#too bi to use terms like sapphic or gay without some argument | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

whitetrashjj · 3 years

Note

crying my eyes out at your MLA format essays cuz not every queer storyline in media has to be rooted in angst of coming out. i get some of the points you’re trying to make. i also don’t think the show is queerbaiting but jjpope had just as much “evidence” as jiara had. like please explain why jj was so keen on kiara liking john b just cuz she kissed him on the cheek and then went and kissed pope’s cheek?…. like in jj’s mind a cheek kiss means liking someone and he did that to pope. also there ARE shots of jj’s lingering gaze towards pope lets us not lie here lmao. i get that you’re sick of people calling u homophobic i dont think u are for not shipping jjpope i also dont think the show is queerbaiting at all but you go on about “storytelling povs” and “lack of critical thinking” when YOUR critical thinking is literally biased as hell 😭 u can ship jiara all u want but jj and kiara, ESPECIALLY KIARA, are both very much queer coded and if u gonna say they’re not bc of some cheesy sTorYtELLiNg bullshit that u probably learned from a youtube video then you’re just biased to your ship.

You know why I have to write those 'essays'? Cause I get asks like this that brush over a bunch of different topics and I want to make sure I not only address every part of it but also make sure I'm making my pov very clear so I don't have people misinterpreting what I say - even though they still do - or accuse me about random bitching without and reasons or justification. Anyway get ready to do some crying cause you are getting another essay.

I know not every queer storyline has to be rooted in the angst of coming out. I wish there were more that weren't. It's the reason I loved booksmart so much. It's one of the reasons I love Dare Me, because that show had sapphic leads and while their relationship was at the core of the show. It wasn't the fact that they were queer that was focused on. Oh god I could rant about Dare Me forever.

Now my point with JJ and Pope is that we don't get the impression that the boys are currently out as queer. JJ from the start was set up as a bit of a womaniser, a bit girl mad - it would have been very easy to make that gender neutral if he was bi, as I headcanon. With Pope it's the same, I personally view him as gay, but if he was bi/pan it would have been easy to show him like that as we see him attempting to flirt on two occasions. Now this isn't to say that in future seasons they can switch it up as if it was always canon, like they did with Clarke in the 100. My point however, isn't to say that JJ and Pope releasing their sexualities and feelings has to be filled with angst, the example I gave can very easily be played a bit cutely - even if they do address the internalised homophobia that I'm just sure would effect a character like JJ - but just that based on my experiences as a queer person and what I know to be experiences of others that it would realistically play out differently to how it would with a m/f couple. Even then when to comes to friends to lovers in general the removal of physical intimacy when that tension starts to build out of awkwardness is common, it doesn’t play out the same way that ships like JB and Sarah do in which they increase in physical intimacy.

I didn't bring jiara into this. I didn't go out comparing jjpope and their interactions to jiara, I was simply speaking to how jjpope's relationship was portrayed. In terms of 'evidence' I am more than aware the jiara wasn't written to be a developing romance, anything there was created by what the fans saw and choices made by the editors. But it is also a canon fact that at the very least JJ is attracted to Kie, that all the pogues 'kinda have a thing for her' and that he has 'tried' something with her. Even if the intention of those things wasn't to build to a relationship - they did happen and that's not up for interpretation. I'm not gonna bring up the 'did you tell JJ?' thing cause it still confuses the hell out of me.

The thing with the cheek kisses is that it's not the action in itself that made it a romantic thing. A handshake can build romantic tension when framed that way but that doesn't make every hand shake in that piece of media suddenly romantic, make sense? If you compare the two scenes we have the build up of Kie walking up to John B, a close up of a lingering cheek kiss, the pull back with lingering looks and then the reactions of others who have observed it and picked up on something. It frames it as a significant moment with slow beats. That's how you build romantic tension. With the JJPope one it just flows past it, JJ pulls back from the hug, a quick peck on the check and a 'love you too man' with a smirk and pat on the check. We don't even have a second of Pope's reaction to it. Do you see what I mean?

You can love that moment as a shipper. I mean it's a great moment that really highlights their dynamic. To you it's a dynamic that you see and think oh this would play out so well romanticly, it's a dynamic I see and think oh I love their friendship. Each of those are valid reactions. But it isn't a moment that has been intentionally framed to build romantic tension and suggest a budding relationship.

Darl, I swear to god if I was coming to you with my shipping bias' this would be a very different conversation. I know I will always have them and I will lean into them when I'm on vc with shes, theys and gays and we are getting lost in headcanons but I do my best take a step back when I talk about these things here because I've been in fandoms when you have two extremes and no one relents and it's awful, I don't want to create that space. And once again, I did not bring jiara into this. My original post was not a comparison to jiara.

I am very curious about your perspective on queer coding here. Because yes, JJ has chaotic bi energy and I will die on this hill. But I do not see how he has been queer coded. Other than people seeing a man being physically affectionate with another men and insist that can't be platonic. As with Kie I can see it more, not for a second do I believe that what went on with Kie and Sarah was straight. And I desperately want to see Maddie play Kie as pan to rep her own very underrepresented sexuality! And in terms of how she's written, stuff like being an astrology bitch and environmentalist scream queer to us, I do think it is important to note that the writers of the show being who they are would necessarily have the same impression of what a queer womans traits would be. In regards to that scene in ep 1 where they have the hot touron girl and then JJ, JB and Kie all perking up and doing the nod thing? I don't think anyone has a straight explanation for that.

The 'sTorYtELLiNg bullshit that u probably learned from a youtube video' comment made me laugh cause it reminds me of this guy I had a fight with on the weekend over Remus and Sirius being queer and he decided to undermine my argument by saying 'just because you read it on reddit doesn't make it true' which... yike. Any way, maybe you do but I don't have the tolerance to sit down and watch a youtube video on someone analysing a show. All my interpretations come from years of writing actual essays analysing elements and themes in media. As well as having a keen interest in direction and editing, so I pay a lot of attention to those things and you start to notice patterns. In terms of credentials I don't have any but I do think these 'essays' do an alright job of me not only explaining my interpretation but why. Because I'm not someone to just say things and expect that to just be accepted or think that is makes it true.

#obx #outer banks #JJ and pope #jiara #JJ maybank #kiara carrera #pope heyward #lara answers

22 notes · View notes

comingoutofthecauldron · 4 years

Text

let’s talk about lesbophobia in fandom

i don’t like to use the word “lesbophobia” unironically because of all the gross radfem terfy connotations, so i will clarify right off the bat that i am neither a terf nor an aphobe and that if you are i want you off my blog like, right now. unfortunately, the meaning of lesbophobia has been so warped by alt right lesbians that seeing it in an unironic context makes me, a lesbian, uncomfortable, which speaks volumes in itself. so to clarify, lesbophobia is essentially homophobia with a pinch of sexism thrown into the mix, and it’s running rampant in supposed safe spaces and, more relevantly, fandom.

