it's petty and useless and pretty stupid when we're in the face of a rise in violent transphobia to focus on that instead of actual problems.

i had a friend in high school who talked about how she doesn't understand sexuality and gender and gender roles because she's autistic. she was a lot like me in that we'd both pick at strict definitions of things like "queer" or "trans" and find exceptions to common strict definitions until they fell apart entirely. and she identified with just her name, not trans, not nonbinary, not cis either. not bi or pan or ace or aro or anything else, and not straight. just herself. and she was fully accepting of me and other queer people in our life and was involved in queer activism and was actively deradicalizing her mom from radfem ideology. i don't know if she identified as queer then or if she does now, but if she did/does, i don't see why she shouldn't. i don't think it'd be my place to tell her not to.

i don't know. i just think if someone wants to consider themself queer it's not my business why. because they probably have a good reason. and i think trying to define something like queerness is an impossible task, and i think there's better things to do. it's not hurting anyone for someone you or i see as allocishet to identify as queer for whatever reason. sometimes you don't have to understand the intricacies of someone's identity and life story and why they use certain words for themselves.

#text #discourse #'straight girls are en masse identifying as fagdykes' is a take that kills me though. man what the hell are you talking about? #the op of that post was like 'that isnt a dogwhistle about trans women btw people are really doing that' and like. no they aren't 😭 #no they literally aren't lmfao #f slur #d slur

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for being mad at my best friend for crushing on this girl?

I know the title sounds bad, but hear me out. Also, this happened two years ago, but I just remembered it and idk how to feel about the way I felt back then.

So, my best friend at the time will be called D (then 17F) is a trans girl and I am nonbinary. She was already out at the time and I was not.

There was this girl in our grade, who I’ll call L. L had some political views that reminded me of radfems and transmeds. L was also a lesbian. L was very heavily transphobic against nonbinary people and she heavily defended the gender binary as much as she could, like all the time. She made fun of nonbinary people a lot and it hurt me a lot, because in the previous year (before she was open about those views), she and I almost became friends and I had had a crush on her.

When she showed that transphobic side of hers, my feelings disappeared quickly because I was very hurt by that. Obviously, L didn’t know that I’m nonbinary but it still hurt.

D and I at first were both very against all the things L was saying, but over time D and L ended up sitting together in art class. While I got to sit alone (for context: I hate sitting alone in art class because it was one of the only classes where I had friends (aka D) and i already had to sit alone in most other subjects and I was very lonely). I got pretty jealous of D spending time with L while I was alone.

I want to point out that D chose of her own free will to sit next to L, the teacher did not make her do that.

I however felt bad about being jealous, so i didn’t say anything to D except that I was unhappy to sit alone in general, but I don’t think she understood what I meant.

Eventually, I heard from D that L had talked bad about nonbinary people again (she apparently called us stupid and confused). But D also said that L had defended D against some people who were misgendering her. I wasn’t surprised by that bc L viewed D as a “real trans person”. On that note, L also said at one point that she supported trans people, but nonbinary people don’t count as trans to her.

D brought this up to me and seemed to agree with L and I was so shocked by that that I didn’t know what to say.

Eventually, D confessed to me that she had a crush on L and might even be falling in love. I tried to be a good friend to D and tried to support her externally, but internally I felt really hurt that D would feel like that about L when L indirectly insulted me all the time. Obviously; L wasn’t attacking me personally, but it still felt shitty as hell. But I also know that D can’t control her feelings. In the time that D was crushing on L, she changed quite a bit. One time she even misgendered me in the comment section of my own post and called my by my deadname in a private text convo between us even tho she knows that I hate that.

Eventually, that topic of “super straights” appeared on tiktok and L defended that a lot and was very vocal and supportive about how trans women and cis women are not the same and vice versa with trans men. And how no straight cis man would ever want to be with a trans woman and stuff like that. D was active on tiktok at the time too, on the other side of that argument obviously. This cause D to distance herself from L and she seemed comfortable from me. I did try to comfort her, but internally I couldn’t help but be happy that she finally stopped liking L and I admittedly also wasn’t surprised by L having those views and I didn’t really feel bad that D had to learn of that side of L like that.

So AITA? I think I should’ve been more sensible of D’s feelings, but she also wasn’t very sensible of mine, so idk

What are these acronyms?

