#IT'S AS MUCH OF A SLUR AS TRANS IS. IT'S A DESCRIPTOR. IT JUST DESCRIBES A STATE OF BEING

[risingsunresistance]

got censored on twitter "freedom of speech" website for saying cis, happy pride month to all the cissies

[hiiragi7]

[image text: okay so ik you cannot transition to intersex and that kind of language is a common form of intersexism among trans people. what about altersex? isnt that like saying you don't fit traditional male or female without being intersexist/acknowledging hrt changes without being intersexist?]

I got this ask, but I didn't feel comfortable publishing it normally because the blog which sent it was posting uncensored self-harm photos.

I don't really see how altersex as a concept has anything to do with "transitioning to intersex". It was coined to avoid using slurs when describing the bodies of fictional characters. Here is a link to the coining post. (Heads up for discussion of genitalia and the usage of several intersexist and transphobic slurs)

I don't really have much to say on altersex as a term. I feel weird about people using it to say it means they're not perisex, because it feels like people are using perisex as if it's a word for sex and not a descriptor meaning non-intersex meant to be used to discuss intersex oppression (and to move away from implying non-intersex people are "normal" as opposed to "abnormal" intersex people).

I don't really think it's doing anything that other words haven't already been doing - a lot of non-intersex people don't fit into white, western, colonialist ideas of M/F, of genitals, of bodies, so on. I may not understand why the term altersex is different from various other words describing this, but I don't really need to. It's not my business. If it helps people, great. I'm happy for them.

People discussing HRT changes or desires for what they want their body to look like or surgeries or so on has never been an issue. The issue comes in using "hermaphroditic" or "intersex" to describe that. If altersex as a word provides people with more language besides intersex or hermaphrodite to use for this experience, that's good. I can't speak on how often misusing intersex language or slurs actually happens in practice within the community, but to me that's less an issue with the word altersex and more an issue of unchecked intersexism in a lot of spaces.

Those are just my thoughts. I'm sure it's more complicated than this, I'm just a random intersex person on the internet.

[mintedwitcher]

I just had two transphobes attempt to insult and degrade me by calling me a tranny, because I said I wasn't going to stop referring to cis people as cis. Then they got absurdly angry that I didn't react in the way they wanted when they called me a tranny. Because I've been calling myself that, proudly, for years now. I've reclaimed that term for myself, because fuck yeah I am a tranny. I think it's a funny term and I like it for myself. And these transphobes lost their goddamn minds because I didn't react the way they wanted me to.

See, this is what exposes them, though. They compared being called 'cis', a scientifically accurate term describing their relationship to their gender, to a transphobic slur, implying with that comparison that the terms were of equal moral value and impact. They're so mad about being called 'cis', because they see 'trans' as an insult, and therefore assume 'cis' is an insult. Their worst fear in this world is being assumed to be trans, or being called trans, or even being accused of being supportive or accepting of trans people. Because they see trans existence as inherently subhuman.

They don't even try to cover that up. They demand we use terms like 'normal' or 'biological' when talking about cis people, implying once again that being trans is subhuman. They cannot stand the thought that they could need to be classified in the same way that we classify transness.

This is also, btw, why their arguments and their composure absolutely shatters when you compare the terms 'cis' and 'trans' to terms like 'tall' or 'short' or 'blonde'. Because 'cis' and 'trans' are adjectives, they're descriptors, that's all they are. They're a way to classify groups of people into mostly accurate categories to make discussions simpler.

If I wanted to give a lecture about the commonality of blonde hair, for example, I would be wasting time and breath by trying to describe blondeness without using the word blonde, and I'd most likely end up accidentally excluding some types of blonde hair while accidentally including some types of hair that would be better suited under the 'redhead' or 'brunette' categories. The same can be said for discussions of gender and sex, which is the only context where these terms are actually widely used.

If I wanted to talk about cis women, I would say cis women. Because that includes all women who were born female and still identify as women now. If I wanted to talk about all women, cis and trans together, I'd simply say women. Likewise, for discussions involving only trans women, I would say trans women. Notice how in none of these circumstances anyone is being incorrectly categorised. Discussions of cis women stay about cis women, discussions of trans women stay about trans women. Discussions about women stay about women.