/i’d also like to clarify that i’m not only speaking on lesbophobia, but also the general disgust and disdain for all wlw in fandom, and am using it as a sort of umbrella term/

lesbophobia and disdain for wlw has been around forever, but whilst gay positivity, mlm and mlm ships have been steadily increasing in popularity within fandom over time, wlw and wlw ships have remained perpetual underdogs. why? because lesbophobia has become a fandom within itself. both in and outside of fandom, we see instances of casual lesbophobia every single day—from aggression towards wlw to something as simple and prevalent as the complete and utter lack of sapphic ships and characters in media. hatred of lesbians and wlw is practically a trend, and it’s seeping in through the cracks of fandoms who are already facing issues with minorities and marginalized groups (i.e. racism, ableism). if you honestly think that lesbophobia isn’t prevalent as hell in fandom right now, you’re either not a wlw, you’re not all that involved in fandom, or you’re dumb as shit.

just look at ships. in almost every single fandom, the ratio of mlm ships to sapphic ships is ridiculously unbalanced. people are quick to ship male characters who so much as smile at each other (and i don’t condemn that) but would never do the same for two women—even on the rare occasion that the ship is actually canon. i once wrote a wlw fanfic for a [predominantly straight] fandom, and received messages like this gem:

on the flip side of that, if there is a sapphic ship in canon or fanon, it is often fetishized and sexualised to a disturbing degree. there will be double the amount of nsfw art and fics, and ninety percent of it will be derogatory and fetishized as hell. having been actively involved in several fandoms over the past few years (and currently a content creator in one), i’ve seen instances of all this hundreds of times. people go crazy for mlm ships, but the second you say you ship/prefer a wlw ship, there’s always someone at the ready with, “i think all ships are great!” or “it’s not a contest” or “i prefer [insert m/m or m/f ship] actually” or “they’re my brotp!/why can’t you just let them be friends?”. not only do lesbians and wlw not get to have any rep in media, any rep that they try to create for themselves in fandom just gets attacked or ruined. this is so detrimental not only to all wlw, but especially to younger wlw who will end up being indoctrinated into this belief that their sexuality is something dirty, something that can never be tender and sweet but rather something that deserves to be preyed upon.

building on that, let’s talk about engagement. i run an instagram account (where i have a significantly bigger following) as well as this blog for my fandom, where i post the content i create (mainly text posts). when i first started creating content, i made a lot for a relatively unpopular wlw ship, in which both girls are canonically romantically involved with a dude—though one of them is canonically pan. their canonical m/f ships are both very popular, and i noticed that my engagement was dropping every time i posted them, so i eventually just stopped. it wasn’t even a conscious decision; i merely resigned myself to the fact that the fandom didn’t want to see sapphic ships, and some people would even go as far as to condemn them. for reference, my instagram posts get an average of about 500 likes per post (popular ones usually exceeding 1k), but when i post this ship, my engagement drops to about 250 likes. similarly, my tumblr text posts have an average of about 140 notes per post (popular ones usually reaching up to 750), but my wlw content rarely surpasses 100. this just feeds the cycle of wlw never getting rep: if, like me, content creators become disincentivised by the lack of engagement with their sapphic content, they’re more likely to stop making/posting it, leading to further lack of rep—and when new content creators try to rectify that, they face the same problems.

and then, of course, there’s the treatment of actual wlw in fandom. my best example of this is when my friend and i made an anti account on instagram (the first instagram anti account in that fandom), our bio saying something like “salty and bitter lesbians being salty and bitter”, and received an onslaught of lesbophobic insults and threats from angry stans within hours. (tw: r*pe) one commenter even went as far as to tell us that they wanted us to get r*ped. as well as this, i’ve seen so many instances of people using slurs against lesbians in arguments/in anons, often for no apparent reason other than they feel that they have the right. when i first mentioned i was a lesbian on instagram, my account only had about 200 followers, and within a day i lost 20. i also lose followers whenever i post f/f ships, not quite to that extent but enough for it to be noticeable, on top of the aforementioned engagement dips. in the face of all this adversity, i think a lot of wlw turn to mlm ships because they’re the closest thing we have to actual rep, but when we do we get accused of fetishizing them by the same people who fetishize us. there’s an endless list of double standards that non-wlw have been upholding for years, and i can firmly say that i’m really fucking sick of it. because of our sexuality, we will never be allowed to enjoy something without someone labelling it or us as dirty or otherwise problematic, when to them, the only problematic thing about us is that we aren’t pleasing men.

as i mentioned before, the lack of rep for wlw in media is appallingly consistent, and part of that stems from tokenism. in a lot of modern mainstream media, you’ll have one, maybe two lgbt characters, and nine times out of ten those characters are white cis male gays. of course, there are exceptions to this, but generally, that’s it. script writers and authors (especially cishets) seem to have this mentality of, “oh, well, we gave them one, that’s sure to be enough!”, which means that on the off chance you do get your gay rep, the likelihood of also receiving wlw or any other kind of rep becomes practically non-existant. this belief that all marginalized groups are the same and that one represents all is what leads to misrepresentation on top of lack of rep, which is what makes tokenism so dangerous. if you treat your only gay character badly, you are essentially treating every single gay person badly in that universe. so not only is lesbophobia and disdain for wlw harmful to sapphic women via their exclusion in media, it’s also harming those minorities who do get rep. when people try to defend lesbophobic source material, that’s when fandom starts to get toxic. the need for critical thinking has never been more apparent and it has also never been less appeased—and wlw are getting hit hard by it, as always.

finally, a pretty big driving factor of lesbophobia is, ironically, lesbians. my lesbian friends and i often joke that though everyone seems to hate us, no one hates lesbians more than lesbians do. though i’d say it’s most prevalent on tumblr, i see traces of it all over the internet. the growth of alt right lesbian movements is not only reinforcing hatred for lesbians, but also reinforcing hatred for bi and pan women. here you have these terrible lesbians using their platforms to express their disgust for bi/pan women, for aces and aros, for trans women/nb lesbians, and people see them and say, “gosh, lesbians are just awful.” and just like that, all of us are evil. occasionally, lesbian blogs that i follow get put on terf blocklists for no other reason than the fact that they have “lesbian” in their bio. and the lesbians that actually deserve to be on those blocklists? they’re too busy spewing misinformation about trans women and bi women to care, boosted up by their alt right friends in an ever-expanding movement. i’ve found that this heavily influences fandom on tumblr, lesbians often getting branded as “biphobic” when they hc a female character as a lesbian rather than bi or pan. this criticism of both lesbians and wlw by lesbians and non-wlw alike only ever allows lesbophobia to grow, both in and out of fandom. that said, lesbians aren’t to blame for their own discrimination; rather, many of us have been conditioned into subconsciously endorsing it after spending our entire lives hearing heterosexual platitudes about lesbians and sapphic relationships. homophobic cishets are and always have been the nexus of this oppression—the only difference is that now they can hide behind alt right lesbians.

one thing has been made apparent to me throughout my time in fandom, and that thing is that no one likes to see men “underrepresented”. people hate sapphic ships and lesbians so much because there is no room for men, and men Do Not Like That. so, like the worms that they are, they slither their way in, be it through fetishization or condemnation of wlw characters and ships, and they ruin whatever good things we have going for us. the thing about worms, though, is that they’re easy enough to crush if you’re wearing the right shoes.

so to all my bi/pan gals and lesbian pals: put on your doc martens, because we’ve got ourselves some lesbophobes to stomp on.