#aita #am i the asshole

[johannestevans]

completely seriously, if you start having sex with somebody and they do not like, attempt to pleasure you unless you specifically ask or tell them like

it's not just that they're bad in bed. that person is not like. safe. like they are not a safe person to have sex with, you should not trust your body with them

like esp saying this for women that have sex with cisgender straight men and also nonbinary ppl and transmascs that have sex with cis straight men, but like

if he goes from just kissing you or whatever to just trying to shove his penis into one of your holes? if he wants to fuck you and doesn't try to reach for your clit, if he effectively wants you to just lie there while he fucks you, or wants you to perform while he does nothing to bring YOU pleasure?

he is not SAFE to have sex with.

at worst, he sees you and is treating you as an object to fuck, a tool for his own pleasure, and that's not something you deserve - if you have to negotiate with him or "nag him" to try to make you come, if he doesn't even have your orgasm in mind?

he cannot be trusted. if he doesn't see you as a person when you're having sex, then i sincerely doubt he sees you as a person elsewhere

at BEST, he just thinks this is what sex is like and doesn't know how to please a partner - IN WHICH CASE, HE CAN HURT YOU.

stimulating and arousing a partner sends blood rushing downward. this does not only lubricate the vulva and vagina, but literally stimulates the erectile tissues - it loosens the muscles around your vulva, it makes you wetter, and it allows safer, more pleasurable, less painful entry

arousal will plump up your prostate if you have a penis, but for everyone will also help your anus relax for penetration

NOT being aroused will make injury more likely, like vaginal and anal tearing, straining the muscles there, and THAT can make you more susceptible to infections too

maybe it is ignorance! maybe it is a skill issue! maybe it's a subconscious bias and he doesn't realise what he's doing or whatever

but all of that is ON HIM to fucking learn and get over.

in the meantime, YOU deserve better, if HE can't fuck you without not just being shit in bed but also potentially causing you harm and injury? it's not on you to fucking teach him

you deserve better! you deserve SAFE and GOOD sex, and it is not fucking normal that he treats you like that, there ARE better people out there, and this is a more than completely acceptable thing to dump a guy over

#musings

[roadhogsbigbelly]

newsflash: people reblog objectively correct posts without knowing the CROSS SITE DISCOURSE of OP all the time. she didn’t fucking know who op was until people told her (which you can do if you care, instead of calling someone a pedo supporter behind her back). she has been vocal about not supporting rape or pedophilia, and yet your dumbass posts are talking about her linking ‘’’loliporn’’’ to being queer for literally no reason aside from one reblog that lacked context. everyone has blind spots, yet for this single one of hers, one that she has clarified her stance on over and over, you say all this about her supporting whatever sex crime feels easiest to accuse her of! the least you can do is apologize

even if she didn't reblog from an actual pedophile i still would made fun of her for agreeing with a post that said "you're a fake queer if you don't support incest fantasies" cause even if that's not morally abhorrent that's a still a fucking stupid thing to say. i never even straight up called her a pedophile i said she "thought loliporn was queer expression" which was just a roundabout way of saying "she reblogged and added on to a post that said "don't say your pro kink if you don't support ageplay, , or incest fantasies" but apparently there's a such a wild difference between "loliporn" and "age play and incest fantasies" that she views the former as such a wild condemnation but the latter is perfectly harmless and not even worth caring about.

like again even if the original post she reblogged wasn't written by an actual pedophile i would of still made fun of her (while keeping censoring her name which i did but that didn't seem to work i guess) for it because it's a bad fucking post. i made fun of it actually way before i even saw her stupid stardew valley post. i made a post talking about how it's perfectly fine to have standards between "weird kinks that are perfectly fine that you should probably ignore" and "weird kinks that are actually potentially harmful" because i think not having any standards with "people's fantasies" as if they inherently exist in a vacuum in really dumb! and bad!

but i think i do need to stress that i did not know she was a trans woman when i made my post, and in fact i have made similar posts about people who were cis women or cis men or trans men or non binary, people of all genders and sexualities, that had bad opinions on incest kink. there was this pretty popular cis gay bara artist who drew alot of incest porn and porn of underaged male characters (but "aged up") and it honestly made me uncomfortable but i kind of bit my tongue because they were popular and i didn't want to rock the boat, and than later they got called for having a sideblog where they drew actually straight up toddler porn and than i didn't feel so bad about being suspicious.

