#I am a bisexual woman and tbh it SHOULD be discussed that when a woman is introduced as bu

[lady-tortilla-chip]

.

[genderkoolaid]

Examples of transandrophobia: i've seen sections of Leslie Feinberg's piece "Sisterhood: Make it Real" passed around this site for literally years, and TODAY was the first time that I saw the whole thing and learned that ze called out cisfeminists in it for getting rid of trans men the second they started transitioning. Like I always thought it was a good piece but I had literally NO IDEA that it talked about trans men because that part was never included in posts about it, even when those posts were calling out cisfeminism for being transphobic. I'm just gobsmacked tbh

This is a great point!

Honestly more people need to read that full chapter. There's a lot of really good points.

Amongst other things, Leslie talks about how "women good men bad" is poor feminism:

Of course, as a result of the oppression women face growing up in such a violently anti-woman environment, some women draw a line between women as allies and men as enemies. While it’s understandable that an individual might do so out of fear, this approach fails as theory. It lumps John Brown and John D. Rockefeller together as enemies and Sojourner Truth and Margaret Thatcher together as allies. This view of who to trust and who to dread will not keep women safe or keep the movement on course.

How feminine men are victims of gender oppression:

The oppression of feminine men is an important one to me, since I consider drag queens to be my sisters. I’ve heard women criticize drag queens for “mocking women’s oppression” by imitating femininity to an extreme, just as I’ve been told that I am imitating men. Feminists are justifiably angry at women’s oppression - so am I! I believe, however, that those who denounce drag queens aim their criticism at the wrong people. This misunderstanding doesn’t take gender oppression into account. For instance, to criticize male-to-female drag performers, but leave out a discussion of gender oppression, lumps drag queen RuPaul together with men like actor John Wayne! RuPaul is a victim of gender oppression, as well as of racism.

How masculine women are assumed to know less about gender oppression:

But I grew up very masculine, so the complex and powerful set of skills that feminine girls developed to walk safely through the world were useless to me. I had to learn a very different set of skills, many of them martial. While we both grew up as girls, our experiences were dissimilar because our gender expressions were very different. Masculine girls and women face terrible condemnation and brutality including sexual violence - for crossing the boundary of what is “acceptable” female expression. But masculine women are not assumed to have a very high consciousness about fighting women’s oppression, since we are thought to be imitating men.

And as you said, how trans men deserve access to women's and lesbian's spaces without having their transmasculinity ignored or seen as being butch-in-denial:

And our female-to-male transsexual brothers have a right to feel welcome at women’s movement events or lesbian bars. However, that shouldn’t feed into to misconception that all female-to-male transsexuals were butches who just couldn’t deal with their oppression as lesbians. If that were true, then why does a large percentage of post-transition transsexual men identify as gay and bisexual, which may have placed them in a heterosexual or bisexual status before their transition? There are transsexual men who did help build the women’s and lesbian communities, and still have a large base of friends there. They should enjoy the support of women on their journey. Doesn’t everyone want their friends around them at a time of great change? And women could learn a great deal about what it means to be a man or a woman from sharing the lessons of transition.

Not that "trans women belong in feminism" wouldn't be a good point on its own, but people's selectivity with which parts of that chapter they share definitely warrant scrutiny.

[dhampiravidi]

to those who have an issue w/drag (& tbh, queer/nonconforming people in general)

TL;DR: please don't follow me if you are the above. I'd be supporting ignorance. Here's my explanation.

Brief background (on me & my stance): I was born AFAB, to parents who, for most of my childhood, either took no stance or a liberal stance in conversations that became politicized/publicized by the media. My school didn't talk about politics until President Obama was elected (& ofc his election was seen as a historic, positive moment). Anyway, no one talked about sexuality, biological sex, or gender identity--all of which are different, sometimes overlapping topics.

Then my mom happened to have a young student who had 2 dads. I was confused. When they'd hug or kiss (nothing graphic, just regular couple stuff), I felt...weird. No, not aroused OR disgusted--I was maybe 8 at the time, anyway. But I was definitely not used to seeing or hearing about gay people. Whenever that good ol' scene where 2 sexy college girls kiss to appease a bunch of boys came on the TV, my mom would roll her eyes. When 2 men would kiss in a different scene, my dad would make an excuse and leave. Long story short, until I literally Googled what it was to be queer, I didn't understand what I had seen. I'd learn that my mom supported all queer people (going as far as to publicly support a student's efforts to transition in high school) and my dad, who is still learning, grew up exposed to extremely heteronormative ideals.

Now we get to my identities.

I started to question my sexuality at 10, but I wasn't "sure"* that I was bisexual/pansexual (I don't mind either term; yes, I "can" be attracted to trans people) until I was 12. Unfortunately, my parents initially tried to ignore my realization. They didn't want to talk about it. But I had friends who came out at the same time. (I was also a very salty high schooler.) So I kept pushing and pushing for the discussion, because I had a right to be heard. I had a right to be myself and not lie about who I was. My parents had always talked about how I should be proud to be a smart Black woman, so...I ran with that. I am lucky to have a family who (finally) accepts my sexuality.

Again, I'm AFAB. I don't mind my genitalia. I hate my body, but that (for me) is tied to my mental health, as I have been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (I inherited a disposition to this), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (the result of several environmental and self-imposed factors), and Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (due to some trauma experienced outside my home). I have thought about having traditionally-male genitalia, but I don't think I personally need it to be happy. However, I acknowledge that this is just how I feel, and it doesn't take away from how others feel.

I didn't even think much about my own gender until the last year or so. I only knew that I had always been unhappy with my social life. I currently have a badass handful of buddies who I love SO MUCH, but I still sometimes feel...wrong. When I look in the mirror, I don't just feel ugly. I don't think I look human. I hung out with boys throughout elementary school and I (mostly via the CW and Disney Channel) was exposed to a lot of what some call the "male gaze". For example, I remember all the shows that featured a girl (usually the male characters' crush(es)) getting splashed with water--enough so her petite hourglass form would show through her then-transparent clothes. So I had an idea of what beauty was. Somehow, I also had an idea of what being cool/handsome (my words for "beautiful in a masculine way" back then) was: toned muscles, the ability to intimidate anyone, wearing tight clothes, etc. Anyway, I started school early, meaning that until maybe the end of middle school, I was always shorter than everyone else. I didn't mind being called cute all the time, until my friends were getting asked out as teenagers. Suddenly, I wanted to be seen as attractive. I ended up basing my self-image on how many people had crushes on me (which appeared to be zero, according to how many people turned me down). My point is, I believed that I had to be pretty for men. Then I realized that I liked women TOO, which irritated me because even when I came out, it saddened me that I still wasn't getting asked out (despite me supposedly having TWO TIMES the chance to find love, in my mind). In the end...I found that I identify as nonbinary. I'm agender, possibly genderfluid, because I don't understand OR want to conform to society's standards for gender (at least, in the USA). (Also, a bunch of the people I had crushes on years ago were actually insensitive jerks, but that's not the point.)

Elon Musk has said one thing that I might actually agree with. Said loosely, he asked why people are bothering to look so closely at gender when we claim that Western Civilization has come so far in terms of gender roles. Why DO people have a problem if someone who is AMAB wears a dress or a skirt? Kilts are part of Celtic culture, for both men and women. The Ancient/Classical Greek civilization that is so revered by so many countries had a garment called the chiton, a knee-length tunic worn by both men and women. Plenty of cultures throughout human history have worn ceremonial and/or optional makeup. Why DO some Americans still take issue with men teaching kids in elementary school? Is that any worse than a woman becoming President of the United States?

I was inspired to write this because of all the recent ideological and legislative attacks on human rights, specifically those of trans people and/or drag performers. I thought about the friends I have who identify as trans, and who have expressed their joy at discovering their identity. They are so relieved and happy and they have the most beautiful smiles when they detail their journeys. Their happiness isn't hurting anyone. I also thought about drag in general. I haven't been to a live drag show (yet), but I've seen the show Legendary (a dance show featuring drag, among other elements of queer culture) as well as the Netflix documentary Disclosure (a film about how trans people have historically been depicted in media). Drag is art, and for some, it's a lifestyle. It might be a kink or fetish for some people, in the same way that intercrural sex or lingerie might be. What it is NOT is a way that people commonly commit crimes--as the media has often claimed in the past, by showing AMAB "transvestite" serial killers wearing dresses to seduce their victims. It is NOT encouraging children to have sex at horribly young ages. And as many have explained, a drag queen is most definitely no more dangerous than a person (of ANY gender) purchasing an automatic weapon. If anything, seeing someone in drag perform can be an awesome learning experience for kids. They'll be exposed to a marginalized community that they may find themselves as part of as an adult. They won't grow up like I did, feeling like something is wrong with them just because they didn't know their identity existed.

I am not perfect and I do not claim to be. I had to do a lot of research to learn what I know about various communities. I still research online and ask (thoughtful) questions when members of these communities allow it. Until this year, I had no idea that some nonbinary people choose to get top surgery and/or begin hormone therapy because they like the way it helps others view them as more androgynous individuals. I did not know how much hormone therapy could cost (it's a heartbreaking reality, considering the meaning behind the whole process). I did not know that drag, something that I always saw as a fabulous form of self-expression and pure happiness, would be demonized by so many people.