642 notes · View notes

dearheart42regenerated · 4 years

Text

hoo boy, okay, this is a baaaaad idea and it’s LONG but I’m doing it anyway because I’m genuinely struggling with this, I don’t have an IRL community to turn to, and I want to hear what other lesbians/wlw think about this beyond my own tiny circle. (for the record I’m not a discourse blog, so pleeeease be gentle and don’t drag me into any super messy debates? the most I want to do is get opinions from different people and learn enough to come to my own private conclusions and move on)

I’m a bby lesbian (and a long-time ace) and the “bi-lesbian” thing upsets me too. but I’ve seen an argument brought up that made me stop and think, and I’m kinda stumped about it. the argument is that we're ALREADY using lesbian as an umbrella term, but only get upset about it when bi women do the same.

for example...when we see a wlw couple walking down the street or getting married, or two women kissing in a TV show or pictures shown on twitter (much like the cute “sword lesbians” story that’s been circulating), MOST of the time, everyone (including us!) tends to automatically call them “lesbians” or a "lesbian couple” or a “lesbian wedding”, etc...without thinking about what their actual orientations are.

I saw another person bring up an experience where her lesbian gf would joke about them "doing lesbianism babey!" but when she tried to do the same as a bi woman, her gf would get mad at her and say she couldn't do that. the main point of all of this is that there's hypocrisy in play - when lesbians put the "lesbian" label on other women, whether irl or fiction, most people don’t kick up a fuss. but when bi women use the label themselves, suddenly it's bad and lesbophobic/biphobic.

this troubles me because I DO see it happen all the time, both online and in the few irl experiences I’ve had. and I think it's a valid point to make (especially because "sapphic" is barely used irl at all). it feels unfair to use "lesbian" with the same-ish looseness we use "gay", and then draw the line at bi women using it too. (there’s also a very real problem of bi ppl with same-gender partners turning to “Gay And Lesbian” spaces cos they have nowhere else to turn, and getting kicked out for not being a “real gay”. there are tangible real-life layers to this discourse that I don’t want to brush off.)

but at the same time, "lesbian" is the only modern word we have (particularly our only mainstream word) to describe our full, unique experience as women who are exclusively attracted to other women/women-aligned people. bi women already have “bisexual” as their recognizable mainstream term, and they also have “queer”, “wlw”, “sapphic”, etc as further options to fine-tune their identity...so it feels just as unfair to use "lesbian” too, and that’s the main reason why the term “bi-lesbian” personally upsets me right now.

it’s also upsetting because “bi-lesbian” implies that some lesbians could still be open to men, and we already face so much lesbophobic pressure to create space for men in our identity/attraction because “you never know, you might feel attracted to a man someday! sexuality is always fluid y’know! maybe you’re not really a lesbian!” we get that pressure both from the outside world AND often from the rest of the LGBTQ+ community too. it’s really harmful and painful to deal with, especially for those of us who’ve had to deal with comphet and still do (aka meeeee)

putting the rest under a readmore cos this is getting long lol

I wish "bi lesbians” and their supporters would take that stuff into consideration...and I wish I saw more people caring in general about the lesbians who are hurting from this.

we’re tired of having the worst assumed of us, of being treated as the “bad guys” by other communities every time we speak up about things that hurt us. statistically, we’re one of the smallest groups in the alphabet soup. we barely even have our own flag, and the creator of our most popular one right now is still facing hate, harassment and being unjustly accused of being a TERF/exclusionist/bigot.

it feels like morale and pride are so low among us right now. we just want people to care about us, to be mindful of how we feel and what we go through as lesbians, to give us the same support and benefit-of-a-doubt that you so easily give to our other LGBTQ+ siblings.

aaand now I’m just emotionally venting lol but TL;DR - I want to be fair to both sides of this topic, cos that’s the type of person I am. I want to stick up for my own community, but I also want to be inclusive to questioning/struggling people and a good ally to my bi sisters. so help me figure all this out. how do y’all feel about what I’ve brought up here?

lesbians and bi women: how do you feel about the point that we’re already using “lesbian” as a roughly gay-equivalent umbrella term for the women we see in relationships with other women? why shouldn’t bi women use it that way too? if they shouldn’t, why aren’t we pushing harder for alternatives like “sapphic” to use in those cases and telling each other to stop when one of us uses “lesbian” or “lesbianism” incorrectly for unspecified wlw couples?

pro-bi-lesbian people: asking in genuine confusion here, how is using the term “bi lesbian” any better than using “bihet” or “bi straight”? how is it not feeding into the misconception that bisexuals are just “half-gay half-straight”? and why is it worth holding onto that label when a) “bisexual” is a mainstream term that, by definition, already has room to encompass your experience, b) other more specific words that mean the same/similar thing already exist for you (i.e. “sapphic”), and c) your term of choice hurts lesbians by undermining our definition of ourselves and adding to the cultural pressure we face to make room for hypothetical future men in our sexuality?

also I want to make it very clear that I’m NOT blaming “bi lesbians” for men feeling entitled to seduce/harass us, or insinuating that you contribute to rape culture or anything like that. predatory men will be predatory no matter what words we use, I fully acknowledge that. rather my concern is that anyone can put pressure on us (and all too often do) to make room for men in our orientation, including within the LGBTQ+ community, and “bi lesbian” as a term contributes to that type of lesbophobia.

please be nice, or at least civil, and talk to me. I want to listen and see if your opinions will help me find some clarity in my own. you’re free to message me or reblog this with your takes on these issues, but if you reblog, please focus on talking with me and don’t fight each other. I will delete this if things get ugly or out of hand.

#bi lesbian #bi lesbian discourse #bi discourse #lesbian discourse

63 notes · View notes

theclaravoyant · 5 years

Text

musings on the evolution of bisexuality in sitcoms and being treated “like a joke”

Not to open up old cans of worms, but for my video project I was thinking about the subject of Eleanor Shellstrop (The Good Place) and various opinions about her bisexuality, the status of it canon-wise, and in particular the feelings amongst some of the fandom (and non-fandom) that it is treated “like a joke.” I have heard similar things about Rosa Diaz (Brooklyn 99) as well regarding the latter point and so that worked its way in, and soon enough this ended up sort of turning into a short ish essay. I’m not really trying to argue a particular point, but merely reflect on some things, and I hope you don’t mind I thought I’d share my musings. It boils down to being laughed at vs being laughed with, which I get to below the cut after a brief exposition (I have some Thoughts)

Note: I am not looking to get into an argument with anyone, and I’m not saying this is the be all and end all answer to rep, but if you wanted to share some thoughts, add on, etc, you’re welcome to do so.