Categories are helpful. Adjectives are helpful. No one is hurting you or excluding you by calling you cis, unless you're not cis.

And really if you have this much of a visceral reaction to being called cisgender, maybe it's time you do some self-reflection, because you might not be cisgender.

[stormysapphic]

i retyped my tags on that LGBT vs queer poll like ten times but perhaps i'm finally happy with how i've articulated my opinion. if you read it and disagree (for example you identify as queer but it's not political to you, or you think non-LGBT ppl from the kink community can never be under the banner queer) i don't rly care one way or another or think less of you, honest. but whatever the definition of queer is to you, by using "LGBT community" and "queer community" completely interchangeably you're forcing a slur on LGBT people who haven't reclaimed it or are straight up uncomfortable with it.

like, even if to you queer and LGBT mean the same thing in definition, queer is not a neutral descriptor you can assign other people. it'd be like calling a trans person the t slur just because it technically means trans. wanting to describe oneself without using slurs is not too much to ask, so please stop acting as if all LGBT people are automatically queer. when you say "queer", make sure you actually mean QUEER - whatever else is included in your definition of the term, it AT LEAST should include the requirement that the person/people in question actually are comfortable with the word.

[wearetheluckyones7]

Baedel in that context is meant as a transmisogynistic insult towards trans women.

It began a couple hundred years ago as an insult towards effeminate men and intersex people kinda like "pansy" or "fairy" I guess). Then in the late 1900s it began being reclaimed by trans women as a self-descriptor, though not without controversy (although any insult or slur that's been reclaimed has or had controversy, including the word "gay", so.)

In the 2010s there was a bit of a movement on Tumblr, a form of radical feminism (NOT terfism. Not all radical feminism is terfism etc. To be 100% clear) that stated among other things that all transphobia was transmisogyny, that trans men and trans women should act and be treated as separate groups, and that trans men were inherently more violent and dangerous due to being men (i.e. the oppressive class). The majority of those involved would go after trans men or claim that trans men/transmascs/ AFAB trans people in general were best being avoided, but the movement wasn't much kinder to trans women/transfemmes tbh, and only accepted them as women if they agreed with everything that the main members of the movement said. I'm not going to go into detail on the gross separatist politics there, especially since the majority of the movement died in the 2010s and the popularity of it even at the time is debatable. Counter-movements claiming that actually no trans men were good and trans women bad sprung up, of course, which were equally as toxic, counter-productive and separatist, but they died along with the original ideology. What matters in this context is that around the same time there was an increase in popularity for trans women to self-identify as Baedels - both related and unrelated to this movement, but the term "Baedellism" became often used to describe this ideology.

In the time since, transmisogynists have used the movement as a method of painting all trans women as inherently bigoted towards trans men. That post in particular is using the term "Baedel" as a transmisogynistic slur, claiming that trans women/transfemmes/AMAB trans people make the trans community worse, that trans men/transmascs/AFAB trans people would be better off without them and that the two groups should therefore act and be treated as separate. It's disgusting bigotry and completely inaccurate to both the description of trans women and the reality of politics. The use of the word itself in that context I would argue invalidates the rest of the argument (in the same way that calling a trans woman a man would invalidate any discussion of gender masquerading as nuanced or rational).

Honestly, the Urban Dictionary entry sums it up relatively well:

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baeddel

Thank you for explaining this to me.

I did look "baeddelism" up, so the urban dictionary entry didn't come up, and everything that came up just made me more confused?

You know I started transitioning when I was still on the fandom side of tumblr, so this side is all very new to me. It honestly just reminds me that people will always be so desperate for validation and acceptance from the world that they'll drown people they're supposed to stand in solidarity with to get it. It's fucking awful. And honestly just pathetic.