I don't think this IS an opinion, but uh:

Gender Identities: woman, man, agender, nonbinary, two-spirit (term exclusive to Indigenous North Americans), etc.

Sexualities: gay, straight, queer, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc.

Sex: AFAB/female, AMAB/male, intersex.

People who are transgender are absolutely valid, whether or not they get and/or disclose their thoughts on personal sexual reassignment surgery. The term transgender is difficult to evaluate as a word because it's somewhere between gender identity and sex. In English, we say that someone identifies as trans, but someone who is a transwoman, for example, is someone AMAB (or possibly intersex) who identifies as a woman. But again, these people still exist and deserve just as much respect as anyone else.

No one hates people who grew up unaware of the queer community. The problem are those who hate queer people for simply being different--in essence, for those who pose a threat to the fantasy of a forever-heteronormative society that promotes unrealistic ideals.

*stuff in parentheses includes terms that you may not agree with, but it's how the mainstream media and groups I've interacted with define certain concepts. I'm sorry if the phrasing isn't perfect--despite my Master's and Bachelor's in various sections of the English Department, choosing the correct words to define feelings is still difficult.

[shinelikethunder]

literally could not give less of a shit about the Cas thing but I'm glad you're having fun making up a guy to get mad at :)

#sorry for putting this on the dash lmao #should i make a wank tag #edit: you know what though #I am going to tag this one: #biphobia #I won't assume it's *maliciously* intentional but the more i read and reread this one the more it just seems to bleed out of this #because of the specific context in which this subject was being discussed #“oh nooo it's suburban AND *het*??? how truly awful and undesirable and boring” #using “het” like a dirty word to describe something mundane/boring/unworthy of consideration in the context of someone viewed as bisexual #within fandom and implied within this specific post by me :) #seems a little biphobic to meeeeee :)))))))))))

you're right that falling back on "het" when what my brain was reaching for was mostly the "normative" part of "heteronormative" Did Not Convey The Intended Point, but tbh if Lisa had been genderflipped into a Pete Buttegieg expy with her same life situation and dating history the point would still stand. they're both people with a disastrous track record on long-term romantic relationships, who are trying very hard to act out the most convenient model they have to hand because that's what you do. they are sweet and earnest and Trying about it and they care for each other and maybe there IS a universe where it didn't end up wretched, but getting there would've been a steep fucking uphill climb on shaky ground. best of intentions, built on sand, because they as people are not very good at what they're trying to do here and they're playing on Trauma Minefield hard mode. but sure, ok, keep telling yourself i only look at them and go "...oh NO" because Lisa is a woman.

also like, sorry dude, i'm not the one who came up with SPN's eternally fraught relationship with The Suburbs(TM) and what they represent. take it up with sera gamble. i'm just another bisexual on the internet watching in bafflement as this fandom furiously pattern-matches fucking anything onto a type of guy to get mad at.

[lgbtpolitics]

Apologies for the long ask, I am just rambling and I'm curious about your take on this if you're interested.

Re: your post about bi women, biphobia is very very different when coming from gay men and lesbians versus straight people in my experience. And with women, when it comes from straight people it tends to be pretty similar to lesbophobia? Like, women are naturally attracted to men and that's the way it should be, so lesbians are sick in the head and bi women are just confused and will grow out of it -- or in one recent example, a middle-aged bi woman was treated like a lesbian because she married a woman after being married to a man, and she was treated like she was abandoning men or something. No time left to grow out of it I guess? She reached her assigned-woman-expiration-date maybe?

When it comes from cishet people it comes from a position of power that's being threatened by the presence of happy LGBT people, and/or an ingrained sense of disgust. I won't speak for gay men but with lesbians, biphobia often comes from experiences of oppression (the way men treat women in general, especially lesbians, the way attraction to men is considered required for sanity and respect, etc) that they then project on bi women -- and often, also straight women.

So it honestly is a very very different discussion to be had, depending on where the biphobia is coming from. And I understand why bi people so often point these discussions at lesbians and gay men rather than cishets, because cishets are in a position of power over all of us whereas lesbians and gay men aren't. Cishets have no incentive to listen or respect bisexuals, but the LGBT community is a community.

Nooo rant away!

And yeah I totally agree with what you're saying, biphobia from gay men and lesbians comes from a different place (thats not to say less harmful, just different) than it does in cishet people. Even just looking at within the LGBT community, there are a lot of different strands of bigotry towards one another; you have biphobia that comes from the very "exclusionist" (for want of a better word) strain i.e. that bisexual men and women aren't really LGBT, and then you have a level of biphobia that comes from a more "inclusionist" standpoint i.e. that bisexuals arent inclusive enough and should identify as pansexual etc.

And yeah i think part of the focus on gay men and lesbians comes from exactly what you say - it feels like a more achievable goal to eradicate biphobia from gay men and lesbians (whether it is more achievable or not idk but i think some perceive it as such) or at least to push biphobic LGBT people out of social circles enough to be irrelevant. And tbh i dont think its entirely wrong to focus so much on this; as biphobia from cishets is in the same sphere as general homophobia and transphobia this does actually get a fair amount of attention even if its not specific in the same way, if that makes sense. Attention needs to be drawn to intercommunity bigotry because its more likely to be swept under the rug.

What kind of annoys me, and this is what i felt about the post in question, is that sometimes people seem to spend so much time and effort on intercommunity bigotry they almost seem to forget about the more general bigotry. Case in point; the post said nothing at all about the LGBT community specifically, was just talking about self hatred in bi women, and yet people were absolutely insisting that bi women are much more hated for liking men than women. The idea that bi women have no reason to feel shame about liking women is the direct implication of some of the responses.

Whats kind of ironic about these things is that it somwhat comes full circle - if bi women genuinely had no issues about liking other women, but mostly felt self-hatred about liking men, they would actually have very little in common with lesbians.

[rataltouille]

FORCE MAJEURE: NOVEL INTRO

[this is my original work, do not use / repurpose / plagiarise in any form]

GENRE: literary fiction.

SETTING: south india, early 2010s.

POV & TENSE: dual pov; present tense + third person limited.

STAGE: prepping for camp nano [my current goal for camp is 10k!]

THEMES + AESTHETICS: fatalism, chance and luck, the duality of everything, corruption, chaos vs order, manipulation, power, sacrifice, loneliness, free will, love vs obsession. the sound of waves crashing against rocks, sitting in an empty house and watching a watery dawn, saltwater seeping into your pores as you swim deeper and deeper underwater; driving through neon cities under a full moon, laughter mixing with the bright sounds of people, the buzz of contact in a room full of strangers.

CONTENT WARNINGS: cults and religious trauma, implications + discussions of emotional abuse, terrible parents, manipulation, gaslighting. [note: this wip is very new so more content warnings may be added as i go]

SUMMARY:

when twins ananya and naveen get separated while escaping their home, they find themselves in completely different places—one stumbling onto a hidden commune by the beach, the other pulled into a group of thieves in the city. this story is a dark coming-of-age where the twins must confront their obsessions with things they can’t control and what they’re willing to do to belong.

aka “i know everything happens for a reason but what the fuck”

CHARACTERS:

omg my children <3 [all picrew credits to @/sagravi’s picrew!]

ANANYA [pronounced as: uh-nun-yah]

she/they [she’s very non-binary but doesn't have the term for it in the book? so in my head she uses she/they but in the book uses she/her]

looks like she can kill you, will instead make you fall in love and slowly [and unknowingly] break your heart <3

“have you ever seen a woman so beautiful you started crying?”

unintentionally funny. says something mean and people will laugh not realising she actually meant it

carries around a lot of anger about the multiple ways in which people have wronged her and now and then just goes feral [as she should, really]

aroace and has a very longterm, very on screen crisis about it. what i learnt from this is that i cannot write an uplifting aroace story and tbh i don't know what that says about me as someone who’s also aroace.

very emotionally attached to her parents :) very emotionally detached from people in general :) suffering™

does not have a good time

NAVEEN [pronounced as: nuh-veen]

he/him [also very non-binary]

looks baby, is actually very sad

“i do not have a fake social media personality. i am genuinely this mentally ill in real life”

unintentionally unfunny. he cries himself to sleep at night because his puns weren’t well received [me too honestly]

very queer!! he’s mspec but doesn’t label himself, and honestly king <3 he also gets caught in a bisexual love triangle. the way i was anti-love triangles until this guy appeared🧍

was always the twin who was idolised and seen as the family’s future which not only put a lot of pressure on him but also strained his relationship with ananya in unexpected ways which is just :(

does not have a good time

literally i fell in love with the twins so quickly; they are so cool and are most definitely my genvy. their relationship is very central to the story despite them being separated for the most of it [if the story plays out that way]. i’m excited to actually start drafting to learn more about them + their dynamic!!