Note II: Just for clarity’s sake, non-LGBT+ people are welcome to interact if you would like to do so.

I must admit, moving back to the topic of Eleanor for a minute, I resonate with some of those feelings I outlined above. For example, I don’t particularly care for the fact that we have never seen her engage in an abiding romantic or even sexual relationship with a woman, whereas her romance with Chidi has been rebooted over and over and is consistently the outcome. It grates on me a bit that in a universe which has been rebooted upward of 4 different times that we have seen (and approx 300 other times shoved into a few minutes) this is the outcome every time. Why not explore another option for a season? I love Cheleanor, don’t get me wrong, and the constant rebooting annoys me from that perspective as well not just the f/f perspective, but in terms of sapphic rep and also considering how often bisexuality is exploited and misrepresented by heteronormative storytellers (eg the tropes “Bi the Way” and “Not Too Bi”), it really sucks.

Edit: I deleted a paragraph here that had some examples I had misremembered and was rushing through. Shockingly writing up a train of thought on a bus leads to some inaccuracies and skipping over of valuable debates. Instead, I will say that I don’t mean by the above, that m/f bi attraction is not real and valuable. It certainly is. What is a pain in the ass in my opinion - and in the opinion of a lot of the bi people I know before anyone comes at me with that again - is when bisexuality is only used to make a character interesting, sexy or rebellious, while still only representing the m/f side of things because that is easier/more comfortable/etc for heteronormative writers and viewers to portray and invest in.

THAT SAID, back to my actual point. I think we (particularly we who are LGBT+ ourselves) are also very accustomed to seeing LGBT+ characters in dramas, where bad things happen and there’s angst and death and gnashing of teeth. I think this being the norm leads us to freak out a bit and not necessarily know how to actually handle positive, happy rep in which we ourselves, our identities, are taken seriously. We are so used to either being a tragedy or being laughed at (rather than with) that it is extremely unsettling to experience what I would call a dawning new era of being respected in sitcoms - including The Good Place, Brooklyn 99, One Day at a Time, and I’m sure there are others as well.

It’s not surprising, with this skittishness trained into us, that some people interpret the treatment of Eleanor’s bisexuality as being a joke. I’m also not saying this knee-jerk reaction is the only reason; again, I’m not saying my thoughts & feelings on this are the be all and end all of rep. I am just saying that it was a major reason why I was uncomfortable at first: it is extremely hard to trust people to joke around about us, and our identities, and especially with the added element of the unique hypersexualisation of bisexual f/f attraction. But recently I’ve been rewatching some older and less progressive, less inclusive sitcoms and in comparison, it becomes very clear, the difference between being the butt of the joke (laughed at) or being part of a joke (laughed with). It might help - not just with Eleanor, but with others too - to give some examples:

In Friends, Monica, Rachel and Phoebe, only use the idea of f/f attraction when they want to get the boys’ attention, distract them, win bets, or the like. They are successful in this explicitly because the men find this idea so ridiculously, mind-bogglingly sexy that they can’t think. Yet NONE of these main characters are ever revealed to have an actual, serious attraction to girls; none of them express it outside of the direct goal of getting male attention. Similarly, in How I Met Your Mother, Lily’s repeated expression of a desire to kiss a girl is put down to her artistic nature and rebelliousness, and is repeatedly called “so stupid”, and again, is only used to get male attention (to wake up Barney). When she finally kisses Robin, it goes away (bi experiment trope), and it is implied that ~lol~ after all that Robin might actually want more, but that is then left hanging and never revisited again. There are heaps more, I could go on, but these are all examples of being laughed at.

Compared to these sorts of jokes, let us reflect on Eleanor again. Jokes around her sexuality include: being so attracted to her female nemesis that Eleanor can’t insult her profusely without starting to compliment her, and being so attracted to her boyfriend’s girlfriend that in a simulation where she plays him, she goes to kiss the girlfriend instead of her assigned goal, which was to break up. If this sounds more like #relatable sapphic content than a dismissive joke, that’s because it is. These jokes could not happen without Eleanor’s attraction to women, that is true, but the attraction itself is not the joke. The joke lies in Eleanor’s reactions to the attraction as a messy, funny, sexually driven human. In this way, her bisexuality forms part of the joke, but it is paired up with her other personality traits as a comedy character to be laughed with. Similarly, with Rosa Diaz, her stunned moment upon seeing Alicia is funny because it is an example of what we in the biz of gay ass blogging sometimes refer to as “useless lesbian brain” (or in this case “useless bi brain”). It’s cute because the love interest is a girl and because Terry is hyper-enthusiastic that it’s a girl. It wouldn’t work as well as a joke if it was not a girl, and heteronormativity is almost definitely the reason for that, but the point still stands that the bisexuality itself is not the joke, it’s the way she responds to it: it’s the fact that Rosa Diaz, usually so suave and in control, loses the ability to Can. Terry’s overly enthusiastic allyship is also funny, but mostly to people who have experienced overly enthusiastic allyship ie the LGBT+ audience.

(To add one final example: I am not aware of ANY male bi rep in older sitcoms, which kinda speaks for itself, but in the more modern ones we have characters such as Darryl Whitefeather (Crazy Ex Girlfriend). One of the biggest jokes around his sexuality is his coming out as “both-sexual!!” Once again, the joke is not the bi attraction itself, but rather, in the fact that lol this pour bi soul didn’t know the word for it! Another example imo of being laughed with).

I know I’m not saying all that much new here. Probably nothing new, to some people. I also know I’m not addressing every joke or facet of bi or LGBT+ rep even in the shows I’ve just listed. I’m not trying to, I mean none of us have all century. I just think it’s important to highlight what I feel is usually quite a strong difference between being laughed at and being laughed with, and that was the main idea of this post. It’s definitely not always as simple as the examples I’ve outlined above (eg. some of the Eleanor jokes are similar to jokes made in Pitch Perfect, in which I would say it’s about being laughed at), but I am just trying to put some words to some of my thought process on this sort of thing, particularly as I rewatch Friends and think about how far we’ve come with it!

One final time, because people in my inbox don’t seem to get it, I am not claiming to be ‘correct’. This is just an aspect of my feelings and opinions. I am also not trying to ‘speak over’ people who actually ID as bi; in fact, it was bi people saying ‘why can’t you let us have funny things’ that actually opened my eyes to a more comfortable bi-friendly interpretation of the treatment of Eleanor’s sexuality in the first place. I’m not trying to say “this is good rep, actually,” or “this is bad rep, actually.” As I said above, I think it’s both, and I think it’s more complicated than that, and most importantly, I am not actually trying to change anyone’s mind. If you resonate with this? Cool. If not, that’s fine. It’s my thoughts, my opinion. It’s not fact and I don’t want to tell anyone how to feel especially about their own rep.

