#Are they going to be LGBT inclusive?

[critical-skeptic]

"Why Is It Always Children And Not Elderly Or Homeless?"

Why is it that every time we see someone doing meaningful community outreach, like trans people reading books to kids, the knee-jerk reaction of some folks is to clutch their pearls and conjure up the most grotesque, baseless insinuations about "sexual deviancy"? You want to know why people aren’t lining up to read books to nursing home residents or the homeless? Simple: nursing home residents and homeless adults don’t need to be introduced to basic human decency and inclusivity lessons—they’ve already lived their lives with all the prejudices, biases, and social mores they’re going to carry to the grave. Children, on the other hand, are still forming their worldview, and maybe, just maybe, they could benefit from seeing that gender-diverse people exist in the world and can be mentors, caregivers, and guides just as easily as anyone else. This isn’t about some dark, deviant agenda; it’s about building a kinder, more understanding generation that, ideally, won’t grow up to perpetuate the same hateful rhetoric you’re so fond of spouting.

Then there's the redirection tactic of "But why don’t they go help the homeless instead?"—as if the people griping about drag queen story hours are suddenly overcome with a burning passion for solving systemic poverty. Please. Most of the time, these very same people wouldn't lift a finger to help marginalized adults unless they thought it could score them points in some twisted moral competition. This brand of armchair outrage doesn’t come from genuine concern for the homeless; it comes from a narrow, knee-jerk discomfort with seeing trans and queer folks visible in society. It’s the classic “I’m totally okay with the existence of marginalized people—as long as they stay out of sight and don’t interact with my kids.” The irony is rich: the people complaining the loudest about moral decay and deviancy are the ones obsessed with what others are doing with their bodies, projecting their own insecurities and narrow definitions of "normalcy" onto everyone else, while offering no meaningful solutions to the actual problems they claim to care about.

And let’s address the thinly veiled accusation that reading books to kids in an educational setting is somehow a predatory act. This is nothing more than projection, plain and simple. Those spewing these accusations are often the same ones who have internalized a culture that sexualizes and polices everything they don’t understand, reducing every act of goodwill to some perverse ulterior motive. It’s a classic smear tactic: if you can’t actually criticize what someone is doing on the merits, then conjure up the specter of “protecting the children” to justify your own discomfort and ignorance. Never mind that the vast majority of crimes against children statistically come from close family members or trusted adults in traditional community roles (particularly those traditionally most sanctimonious about gender and sex preferences)—let’s conveniently ignore that and demonize the people promoting inclusivity instead, because that’s easier and fits the narrative you’ve been fed.

The reality is, people in marginalized communities engaging in public service, especially around kids, is about as far from “virtue signaling” as it gets. It’s not performative; it’s an act of resilience and generosity that exposes kids to perspectives beyond the narrow, exclusionary views they might otherwise inherit. If you’re so concerned about the moral guidance of children, maybe consider what they’re learning from you: fear of the unknown, contempt for differences, and a complete inability to approach the world with empathy. Maybe, instead of wasting your time policing the identities of people volunteering to make a difference, you should be figuring out how to channel your energies into something actually constructive—like addressing the societal issues driving homelessness or pushing for better elder care. That would be “virtue” worth signaling. But, of course, that wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of othering people who are different from you, now, would it?

[bearjam]

Somethings the queer community does that I will never understand as a queer person:

1) why people in the community invalidate other peoples sexualities ex: bi/pan and aspec. Yall know we’re apart of the acronym right?

2) why some folks want “LBG without the T” congrats idiots. You have trans black women to thank for most of your rights today

3) why queer people “assign sexualities” to other queer people (usually aspec) or straight people who “don’t act straight” like ??? A) the closet is a closet for a reason. Some people aren’t comfortable or don’t feel safe coming out and B) don’t invalidate someone’s identity or label?? It’s what’s working for them at the time they’re discovering them self???

4) hate on queer people who may not be “loud and proud at pride” and vise versa. Like it’s their pride. Let them display it how they want as long as it isn’t hurting anyone else. I literally wore jeans and a black button up to my first pride (I’m just not into loud colors)

I’ll probably add more later idk these are the things that are currently in my mind this pride month.