SO HOW’D THIS HAPPEN?

so a few days ago my brain said “new fun ya contemporary concept about queer twins in high school” and then within five minutes of its existence my brain also said “contemporary ya my ass it’s now adult litfic deal with it” and at this point i’m just like. okay.

this book is my second novel and also my *bangs posts and pans* camp nano wip! [please as if i haven't mentioned this seventy times already] coincidentally my academic year + finals also end on the first of april so this is such a perfect time to start a new project!!

ALSO i’m jumping on the trend of making a temporary taglist for weekly updates like all the cool, sexy writeblrs who are doing it [read as: atlas fam] so!! let me know [dm/ask/reply/mention in reblog] if you want to be added to the camp nano taglist!! if you want to keep up with the wip after camp, you can ask to be added to my general taglist. heads up that i won't be tagging my general taglist for the weekly updates!!

everything about this project is tagged as force majeure and the writing updates as force majeure update. also here’s the link to the very very in-progress playlist. you can send me an ask / message me if you’d like to be added to my taglist or have any questions about the project. and that’s about it for now!!

[addoration]

some people are impossible to discuss/debate with………. rlly should have learnt that by now!!!!!!! rant under cut

spent the evening ‘talking’ with my mother’s friend and got progressively irritated by her.

firstly… she would constantly interrupt me, making me lose my train of thought, and also change the subject away from what i began talking about… and then talk and talk while i listened and never gave me pause to talk myself

secondly, she said some islamophobic things which made me so uncomfortable!! she’s french so she talked about how the state and church are separate, which yes i agree with, but then she was saying how because of that, hijabis shouldn’t wear their hijabs in schools etc…… which was soooo problematic for obvious reasons.

THEN when i tried to tell her that she’s being islamophobic, she made it all about sexism!!!!!!! how it’s men oppressing women and making them wear their headscarves!!!!!!!! and i was like…. well maybe sometimes that happens but that’s such a generalisation and so so harmful to think!!!! it’s the woman’s choice!!!

btw this conversation started because i was talking (to my mum!!! not her!!!) about trans rights in the uk and she butted in. so don’t even ask me how we got on to religion in the first place.

she was being very negative on religion as a whole, catholics, muslims,etc, and i said “so it’s organised and bastardised religion that you dislike, because yes me too” and she said no, it’s religion on the whole that she disagrees with….. again, soo problematic…….

anyway back on the trans matter. i said that AT THE MOMENT, trans ppl are some of the more vulnerable people in the queer community, and

1) she said “you shouldn’t victimise yourself” which???????? made me so mad?????? firstly because i AM a victim of transphobia, as are most trans ppl, and secondly because whether or not we’re fighting against transphobia or lying down and taking it, the statement is true and not meant to victimise. we ARE one of the most vulnerable categories atm. that’s just… fact. where’s the victimisation???????

2) she made it abt sexism. she turned the conversation into one abt sexism. and i was like “im not dismissing the struggles of women and misogyny and sexism, i mean look at what trans women especially face!! but that’s not what is being discussed right now” and then she basically……. pitted misogyny and transphobia against each other. she straight up said, quote, “sexism is worse” and i was like????????? you legit canNOT make this a competition of who has it worse. wtf.

she kept saying “oh ive engaged so much with the queer community” and then would talk about how when she goes to back rooms in paris, she feels unsafe around gay men and how she’s seen how gay men and lesbians “hate each other” which???? ok……. i have no experience of gay spaces outside of the internet really tbh, especially outside the uk, so i won’t say she’s lying, but….. that’s got to be such a generalisation that she came up with because she witnessed some stuff maybe years and years ago. because for sure that’s not the vibe i get.

when i brought up that i personally thought that it was bisexuals who get most flack, she was like “what?! no!” and i was like “well im glad that it’s not your experience but i personally have witnessed so much biphobia from the cishets and the queers” and she was like “no, i think you’re wrong.” which, fine, she’s entitled to her opinion, but….. god it made me foam at the mouth in anger!!

godddd just…… everything she said wound me up. i never even invited her into the conversation hhhhhhh.

lots of bad takes from her tonight but the one that got me most angry was when she said sexism is a worse issue than transphobia. like. sure. let’s go making a “who has it worse” contest of discrimination now, because that’s fun…… ffs.

anyway, rant over, goodnight.

[thedreadvampy]

ok the thing I'm struggling to find words for in my mind tonight is. a deep discomfort with the framing that complex relationships to sexuality and gender are something exclusive to queerness. that cishet people's relationship to sexuality and gender is by definition simple. and that's a tempting idea and like, yeah, there's much less impetus for a cishet person to examine their sexuality and gender. but that doesn't mean there's no complexity to it. and this isn't intended as a Don't Be Mean To The Poor Straights post it's just. observably not true that no cishet person has a complex relationship to sexuality and gender.

queerness is a complicating factor in people's relationship to sexuality and gender - we are made more conscious of the ways we don't fit what's expected, our sexuality and gender is often what is used to justify marginalisation and it comes with a whole host of pain and joy because of that, and the way that queerness is marginalised forces us into direct conversation with our sexuality/gender

but queerness isn't the only complicating factor in people's relationships to sexuality and gender. like as a woman who is pretty Definitely Cis I still have a huge ongoing wrestle with my gender - it's female, but what that means and how that's expressed and how that affects how i move through the world is still complicated and fraught and often messy and contradictory. that doesn't make me trans but it does feel pretty alienating that in a lot of queer spaces there's this implied assumption that the only type of gender complexity is a discovery of non-cisness.

(and tbh a lot of the time that's fair because a lot of people aren't cis and as I say like. it's much easier to Never Have These Conversations (with others or with yourself) if you're cis. so a lot of cis people never really name their gender troubles because they're not brought face to face with them.)

but there are a lot of things that affect your relationship to your gender. for me, I know I'm a woman, but how I'm a woman is a messy question wrapped up in trauma, in misogyny, in bisexuality, in autism, in body image, in the specifics of who I am and how I relate to the world and how I want to be seen and why. and there kind of is a thing in a lot of IRL queer spaces I hang out in where people jump straight to diagnosing me with Trans of Gender if I try to discuss a complex relationship with womanhood, or a desire to present as GNC, or a discomfort with being performed in certain gendered ways. and for a lot of people that is a step on the route but as far as I can tell it's not for me, I've spent many years trying out the shape of different genders because I had got into a headspace that any complexity in my relationship to genders must mean I was Not Cis, and for me it just didn't fit, womanhood remained the best fit. and I don't regret that, I think in an ideal world everyone should push themselves to question their gender and try out and see what good, and some people are just statistically gonna be cis like. it would be a weird numbers game for absolutely nobody's gender and sex to line up.

but I'm getting sidetracked. I was thinking about how cis and het people have the capacity for equally complex relationships to gender and sexuality as anyone else, and why that's important.

(I've never been straight or even thought I was straight, but I have occasionally talked to straight people and like. I have never met anyone, straight or queer, with a simple and uncomplicated relationship to their own sexuality - is it right, is it socially acceptable, there's shame, there's trauma, there's confusion, there's gendered and racialised and ableist baggage)

and like. it isn't that sexuality and gender aren't less of a fraught space for cishet people as a group than for queer people as a group. obviously in a group that faces a history and present of marginalisation and active violence on the basis of sexuality and gender, those are more intense complexities, and because of that there's also more intense joy as well as intense conflict. we are able to build community through marginalisation. we're brought face to face with our complex relationships to ourselves and because we can't ignore it we have built the language and community and frameworks to explore it and revert in it in a way many cis het people haven't.

but.

understanding intersectionality means understanding that as much as the marginalisation of queerness is bound up in the complexity of our relationships to gender and sexuality, so are power structures of race and gender and health and neurodivergence and wealth and class and geography and culture and language and religion and politics and education.

ultimately sexuality and gender are a huge element in how we relate to the world and our bodies and ourselves. and how the world relates to us. and there isn't a person on earth for whom that's 100% simple.

and idk I think a) to pretend that cishet people can't experience their bodies and themselves in a complex way is just a denial of reality, b) it simplifies out the many intersections of identity and power in all of us (even the straightest cisest manliest rich white dude) that make our social and personal identities messy and intricate and c) it gets in the way of us building meaningful intracommunity solidarity through a shared understanding of the beauty and pain and infinite variety of gender and sexuality

also idk. it's weird to me. to me it posits that to be cis, to be straight, to be allosexual and alloromantic, is a default whereas queerness is a deviation. and I just don't believe that, I don't think there's a 'normal' and uncomplicated Default State and then everyone outside it is a complication. I think there's value in embracing that othering in the world we live in, where we need to find strength in anger and in resistance, but I don't think it represents a truth about the world as much as a reclamation of the weapons used against us.

to me it feels similar to the way that white people thinking of ourselves as aracial and everyone else as racialised is an act of unconscious white supremacy. or the way that people are really keen to draw a sharp line between the Disabled Other and the Healthy Normal People. the idea that there's Normal People and Diverse People isn't...good...really? and this is in itself a messy issue because I do think there's a lot of power and value in taking pride in the complexity and thoughtfulness of queer relationships to sex and gender and I don't think there's some great evil in joking at the expense of the privileged. but when that starts to inform your actual serious thinking I think it can be counterproductive because erasing the complexity of cishet identities and acting as if any complexity in relationship to sexuality and gender means someone's Wrong About Being Straight/Cis is kind of reinforcing the otherising of queerness.

ughhhhh this is why I say it's hard to find words. because to me now it sounds like I'm saying 'don't suggest people might be queer' and like. do do that. we're in a world where that space isn't left open for the vast majority of people and straight or not, cis or not, allo or not, I think pretty much everyone benefits from having the space and community and language to have a conversation with their own identity. but that's kind of my thing like that conversation doesn't have a right answer. the conversation needs to have room for a model of straightness and a model of cisness that doesn't immediately slam the door on further exploration.