With that in mind, if anyone is interested in chatting with me more about this sort of thing (by which I do not mean harassing me about it) or asking me what I mean by certain things, or for writing advice, or whatever, you’re welcome to do so - this is just the tip of the iceberg! I just wanted to put this out there in the world for whatever purposes it might come to. Thanks for reading!

#lgbt representation #the good place #brooklyn 99 #tgp meta #b99 meta #eleanor shellstrop #rosa diaz #life of a fangirl #bi representation #lgbt #lgbt+#long post

84 notes · View notes

xeno-aligned · 6 years

Link

copy & pasted under the read more in order to have a local copy.

A Brief His and Herstory of Butch And Femme

BY: JEM ZERO 16 DEC 2017

When America’s LGBTQ+ folk started coming out of the closet in the 1950s, the underground scene was dominated by working class people who had less to lose if they were outed. Butch/femme presentation arose as a way for lesbians to identify each other, also serving as a security measure when undercover cops tried to infiltrate the local scenes. Butch women exhibited dapper and dandy aesthetics, and came to be known for being aggressive because they took protective roles during raids and other examples of homophobic violence. The image of the butch lesbian became a negative stereotypes for lesbians as a whole, leaving out femme lesbians, who are (pretty insultingly) considered undetectable as lesbians due to their feminine presentation.

In modern times there’s less need for strict adherence to these roles; instead, they become heritage. A great deal of political rebellion is wrapped up in each individual aesthetic. Butch obviously involves rejecting classically feminine gender expectations, while femme fights against their derogatory connotations.

But while butch/femme has been a part of lesbian culture, these terms and identities are not exclusive to queer women. Many others in the LGBTQ community utilize these signifiers for themselves, including “butch queen” or “femme daddy.” Butch and femme have different meanings within queer subcultures, and it’s important to understand the reasons they were created and established.

The Etymology

The term “lesbian” derives from the island on which Sappho lived—if you didn’t already guess, she was a poet who wrote extensively about lady-lovin’. Before Lesbos lent its name to lesbians, the 1880s described attraction between women as Sapphism. In 1925, “lesbian” was officially recorded as the word for a female sodomite. (Ick.) Ten years before that, “bisexual” was defined as "attraction to both sexes."

In upcoming decades, Sapphic women would start tearing down the shrouds that obscured the lives of queer women for much of recorded history. Come the ‘40s and ‘50s, butch and femme were coined, putting names to the visual and behavioral expression that could be seen in pictures as early as 1903. So, yeah—Western Sapphic women popularized these terms, but the conversation doesn’t end there, nor did it start there.

Before femme emerged as its own entity, multiple etymological predecessors were used to describe gender nonconforming people. Femminiello was a non-derogatory Italian term that referred to a feminine person who was assigned male—this could be a trans woman, an effeminate gay man, or the general queering of binarist norms. En femme derives from French, and was used to describe cross-dressers.

Butch, first used in 1902 to mean "tough youth," has less recorded history. Considering how “fem” derivatives were popularized for assigned male folks, one might attribute this inequality to the holes in history where gender-defying assigned female folks ought to be.

The first time these concepts were used to specifically indicate women was the emergence of Sapphic visibility in twentieth century. This is the ground upon which Lesbian Exclusivism builds its tower, and the historical and scientific erasure of bisexual women is where it crumbles. Seriously, did we forget that was a thing?

The assumption that any woman who defies gender norms is automatically a lesbian relies on the perpetuation of misogynist, patriarchal stereotypes against bisexual women. A bisexual woman is just as likely to suffer in a marriage with a man, or else be mocked as an unlovable spinster. A woman who might potentially enjoy a man is not precluded from nonconformist gender expression. Many famous gender nonconforming women were bisexual—La Maupin (Julie d'Aubigny), for example.

Most records describing sexual and romantic attraction between women were written by men, and uphold male biases. What happens, then, when a woman is not as openly lascivious as the ones too undeniably bisexual to silence? Historically, if text or art depicts something the dominant culture at the time disagrees with, the evidence is destroyed. Without voices of the Sapphists themselves, it’s impossible to definitively draw a line between lesbians and bisexuals within Sapphic history.

Beyond White Identities

Another massive hole in the Lesbian Exclusivist’s defenses lies in the creeping plague that is the Mainstream White Gay; it lurks insidiously, hauling along the mangled tatters of culture that was stolen from Queer and Trans People of Colour (QTPOC). In many documents, examples provided of Sapphic intimacy are almost always offered from the perspective of white cis women, leaving huge gaps where women of color, whether trans or cis, and nonbinary people were concerned. This is the case despite the fact that some of the themes we still celebrate as integral to queer culture were developed by Black and Latinx LGBTQ+ folk during the Harlem Renaissance, which spanned approximately from 1920 to 1935.

A question I can’t help but ask is: Where do queer Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color fit into the primarily white butch/femme narrative? Does it mean anything that the crackdown on Black queer folk seemed to coincide with the time period when mainstream lesbianism adopted butch and femme as identifiers?

Similar concepts to butch/femme exist throughout the modern Sapphic scene. Black women often identify as WLW (Women-Loving-Women), and use terms like “stud” and “aggressive femme.” Some Asian queer women use “tomboy” instead of butch. Derivatives and subcategories abound, sometimes intersecting with asexual and trans identities. “Stone butch” for dominant lesbians who don’t want to receive sexual stimulation; “hard femme” as a gender-inclusive, fat-positive, QTPOC-dominated political aesthetic; “futch” for the in-betweenies who embody both butch and femme vibes. These all center women and nonbinary Sapphics, but there’s still more.

Paris is Burning, a documentary filmed about New York City ball culture in the 1980s, describes butch queens among the colourful range of identities prevalent in that haven of QTPOC queerness. Despite having a traditionally masculine physique, the gay male butch queen did not stick to gender expectations from straight society or gay culture. Instead, he expertly twisted up his manly features with women’s clothing and accessories, creating a persona that was neither explicitly masculine nor feminine.

Butch Queens Up in Pumps, a book by Marlon M. Bailey, expounds upon their presence within inner city Detroit’s Ballroom scene, its cover featuring a muscular gay man in a business casual shirt paired with high heels. Despite this nuance, butch remains statically defined as a masculine queer woman, leaving men of color out of the conversation.

For many QTPOC, especially those who transcend binary gender roles, embracing the spirit of butch and femme is inextricable with their racial identity. Many dark-skinned people are negatively portrayed as aggressive and hypermasculine, which makes it critical to celebrate the radical softness that can accompany femme expressions. Similarly, the intrinsic queerness of butch allows some nonbinary people to embrace the values and aesthetics that make them feel empowered without identifying themselves as men.

Butch, Femme, and Gender

It’s pretty clear to me that the voices leading the Lesbian Exclusive argument consistently fail to account for where butch and femme have always, in some form, represented diverse gender expression for all identities.