[uncanny-tranny]

Quit being transphobic and adding the asterisk to make it say trans men* and trans women*. It's 2023. I thought we were past this.

This is probably about my post about trans women and trans men exchanging advice since it's been gaining traction, and I add the asterisk to signal that this isn't just about trans women and trans men. As somebody who isn't solely a trans man, it's weird to me that people have almost demanded that I just... ignore that, because it "isn't close to cisness." I added the asterisk for brevity and to signal that it's also about transfem people, transmasc people, transneutral people, genderqueers, genderfreaks, and whomever else I am not mentioning (memory loss gang, rise with me on this one).

Maybe you aren't a fan of how I indicated that difference (which is not what I have an issue with), but I truly do not appreciate being told that me acknowledging that trans men and trans women aren't the only people in this community is transphobic. If you aren't a fan of the asterisk, don't use it because that's completely neutral. But don't go after trans people who use it for literally non-transphobic reasons. Trans women and trans men are important members of the community, but they are not the only people who are trans in this space.

This will be my only response about this because I do think an explanation of my thought process in that post and posts like this would be helpful. But I'm drawing a firm boundary with how I'm talked to. This type of engagement is incredibly upsetting to me, and while I understand the aversion you may have to my language, I'm not going to be okay with being spoken to like this.

[unlimitedbutchworks]

genuinely though its kind of insane the transmisogyny and fear trans women just have to live with and how much of it is waved away as exaggeration or paranoia. all i can think of is that bit from infect your friends and loved ones, “THE WHOLE WORLD MONITORS AND MOCKS MY EVERY WAKING MOMENT”, literally it is the strongest part of the entire book just because of how well that describes this shit

[shayberri789]

Fun thing about sexuality is you're allowed to examine and puzzle over your identity for ages and eventually just go "fuck it" and sticking with a slightly vaguer label

[chaoticdisasterfemme]

anyway when are we gonna talk about the fact that things being exclusionary is not inherently a bad thing. everyone’s soooo hellbent on making literally everything inclusive to everybody that it means fucking nothing anymore. inclusion is good in many cases, of course, but people with goals to make explicit communities for marginalized and oppressed people “inclusive” is. so baffling. the entire point of having a community like that is to be a place where lgbt people can be with each other and safe from our oppressors. being inclusive to everyone who feels different is what leads to shit like furries and kinksters and polyamorous people thinking they can reclaim q***r and shit. lgbt places are for people who are lgbt. like that’s it. welcoming our oppressors into our spaces with open arms because they like to beat their partners during sex is literal insanity. exclusionary places are good. they are ESSENTIAL to our safety. not everything is for you. like i just cannot comprehend these ideas. i cannot EVER imagine hearing, say, a woman of color suggest a place/group/forum/etc exclusively for women of color, and what, i just butt in and say it hurts my feelings that you’re leaving me out so i should be entitled to a presence in your space???? hello????? like that’s the fucking craziest and most entitled shit i’ve ever heard but that’s literally the argument for always-on inclusion. i do! not! fucking! care! what! hurts! your! feelings! this is about SAFETY. allowing oppressors into groups made for marginalized people just because the oppressors feel left out is genuinely fucking crazy. yes, it is a good thing to pay attention to others’ feelings overall. if you can be kind, be kind. but safety of one will always, always, ALWAYS trump the feelings of another.

[threvlin]

Had a dream last night with a lot going on, but for some reason the bit that stuck with me was the phrase:

"The LGBT fight for party time, Mark. I thought you of all people would understand that."

The first part was put on so many articles of clothing in this dream for some reason, must have been a popular phrase or something. Anyway, After I woke up I had to make it into a thing. I have no idea what Mark did to prompt this but I'm sure he knows.

[fanfic-lover-girl]

MUST WATCH: Katie Porter, Piers Morgan, Bill Maher Debate Transgender At...

Feminists of the past: We want women to have the same opportunities as men.

Feminists of today: We want to give all the opportunities we fought for to men.

It’s so enraging to see so-called feminists care more about bio men than the females being hurt by transgender ideology. 

All the scholarships stolen, all the championships stolen

Women/girls enduring pervy trans women popping erections in front of them in locker-rooms and other changing areas

Women being raped by trans women in prison (bet it’s just disgusting men trying to evade men’s prison and laughing as they have access to even more victims)

Tomboys being told they are trans and not really girls. Going through irreversible changes, forever ruining their bodies.