(also I've mostly been taking about cishet people here but let's be honest it's really a question of cis AND/OR het. one thing I'm finding really difficult at the moment is that there seems to be a lot of conversations about queerness and gender expression which conflate GNCness and a complex relationship to gender exclusively with being trans, and a lot of the time talk about how being a woman and being sapphic affect your relationship to gender are understood as less authentic explorations where they incorporate cis gendered identities. and a lot of discussions about complex cis wlw relationships to gender and womanhood get coopted by terfs who think that because their complex experience of gender is a cis one that means all complex experiences of gender are cis ones being wishfully misinterpreted (this is because TERFs have. no capacity or will to imagine experiences beyond their own, apparently) and that leaves. for me. often very little room to authentically discuss and explore with others my own identity as a cis wlw who uses she/her pronouns and still has a complex relationship to gender. and indeed as someone whose attraction to men (and no it's not straight but it's different-gender) is as textured and complex as her attraction to women. like it's a long way off the top of the list of Things To Worry About but I think about it a lot.)

[theyarebothgunshot]

the gunshot meme is hilarious but it's always going to be a little disheartening to me that implying something as innocuous as "this public figure may be bisexual or otherwise not heterosexual" has to be cloaked by all these layers of caution and irony and plausible deniability. this isn't a criticism of you or anyone else especially since it is genuinely funny, just makes this homosexual a bit sad at the same time.

take your time responding to my ask, but i did want to emphasize that i get why sexuality is such a dicey topic of discussion to begin with. it's simultaneously very visible and intensely private even without the context of celebrity, and i think that m and j actually do have fun playing in that space sometimes, with that ambiguity. it's truly not criticizing anyone specific so much as it is frustration with a world where being openly lgbt is still a risk to one's career or even safety.

i agree that it's disheartening that we live in a society where being anything other than straight and cis is still not accepted by everybody. heteronormativity is a toxic bitch.

i don't think that sexuality is a dicey topic, tbh. it's only dicey when it's about any other sexuality than heterosexuality.

if i were to say 'i think that [insert random actor man here who is in a relationship with a woman] is probably straight', i can assure you that nobody would come for my throat. there would be no one claiming that i am being invasive, or rude, or out of line, because he never claimed he is heterosexual.

now, if i were to say 'i think that jensen ackles is probably bisexual', suddenly i am saying something i shouldn't. because he never stated that himself. because he is in a relationship with a woman. because drawing conclusions about somebody's sexuality is bad. but only when it's drawing the conclusion that they could be anything but straight.

that reeks of heteronormativity and biphobia tbh and that's just for starters.

nobody is going up to these people to say 'hey i know you aren't straight' (which WOULD be crossing the line and very bad and nobody should ever do this because THAT is invasive and none of our business), we're merely talking amongst ourselves, and yet we still want to make sure we're not being offensive. offensive to who, i'd ask?

anyways i'd encourage everybody to read this post because it's such an eye opener imo.

[sometimesrosy]

Hello Rosy! This might be a difficult ask. Don’t know if you’ve already seen what’s going on on Twitter, but a white reviewer said she couldn’t understand a book because she started reading the sequel without reading the first book. It was a paid review, for a famous magazine. The book was written by a POC, and it was so enraging that suddenly a lot of reviews, written by her, with blatant racism started showing up. She’s said some pretty bad things, such as a white reader not understanding a different culture because it’s too exotic and was presented in a “non-white way”. She also said she clearly wasn’t the best reviewer for that book as she wasn’t of the author’s ethnicity. I think that’s super ignorant, because why can’t a white person try to understand a different culture? Anyway, this got me thinking. I love fantasy, and love it even more when it grabs elements and cultures of our own world. I love learning about different cultures than my own and just get to know them. I’m from a smaller country where most people are honestly ignorant about racism. I tend to believe I can easily put myself in other people’s shoes, and I never understood this white-privilege and need for everything to be about white-culture. I think it’s very dumb when we claim things need to be changed because we don’t understand them because we are white, and so POC should change their stories so we can “relate”. Reminds me of colonialism, tbh. I mean, the world is so beautiful and so diverse? Why do we feel the need to even dictate fantasy stories that way? What I wanted to ask is, as a white person, when does it become racist when trying to get to know another culture? Until a few years ago, I didn’t know the word “exotic” was bad, for example. Is too much enthusiasm bad? As an aspiring writer who’s white cis, when does it become disrespectful to write diverse characters and try to represent their culture in a respectful, truthful way? Thank you, and I’m sorry this is so long. (Didn’t proofread, hope it’s coherent!)

This is a difficult ask. Because it’s complicated and we are all right smack dab in the middle of this cultural upheaval. It’s had to get a clear perspective on it, because we’re drowning in it. I suppose I’ll answer it, not as if I have all the answers, but as if it’s a problem that I am sorting through and sometimes struggling with myself. I have been working on this answer for three  five days now so let’s see if I can wrap it up.

I did see the issue going around on twitter but I didn’t read the book and didn’t click on the review, because, well, sometimes I get tired of giving my attention to people who are acting in bad faith about issues of race and diversity. I saw a quote yesterday about the truth of a lot of people acting in bad faith. They can PRETEND they are innocent and ignorant and don’t know what they are doing, but a professional reviewer doesn’t bother reading the first book because it isn’t worth their time and then judges the book based on their ignorance?  That’s WILLFUL ignorance. That’s disrespect. Saying they couldn’t understand it because it’s not from a white perspective is both minimizing the humanity of the non white culture, the AOC, and the book, and also putting the white pov, the white audience and the white author ABOVE everyone who is not white. 

“I can’t relate to this book because I am not centered and it is not about people who look like me and are white.”

This is part of the “white default” mentality. This mentality says that the REAL human is a middle/upperclass, christian, cishet, abled, western white man, and everyone else is some sort of hyphenated person. The more hyphens, the less they count as human. A book about a hero, is about a white man. A book about a female hero-- or heroine, is a white woman. A Black hero, a Black man. A lesbian Black female hero. A poor, muslim, bisexual, Filipino, single mom... is apparently the kind of person that those at the “top” of the identity food chain can’t conceptualize as having universal human experiences. 

Because they are “the other.”

Saying that white people can’t relate to BIPOC in the content they consume is saying that white people and BIPOC do not share the same human experience. 

That’s one of the reasons why calling someone ‘exotic’ is problematic. Because it’s othering that person, saying they are odd or weird or unusual, not even in a bad way really, but in a way that makes them NOT a regular human. Perhaps something good enough for an exotic vacation or love affair or a night out at an exotic restaurant. It turns people into consumable goods that aren’t a part of the default human’s REAL world. Exotic is spicy and attractive and sexy and foreign. Something to be explored and then discarded when you go back to your real life.  

So yes it TOTALLY is akin to colonialism. And that reviewer, using their entitlement as the basis for their review shows a marked incompetence as a reviewer. That is a BAD reviewer who acted in bad faith to attack authors and stories that were different from their dominant experience.

Okay. So that’s the discussion about the reviewer and the BIPOC authors. Listen, the publishing industry is a MESS, and it has been for years. Publishers, editors, reviewers, marketing, book covers, agents, writing associations and, the worst one for the readers, the writers, too. Yes. It’s awful, every time you turn around you find out something horrible about a favorite creator. 

I think it’s because when we create, we use who we are, underneath our polite public personas, to create new worlds and characters. And that’s the part of us that is full of biases and unquestioned prejudices, wounds, resentments, fears and weaknesses. Those things come out in our stories. No matter who we are they do. But also when a person gets power and success, our cutlure allows them to abuse that power, and then we start hearing stories about what our favorite creators do with that power-- and we start to connect that abusive or toxic or racist or transphobic behavior back to the stories, books, movies and shows that they’ve created and then, voila. It’s all painted in black and white on the page or screen or whatever. 

I think it’s just part of the vulnerability of being an artist. You put yourself out there to be seen, and that means a lot of your ugliness is visible.  We all have ugliness. We’re all raised in a racist world. Not just those who are white and powerful, but also BIPOC who have all that internalized racism or racism against other minorities, or classism or homophobia or whatever. All that stuff is in there. 