‘Butch’ and ‘femme’ began to die out in the 1970s when Second Wave Feminism and Lesbian Separatism came together to form a beautiful baby, whom they named “Gender Is Dead.” White, middle class cis women wrestled working class QTWOC out of the limelight, claiming that masculine gender expression was a perversion of lesbian identity. The assassination attempt was largely unsuccessful, however: use of these identifiers surged back to life in the ‘80s and ‘90s, now popularized outside of class and race barriers.

Looking at all this put together, I have to say that it’s a mystery to me why so many lesbians, primarily white, believe that their history should take precedence over… everyone else that makes up the spectrum of LGBTQ+ experiences, even bi/pan Sapphics in same-gender relationships. If someone truly believes that owning butch/femme is more important than uniting and protecting all members of the Sapphic community from the horrors of homophobic and gendered oppression, maybe they’re the one who shouldn’t be invited to the party.

As a nonbinary lesbian, I have experienced my share of time on the flogging-block. I empathize strongly with the queer folks being told that these cherished identities are not theirs to claim. Faced with this brutal, unnecessary battle, I value unity above all else. There’s no reason for poor trans women, nonbinary Black femmes, bisexual Asian toms, gay Latino drag queens, or any other marginalized and hurting person to be left out of the dialogue that is butch and femme, with all its wonderful deconstructions of mainstream heteronormative culture.

It is my Christmas wish that the Lesbian Exclusivist Tower is torn down before we open the new chapter in history that is 2018. Out of everything the LGBTQ+ community has to worry about already, petty infighting shouldn’t be entertained—especially when its historical foundation is so flimsy. Queering gender norms has always been the heart of butch/femme expression, and that belongs to all of us.

#lesbian #butch #femme #bi-#queer history #fenpost #wlw #sapphic #also #nlw #cause the author is a nb lesbian

380 notes · View notes

dandymeowth · 7 years

Photo

Various screencaps of REGs telling people they can’t identify as queer and/or that queer is not an identity or isn’t real, all taken from this post. This is provided as part of evidence that, yes, acephobes/discoursers are absolutely saying we can’t be or use queer. Also, hey, check out how many of them are transmisogynistis, radfems, biphobes, transphobes, etc! and use a lot of anti-progressive/anti-sj language (like “identity politics”). It’s almost as if their rhetoric is related...

I have removed the REG usernames in the following captions to avoid their interacting with this post, and to slightly no-platform them. Anyway, they read:

bigballofwibblywobbly: Well you created an argument about something that wasn’t being talked about. I was talking about individuals who don’t identify as anything but queer.

Not saying we should apply it to the whole group. But you’re a terf so it all makes sense.

[REG/radfem 1]: queer isn’t an orientation??? its a reclaimed slur like god i love being a part of the lesbian gay bisexual transgender reclaimed slur for homosexual community. you’re an ace inclusionist ofc you want to reclaim slurs never used against you and think queer is a separate orientation. the lgbt community will never be the queer community or the ‘everyone that doesn’t completely conform to heterosexuality’ community lol

[REG 2]: Yeah queer isn’t really a coherent identity in and of itself. I see “sapphic” being used in much the same way now. Like I understand that figuring out who you are is difficult and people may want to use words that are sort of? Vague and noncommittal? But queer quite honestly does not mean anything in the sense that as it’s own identity it says nothing really about who you are attracted to or your gender identity. It’s [post cut off at this point]

[REG 3]: That and its fucking vague as fuck? What does it even mean? So many non-LGBT people claimed that they’re LGBT bc they’re “queer”, when they’re just cishet polyamorous people or cishet kinksters or cishet aces or cishet aros or cis aroaces like…. that slur isn’t for u. And people who are LGBT but identify as q*eer are still LGBT? Why do u need a slur in the acronym if you’re either L G B or T? What’s the point? What does it add?

[REG 3]: Then you’d go under the bi umbrella Identity politics are so ridiculous jfc u don’t experience some new form of oppression and therefore need a community based around it just because you are mga but don’t like the label bisexual for urself.

[REG/radfem 4]: “Queer” could mean that you are a guy who uses nail polish or that you have a turtle pet.What’s the point of this word?What does it represent?What’s your axis of oppression?What experiences do you share in common?What’s the fucking point of identifying as “queer” other than to pretend that you’re special and oppressed?

feminismandmedia: I love how you say that people who are attracted to multiple genders are pretending to be special and oppressed.

Fuck off you twit.

[REG/radfem 4]: Sexual attraction is about sex not gender.There are only 2 sexes so you’re either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.It’s not that deep, trying to give a special name to your sexuality doesn’t make you opressed and it’s actually disrespectful to actually opressed people.

[REG/radfem 5]: You shouldn’t be identifying as q*eer freely without consequence because it’s a slur.

[REG/radfem 4]: Why are you oppressed?What’s the base of your oppression?How is society systematically aimed against you?If you’re actually oppressed why do you use such an ambigous and nebulous terminology with no concrete meaning to describe your community?Since it makes it harder to acknowledge you as an oppressed group? “Fam. I like all genders. I like dick and vagina too. I’m queer too” You’re bi, congrats, you may be affected by homophobia(oppression) if you date a same sex partner.“Oppression” is a strong and assertive word, you can’t just throw it around.

bigballofwibblywobbly: My god I hate TERFs. Fall off a bridge. Thanks.

Seriously? Do we now have a quota of oppression to fill? You want every dirty detail? You disgust me.

Also I’m not bisexual thanks.

[REG/radfem 4]: “Do we now have a quota of oppression to fill” Yes it is called being oppressed.I said that the person who said they liked dicks and vaginas is bisexual, not you. You hate us cause we’re right and you know it, I would hate us if I were you too. Just bc someone called you she instead of zir in the supermarked once doesn’t mean you’re oppressed Bethy, get your shit together.

bigballofwibblywobbly: I love how they erase my queerness to fit their argument.

[REG/radfem 4]: What am I erasing? Lmao, what’s “queerness”?You still haven’t answered what it means, bc it means nothing, it is a word made for straight kids feel special, a homobhobic slur actually.

bigballofwibblywobbly: My pal. I already said. I like all genders.

[REG/radfem 4]: …so you’re bisexual therefore only oppressed if you date a same sex partner like I said.

bigballofwibblywobbly: Wow. That’s some nice biphobia you have too. Bisexual people don’t become straight if they are in a relationship with the other gender.I’m not bisexual anyways.

(Also on that last one, calling being nonbinary a white thing? lol)

bigballofwibblywobbly: Well guess I don’t belong in the community. Congrats your gatekeeping has cut out people who like multiple genders. Top notch. Really.

[REG 6]: Aren’t there other words for liking multiple genders other than a slur?

[REG 7]: Um OP polysexual falls under the acronym without using a slur and is an umbrella term for multi-gender attraction….

Bonus under cut.

The following cap is a separate post made by a REG that is capped for no-platforming purposes and to prevent their interaction. It was shoved into the ace positivity tags because discoursers seriously just straight up hate ace people and don’t want them to exist.