[syaamethyst213]

What different labels mean to me

There are a bunch of different labels for my sexuality, and I was thinking about how each one makes me feel

Gay- nice, quick, I like the sound of it. Not my favorite since it’s generally associated with gay men. I’ll usually say “gae” instead as a joke.

Homosexual- ew. No. This one makes me so uncomfortable because a) it’s almost always used by homophobes and b) it reduces my identity down to just it’s sexual meaning, and I don’t like that. My identity is so much more than sex.

Homo- I’ve never heard this used as anything other than a joke, and I love it. Its hilarious.

Lesbian- this one is very special to me. While I usually say “queer” to describe myself, this one is specifically my label. I think being a lesbian is such a cool thing, like omg I like women?!! That’s amazing!! (Also non-binary people of course) Also lesbian is such a beautiful word, and it makes me really happy.

Lessbean/gae- funny

Sapphic- I never use this one, but it’s so pretty and I love it.

Queer- this is my favorite label (besides lesbian). I love it so much but I don’t see it as a descriptor of myself, as much as a word that connects me to the rest of the queer community. It’s also inclusive and a very small and subtle way of supporting the trans community. Unlike other labels, queer says “everyone is welcome” and I like that.

Dyke- I understand that it’s still a slur to a lot of people and so I don’t use it often. It makes me feel powerful though.

What are your labels and what do they mean to you?

[theforesteldritch]

Another post hating on anti-mspec people because I am mad and ‘battle-axe bi’ people suck.

People choosing the label that they feel best fits them is not biphobic. If bisexual or biromantic best describes you, great! Don’t let anyone tell you you’re anything else, because bisexuality is whole and fluid and isn’t inherently exclusive. I’m glad you’re comfortable with your orientation. However, some people, myself included, might feel more comfortable with other labels that they feel describe their orientation best. This is not to say that sexual or romantic is chosen. Mspec people are not saying that it is. 

Mspec identities are just descriptions that we identify with because they best reflect and describe our orientations. Just like bisexual or biromantic is a better fit for others. And how people feel what best fits their orientation varies, and that’s okay!! For example, a bi person can have gender not play a role in how they feel attraction, and they’re not pan, they are bi because bi is the descriptor that they know fits them best. And in the same vein, an omni person like me, where I can be attracted to people of any gender, but gender can play a role in how I feel attraction, is not bi, because they know that omnisexual or omniromantic describes their orientation the best. There is overlap, and variation in each one, but what is accurate for someone might not be for someone else.

This analogy isn’t really comparing the two, but is more to drive the point home: oranges and clementines are all very similar, and describing a clementine as an orange, while it might get the general point across, isn’t quite right and doesn’t fit what the clementine is. They both are very similar, but not the exact same. And even inside the orange and clementine groups a ton of variation might exist. Some oranges, for example, might be smaller and closer to that of a tangerine, and both types of citrus fruit might have some that are sweeter or more sour. But they’re still slightly different from each other. 

Just like homophobia and transphobia, biphobia is very much a thing. No one is denying that. But orientations of some people best described by something other than bi isn’t in any way biphobic. Bi people and people with other mspec identities standing together against our shared struggles, as well as being an ally with other communities for their specific struggles with the rest of the LGBTQ community, is an amazing thing and makes everyone stronger. But those who work against solidarity hurt us all.

I would also talk about how neither bisexuality or other mspec identities aren’t inherently transphobic (because they aren’t) in this post but it’s long enough already so i might do it later. But I do have one thing to say. If you take slurs against trans people and switch out a part to hurl them at pan people, you are the one being transphobic as well as panphobic. It’s hypocritical, really, to claim people with mspec identities other than bi are transphobic and then turn, and be transphobic.

[morsobaby]

I really hate the fact that I still flinch/get on edge, even for a few seconds, whenever I hear someone (outside of familiar🏳️‍🌈 comfortable situations) call someone gay in finnish. Like this is not about identity policing, this is about the fact that our word for gay (" Homo") is still being used in the same manner as faggot, amongst teen boys. Ykno, not even always referring to any actual dating behavior, but just used as shorthand for dumbass/loser/annoying/wimp ect. "Oh well I didn't mean it in a derogatory way! It was just a joke!" then why'd you use it as an insult? What's the joke here? You wouldn't be using it in that way if you didn't mean to imply something negative. This isn't a case of queer friends being rowdy with each other, this is indirect homophobia. We do have a derogatory term for a gay person but that's just slightly too controversial to say in casual "joke" mocking. It's only used by actual older generation homophobes, or if you really wanna make it sting. You go white boy, assert dominance over your friend!