And the very definition of womanhood being erased. Women are now chest feeders, egg producers, uterus havers, baby gestators. People on the left bring up The Handmaid's Tale to advocate for women yet parrot the same oppressive, misogynistic ideology when they try to be more inclusive for trans women. But no, liberal women care more about the delusions of men than other women’s safety and well-being.

It’s funny that liberal women like Porter here are arguing against their own welfare by supporting trans women, and men (often “EVIL” conservative men) are the ones who have to protect/defend women’s rights. But men are the problem? This is so tragically embarrassing to witness. The oppressive patriarchy is defending the very rights you are literally giving away to delusional, confused, perhaps even evil men. What clowns. 

[ghostwoohoo]

oh my god just shut up . like actually what is wrong with you

[moodr1ng]

btw ik this is the website for assuming everyone is usamerican but, outside of every other valid argument about it being a slur which is very much still in use and also just not being something everyone is gonna identify as and you cant force people to self-id a specific way.. its also cool to mention that some people arent gonna id as queer or recognize themselves in that term or agree to have it used to describe them and their entire community because its not a fucking word in their language and has no equivalent translation. and thats not terf ideology.

[andyinmiddleearth]

Hi, AFAB transmasc that produces extremely low E levels and was forced on HRT here who may or may not be intersex, who tf knows. My chest is very small and certainly looks more like moobs and less like actual 🍈s. It’s important to address that sex isn’t binary and there are so many different variations out there. Around 1% of the population is intersex, meaning they’re just as common as redheads.

HOWEVER, it’s also important to acknowledge that the word “breasts” can make trans and nonbinary people dysphoric if we have dysphoria, (myself included) so we also need to accommodate that which is why it’s better to just say chest. We don’t need to attach AFAB to it though, because even cis men can have gynecomastia, and so can trans women, transfem nonbinary people, intersex people, etc. I’m not sure what you wanted to do with this post, but if this is your way of saying that we shouldn’t use inclusive language when talking about chests then that reeks of TERF so uh. This is not me coming for you but just. Watch your mouth and I mean that in the kindest way possible.

“afab chests aren’t inherently sexu—” please say breasts please just say breasts please please please stop throwing the term “afab” around say tatas say titties say big bahoona bazingoroos if you must

[ringo-ichigo]

Today in Tales of Biphobia

"Bisexual being defined as having two types of attraction (homosexual and heterosexual, in which homo means same gender and hetero refers to any different genders) is too confusing. Having two categories whose sum total is everything is just too confusing for humans to comprehend."

Yes. Never have two categories that together encompass everything been able to be comprehended by humanity. Just ignore examples like all numbers falling into the two categories of real and imaginary numbers. Real numbers being all positive and negative numbers. Whole numbers being all natural numbers and 0. The globe's surface being water or land mass. Clearly, we have never been able to comprehend any of these concepts in our many years.

And as a follow up, because clearly, every time someone gets the definition of a word wrong, the thing we do is change the definition to their wrong idea. Not you know... correct them? Like if someone assumes bisexuality refers to attraction only to the binary extremes of gender (men and women), the answer is you correct them and go "actually the two refers to two types of attraction not two genders." Nah. That's too hard. Gee, golly. It only took like three seconds, but clearly, we should just adjust the definition rather than correct the incorrect assumptions of the definition.

Truly, how I love the new reasons people give for telling bi people why their sexuality is wrong, their words are wrong, and bi people are making life difficult for everyone else. I love spending every day of my life like this. It's so much fun.

[butch-bakugo]

Are uh... Are you ok buddy? No where did I litterally say any of this. Im litterally ace-spec myself. Why did you lose your ever fucking mind here?

[frustratedadulthumanfemale]

Sometimes I just want to scream.

I know I've said before but being a lesbian radfem can be so fucking isolating

[coridallasmultipass]

If it's okay for me to add something related because I first saw this on Tumblr: In the mid-2010s, I heard about there being a gay Filipino deity romance (from one culture in the Philippines - there are many different cultures and beliefs) here on Tumblr. It wasn't until years later when researching Philippine deities for fun while trying to broadly connect with my culture that I found a deep dive where someone found that the Bulan and Sidapa love story originated from the same fictional blog source, and had been circulating from new sources and fan art claiming it was historical for years before the author tried to find a non-modern historical source for the rumour, creating a kind of Berenstain/Berenstein effect on the people he asked, claiming they'd heard about the love story from a forgotten source much earlier than the 2010s, but unable to give a specific name, or the source cited claimed they didn't actually know about the romance.

