#I am that unfashionable queer person

[sheathandshear]

I get irritated when trans people talk about how “outdated” transgender terminology and schema are intrinsically bad and do “harm” to trans people, because the gender concepts that best fit my experience are incredibly out of vogue in the (online, younger, cultural-majority) Anglosphere, so I guess I... what, do harm by existing?

I approach sexuality and relationships with people of any gender through the perspective of having been a queer woman. I loathe the term “deadname”, because I didn’t fucking die, I changed. I say “When I was a girl” and “when I was [name]” and use “she” pronouns to talk about my past self when I thought I was cis, because in a very real social and personal way, that’s who and what I was. I do think I was female-socialized in a way that continues to affect my behavior, whether through adoption or rejection. And even though girlhood and womanhood never felt like home, even though there was always that persistent discomfort, there were parts of it that I really enjoyed! Yes, I chose to present as high femme in part as a reaction to feeling undesirable because I was a big, fat kid who never felt like one of the girls, but it was also really fucking fun, and I have real grief in not being able to feel comfortable embodying that anymore. More than anything: I don’t actually feel that I’ve always been male. I don’t think my transmasculinity is anywhere close to cis masculinity. I think that the experience of having been female (and in some ways, still being) is so intrinsically intertwined with my experience of being male that they can’t be separated into “true” and “fake”. I’m uncomfortable with being 100% a “trans man” because I feel like it severs that part of me in a way that “female man” or “FTM” honors. If I do end up medically transitioning, for me it won’t be “gender confirmation” any more than getting a tattoo is “pigment confirmation” -- it’ll be transsexual, because I am deliberately choosing to take what I naturally started out with and modifying it through unnatural intervention across the binary that society imposes on it, and that’s fine. Modification and choice are value-neutral. Transition is an active choice rather than a passive inevitability. And if I do end up happily detransitioning or de-then-retransitioning later (gasp!), that also doesn’t make my masculinity have been less real any more than moving back to Omaha after living in Chicago for 20 years would make someone a “fake” Chicagoan. But I also don’t think that this means that I’m automatically “nonbinary” instead of binary, or that I’m “not really” trans, or that I’m hate-criming other trans people by feeling that way and talking about feeling that way using language that is comfortable for me and uncomfortable for others. In the rush to justify our existence to cisgender people and to shore up our own self-images -- which yeah, for some of us are really aggressively, unhealthily fragile and I think discussions about intra-community conflict and harassment do need to address that elephant in the room -- there’s been tremendous pressure to purge “trans voices” of all the weirdos and cis simps and unfashionable old fogeys who might give transphobes the wrong idea but like...

They’re going to get the wrong idea anyway. It’s not trans language they object to, it’s the existence of trans people itself. TERFs already think that trans men are alienated women. An Evangelical transphobe hears “trans man” and thinks it means “man who considers himself transgender”, i.e. a trans woman. (And trust me, most cis people, even those who’re genuinely trying to be accepting of trans people, actually struggle a lot less with the idea of “MTF/FTM” than “trans woman / trans man”.) Yes, the intra-identity policing of “acceptable” and “accurate” terminology is a tool, and yes, it can be used to certain political ends... but it’s incredibly disheartening to watch trans complexity get squashed by other trans people (or “cis allies” a la the ones gleefully participating in the Attack Helicopter harassment mob) because of the fear that a TERF might screenshot it and use it to justify the beliefs they already have no matter how carefully you word something. And while I don’t particularly care if insular groups of terminally online trans people feel the need to get into internet slap-fight threads with each other over the precise language of a tweet in order to distract from their own niggling insecurity, I do care when people start thinking that someone talking about their own trans experiences and/or identity with unfashionable terms or language that could be “misinterpreted” is cause to send them death threats or accuse them of “doing harm” or harass them in real life.

[comicaurora]

Not Aurora-related, but I really like your answer in the recent OSPod about just clicking w/ the ace label but not having that same certainty about romantic orientations, because I think I'm that but in reverse-- it's only important to me that I'm aromantic.

So, thank you for putting it into words ^^ Have a nice Pride Month!

Ultimately we all gotta remember that labels are tools, not obligations. If a label helps you understand your wants and needs better, fuck yeah! If the label instead feels like a prison denying you growth and possibility, it's not helpful and you can drop it!

