A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.
This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.
But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?
I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.
There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.
I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.
We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.
329 notes
·
View notes
So I put on TotK for ambience and just decided to visit Paya and Y’ALL
First off, I clearly haven’t gone to Paya’s room ever in this game because I completed it back in the winter and only just now realized that Impa’s chilling in Paya’s bedroom LOL
Then I laughed because Impa’s just like “oh hey Link,” all casually while he waltzes into her granddaughter’s bedroom HA Impa I thought you were a Zelink shipper 🤣 We all know Link and Paya aren’t like sibling-level friends or anything, Paya still very clearly has a crush, even though she’s matured and trying to be better so Link can be happy with whoever he wants (bless her I love her I adore her, I’m down for post-calamity Zelink but still it would be fun if she and Link could be together—)
BUT THEN. FRIGGIN THEN. Impa’s like “oh yeah I was just looking at this mural that depicts the calamity. You remember that?” And you can be like “Huh?” and like DUDE. NINTENDO. I GET THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS GAME PLAYABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T PLAYED BOTW BUT GEEZ. LINK WOULD NOT FORGET THIS. FIND A DIFFERENT WAY TO SEGUE INTO AN EXPLANATION. LIKE.
IMPA TEACHES LINK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HE LITERALLY PARTOOK IN A FEW YEARS AGO. AND ENCOURAGES HIM TO GO TO THE HATENO SCHOOL TO GET A LESSON ABOUT THE ANCIENT CALAMITY LIKE HE DIDN’T HEAR THE STORY FROM HER AND KASS EIGHT THOUSAND TIMES JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.
THIS GAME I SWEAR—
65 notes
·
View notes
you and luke are either going to end up like. married to each other or like. yelling at each other from across the nursing home like "Luke's over there spewing all that crap again" "*Luke fires back in conlang*" "nice try bozo, I don't speak FAKE"
i believe luke and i had a sub 24 hour political marriage a few years ago that dissolved due to irreconcilable climate preferences
we are however already living the nursing home AU
33 notes
·
View notes