so bascially i do not think she's a pedophile, i never thought she was a pedophile, i made a post vagueing her for having a bizzare take on a video game while thinking that "loliporn" was something worth defending because she reblogged and agreed with a post saying "don't say you love kinks and sex freaks if you aren't supportive of actual sex freaks who enjoy ageplay, and incest shipping" and i assumed loliporn was included in that, because why wouldn't it be, it's "fictional age play" if she doesn't think loliporn is good that's great but weird with her reblogging and agreeing with said post, but basically no i don't think she's a pedophile. i think she just has a really bad opinions. if she thinks actual pedophilia is bad that's wonderful great, noble peace prize, but if she still think "incest and ageplay fantasies" are "above criticism" because some queer people have them. uh no i disagree, i don't think she's a "bad person" for having them but uh. not that's really dumb

[autolenaphilia]

I think a lot of progressive social justice people believe terfs are bad, and they’re right about that. But I don’t think they understand what’s the actual problem with their thinking beyond “they are transphobic/transmisogynistic” or how their ideology even means. Which is why the word “terf” is so often misused. Like people think basic feminist analysis like “we live in a patriarchy and misogyny is a serious problem” or “misandry don’t real” is terfy or think that terfery is just “thinking men are bad”. So I’ve seen trans women accused of being terfs for doing basic feminism or making misandry jokes.

That sort of thing is often a form of transmisogynistic bullying, but I think those people do think the problem problem with terfs is that they hate men. But hot take, the real problem is that they hate women.

The central tenet of radfemism is that cis women’s biology is the cause of women’s oppression and patriarchy. It's an explicitly anti-intersectional view, in which misogyny is the primary oppression, as old as humanity, and "the model for other (lesser) forms of oppression". This causes transmisogyny, as radfems argue only cis women are oppressed because of their biology. But it also relies on the just plain misogynistic idea that women are weaker. And it ultimately reifies patriarchy. Radfems believe biological sex is immutable. And if patriarchy is caused by biology and biological sex is immutable, there is no way forward to actually destroy patriarchy. Patriarchy is in this worldview not caused by social, material and political conditions and thus defeatable, since we can change those conditions by feminist struggle, but a biological constant. And if biology is destiny, we are then stuck with patriarchy.

To the extent that radfems were ever sincere in their feminism, this is a theory that leads to a dead end for feminist struggle.

And so the struggle turns against other women. Radfemism today essentially consists of activism whose main goals are fucking over trans women and sex workers. There really is no other way for it to go. They have no strategy for actually fighting against patriarchy, so they put down other women, whether it be trans women, sex workers or even other cis women who disagree with them and who the radfems condemn as brainwashed “handmaidens”. There is also a lot of moralist bullshit over porn and kink. Fighting against the patriarchy is hard, committing misogyny in a patriarchy is easy, and they have chosen the path of less resistance.

Radfems love man-hating rhetoric because it’s performative. Man-hating rhetoric has no practical effects, because misandry is not a systematic form of oppression. Men’s individual misogyny can become part of a systematic oppressive force, misandry can not, it can only remain as words from individual women.

It’s performative even if sincerely felt. I do understand feeling resentment as a woman towards men as a class. I know myself how fear just from being threatened by men easily turns into resentment. But it can’t actually do anything, it’s just letting off steam. It’s especially obvious how performative it is in the phenomenon of heteropessimism, in which there isn’t even any personal change behind the man-hating rhetoric. Heteropessimists are straight women say heterosexuality is bad because men are bad, but they usually don’t quit doing heterosexuality.

Radfems are into it because they don’t do any meaningful practical feminist activism, so performative displays of class resentment against men is what remains to keep up appearances. This class resentment is a replacement for practical action. It’s larping as a feminist. “We don’t do any actual feminist activism, but we say we hate patriarchy and men as a class a lot, so it’s allright.” It’s a form of appearing radical when radfems are actually being a conservative force.