I think our growing awareness of the diversity of human sexuality and gender identity has sort of resulted in a feeling of "everyone has a special box they fit in with a flag and a community and a predictable suite of wants and needs". The problem is, almost nobody understands themselves down to the minutest perfect detail with no possibility of error, growth or change. What is an orientation, if not a broad-strokes categorization of "what kind of relationship would make this person most happy"? How bizarre is it to try and lock down a concept THAT complicated on the first try??

There's a joy in recognition of "oh, this is ME, I didn't know it was an option but there I am." In my experience it's a sense of sudden freedom - specifically the freedom to simply exist as one naturally and comfortably exists. But trying on labels that DON'T invoke that feeling can sometimes result in the exact opposite sensation; rather than giving oneself freedom, it feels like it's cutting off possibility. For instance, "am I gay? Then I guess I can never find men attractive, that's a shame…" is an indicator that this label may not be helpful to apply. Accuracy is not really the concern, but the "everyone has a box" mindset makes it SEEM like the concern. It's not about being comfortable or fulfilled, but about being accurately categorized.

Very personal anecdote on that note: I, like many people, spent some time questioning my gender. I have been tomboyish since pretty much day one, and was frequently bullied for unladylike activities as well as broadly battered by garden-variety middle-school misogyny. I was made to feel wrong for pursuing the interests I had while being female - whether that was sports, STEM, gaming, tree-climbing, wearing unfashionable pants, or a million other completely genderless things I happened to enjoy. It made it difficult for me to tell if I felt unhappy because I was being MADE unhappy, or if it was because I was fundamentally wrong about myself and could not be happy as I was. Eventually I concluded that every time I thought "maybe it would be better if I was a boy", it was in the specific context of "so I could do <thing I wanted to do>" or "so people would stop being shitty to me about <innocuous thing>". I realized I enjoyed being perceived as a girl and I enjoyed being capable of "manly" things. I liked being strong, gruff, loud, chivalrous, reliable - and I liked being pretty and having long beautiful hair and nice boobs. Admittedly it took me having an honest to god stress dream about growing a beard to finally shake the intrusive thought of "what if I'm wrong about everything and I really CAN'T be a girl while liking these things???" Internalized misogyny can fuck you up pretty hard, but in hindsight, the gut-wrenching disappointment I felt whenever I contemplated that possibility was a good sign that it didn't personally fit me. The trans friends I discussed this with affirmed my conclusion - "dread" is not the appropriate response to self-discovery in the pursuit of happiness. In my case I had simply been told "you can either be a girl OR you can do all this cool shit you like" and all I ever wanted was both - abandoning either one felt like giving up on something important to me. I did the gender questioning, concluded I was a cis woman, and then stopped thinking about it. And that was fine.

This is why I think the label "queer" is absolutely invaluable. I may not know exactly what my romantic orientation is and I don't know what exact subgender I could be classified as with "girl but in a dude way", but I know I'm sure as hell not what society assumed I should be. I don't know what box I fit in, but I'm dead certain where I DON'T fit. Who cares about the specifics? Nobody can know me better than I know myself, and demanding categorization I can't provide helps nobody and stresses everybody. The core desire of the queer community is to be able to exist in peace and pursue happiness. If a label helps you do that - an acknowledgement that you are known, seen, and not wrong or broken to exist as you do - then that's perfect. But if you don't NEED to categorize yourself in certain ways to be happy, you do not have to. Overlabeling can stress you out, and sometimes "oh no, what if I'm <thing> and I'll NEVER be able to be happy unless I COMMIT to that???" can be a very dangerous and intrusive headspace to spiral into. Things done in pursuit of personal fulfillment can NEVER be treated as obligations. It's okay to not be sure, and it's okay to NEVER be sure.