How do we keep racism and other biases out of our work? We probably can’t get rid of it all, because humans are imperfect. And also, sometimes you want to write ABOUT that imperfection. Flaws are part of what make fictional characters interesting. And sometimes we want to address that. Sometimes we WANT to tell a story without explicitly saying, “this bad and shouldn’t be that way.” There is a reason to write about the bad, hard and unfair things in life, and they shouldn’t necessarily be erased from our fiction.

BUT.

As a writer, at this point in time, you really don’t want to be at the mercy of your unquestioned biases, blindspots, ignorance, bigotry, racism, homophobia, misogyny etc. 

We, as authors, want to be aware of how these things affect our writing and stories. So I guess the first step is to be pay attention when we hear about how racism etc is shown in the world and fiction. If you can see the problem of colonialism and exoticism in reviewers or authors, if you can see how taking, say, Chinese culture as a basis for your SF world, but not having any Chinese characters or actors in your show (Serenity/Firefly) is racist, colonialist, unfair, and tbh flawed storytelling, then you have to pay attention when you yourself want to use multicultural elements in your story.

I think one thing you have to look out for as a white author writing about other cultures is a kind of cultural tourism, where you look at other cultures and try to *use* the exotic elements to spice up your story. To indicate “the other.” Or perhaps something that is exotic and consumable. Even stereotypes that seem positive to you, powerful and beautiful and exotic can be dehumanizing. Like the “magical negro,” or the “spicy latina,” or the “tech genius east asian.” Why? Because they’re caricatures, not real people.  I have also heard that sometimes using religions in your work is considered offensive because they are closed religions. You have to be a part of them to understand them. I am not sure about this, because I am not from a closed religion. I’m from a buddhist tradition that was missionary in nature. (I however hate proselytizing and it’s one of the reasons I left that religion.)

Being a mixed race, multicultural person from a minority religion, who belongs to many cultures and so doesn’t belong to any, I personally think sharing culture, art, stories and influences is a good thing. I couldn’t exist if we didn’t. And I use influences from all over in my work. 

When does this enter into appropriation? I think that is a very good question. Using a native american war bonnet to fancy up your bikini so you can get drunk at a music festival definitely seems like appropriation. Writing a well developed, well rounded Lakota character who’s been well researched and stays away harmful stereotypes... maybe not.

I would NOT write a story attempting to Tell The Truth of what it is to BE another culture. Recently a part Puerto Rican, mostly white author wrote a novel attempting to do that with, I believe, the Mexican immigrant experience, American Dirt, and as far as I can tell, failed miserably. Maybe it was a good story, but it was NOT an authentic tale of the Mexican experience. I didn’t read it, but what I read about it felt as if she thought she could write an expressionist tear jerker about her impression of someone else’s experience. As someone who shares a similar background to that author, I would NEVER have had the temerity to write about that particular story. You’re from NYC lady. What do you know of border crossings? But if I HAD incorporated that experience into my stories (not trying to offer some sort of definitive narrative) I would have done more research from primary sources.

Now all authors are writing about other experiences. Other lives. If not, it would all be scarcely concealed autobiographies. We could only ever write about people who looked like us and came from exactly the same backgrounds and had the same experiences as ours and how boring would that be? This topic is SUPER complicated and I keep thinking about more things to address, but if I keep going I’ll never finish this and it will be too long for everyone to read anyway. 

Let’s sum up.

Can you, a white person, write about cultures not your own? Yes. With cautions.

be aware of your own biases and racism and assumptions

don’t attempt to write a definitive experience. Don’t write about what it’s like to BE Black unless you are Black. You can’t know. Even Black people don’t have the same experience.

stay away from negative stereotypes and be on the look out for less negative ones that are still dehumanizing.

don’t consume someone else’s culture and disrespect the people. 

remember to keep your BIPOC characters well rounded, realistic, and human. They all have pasts and families and fears and hopes and traumas and careers. Don’t treat them as a prop for your white characters. (although do remember that all secondary characters are there to support the MCs, so this can be tricky.)

RESEARCH. Simply basing a character or culture on someone you know is not enough. You should also be aware of history, culture, other depictions, the conversation about that culture, the voices of the people, etc.

Be willing to take criticism. Anyone writing BIPOC characters or cultures is going to get criticism. Period. It’s gonna happen, whether you’re a white author or a BIPOC. Sometimes AOC are more inspected than white authors. All the time, actually, from both white people and POC. 

BE RESPECTFUL. Write BIPOC characters as human as white characters who share your culture. 

oh I’m sure there’s more. but i’m hitting post now or I’ll never send this. 

[angrycowboy]

So my original idea was to just tackle my thoughts on RNM’s portrayal of Michael Guerin’s bisexuality, which is something I have loved a lot. But then 2x06 aired, and we got some beautiful insight into Alex Manes, and I had to shift gears a bit to include that.

Because I know tensions regarding this episode are high, consider this a warning - I am going to talk about Michael and Alex, and a bit about the airstream scene in 2x06. And I am going to discuss how it has resonated with me in a positive way. But mostly, this is about how sexuality is complicated, and how amazing it is to see depictions on television that truly make me feel seen.

One of my favorite things about Michael Guerin, and about how RNM has chosen to portray his bisexuality, is that it’s not obvious. He doesn’t feel the need to talk about it, or discuss it - and in fact, only offers it up to Isobel in 1x10 as she’s questioning her own feelings in an effort to make her feel more comfortable. Later in 1x11, he snaps at Max because well, Max has just poked and prodded at him talk (and they’re stuck in the bunker together with nothing else to do). And someone who isn’t comfortable in who they are doesn’t say things like, “It’s not that complicated.” That is something firmly in the camp of yeah, this is who I am, what of it? Because make no mistake, it is incredibly important to me to hear characters like Michael Guerin self-identify on screen as bisexual.

Part of this portrayal can of course, also be attributed to Michael’s upbringing in the foster care system, where talking about himself was never encouraged or allowed. Because I don’t think, given how it is repeatedly reinforced that Michael shunned most aspects of humanity on Earth, that he was ever ashamed of his sexuality. Though I do believe that said upbringing did affect his own feelings of self-worth, and how he saw himself in the eyes of others.

Something I’ve seen mentioned a lot are two interactions we see on screen: between Alex & Maria in 1x10, and between Maria & Liz in 1x13, and the idea that there is “outing” of Michael. And while, I do understand and respect a lot of those arguments, especially regarding their importance regarding the LGBTQ community as a whole, something I don’t see discussed are people who don’t necessarily want to have a formal coming out, or who don’t feel the need to initiate those conversations regarding their sexuality. Even though yes, both Alex and Maria do technically out Michael (though neither do it with any malicious intent), I don't believe that Michael himself would care that other people know he is bisexual (his feelings for Alex are a different story entirely). And part of that may be that he doesn't believe anyone else thinks of him that much to even discuss him due to that upbringing he had, and also because the act of coming out would involve the feeling of being under a microscope (thanks for that wording, Riley), and Michael Guerin would definitely want to avoid that.

But back to my original point - at no point during Season 1 does Michael Guerin give the impression that he is ashamed of his sexuality - the lack of bringing it up first does not read that way to me. It reads more as Michael sees it simply as part of who he is, and that’s it. He can’t change it, and he’s already different (he’s a literal alien, ffs), so why worry about it. It very much reminds me of how I have viewed my own sexuality for years - it is simply just part of who I am. I have never felt the need to sit anyone down and announce my sexuality - in fact, I came out to my mother as I was walking out the door to go on a date. She asked what his name was, and I just replied what her name was.

But there seems to exist this idea within the LGBTQ community that every person needs to have a “coming out.” That we need to be completely in control of who knows, and how they find out, and when they find out, which is not something I agree with completely. Now, also know that I understand the importance of this idea to many, because of rampant homophobic attitudes that remain present within our society. But I see very few people discussing and supporting those of us who would rather not have to announce it in some grand way - because is this not also allowing someone to control their narrative? It has definitely made me wonder how different my own acceptance of my sexuality could have been had I believed that it wasn’t a requirement for me to come out to the people in my life (an idea which sends my anxiety into a tailspin, tbh).

Again, this is just my perspective regarding the overall portrayal of Michael’s bisexuality. It is not meant to act as a correct version, just sharing why I have particularly enjoyed what RNM has done.

But it was not Michael Guerin that made me want to write fanfic, and it was not Michael Guerin that truly made me love this show - it was in fact, Alex Manes. It was Alex Manes, who is confrontational, who is analytical, who needs facts first and who lives so much within his own head, that truly drew me into this show. Alex Manes who very clearly has struggled not with the fact that he is gay, but with that outward expression of his sexuality. In canon, this is very much due to the trauma of his childhood, to growing up in an abusive household that rejected everything about who he was as a person, and tried to force him into a box that was very much not who he is. And while I did not have that kind of upbringing, the idea of believing you won’t be accepted even among the people who should love you unconditionally is a universal feeling within the LGBTQ community. 

Alex’s talk with Maria in the truck is perhaps some of the most relatable queer representation I’ve ever seen. Because it dives into the different types of love and attraction and how not every touch between two people needs to be sexual in nature. And it lays out very plainly how important it is to have trust between people. But it’s also about recognizing what you do want, and accepting that for yourself. And that conversation is so important toward understanding what happens later on in the Airstream.