The post is about how “real” LGBT+ people hate the word queer and don’t identify with it except as a comeback, implying anyone who identifies with or uses it regularly is actually not LGBT+ and instead one of “the mogais”. It compares people reclaiming queer to white people using the n-slur and neurotypicals using the r-slur.

The post uses the phrase “cishets in denial” and I honestly think that truly encapsulates exactly how discoursers are seeing being LGBT+.

It fits right along with that “if you are attracted to the opposite sex you’re not lgbt” post.

It fits with the idea that more people are identifying as LGBT+ because it’s “trendy” and are actually fakes and liars, an idea spread and supported by cishets, truscum, anti-sj, radfems, etc. This comes as no surprise as MOGAI was coined by a nonbinary person, and that has been the driving force behind the hatred for it.

It also fits with how “sga” is pulled from conversion therapy because that’s literally how the people behind and supportive of the concept of conversion therapy look at being LGBT+: that it’s a phase, you’re just jumping on the bandwagon, you’re in denial, this isn’t the “real” you, etc.

The post reads:

[REG 8]: Lol, seriously? There is no better way to show that MOGAI is made up of mostly cishets in denial than how heatedly they fight to use the word “qu**r”. If they paid fucking attention, they’d know that actual members of LGBT don’t really want to be called that, that most LGBT folks only use it to fight the balance of power that qu**r causes and that they aren’t going to cast away the history of the slur just because it’s supposedly a trendy umbrella term.

It’s the same way white people whine about their “right” to use “n*gga” when black people say no, or NT people claim “freedom of speech” when calling anyone and everyone “r*tard*d” despite decent human beings explaining why that’s fucked up.It’s so damn annoying…

danni-rants: And this is in ace positivity why again

queerautism: You heard it here first folks. Everyone who fought to reclaim Queer as an act of rebellion and empowerment… was actually cishet all along. Same for neurodivergent people who can’t be more specific than ‘queer’ about their identity. And everyone who keeps trying to turn it into a positive term and build a community around it. Also my nonbinary pan ace ass apparently lol

Simply Amazing.

#long post --//#aggressive tone --//#passive aggressive --///#that gay discourse #filler tag --///#radical feminism #acephobia #biphobia #queerphobia

49 notes · View notes

frabjous-fragment · 3 years

Text

a critique of lesbian discourse from a nonbinary perspective

(saw something that upset me enough to want to get my opinion out there, so here i am, turning to my tum blur dot com poe eh tree blog to engage in lgbt discourse. happy pride)

I am an agender person designated male at birth. I consider myself pansexual with asexual characteristics, but historically, I have mostly been romantically involved with people who could be painted broadly as transfeminine. Because of this, binarism that tries to divide me from the lesbian community has always stuck out to me more. I hope to illustrate to people who will keep an open mind how the dismissal of individuals identifying themselves as bi lesbians is rooted in binarism.

This carrd seems like the most comprehensive and mainstream formulation of the argument I could find, so I'll go down it point by point. Before diving in, though, I want to point out that the author, an asexual and nonbinary dfab lesbian, feels so strongly about this issue that they operate a blocklist of people who identify as bisexual lesbians on Twitter. Bear the fact that people feel strongly enough about the issue to draw lines in the sand through the community in mind, as we dissect the causes, effects, and purposes of this issue's hot button status.

tl;dr: There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

"Lesbian is not an umbrella term." It's not surprising to me that the carrd opens like this, since the entire argument requires this prior, but the formulation here is actually very weak and even concedes things that weaken it further. "These simplifications of people's sexuality were grown out of as queer people started to create labels and spaces that more accurately described them." Buckle up, because most of the rest of this post rests on this very loaded throwaway sentence. This is a simplification of the truth and overlooks some pretty unfortunate history. The fact of the matter is that bisexual and asexual people were included in the discourse of the gay rights movement from the very beginning. The Asexual Manifesto was written in 1972, and Donny the Punk, founder of the first LGBT student movement, identified as bisexual (recorded in writing earliest in 1972- incidentally, when he discusses his break with elements of the gay liberation movement, due to his treatment after falling in love with a woman in 1970). Therefore, the argument that people simply used weak terminology like "homophile" in the early days because there was not more specific terminology available to people lacks something. The cruder truth is that it was all people needed for compatibility, to go to gay hookup spots, make friends, have sex, and maybe find a long term relationship. Bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, and further subcommunities arose with the rise of gay identity politics, and conflicts of interest within it. Who would these conflicts of interest be revised out of our community's history? The answer is simple and unfortunate- sexism. Donny was far from the only individual met with the sentiment that he was a gender traitor- lesbian separatism, an unfortunate reaction to real issues the early gay movement had with representing lesbians, swept through lesbian spaces in the 70s, devastating bisexual and transgender women and bolstering the nascent bisexual and transgender movements. By the end of the decade, TERF queen Janice Raymonds included "testimony" from other bigots against two named trans women existing peacefully in lesbian spaces, in her hate screed The Transsexual Empire, quoting another TERF's writing as saying "I feel raped when Olivia passes off Sandy ... as a real woman." This is an obvious appropriation of the language of personal rights to justify bigotry, judgment, hate, and exclusion. All manner of feminists and lesbians have attempted to whitewash the darker sentiments of this period by dismissing the proponents of radical, genocidal propositions like Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto as "just venting" or "fringe lunatics". (To not get too into it, Solanas went back and forth on whether or not her work was satire, in a manner I find eerily similar to what reactionaries do when they put 'this account is satire' on their Twitters.) This is easy to prove incorrect; non-buzzword, actual, political misandry had reached the highest levels of feminist leadership and academia. Observe what one of the first professors of women's studies in the world, Sally Miller Gearhart, had to say on "the male question": I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. "The future is female" is a phrase that has been effectively neutralized and recuperated by less radical elements, which I am all for. It is vague enough to work to better ends than the next two points by itself. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. Here it becomes more clear that, in the minds of many prominent feminists of the 1970s, women would have to be supreme over men. There isn't much of another way to interpret the statement that women must bear all responsibility for humanity. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. How would this be done? The only answer is eugenics through selective abortion imposed by the state, and genocide. Clearly, even from just a perspective of women's rights, this is inadmissible to anyone who is genuinely pro-choice on the