[dathen]

No joke I feel like 99% of sensitivity reads for TMA fic could be accomplished if people mentally swapped Jon out for a random person

Would it be okay to walk up to a random stranger at Pride and tell them they can’t be there because they Give You Straight Vibes? Okay then why is it okay for the archives crew to tell Jon he can’t participate because he’s clearly straight

Is it okay to guilt trip someone who doesn’t feel comfortable coming out? Okay then why is it okay for the archives crew to make excuses for that behavior, Jon should have told them earlier, why doesn’t he trust them, he’s really the one at fault here

Is it okay to assume everyone you meet wants a romantic partner? Okay then why is it okay to write someone who barely knows Jon that he needs to change how he looks, he’s too ugly/unfashionable for anyone to want to date him as is

Is it okay to gatekeep vs. aro or straight ace and trans people? Is it okay to tell nonbinary people they have to be visibly nonconforming to “count” as being nonbinary/trans? Okay then why is it okay for the archives crew to make assumptions about and gatekeep vs Jon because he “seems straight”

It’s wild to see this pop up in fics over and over again as a punchline, or as a cute misunderstanding, from people who will reblog dozens of posts about the importance of not gatekeeping, including aspec people in queer circles whether they’re gay/bi/trans or not, how being trans is about who you are and not how you dress. If that’s what you believe, then write that way! Content warn when you make characters act like that! Consider whether it’s a cute and fun punchline because “it’s always funny and always okay if it happens to Jon,” or if you’re writing people being genuinely shitty, judgmental gatekeepers!!

(Also I will never understand the “Jon totally seems straight” trope because he was noticeably ace to a lot of listeners even before he was confirmed as such. And I am personally very similar to him despite being aro, ace, and agender. It’s honestly pretty dreadful to see people acting like treating someone just like you as “obviously straight” is okay because they don’t give off enough ~queer vibes~)

[necromancy-savant]

Working on a presentation about Richard III and disability studies and some interesting things have come up: 

1. One of the chapters we read is kind of about how Richard is not ideal representation, especially as really the only recognized disabled Shakespeare character, because he’s evil and that just kind of drives home that disabled people are evil. It’s an interesting chapter that puts forth Falstaff and Ophelia as possible other disabled characters, and while I think that having more representation makes a difference in how problematic Richard is, I think it misses part of what makes people like him so much. 

I’d actually love for someone who is disabled and knows the play to weigh in on this, but it makes me think of how I wrote an essay about Richard’s asexuality a few years ago and was worried that people would say we don’t need that kind of thing in our representation, since there’s already enough stuff out there about aces being evil. To my surprise, when I presented at conferences, I had people come up to me and say they were really happy to see some representation in Shakespeare/at an academic conference. 

The chapter acknowledges Richard’s appeal in being powerful, and it’s easy to see why you’d want a disabled figure who is able to take power for himself. But as a queer person who sees myself in him, and maybe this is true for disabled people as well, he’s cathartic because he’s allowed to be angry and bitter in a way that I am not. When everyone’s peddling positivity and to some extent, respectability politics all the time it’s refreshing to read about someone who can be angry about his condition and acknowledge all his negative feelings. 

2. Richard’s deformity is presented as mostly cosmetic in the play(s), making me wonder if it would even be considered a disability in the way we use the word by early modern standards. It’s something that makes him visibly Other, but aside from that there’s very little evidence that it’s an impairment or that he doesn’t have the accommodations he needs. It stands to reason, of course, that if you walk with a limp you might have trouble getting around or that a withered arm could be hard to use, but my point is that the text of the plays themselves never address that at all (the sole example I can think of would possibly be “a horse a horse my kingdom for a horse” if it implies that Richard is better on horse when he doesn’t have to rely on his own mobility but that issue never comes up in any battle scene in 3H6 so idk). The issue with his limp is not that it makes it hard to walk, it’s that it looks ugly; Richard was made “so lamely and unfashionable that dogs bark at [him] as [he] halt[s] by them.”  

[comfortablynumbonthepuzzle]

Is Will Byers Gay?

@byelertrash wrote a great analysis of Will Byers’ sexuality. I wanted to add to it -- this is a sort of long post, so bear with me. 

I was looking for a script of the pilot online, and while I couldn’t find the shooting version, I did find a version of the pilot when the show was still called Montauk. It’s really interesting to look at all the differences: for one thing, Steve’s character is still what the Duffers intended him to be in the first place — a shallow asshole, he and Nancy have sex basically right away, and from what I remember, Barb dies.

There are lot of minor dialogue changes, but there was one discrepancy that caught my eye, from the scene between Joyce and Hopper when Joyce first reports Will’s disappearance. 