Because Alex, due to his upbringing, doesn’t believe that he is worthy of being loved in that way. When Maria comforts Michael over the realization that he could have lost both of them, Alex says he should go, not because he doesn’t want to be there. He says it because he feels like he shouldn’t be allowed to be there, to want to be there. Alex feels like an intrusion, even though he’s gone through the same horrifying ordeal and he’s with two people he loves and feels safe around. Maria recognizes that immediately, and moves back to Alex in order to give him the safety he needs as well. Maria is acting in regards to both of the boys love languages - Alex needs that physical touch of reassurance (kissing him), Michael needs to hear it verbally (”it’s okay”). And furthermore, they all need each other in that moment (”I just want us all safe”).

But it is specifically Alex’s speech in the truck earlier, about touch and self-acceptance that has me sobbing every time I watch it. Because even though I got my first crush on a girl as a teenager, it wasn’t until years later that I actually allowed myself to act on that. It was only years later that I learned just how different my attraction toward men and women really was, that I enjoyed different things for different reasons from the different sexes and that was okay. So that speech has just really resonated with me as a bisexual woman who struggled for years with acceptance of her sexuality, of being able to act on it, and it makes me incredibly happy to see a television show (A CW SHOW ABOUT COWBOY ALIENS OK) conquering these things in such a relatable way.

All of this ended up making me go back to something Chasing wrote last year about Michael’s bisexuality, and the portrayal we’re seeing, and something she said in her meta: “No one is harder on queer representation and queer media than queer people - and I get it. We’ve had so much bad representation and we’re sick of it and that’s understandable. But it’s turned into this thing where every slice of representation has to be Perfect or it’s Garbage, and it’s leading creators to not want to try because they’re so harshly run off every time they do. And when they don’t try, they don’t learn, and when they don’t learn, they don’t do better.” So maybe the rep isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a valiant effort being made to reach out to an underrepresented community. And for me personally, the depiction doesn’t have to be perfect, because people aren’t perfect, and sexuality isn’t one size fits all. What may make one person feel seen and understood, another may not see themselves represented at all - but that’s okay. Because with more representation in media, comes different tellings and stories, and comes different ways people can relate because the queer community is not a monolith. We all look at things through different lenses and experiences, but it becomes hurtful when those who don’t see themselves represented in a specific piece of media start telling those who do that they are wrong. And I wish more people would take that into consideration during discussions and criticisms.

Finally, I want to end with this gif, because woo boy. This face and that look. I know that look. I have made that look. This look is so goddamn recognizable and familiar. Because there’s also something about knowing you’re watching an actor who has probably also gone through a lot of these same feelings the character is expressing, that it just comes through in their performance and makes it all the more relatable and real (and especially how even the script itself makes it obvious it was written by people in the queer community).

[najilas]

did  you  just  see  NAJILA TAMIMI  pull  up  on  campus  for  the  new  semester  ?  they're  the  TWENTY-ONE  year  old  in DELTA ZETA ALPHA  right  ?  i  heard  they're  a  PRESIDENT  .  it  makes  perfect  sense  because  they’re  DECEITFUL  ,  but  at  the  same  time  DEBONAIR .  i  wonder  when  the  black  sheep  is  going  to  drop  the  big  secret  that  they  RECENTLY HAD AN ABORTION AND DIDN’T TELL THE FATHER  .  anyway  ,  i  constantly  hear  them  blasting  GLORY AND GORE  -  LORDE ,  tell  them  to  keep  it  down  ,  it's  quiet  hours  .

hi babes!! my name is mari, i’m 21 & my timezone is brt !! najila is a new character of mine so i’m still figuring her out a bit but ?? i am so excited to play her here akndjaskdn here’s a bit abt her !!

tall, blonde, and beautiful. born with a silver spoon doesn’t even begin to describe najila tamimi, daughter of sillicon valley billionaire hassan tamimi and former super model saskia van hall. life for najila was easier than most, but the combination of brains and beauty left by her parents meant the pressure to be perfect was high.

mostly, she succeeded. she managed being volleyball team captain, science olympiad champion, and student body president all while maintaining a 4.0 gpa and a fairly stable social life. the overachieving was something she got from her father. from her mother, however, she got the impeccable looks, perfect hair, and beautiful smile which made everyone either hate her or be her best friend. and really, those are generally the extremes you get with someone like najila.

on the outside, she is a selfless, extremely loyal, ride or die friend who will hold your hair while you puke and not even mention it the next day. she will make sure everybody loves you, get you in on the biggest parties, introduce you to anyone who’s anyone in the area you wanna work with, buy you ultra expensive gifts just because they reminded her of you. but she does have a hint of backstabbing bitch which means she will likely tell others about the things you did in a semi judgemental tone if you do anything that steps outside her lines of “perfect, elegant, and classy”. and if she hates you, be prepared to suffer, because she knows just how to play the victim whilst spreading vicious rumours about you.

so, is najila tamimi a good person? it’s hard to tell. but if you try to claim the contrary you will first have to scroll through her instagram page which is just as filled with her doing volunteer work and attending the mosque on fridays as it is of her at fancy parties with beautiful people. 

the truth is she’s a mess of contradictions and it’s as easy to love her as it is to hate her. she appears to be the most humble person in the world despite all her beauty and wealth, but deep down is incredibly proud of all she’s accomplished and incredibly afraid that one day she’ll be dethroned.

despite having been offered modeling jobs a thousand times over, najila mostly declines them because she is too busy and has no need for the money. she’s also too ambitious and has big plans to make her mark. she’s majoring in physiological science, with a literature minor. her plan is to go to medical school and then work with an organization such as doctors without boarders, and work in research later in life. the literature minor is more of a hobby, really, as she loves it but not enough to pursue it and knows she won’t have enough time to study it later in life.

being as focused as she is on achieving her goals and exuding an image of perfection, seeing the two lines on a home pregnancy test turned her world entirely upside down. once it was confirmed, she knew she didn’t have long to make a decision. in discussions about abortion, najila had always had a clear stance, “it should be the woman’s choice, but i don’t think i could ever do it” and yet it seemed like the only thing that would not jeopardize the perfect future she had planned for herself.

she felt incredibly guilty during the entire process and those who are close to her may notice –– as much as she will deny it –– that something has changed. she barely eats or sleeps lately and is throwing herself into her studies and president duties more than ever. but the beautiful smile is still ever present on her face as she attempts to move on as if nothing had happened. what’s important is that no one ever finds out what she did, and this stays behind as the only imperfect stain in her otherwise perfect life.

wanted connections !!

best friend (f/nb): honestly i feel like this would be a very blair/serena type thing where they can be bitchy and fight a lot but at the end of the day they’re ALWAYS there for one another and it’s that sort of thing where ‘no one talks shit about my best friend except for me!!!’ i’d imagine najila told them about the abortion but nowadays tries to pretend like she’s fine and nothing ever happened.

would-be baby daddy (m/nb): could be a fwb, one night stand, ex boyfriend, wHATEVER the point is najila didn’t say anything about the pregnancy and feels incredibly guilty just looking at them and there’s bound to be lotsa drama when it gets out.

frenemies (m/f/nb): because with this combination of nice and bitchy there’s bound to be a lot of those!!!

party friends (m/f/nb): najila is a great party buddy cause she’ll stay up until 6 am, pay for ur drinks, and knows just the right amount of drugs you can take in order to get fucked up but not die!

sibling like relationship (f/nb): tbh i’d love this to be a younger delta zeta girl who najila just full on adopted and is probably grooming to become sorority president in the future. acts like their mother and would ruin anyone who tried to hurt them. 

rival (f/m/nb): please i NEED a spicy rivalry !! probably someone who sees right through najila’s bullshit and thinks she’s a two faced bitch who doesn’t deserve all the credit she gets. she will definitely throw a lot of shade and spread nasty rumours so beware !!!!!

exes (f/m/nb): there’s so much we can explore here !!! naj is bisexual but is closeted af (type of girl who says kissing other girls at parties doesn’t count!!!!) so tbh i’d love a girl who she truly loved but wouldn’t assume her so it was a dramatic breakup through and through. but tbh she’s the type of girl who seems to always be dating so ??? exes who are still friends, exes who still hookup, exes who can’t even look at each other, i want them all

and honestly anything else we can come up with bc some of the best connections come from brainstorming anyway !! that is all !!! ily pls plot with me goodbye 

[anxietysroomsupport]

Is feminism bad? I used to speak out about how feminists are not the extremists and for years people have told me to stop using the word feminist, to say equalist. But I have been connected to this word and idea since highschool. My girlfriend (I'm a pan woman) gave me info about how feminism is bad and in her childhood it was full of toxicity towards boys. That's not what I stand for but the idea of dropping the phrase feels like I'm dropping a part of myself. Is that stupid? Am I overreacting?

Hi Anon,

You’re not being stupid, or overreacting.  The words “feminism” and “feminist” have history that should be considered along with it’s current-day use.  The following is taken right out of our mod discussion [lightly edited for clarity]:

MissFay: This one’s a thinker, kinda reminds me of the “bi vs pan” argument, wherein "bisexual" maybe isn't what we would call it if we had to come up with the word today, but it's part of the history.