While I think in this instance, a shift in narrative is obviously okay when you consider it is still a living Filipino culture, and people from that clearly find identity with this modern take (which should be asked of people from the cultures directly affected by misinfo), it should also be important not to rewrite it as 'historical fact' particularly when it has a fictional modern source that someone can directly point to as the origin when they question and search down the telephone line (like the game).

(I use the word 'fictional' only in reference to the originating blog, because the blog was unable or unwilling to provide any sources that mentioned that relationship to the deep dive author. I'm not implying said gods can't be/aren't gay. I'm not from that specific Philippine culture, and I don't have enough background knowledge to make any claims of my own. There's also no like, singular religious text/'bible' that pre-Hispanic Philippine beliefs followed as a rule/that can be consulted about this - it's not like a translation debate. There's just no textual source pre-dating the blog making the claim of the romance, and historians/oral historians aren't making the claim either.)

I get variations on this comment on my post about history misinformation all the time: "why does it matter?" Why does it matter that people believe falsehoods about history? Why does it matter if people spread history misinformation? Why does it matter if people on tumblr believe that those bronze dodecahedra were used for knitting, or that Persephone had a daughter named Mespyrian? It's not the kind of misinformation that actually hurts people, like anti-vaxx propaganda or climate change denial. It doesn't hurt anyone to believe something false about the past.

Which, one, thanks for letting me know on my post that you think my job doesn't matter and what I do is pointless, if it doesn't really matter if we know the truth or make up lies about history because lies don't hurt anyone. But two, there are lots of reasons that it matters.

It encourages us to distrust historians when they talk about other aspects of history. You might think it's harmless to believe that Pharaoh Hatshepsut was trans. It's less harmless when you're espousing that the Holocaust wasn't really about Jews because the Nazis "came for trans people first." You might think it's harmless to believe that the French royalty of Versailles pooped and urinated on the floor of the palace all the time, because they were asshole rich people anyway, who cares, we hate the rich here; it's rather less harmless when you decide that the USSR was the communist ideal and Good, Actually, and that reports of its genocidal oppression are actually lies.

It encourages anti-intellectualism in other areas of scholarship. Deciding based on your own gut that the experts don't know what they're talking about and are either too stupid to realize the truth, or maliciously hiding the truth, is how you get to anti-vaxxers and climate change denial. It is also how you come to discount housing-first solutions for homelessness or the idea that long-term sustained weight loss is both biologically unlikely and health-wise unnecessary for the majority of fat people - because they conflict with what you feel should be true. Believing what you want to be true about history, because you want to believe it, and discounting fact-based corrections because you don't want them to be true, can then bleed over into how you approach other sociological and scientific topics.

How we think about history informs how we think about the present. A lot of people want certain things to be true - this famous person from history was gay or trans, this sexist story was actually feminist in its origin - because we want proof that gay people, trans people, and women deserve to be respected, and this gives evidence to prove we once were and deserve to be. But let me tell you a different story: on Thanksgiving of 2016, I was at a family friend's house and listening to their drunk conservative relative rant, and he told me, confidently, that the Roman Empire fell because they instituted universal healthcare, which was proof that Obama was destroying America. Of course that's nonsense. But projecting what we think is true about the world back onto history, and then using that as recursive proof that that is how the world is... is shoddy scholarship, and gets used for topics you don't agree with just as much as the ones you do. We should not be encouraging this, because our politics should be informed by the truth and material reality, not how we wish the past proved us right.