At least as far as I've experienced, it's so bad that most people outside of actual genuine gays, use the ENGLISH WORD GAY. Not our finnish word for it, they say "Gay". Bc people still use our word as a slur sometimes, you can never be 100% sure how they meant it. Imagine us not being able to use our own fucking language to describe ourselves. Fucked up world. Some are even considered "radical" or "edgy" gays if they openly use that on themselves or others without batting an eye

When my mom calls me over to like, look at a cute gay couple on TV or tell me about her queer friends, she says Gay, in English, in English pronunciation.

Same with lesbian. In finnish we'd say Lesbo/lespo but people more or less resort to switching momentarily into English to explain that this girl likes other girls. Additionally some lesbians I've known don't even wanna fucking say lesbian, they say gay, Finnish or english. Lesbian is also still used derogatorily so much so that it's not a comfortable word to use regularly like any other word. I also still flinch when someone refers to me as a lesbian. I've literally been insulted with that word, by family members too btw. They say "Lesbian!" as a comeback when I criticize their poor sensitive hetero lifestyle. Fucked up world. We use English instead bc it's a Trendy language, it's international and educated! It's socially correct!

In case anyone decides to come @ me on this: English is great for international usage and lots of Finns having a good understanding of it is helpful in interacting with foreigners or immigrants. As accessibility and education it's a good thing to have. And yea finnish doesn't have original terms for some of the others, like pansexual bisexual, nonbinary in some cases, or anything about the ace/aro spectrums (as far as I'm aware). Yea, we do have "Muunsukupuolinen" as a sort of descriptor for a nonbinary person but it's lengthy and I've honestly never heard people use it outside of formal settings where saying Nonbinary would sound too "pop culture" ish.

Oh yeah, also, saying "Trans" in finnish sounds really clumsy! It's just one letter away from our word for Tranny! ("Transu") If you don't wanna mouth out "transsukupuolinen", get inventive or resort to english pronunciation of the word!

*Slams my head on a desk multiple times*

[vampish-glamour]

wait so- i'm transmed and of the opinion that being trans should inherently be a medical condition (gender dysphoria) bc of a number of things, but i've always been told that "transsexual" is sort of a slur, or at least a word i shouldn't use bc it reduces trans ppl to their bodies and there even are trans ppl who don't want to transition (in which case i don't rlly think they're trans bc they don't have dysphoria?). i was told i should use "transgender" but thinking about it, they're not transitioning genders but sexes, so shouldn't "transsexual" be more appropriate? especially now that i've realised that i'm transmed and believe actual trans people always transition/plan to transition.

I think the answer you get will depend on who you talk to. I know there’s lots of trans people who prefer referring to themselves as transsexual, as they see themselves as going from one sex to the other. Or because the word transgender is starting to become meaningless and doesn’t describe them anymore. Others may argue that it’s too much of a medical term, or is offensive, and want to be referred to as transgender. I don’t think either one is wrong, it’s just personal preference.

It’s probably similar to homosexual. Some gay people stay away from it because it seems medical and offensive, some use it happily because it’s a literal description of their sexuality. Personally I used to stay away from it because it felt medical and offensive, but recently I’ve fully embraced it because of how empty the words gay and lesbian are becoming. Homosexual is a literal descriptor that is hard to change the definition of, and it leaves no questions about what I’m trying to communicate. I think many trans people feel the same way about transsexual.

As far as transition goes, there are reasons somebody might not transition, examples being phobias, medical risks and financial limitations to name a few. But there’s a difference between not being able to transition and not having any desire to transition. I think it’s true that you probably aren’t trans if you have no desire to transition… but if you can’t fulfill that desire for whatever reason, that doesn’t change that you still desire a transition.