In the actual scene (i.e.: the one that aired), Joyce says “[Will’s] got a couple of friends, but you know, kids, they’re mean. They make fun of him, call him names, they laugh at him, his clothes…” Hopper then says, “His clothes? What’s wrong with his clothes?”, to which Joyce responds, “I don’t know, does it matter?”

The Montauk pilot makes a critical change. When Hopper asks what’s wrong with Will’s clothes, Joyce responds saying it’s because they’re too colorful. Here’s a screenshot:

I initially thought this part of the scene was an allusion to the Byers’ poverty; that maybe kids laughed at Will’s clothes because they were hand-me-downs or unfashionable or worn out. But I really don’t know what else about colorful clothing kids could take issue with, apart from the fact that it could theoretically imply homosexuality. I’m not sure why the Duffers removed the line (though I imagine it’s probably a matter of subtlety) and I’m not sure what it means as far as the canon is concerned. But I thought it was interesting.

Moreover, the entire scene itself is EXTREMELY loaded with meaning. It initially confused me, because I wasn’t sure why Joyce would bring up her son’s perceived homosexuality at that particular time. It didn’t seem immediately relevant to his disappearance. But, I think the Duffers wanted to hint that Joyce was worried about her son because he’s already a target. It’s important to note that Hopper asks about Will’s sexuality — when Joyce says that Lonnie used to call Will a fag, Hopper asks, “Is he?”. Later in the show, Troy says that his dad speculates that Will is dead; probably killed by “some other queer”. So, it would appear that even other adults are aware of Will’s perceived homosexuality, and that to some extent, it’s a topic of speculation and gossip in the town itself, and not just at Will’s school. So, I think Joyce, in this scene, is trying to explain to Hopper that Will’s disappearance isn’t just symptomatic of his age — she’s trying to explain that he’s queer, other people know it, and that makes him vulnerable. 

It’s ESPECIALLY worth noting that Joyce says “he isn’t like you” to Hopper right after he mentions “screwing Chrissy Carpenter”. This probably means that Will isn’t the type of person to skip class at all, but it could also mean that Will isn’t the type of person who would skip class to do something like screw somebody. Perhaps it’s because Joyce, who we know is very close with Will, has never observed him express romantic or sexual interest in anyone. One possible interpretation is that he hasn’t had those feelings yet, but another, more probable one, is that he has, but a) is confused and scared by them, b) knows that it’s unacceptable to have same-sex leanings let alone articulate them, and c) is already worried about being a ‘freak’ and an outcast, and therefore chooses silence. (But I bet you Joyce already knows this about Will, that’s kind of what I think the subtext of the “I was so proud of your rainbow ship” scene was...)

If you need anymore evidence of this, throughout the show, Lucas, Mike, and Dustin all express romantic interest in someone. Will, however, never does. There is only one instance where Will is paired with someone at all, and he neither initiates it nor seems too enthusiastic that it’s happening. Will’s own romantic inclinations have been unaddressed thus far, and I think that’s intentional. If the Duffers were really concerned with portraying Will as straight, the girl he danced with at the Snowball would have been introduced earlier in the show, if briefly. They would have included some shot of him looking at her longingly, or added a small subplot where he laments how being “zombie boy” has affected his romantic opportunities. And I’m almost certain they would have had him ask her. Instead, the girl is a rando; we don’t even know her name. We’re meant to be uninterested in her. The fact that she asks Will to dance is absolutely critical, because it means we have yet to see Will’s own romantic impulses -- we only see someone projecting theirs onto him.  also Will doesn’t lament his romantic choices because he already has a crush on Mike.

Now, of course you could make the argument that assumptions about Will’s sexual identity don’t necessarily have any bearing on his actual identity. I would agree. But I don’t know why a) Will has repeatedly been targeted for being queer when Lucas, Mike and Dustin, all outcasts, have not, b) why even adults seem to be aware of this rumor, and c) why Joyce feels it’s necessary to bring up in a meeting with Hopper about his disappearance. And of course, there’s this clue from the pilot script, which is, IMO, unquestionably about him being gay.

Again - I’m not arguing that the speculation itself proves that Will is gay, I’m arguing that it seems like too much of a conscious effort on the Duffers’ behalf to amount to nothing. It seems that the Duffers are developing Will’s storyline, by planting subtle hints at his sexuality. They did it in the first season by belaboring everyone’s speculation about his orientation, and in the second season by emphasizing his close relationship with Mike. (I could write an entire tumblr post about the way their relationship in the 2nd season was shot alone). 