It frequently reinforces "Good vs. Bad" dichotomies that are at best unhelpful and at worst victim-blaming. A very common thread of historical misinformation on tumblr is about the innocence or benevolence of oppressed groups, slandered by oppressors who were far worse. This very frequently has truth to it - but makes the lies hard to separate out. It often simplifies the narrative, and implies that the reason that colonialism and oppression were bad was because the victims were Good and didn't deserve it... not because colonialism and oppression are bad. You see this sometimes with radical feminist mother goddess Neolithic feminist utopia stuff, but you also see it a lot regarding Native American and African history. I have seen people earnestly argue that Aztecs did not practice human sacrifice, that that was a lie made up by the Spanish to slander them. That is not true. Human sacrifice was part of Aztec, Maya, and many Central American war/religious practices. They are significantly more complex than often presented, and came from a captive-based system of warfare that significantly reduced the number of people who got killed in war compared to European styles of war that primarily killed people on the battlefield rather than taking them captive for sacrifice... but the human sacrifice was real and did happen. This can often come off with the implications of a 'noble savage' or an 'innocent victim' that implies that the bad things the Spanish conquistadors did were bad because the victims were innocent or good. This is a very easy trap to fall into; if the victims were good, they didn't deserve it. Right? This logic is dangerous when you are presented with a person or group who did something bad... you're caught in a bind. Did they deserve their injustice or oppression because they did something bad? This kind of logic drives a lot of transphobia, homophobia, racism, and defenses of Kyle Rittenhouse today. The answer to a colonialist logic of "The Aztecs deserved to be conquered because they did human sacrifice and that's bad" is not "The Aztecs didn't do human sacrifice actually, that's just Spanish propaganda" (which is a lie) it should be "We Americans do human sacrifice all the god damn time with our forever wars in the Middle East, we just don't call it that. We use bullets and bombs rather than obsidian knives but we kill way, way more people in the name of our country. What does that make us? Maybe genocide is not okay regardless of if you think the people are weird and scary." It becomes hard to square your ethics of the Innocent Victim and Lying Perpetrator when you see real, complicated, individual-level and group-level interactions, where no group is made up of members who are all completely pure and good, and they don't deserve to be oppressed anyway.

It makes you an unwitting tool of the oppressor. The favorite, favorite allegation transphobes level at trans people, and conservatives at queer people, is that we're lying to push the Gay Agenda. We're liars or deluded fools. If you say something about queer or trans history that's easy to debunk as false, you have permanently hurt your credibility - and the cause of queer history. It makes you easy to write off as a liar or a deluded fool who needs misinformation to make your case. If you say Louisa May Alcott was trans, that's easy to counter with "there is literally no evidence of that, and lots of evidence that she was fine being a woman," and instantly tanks your credibility going forward, so when you then say James Barry was trans and push back against a novel or biopic that treats James Barry as a woman, you get "you don't know what you're talking about, didn't you say Louisa May Alcott was trans too?" TERFs love to call trans people liars - do not hand them ammunition, not even a single bullet. Make sure you can back up what you say with facts and evidence. This is true of homophobes, of racists, of sexists. Be confident of your facts, and have facts to give to the hopeful and questioning learners who you are relating this story to, or the bigots who you are telling off, because misinformation can only hurt you and your cause.

It makes the queer, female, POC, or other marginalized listeners hurt, sad, and betrayed when something they thought was a reflection of their own experiences turns out not to be real. This is a good response to a performance art piece purporting to tell a real story of gay WWI soldiers, until the author revealed it as fiction. Why would you want to set yourself up for disappointment like that? Why would you want to risk inflicting that disappointment and betrayal on anyone else?

It makes it harder to learn the actual truth.

Historical misinformation has consequences, and those consequences are best avoided - by checking your facts, citing your sources, and taking the time and effort to make sure you are actually telling the truth.

[novaandmali]

HEY NERDS

Do you like art history?

Do you like sci-fi?

What about inclusive art?

Check out this book - it's filled with LGBT and POC inclusive PULPY SCIFI ILLUSTRATIONS inspired by art history! The book will have SHINY GOLD FOIL!

We have over 50 ARTISTS from all over the world, each creating a full color piece of pulpy art for your enjoyment! The above image is a sneak peek of everyone's art - you know you want to see all the full pieces....right???

You can get special limited fancy prints to go with your book too, or a merch pack with riso postcards, a bookmark, and sticker sheet!

Please help us reach our Kickstarter goal - if we don't get funded, this book will not be printed. If we pass our funding goal, we even have some fancy stretch goals like making the book a hardcover or adding an extra sticker!!!

Get your copy here!