[ramenwheezey]

Things I’m too scared to post on Twitter because I’ll get bombarded with flames:

1. It’s not okay to be heterophobic(and I’m just learning this because a friend pointed it out). If people said “kill all the gays” it’s homophobic and wrong. When we say “kill all ths straights” it’s funny. See how if we reverse the roles it’s not funny anymore? We want to be treated equally, don’t we? And why blame it on us being a minority. Like okay, and? It’s still not okay.

2. Reverse-racism doesn’t exist, but you can be racist to white people. Racism doesn’t apply only to minorities. Like white people can be called crackers, mayo packets, and so many lther names that are supposed to be bad. Literally making fun of us, and it’s fine. When people call black people mocha or chocolate cake, it’s suddenly racist and bad? And most of the time(from my experience) people calling them mocha is more of a way to describe their skintone. Saying “black people are stupid” is racist, but saying “white people are stupid” is not. Why? Why aren’t we being held to the same standards?

3. Why do people instantly think I’m calling people ugly when I call them fat? Here’s an experience I had. I don’t know how we got onto it, but I said “well, my mom is fat” and my friend instantly went, “she’s beautiful!” And I was like “yeah? I never said she wasn’t” “she’s beautiful” “okay? I never called her ugly, I on,y said she was fat.” “No! She’s beautiful!” Like what? I’m literally telling the truth? She’s fat. She’s overweight. Like what do you want me to do. Call her skinny? She’s not. I’m not going to call people bigger because it sounds weird and it doesn’t make sense why I can’t say fat or overweight. Like haveyou ever noticed how people say “well were they.... bigger?” Like they ere trying to avoid something bad? Like avoiding the ter, fat and overweight is just gonna give it more power to it being bad. It’s not bad. It’s a descriptor. Stop avoiding it. It’s not calling someone ugly, it’s describing how they look. It is not bad and it is not good. It is merely a word used to describe.

4. Emoji pronouns. I’m sorry, but what? I’m all for making people comfortable and I’ll probably use emoji pronouns if you want me to, but why? I don’t understand. I don’t really understand noun pronouns, but I still use them to make people feel comfortable. I don’t understand why emojis. Like it’s actually making the community look like a joke. I’ve literally seen comments about how this reminds trans people of the attack helicopter deal. They don’t like it and I can agree that it sounds ridiculous. I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s a good choice. At all.

5. Slurs. My opinion is that no one should say slurs. I don’t think black people should say the n-word, but that’s not my community so I’m not really supposed to have any opinion or say in it. I don’t think the LGBTQ+ community should use the f-slur or d-slur. I don’t think neurodivergent people should use the r-slur, but again I’m not really supposed to have an opinion or say in it. To me, if a word can only be said by certain people, then it should not be said at all. Again, this is just my take. I will not stop anyone from saying any slurs that they have reclaimed. The n-word is racist, yes I completely agree. Black people, and only black people can say the n-word. That’s also eacist in a way. It’s saying that only this group can say this. Only they are allowed. Yes, I get that the slur was used in a derogatory manner towards them, but the again, it’s also strange that they can say it. I find it uncomfortable and strange when other LGBTQ+ people say or call me the f-slur. I knkw that people are reclaiming ut, but it makes me uncomfortable. Like, “oh, I’m gonna say this to help strip away its power.” But they still get upset(rightfully so), when non LGBTQ+ people say it. Like sayinga word isn’t going to make it less offensive. It won’t be made less offensive until we all agree that everyone can say it. I don’t know if I explained that well, but that’s my take.