I think it’s especially possible given the fact that we have yet to really get to know Will as a character independent from the supernatural trauma he’s had to survive the past two seasons. If the Duffers are going to keep the show fresh, and I imagine they will, they’re going to change things up, which means we’re going to get to know Will in a different way. Dustin, Lucas, and Mike all have had romantic storylines, and each of these have deepened our understanding of and love for them. It would be repetitive and boring to yet again introduce a new character to be a love interest for Will, so in lieu of that, we may get more evidence to Will’s sexual identity. I am NOT suggesting that we will get Byeler, and I doubt we will see Will “come out” (because he’s 13 and this is 80s Indiana), but I don’t think that doesn’t mean he’s not canonically gay. It just means that we have to wait and see. 

[rachaelburkeme2]

John Walter

British Artist - participating in the “Queer Algorithms” exhibition at Gus Fisher Gallery - March 2020

Went to a brilliant lecture at Elam - In conversation with John Walter. His talk was multi-faceted, dynamic and super interesting. There was much to retain, much to ponder - he is clearly has an inquisitive, curious, sharp and intensely imaginative mind.     

For me he reiterated how crucial humor is to his work, how humor worked as an invitation, a common language that draws people in. Whilst he has made some incredibly large and complex works he says that sometimes we don’t need to get caught up in the laborious side of art marking, something really small and simply constructed/deconstructed can be incredibly vital. Made me realise the value of playing and having fun in the studio.   

I have pasted his art statement - or writings in relation to his practice as it is well written, direct in it’s approach and extremely accessible - May be useful further down the track.

Statement:

My work begins as a visual diary, which rapidly gives way to a form of autoethnographic painting; I create pictorial fictions that conflate my personal narratives with the voices of others. Images and phrases gathered in books become the building blocks for surreal hybrids, which then become scaffolding for larger drawn compositions, then paintings, videos and ultimately installations. My early work was concerned with painting and although I now work across a diverse range of media that includes  artist’s books, sculpture, print-making, animation, moving image and Virtual Reality the way in which I use these media to interrogate my subjects is still fundamentally pictorial. I build space out of colour, gesture and line in a way that is distinct from sculptural, architectural or cinematic space.   However, I have often used spatial design to curate my diverse output into a larger whole and help it find a place in the world. Initially this took the form of gin bars that I would host. Dressed as a fool my presence would empower audiences to ask direct questions of me about my work, which then enabled me to disseminate my ideas more effectively. My interest in generosity extends to using popular imagery to deliver non-mainstream ideas to viewers in ways that they will find entertaining. As host my performances are a form of drag that is jestered as opposed to gendered; this has the effect of producing a new kind of queer space in which discussions about existing subjects can take place in unforeseen ways. I have referred to the production values that I use to achieve this as "shonky", by which I mean the unfashionable, the awkward, the provisional, the non-canonical and the imbalanced. Around 2012 I began to apply my maximalist approach to  the subject of HIV in what  became Alien Sex Club (2015). ASC addressed HIV as a crisis of representation and challenged the predominantly 'Queer Minimalist' genre that has been used to address the subject from  Felix Gonzalez-Torres onwards. Holism characterises my thinking. My deepened interest in viruses has lead me to work firstly with Professor Alison Rodger on ASC and subsequently with Professor Greg Towers and his lab on CAPSID (2018), which addressed the virus as a nanomachine instead of a social problem. Collaboration has become a scaling-up of my matryoska-like artistic practice to an interdisciplinary scale. My artistic practice is increasingly defined by this complex approach to working at multiple scales simultaneously. Collaborating with scientists has informed my  current interest in viruses of the mind. I take an increasingly Darwinist view of human production informed by   Dawkins notion of the meme as a unit of cultural replication equivalent to the gene in biology. I see myself as a breeder of images, applying scientific analogies to the selective pressure of designing art in order to increase its 'fitness'. In this sense I am a kind of rare breeds art farmer using top-down design processes, bottom-up notions of emergence and algorithmic processes of machine learning in combination in order to evolve the next generation of my own work faster and more efficiently.