Feminism is in part a struggle for women’s rights. And in the transmisogyny masquerading as feminism that is radfemism, cis women’s privileges over trans women becomes the women’s “sex-based” rights that they are fighting for. It’s fighting to maintain a privileged position in patriarchy, for the right never to see a trans woman in a public space.

And I do mean that they fight from exclusion from public spaces in general. When you can’t safely use public bathrooms, it severely limits your ability to move about in public spaces. A trans woman barred from the women’s bathroom can’t use the men’s, not without immense risk of assault. Trans people are faced with the choice to either remain in their homes or detransition. And that’s the point of bathroom bans, remove us from public spaces. A changing room ban is essentially a ban from doing normal human things like swimming or using a public gym.

Radfems ultimately collaborate with patriarchy in a shared struggle to uphold transmisogyny. They provide a secular, pseudo-progressive and pseudofeminist justification for transmisogyny, and that can be useful in winning over cis people to the struggle against trans rights. That’s why the patriarchy gives them funding and space in the “debate” over trans rights. It’s to provide a “feminist” reason to exclude trans women from womanhood and denying trans people healthcare.

That's why there is a terf-to-fascist pipeline. When someone associate with (and are funded by) reactionaries, their "feminism" is mainly focused on hurting trans women and sex workers and their definition of womanhood rests on biological essentialism and motherhood, it's easy to go from self-proclaimed feminist to outright fascist.

Even the radfem criticism of gender roles can turn into reactionary thinking. Radfem criticism of high heels, porn and make-up and emphasis on biological sex and motherhood is easily compatible with reactionary ideas. A common theme in reactionary thinking is that modern sexualized femininity is degenerate and how women need to return to motherhood and define womanhood through their reproductive/ biological role.

And there has always has been a connection between radfems and the reactionary pedo cult that is catholicism. Janice Raymond was literally a former Sister of Mercy and she was taught by Mary Daly who was a theology professor at a Jesuit college. They brought the transphobia and sex-negativity of catholicism into their "feminism". Raymond is an early example of radfems working with the far-right, as she worked with the Reagan adminstration to deny trans people healthcare. Of course radfems worked with christian conservatives in anti-porn crusades around the same time. The idea of genderism or gender ideology that radfems seems to have started with conservative catholics.

Radfems often justify their actions by arguing the exclusion of trans women from female spaces is just aimed at protecting women from “dangerous men”. So it’s justified as a fight for women’s rights and aimed at “men” in general, but that’s disingenuous. Cis men aren’t hurt by radfem exclusion. They still have bathrooms they can use. They can’t be hurt much by radfem activism because we live in a patriarchy and misandry isn’t real. In fact they benefit from the transmisogyny that radfems spread.

Misgendering trans women as men to exclude them from women’s bathrooms (and by extension from public spaces all together) is part of that disingenuous rhetoric to relabel transmisogyny as feminist struggle. That is the other function their man-hating rhetoric serves. Radfems often claim to hate men, but what they mean by that is often that they hate trans women. When your average radfem's utterances consist of like 95% transmisogyny and what they advocate for only hurts transfems, not cis men, it's hard to interpret their "i hate men" statements any other way.

I think a lot of well meaning progressive people are too willing to take radfems at their word at this. They try to explain radfemism as “women who hate men, think trans women are men and thus hate trans women”. That is an essentially an individual psychological explanation that doesn’t give enough weight to systemic transmisogyny. Even if the psychological explanation is true for many individuals, if an individual radfem sincerely hates everyone amab in general, their individual psychology doesn’t matter much in the larger scheme of things. What they think or believe is not as important as their actions on a systemic level. And we can’t ignore the impact of systemic transmisogyny on their thinking, which we can’t say for misandry.

The transmisognyistic actions of radems ultimately enforce the systemic oppression of transmisogyny whereas misandry has no systematic oppression for them to reinforce. Misandry to the extent it is real is an individual psychological trait, transmisogyny is systemic.