Kai: I agree that the word [”feminism”] itself is a lot like the word “bisexual”. It’s not what we would call it today, but when we refuse to acknowledge the historical context of what a word means we end up hurting people. And like in the same way that when someone identifies as bisexual for transphobic reasons, that doesn’t mean that everyone who uses that label is transphobic, [it also tracks that] just because some people use the label “feminist” as part of toxic ideologies, it doesn’t make all feminists toxic. Like whether [or not] anon’s girlfriend, or anyone tbh, likes the label “feminist”, the facts are that historically women who called themselves feminists have been a huge driving force for equality and women’s rights.

Kai: I think the best way to respond to that kind of criticism is to be upfront. “I’m sorry that you have had these negative personal experiences with people who identify as feminists. However, your experiences are not universal and here are some of the reasons I identify as a feminist, some people who historically used that label for good (which is easily googled if you don’t already know), and some famous people who right now use that label to fight for important causes.

~~~

And so, part of that conversation with your girlfriend might also include mentioning that the children-feminists from her childhood didn’t necessarily have a good grasp back then of how to lift girls up without putting the boys down, if they didn’t have good role models.  It’s easy for people’s first reactions to learning about inequality to be anger and to lash out at the people who are benefitting from that difference.  Young feminists are going to make mistakes. 

But the movement as a whole has always been about creating equal conditions for everyone, with its focus being on the way women were disadvantaged, and has evolved to include creating spaces for our more masculine neighbors to drop their hyper-masculine roles.  The successes of feminism benefit everyone, no matter what it’s called.

After that convo, maybe you can also talk to her about ways you can accommodate and reassure her that you, and the vast majority of feminists, don’t agree with the toxic actions from her childhood.  Because she did have to deal with how those negative events hurt the people around her, and it can be really hard to separate those experiences from the word.  

If you’re planning to attend events or participate in other feminist-community things, tell her how you’ve also checked that they’re not using broad male-negative language, or other things that she’s specifically concerned about.  “Feminist” could very well be a synonym with “Equalist”, (although equalism also has it’s own negative connontations for some people) and using both should be encouraged so long as we are lifting each other up with our actions.  Neither word perfectly encompasses everyone that uses it.  So, if “feminist” feels right for you, use it, and be the best feminist you know how to be.

-Kai, Miss Fay

[shinra-makonoid]

lol I dont care if its inconvenient for you. not telling your trans is more imortant than fooling actual homosexuals? sorry this makes being a rapey troon difficult for you. just keep out of spaces designed for homosexual males and keep living in your deluded world. why do homosexuals and females always have to suffer at the hands of you troons? always bending down for you catering to your feelings? you shouldnt "hide" your transness anyway -though I doubt you even pass lol- you just fool all

Dude, I was talking with people in general lmaooo It’s like you make it your goal to misread things that I say and twist it on the worst possible way! 

Like, when you discuss sexuality with other people, what you’re into. People tend to believe I like women. Independently of the status you think I have in society (GNC woman or guy), people go on the basis that I like women. I have a hard time “coming out” and I find myself subtly leading people to believe I’m a bisexual (without saying I am) rather than attracted to men, because I feel it’s more “socially acceptable” to be bisexual rather than attracted to men in those cases (Also, again, since I dated a trans guy that I’ve never fucked, most of you already think I’m a bisexual anyway). But, if I want to talk about my sexuality, whom I’m attracted to, when people think I’m a guy, I need to either use “gay”, or come out as a tranny to people to actually explain that I am a heterosexual female. I don’t want to tell people that I’m a tranny, because that’s not an information I want to disclose to people I don’t want to fuck. So I need another word, and since there’s no word that portray efficiently that idea that I am someone looking like a male who is attracted to other males, I say gay. It doesn’t make people think “oh so females can be gay and attracted to males”, so I don’t think it harms anyone on the process.

By the way, funny thing, I have a friend, it’s been a while since we talked though, who, for example, accepted me completely as a gay male, and was very disturbed by “gay trans men” (he called us crazy, and stuff like that, because for him, being a gay trans person makes no sense, since heterosexuality is the norm). He never knew I was a tranny myself, and I pranked him on First of April of last year, telling him “well, I’m trans”, he never believed me. It was hilarious tbh lmao I still smile when I think about it, because it was utterly impossible for him for me to actually be a tranny. I think I’ll send him a message to tell him again this year, that will make him laugh!

Obviously I tell people I want to date/fuck that I’m trans. Homosexual males don’t need you white knighting for them, trust me. I may be a kinky man, I’m also a very honorable one, and wouldn’t go to a space that doesn’t want me. I have made friends with homosexual and bisexual males who accept me, and I definitely try to discuss and share with them ideas and opinions. We are equals, and I respect them, they respect me, they don’t have to fuck me or consider me in their dating pool for that.

As for my passing, believe what you want honestly lmao I have absolutely nothing to prove to you, I’m living my life, and I experience everyday my passing.

“why do homosexuals and females always have to suffer at the hands of you troons?”

Very dramatic theatrical, 10/10 you should do Hamlet. I can see you with your hand on your face, looking at the spotlight, delivering your line, people applauding. It’s beautiful!

[dalek-in-heels]

Hi hello, I have Feelings about some (not all!) of the ways I’ve seen bisexuality and polyamory discussed in Magicians fandom recently, mainly in the context of how queerness is represented in the show / speculating about what’s next. Queerness and polyam are two things that are near and dear to my own lived experiences, so I want to put my voice out there. This turned into a 2k word jumble, but as always I am open to discussion around any of it! My opinions/experiences, not law, I like hearing other viewpoints, etc etc. <3

tl;dr 1) I think it makes narrative sense why Quentin hasn’t explicitly confessed his love for Eliot to his friends yet.

2) I think it’s canon that Quentin and Eliot are each unique representations of people whose bisexuality/queerness/no-label-sexual-fluidity manifests in different ways.

3) I think it’s canon that there is polyamory in A Life in the Day.

—

First, I want to make clear that, after literally decades in fandoms that queerbait (or not even that), I feel passionately about the writers finally giving us more explicit queer love stories. Like, viscerally anxiously needing some emotional resolution for Queliot. I’m not sure I’ve ever been this invested in a ship before tbh.

That said, I won’t be mad about how Quentin & Eliot’s arc has been represented so far, as long as it does continue to develop going forward. Like, if it’s not explicitly addressed at all the rest of this season? That’s an issue. But if it’s only addressed again, like, tonight or even just in the finale, and leaves open the potential for more development in season five while Eliot is actually not possessed? I can see narrative reasons for why that works better.

In large part because of Quentin’s motivations this season. This is key: They are telling a story about a man who has been suppressing his feelings for the man he loves, who he thinks doesn’t love him back, and who is currently possessed by a monster. Quentin’s cautious. He’s depressed. He’s not going around making declarations, precisely because this is a very different love story than the ones we’ve seen between any of the other couples. Not only because they’re two men, but in large part because one of those men is possessed.

Don’t get me wrong (ha)—I am 100% in the camp of people who want Quentin to make some sort of confession despite all of this, and I definitely daydream about there being some sort of extra footage from their 50 years that we’ve never seen. But also? Story-wise? I get why it hasn’t happened yet: The more things that are out there in the open for the Monster to use against Quentin—and against Eliot’s body—the more damage can be done.

I think that’s one of the things that’s so powerful about that scene in 4x06, when the Monster asks, Why do you care about him so much? and Quentin simply says, Because I do. Yes, we know from Eliot’s memory that it’s because Quentin loves him, but like can you imagine Quentin admitting that to the Monster? What shit the Monster would pull with that knowledge?? It’d be horrible. Quentin knows better. He’s keeping details as close to the chest as possible for a damn reason.

—

Which brings me to Quentin’s bisexuality: I don’t think him not talking openly about his feelings for Eliot erases his bisexuality. Yes, arguably he could have a conversation with Julia or Alice or whomever about it, but what purpose would that serve? Him just feeling even worse admitting out loud that he’s trying to save the person he loves who doesn’t even love him back? Much easier to contain if you don’t say it out loud.

One of the things I’ve really loved about Quentin actually is that his bisexuality is a version that’s relatable to me on a personal level. Quentin is a queer man who has mostly dated women (as far as we can tell in canon). I’m a cis woman who has, largely due to circumstance, mostly dated men, despite coming out as bi 17 years ago. There were also long stretches of time where I didn’t date anyone. None of this has made me less queer/bisexual. My sexuality is an undeniable aspect of me, but also, I pass as straight. A lot. Which is frustrating because I never want to pass as straight in straight spaces or queer spaces, but it’s a super common experience for a lot of us. I’ve known so many women who pass, many of us because we date men, and therefore people don’t see our sexuality as valid since it’s ~ not in practice. It is a part of us; it doesn’t matter what we practice or not.

Quentin is bisexual—or whatever label we as fans want to put on it, but he is not straight. He has had queer experiences and expressed queer feelings. That is canon. Honestly, one of the reasons why I’m drawn to him as a queer character is because he hasn’t put a label on it in canon. They are telling the story of a character whose sexuality is not heterosexual, and it is not the most important thing about him. That is valid. That is the underrepresented experience of many of us, and it is satisfying to see someone represented on television who has experiences with people of different and similar genders, and that is not the core of the relationship conflict. He knows who he is. As Jason has put it before, it’s the one thing Quentin isn’t anxious about. I feel that.