subject of women's bodies, even though this is not a situation we usually think of. The very suggestion of this is fascistic. Make no mistake that the modern sentiment against bi lesbians is not rooted in the same fascist gender essentialism. One denies that "benign" anti-bisexual and anti-transgender sentiments still predominate in lesbian and gay communities at your own risk. Not only are you speaking over the lived experiences of people like me, you are speaking against the statistics. Not only do incredible majorities of 88.5% of gay men and 71% of lesbian women, compared to 48% of bisexual and similar people, still exclude trans people from romantic and sexual considerations due to the subliminal sexism they learn from both mainstream society and their LGBT communities, but surveys show that gay men and lesbian women respectively distrust bisexual men and bisexual women's attraction to them and affiliation with their communities. (Also widely*... couldn't resist pointing out the common eggcorn.) "Lesbian used to be the term that described all sapphics, but isn't anymore, and that's a positive thing. Having more specific labels has allowed for people's bisexuality and pansexuality to not be erased in common language, and was a step towards getting rid of the pressure for people attracted to multiple genders to 'pick a side'. The emergence of terms like 'bi/pan lesbian' and 'bi/pan hetero' reinforces the notion of needing to 'pick a side', and obscures the common definitions of all the sexualities involved" This is that concession that I mentioned earlier. Credit where it's due, it's an elevation of the discourse to actually admit this when other people won't even do that. But it again ignores why these pressures exist, and incorrectly presupposes a demand for terminology that could be argued to be divisive without looking into why such a demand exists in reality. In a world without these terrible and stupid issues of sexism, people would simply say "I am both gay and straight" and everything would be dandy. Nobody has ever called themselves "bi/pan hetero" and I'm almost not even being hyperbolic. It's not an identity community. Proposing this just sets up the writer's argument that the terminology of "bi/pan lesbian" (and its more accurate parallel, "bi/pan mlm", which I have seen- putting aside my qualms with the limitations and binarism of xlx terminology even when the left operator is nb) divides the bi/pan community. This is the same logic battleaxe bisexuals who view the pansexual label as biphobic and attack people they see as bi (and yes, pan people are also bi by definition) use for their argument that the pansexual label divides bi people, when the only people that I see it "dividing" are the same people getting pissy about trifling points of queer theory that nobody else cares about for no proven reason. In real spaces, nobody tries to get bisexual people to line up on one wall and pansexual people to line up on the other. Pan people do not engage in biphobic discourse. The issue is empty; a non-issue. This it shares in common with the bi lesbian discourse, where the issues are not directly with the communities under fire, but instead vague, abstract, unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable notions of "omg you'll make the straights think [blank]!!" It seems like a theme where, even within LGBT, majorities attack their negations and accuse them of being divisive for asserting themselves and asking for some solidarity in return for the solidarity they provide in the community; you see this with asexual and trans people as well, but that's not what this post is about. Since the entire argument is built on this first point, I could honestly stop here, from a logical perspective. But people have strong emotional responses to the subsequent points, and without going through those, people will change "is not" to "ought not to be" and carry on.

"Making Distinct Spaces for Different Sexuality's Unique Experiences is Important." Around here is where the carrd really starts to resort to trying to twist truisms against their opponents, and on the briefest reflection this doesn't work. The idea that the term "bi lesbian" erases the distinction in between bi women and lesbian women seems to me to commit a category error by defining lesbian women as exclusively homosexual women and then pointing out the obvious truth that these women are distinct from bisexual women. The truth is, bisexual women and lesbian women are not categorically different in really any way other than their relationship to heterosexuality, a distinction easily expressed by- you guessed it- the label "bi lesbian". To reiterate and combine into earlier points: There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

"Woman Aligned Nonbinary People are Included in Lesbian Attraction". Another truism. Let's move on to the single clause of the single sentence that contains the actual argument- "implying otherwise by wanting to separate that attraction into a new label is enbyphobic invalidating lesbian attraction" So, hi! As a woman aligned nonbinary person, I am here to tell you that this is not correct! I think this is a lot easier for dfab nonbinary people and dmab binary trans women to say than is it for dmab nonbinary people like myself to say. When your identity is as arcane as "I am not a woman but I identify with women because I am of a marginalized neutral gender", a lot more people decide not to take you seriously. If you take out the bolded words, this statement becomes correct, so we're going to focus on them. The only people saying anything about non-binary people not being included in lesbianism by default are the antis and the radfems they unwittingly serve, who actually do believe that point and see it as a good thing. But unfortunately, as a dmab nonbinary person who does not get sorted as a woman under binarism, my experience has been that I am already excluded from lesbianism in practice. If you get sorted as a woman under binarism, good for you! But to say that all lesbians do is obviously incorrect, when you consider all the budding trans women who still have beards and face largely similar issues in the lesbian community. To say that this state of affairs is fine is harmful to trans people; to say that this is different from what people like me face is arbitrary, and arguably binarist. Sapphism needs to look deeper than the surface and accept a foundation built on ties of solidarity and identity with no tests of purity.

"Having a Lean or Strong Prefrence Does Not Make You Any Less Bisexual". (Preference*, firstly.) I am not sure what this truism is doing here. Even many bi lesbians would agree that preferring other women is not what makes them lesbians, their membership in the lesbian community is what makes them lesbians. Refer to the above point; each community should be built on nothing more than solidarity and identity.

"Lesbians Don't Have Attraction to Men or Men-Aligned Nonbinary People, Even When on the Split Attraction Model". Here it is, the Big Chungus of arguments in the bi lesbian discourse. This is one that is seen often that people feel very strongly about, and probably the most contentious, since the implication that bi lesbians facilitate abuse of lesbians seems to motivate how a lot of people feel on the subject. Who has the power here? The insinuation that bi women have more privilege than lesbians is silly and biphobic. Clearly, it's the abusive men who have all the power in this arrangement. So how is the presence or absence of bi lesbians going to change what abusive men, who don't believe in sexual orientation, let alone care about it, decide to do? It can only change the excuses they use, which are chosen at convenience. This is a trick that patriarchy has played on us to get us to attack each-other instead of the enemy. For such a common and spicy point of rhetoric, I'm surprised I didn't write more against it here, but I really feel that the argument against it is that simple. I'll add a personal note here, and say that the dismissal of the divergent opinions of people sorted as males under binarism, alleging that we're "rapey" and want to appropriate things that aren't ours rather than participate in solidarity, is incredibly harmful to those of us who happen to be lesbians, even by the strictest trans-inclusive definition.

"Trans Women are Women". Truism. This is by far the weakest point. Nobody is advancing "bi lesbian" as a trans-inclusive label, though as I said above, it's a statistical fact that bisexual people are much more trans-positive than homosexual people, and therefore, as a transgender person, I tend to feel more welcomed around them. Of course, that's not a categorical distinction, but an unfortunate tendency.

"A Lesbian isn't Less of a Lesbian for Previously Dating Men". Truism. This is a stronger point, but only because it is closer to real rhetoric supporting the idea that bi lesbians are "real". Bisexual women will answer the question of "would you be open to dating a man again?" in the affirmative, and homosexual women will answer in the negative. Some members of the lesbian community do not completely rule out the prospect of dating men, even though it is not something they currently pursue.

The above are the reasons why the community should not fall into the bi lesbian discourse, and the refutations to its arguments. In order to be in full solidarity with fringe members of our sub-communities against bigotry, we must not fall into needless categorical division of groups when our interests are the same. There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

#bi lesbian #pan lesbian #bi discourse #lesbian discourse #pan discourse #lgbt discourse #pride discourse #queer theory #agender #bi lesbian discourse

3 notes · View notes