#my writings #feminism

[dazeddoodles]

I feel like Raine coming out in the Human AU and the whole little party would cause a chain reaction of gay awakenings - specifically Lilith and Darius ...possibly alador???? might take more for him tbh (40+ years) accidental queer friendships for the win! Given how Gwen is being written... would she tease Lilith abt not getting a boyfriend?? Or talk about being how excited she is about being a grandma - Of course Gwen has no bad intentions with this jokes, she means well - those things just make Lilith really really uncomfortable in a way she can't describe... *Raine comes out* Lilith questions if she likes girls instead?? God all of the hagsquads' coming out experiences are gonna be so much longer compared to their witch counterparts - Lilith dealing with the whole struggle of feeling so isolated or "childish" because she struggles with dating people and feels awful when doing anything sex-related regardless of the other person's gender How the fuck do we even start with Darius./srs

Darius I think realizes he's gay as a teenager but never really comes out until later on. MAYBE eventually to Raine and Eda, if only because Raine is clearly not cis or straight. And everyone can tell Eda has a crush on them, so she clearly isn't straight either.

Lilith and Alador however don't come to terms with their identity until they're adults in their 40s (you can argue that's actually what happened in the show as well)

Amity exists in the human au so Alador still marries Odalia and has kids with her. It's not until after the divorce that Alador starts questioning if he's anything other than straight. Mostly caused by Amity coming out to him.

(If you wanna add Aladrius to the mix you can have angst with Darius secretly having a crush on Alador in high school all while believing Alador is straight)

Meanwhile, I do think Gwen would constantly ask Lilith about getting a boyfriend, especially after her "makeover" made her "attractive", and therefore finally has guys asking her out.

Lilith constantly uses the excuse of being too busy for dating, but over the years questions if she even likes guys, or maybe she likes girls?, or maybe she doesn't want to be with anyone.

#asks #human au

[postmodernmulticoloredcloak]

I’ve been mostly in the sidelines the last few days regarding the Misha sexuality incident fallout and I have tried not to get involved too much because... eh.

But I just want to say something because I think it’s important. It’s not really about Misha. It doesn’t really matter if he’s straight, bi, if he’s tried multiple labels until he landed on straight, if he’s lying through his teeth to protect himself, or anything else.

I’m just sad that a major reaction after his alleged coming out as straight has been outrage and near disgust at the idea that a heterosexual man might have dared occupy a simbolic queer space over the years, “appropriated” queer jokes to blend in with a queer crowd, and in general been, you know, virtually hanging out with the queer community.

It’s terf logic. Everyone on here is always like “fuck terfs” but then regurgitate terf logic every time the concept of a heterosexual man comes up.

Regardless of how he identifies, Misha has proved over and over to be sympathetic and supportive to queer fans. His whole thing is being queer-friendly, he’s gathered a large queer fanbase and been comfortable about it and in fact been very vocal in his approval and backing of a queer cause.

That makes him someone who belongs in the queer community. This is non-negotiable or we have a problem. It doesn’t matter if he’s a man exclusively attracted to women (not even counting the fact that his heterosexuality, if that’s genuinely how he identifies, would absolutely seem the result of a journey of actually questioning it, not just taking it for granted, which would make him belong anyway). That is not relevant to community.

Dividing the world in “us” (the good ones) and “them” (the bad ones who do not belong in our sacred space in virtue of what they inherently are) is bad. It’s terf logic. Even (and especially given the context) if “them” is heterosexual cis men. Heterosexual cis men are not an enemy or something inherently distinct and separate on an ontological level from queer people.

The queer community is supposed to be a simbolic space that welcomes whoever feels at ease in it. I know it sounds counterproductive to say heterosexual cis people can fit in it, but if you bar the entrance to heterosexual cis people by default then you are excluding closeted people (including people who don’t know yet they’re queer, how many of us went through the “I’m very sympathetic to the queer cause for some reason” phase?) and people who might not find that any queer label applies to them but still feel at ease within the queer community because they don’t quite belong in standard heterosexual culture (they might not feel okay with heteronormative gender roles while not identifying as trans, they might be neurodivergent while being straight and cis, or more. Humanity comes in a lot of shapes and sizes).

It’s possible none of this applies to Misha, although I have my own opinion about the guy. But this goes beyond the guy. Please question yourself if your instinctive reaction to the idea of a cishet man “invading” a queer space or “appropriate” queer symbols is to be disgusted or offended.

Again, this is not strictly about Misha. It’s not a “protect the poor guy from the evil queer fans”, not at all. It’s an invite to think about this stuff, think whether your reaction to this incident might stem from ill-advised places. Thank you.

#queer things #blabbering me