But okay, back to trusting if the writers will represent Queliot or not going forward? I think it’s important to remember that this show has always been pretty fluid sexually, so the writers driving down this route with two of their male leads is, while new ground, not an absurd expectation. On a less queer show, I’d be less trusting of how they’ll handle it, but I feel like out of any writers I’ve loved, these might be the ones who get it on some level? Yes, there are still majority heteronormative things going on, but this is not the first queer relationship we’ve seen on the show: We’ve seen Eliot with randos, we’ve seen Eliot with Mike, with Idri—and with Quentin.

Which, while we’re on that—Eliot’s queerness? Should also not be erased. He is not gay. He is somewhere on a fluid queer spectrum. That’s literally canon, so any hand-waving away of that is erasing it. Sexuality is just so much more complex than that, and I think it’s simplistic to say otherwise. There are people who see themselves in Eliot’s version of queerness (mostly men, sometimes women), just the same way so many people see themselves in Quentin’s version of queerness (mostly women, sometimes men). We deserve more explicit text of their past relationship and Quentin’s current feelings, eventually, but tbh I still think how it’s being portrayed is valid and has made sense within the larger narrative so far.

—

Okay, now I really need to talk about how polyamory is portrayed on the show.

I’m not sure how many people active in this fandom are polyamorous or not (please feel free to give me a shout if you are? I’d love to make more polyam friends here), so extremely bare bones crash course here, since it is an often misunderstood, underrepresented, and stigmatized relationship model:

Polyamory is a relationship model that can take many forms (not necessarily marriage, not necessarily hierarchical), and is always rooted in consent, open communication, and building trust between all partners and metamours (your partner’s partners) in a polycule. All polyamorous arrangements and other versions of non-monogamy are consensual—if they’re not, then quite frankly it’s not polyamory; it’s cheating or, at the very least, pretty dang toxic.

For many of us, polyamory tends to be an alternative to the monogamous “relationship escalator”—instead of every relationship we form having the expectation that it’ll lead to marriage (and/or moving in together, having kids, etc), we choose to explore all the different types of relationships that can form organically in our lives: maybe a long-term partner or two, more partners who are casual but no less cared for and respected, etc. Or there’s solo polyamory, where your primary commitment is to yourself, but you have open consensual relationships with multiple other people, short-term or long-term. There are literally endless other possibilities.

As for how this relates to Quentin & Eliot’s time at the Mosaic: I’ve seen the argument that it couldn’t have been a happy polyamorous thing if only Quentin had two partners. I don’t buy that. Sure, it’s common for there to be relationships where two people each have another partner or multiple partners, but that is not the one right way that polyamory is done or that people who practice it can be happy with.

I personally have been practicing polyamory for several years, and there have been long stretches of time where I simply haven’t wanted to be with anyone else besides my primary partner, even when he has had other partners, and vice versa, and I have still lived my damn life with love. Yes there has been jealousy and insecurity to varying degrees, but there is a lot of support to identify their roots and actively work through them, and face fears. “Love isn’t zero sum” is a phrase thrown around a lot in polyamory literature, but it’s true: The partner who’s only with one person isn’t somehow getting less love. They have their partnership, they have a rich, full life outside of any romantic/sexual relationships, and they have the freedom to be open to other relationships should the opportunities come along.

So, anyway, back to the Magicians: Do I care if the writers intended to show a version of polyamory on the screen in 3x05? Not really. Because what happened anyway, is they did.

I don’t think the writers would or even could get away with representing an explicitly polyamorous relationship, mainly because that is still pretty damn stigmatized and rarely out in mainstream culture. But I do think that they did what they could to make Quentin and Eliot be able to build a family together, which I think was a key part of their narrative. How else would they have shown Quentin and Eliot having a kid in that context? In the space of a highlights montage? I’m not saying Arielle was a fully formed character either, or that she wasn’t a pawn of some sort, but I don’t think she was a pawn to somehow prove Quentin and Eliot had any less real of a relationship. I think if she was a pawn, it was so that they could raise a kid together and have a family. (Which isn’t great, but that’s a whole other issue, not a queer erasure issue.)

My personal headcanon for the 3x05 timeline is that Quentin, Eliot, and Arielle had a polycule that was basically Quentin/Arielle and Quentin/Eliot, with Eliot and Arielle as metamours, who also have some level of romance and maybe the occasional sexual relationship. In my headcanon, they were all happy together, raising a kid together, growing up and out of the insecurities and fears that Quentin & Eliot had back in the present-day timeline. Like, I can’t picture a 25 year old having the exact same hang-ups as a 35 to 75 year old, you know? People grow up. They settle into themselves.

I think that kind of happiness is inherent in how Quentin and Eliot talk about it when they come back: it was sort of beautiful, we worked, who gets that kind of proof of concept. So why would Eliot turn down Quentin when they get back, if that life was so good? I think it’s because wow that is a lot to live up to, when he knows they are not the same people now as who they’d turned into in that timeline. They have those memories and some of that wisdom, sure, but also they are the same people they were back in the future. Eliot doesn’t trust Quentin would choose him in this context, so he runs from things he’s afraid of fucking up or not living up to.

Whatever they are or will become now, I really think that the polyamory in that other timeline was real though. Even though nobody was boning or making out, there was a family of people raising a child together. There were people spending their lives together. It’s not as much representation as we (queer people, polyamorous people) deserve, but it’s not erased either. We focus a lot on the fact that Eliot, upon return, brought up You had a wife. But quickly following that was And we had a family. That’s not nothing.

I think I’ll just end on that note. This is already so long. Let’s see what happens tonight!! [screams into the void]

[urlunknown]

More Crap About Hypocritical Christians

Sorry I have been talking about this so much, it is just that Christianity is a big part of my life and so is my sexuality so here we go.

Today I went to a small group with some of my christian friends which was led by two adult leaders that I know very well and respect deeply. In small group we discussed the message given last Sunday (one of the leaders was actually the one who gave the message) and it was all about showing impartiality to people. He listed a bunch of ways Christians are not as loving or kind as they think they are (me included). He did this by saying things like “how do you react when you see the homeless? Do you turn a blind eye or do you walk up to them?” “How do you view that person sitting in the corner without friends? When there is a group project do you just watch them sit in silence as no one approaches them, or do you invite them into your group?” things like that. He even touched on race. 

He did not touch on sexuality, however. So I decided to bring it up to him today. Now picture this: a relatively quiet kid starts talking about how Christians are one of the most oppressive groups especially in regards to sexuality, and to the brother of the lead high school pastor no less. You can imagine how this went, but in case you can’t, this is what happened: another kid starts talking to about this. He is a closeted bisexual himself and told me so last year. He said to me that the Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and woman (not true by the way, it actually says that a man and many women is pretty good) and that homosexuality of any kind is a sin. He said that the Bible says clearly that men who sleep with men should be stoned to death. So in rebuttal I mentioned that it also says adulterers and people having sex outside of wedlock should also be stoned, do we do that as well? To my surprise, he said yes. For reference he is A) bisexual and B) not a virgin (like most highschoolers tbh). I will applaud him for his integrity in maintaining to his standpoint, but then again it is stoning gays and adulterers. I mentioned that I do have an argument as to why homosexuality isn’t a sin and I may eventually present it (I actually do have biblical reference as to why homosexuality is not a bad thing. It is just a very complex argument that is hard to formulate well).

At this point the leader interrupted and said this was the exact reason why he didn’t bring up sexuality. He thought about it but decided against it because he didn’t want things like this to happen. However, his entire point of the sermon was to call people out. Why don’t you call out anti-lgbt Christians? It will spark conversation and bring about actual change.Tell people to love others and reach out to lonely kids? Won’t do anything. Tell people to quit their crap and accept same-sex attraction? Holy hell, can you imagine what that would do? One sentence would radically change people. “How do you view people of other sexualities? Do you, as a Christian, love them and treat them with respect?” Imagine what that absolute bombshell would do to a room of Conservative, bougie, Christians. I hate, I HATE how sexuality is such a massive taboo among Christians. It really shouldn’t be.

Later on in the meeting the same person that said gays should be stoned said things like “love the sinner, not the sin.” and “it is my job to love, the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, and God’s job to judge. Out only job is to love others. We do not decide their fate, God does.” Please tell me you all see the hypocrisy. I have basically made it my mission at this point to spread acceptance among Christians because Christians really need to be educated on what the Bible says. 

Also, the leader said that we need to respect people’s lifestyles and choices whether or not we agree with them. I lost so much respect for him when he said that. 

Thanks for reading this. I am going to bed now.