6. I saw someone make anime characters(specifically mha) black, and it made me uncomfortable. I’m gonna just outright say it. It made me uncomfortable. If someone made a black character white, all hell would break loose. If an asaim charactr was made white, all hell would break loose. Now I don’t lnow about if a black character was made asain, but I’m pretty sure some people would be made and calling them racist. But an Asain or white character is made black? Perfectly fine. I get it, there needs to be representation for black people in anime. But then again, shouldn’t there be representation of white people in anime? I haven’t watched much anime, but I’ve yet to see a white character. Like I agree that not only Asains live in Japan, so there needs to be representation. It’s not normal to only have one race in a story or place. I don’t really even know why it made me uncomfortable to be homest, but it did. Probably because if it were the other way around, it would be flames. Idk really.

7. People scream for representation of gays and poc, but when they get it they aren’t satisfied. Like you wanted gay characters for representation and when Netflix gives us gay characters, it’s suddenly “only to be a token gay” or to “be the gay one” or some stupid reason like that. Like WHAT? YOU wanted a gay character in shows. They are gay and all of a sudden it’s not good enough? And when people want more poc on shows. I completely understand, but also shouldn’t they be judged on theor acting to fit the part rather than being a poc?

8. There was no reason to riot. Literally just making things worse and causing violence. The riots are unnecessary. They won’t help. It’s wrong. It’s also gonna make it harder for you to get what you want. Stay peaceful. Stay kind. Jesus Christ don’t break things or hurt people.

I think that’s all for mow. And I cam already tell I,ma get hate. Oh well. It’s what I think.

[serpent-of-the-silver-plumes]

Terminology: ‘Spirit’ vs. ‘Demon’

In the Bartimaeus sequence, Bartimaeus makes it pretty clear that the word “demon” is a slur, and that he much prefers being called “djinni” or “spirit”. That connects pretty directly to oppression and power dynamics in our world, and it’s worth noting who in the series uses which term and in what circumstances.

First a little background on the words themselves:

The first time the distinction between “demon” and other terms comes up is when Bartimaeus talks to Nathaniel in AoS after the Underwoods’ house burned down.

“I’ve been meaning to mention this for some time. I don’t like being called a demon. Got that?” 

[Nathaniel] took a deep breath. “Fine.” 

“Just so you know.” 

“All right.”

“I’m a djinni.”

“Yes, all right.”

Nathaniel’s response to hearing this seems ambivalent, almost annoyed when Bartimaeus tries to hammer the point in by dragging out the conversation (though to be fair to him, he has just gone through a lot, and this is far from his top priority). 

Not taking slurs seriously is fairly common for members of oppressing groups, especially for words that are commonly used as a descriptor like this one is. Nathaniel might recognize that “demon” is harsher than “djinni”, but to him it’s just a word for what Bartimaeus is. It’s unlikely that he understands how this slur feeds into the system of oppression he is a part of, though I think he comes to understand more in later books.

Bartimaeus himself doesn’t outright give the word “demon” its full weight here, downplaying it as something he doesn’t like being called. Bartimaeus might stand up against magicians all the time, but it’s harder to call people out with the hope that they will change, and he isn’t great at being vulnerable. Unlike the other times he criticizes Nathaniel, this time he’s asking on his own behalf. So Bartimaeus plays it more casual on a surface level, but his “Got that?” and the way he keeps talking about it after his initial point makes him seem a lot more emphatic than “I don’t like being called a demon” would suggest.

Another more in depth explanation of the word “demon” comes from the bartimaeusbooks.com website:

‘Demon’ is simply a rude term for a spirit. The word comes from the Greek ‘daimon’, which wasn’t originally abusive, but over centuries the term, used mainly by magicians to refer to their slaves, became loaded with hate and fear.

A lot of slurs in our world also come about in similar ways; something that was initially neutrally descriptive becomes so associated with the oppression a group goes through, it comes to represent it. Saying the word “became loaded with hate and fear” basically confirms what the previous quote only implied, that it has power and is so much more than just something rude to say.

But real world connections aside, what’s really interesting about “demon” is when it is used and by whom. I haven’t kept track of every time it is used versus when “spirit” or “djinni” is used, so I can’t make comparisons or point out broader trends (though maybe next time I reread the series, I’ll add onto this post), but I did note a few specific examples.

One exchange that stands out is between Nathaniel and Mr. Underwood after Nathaniel was traumatized by the spirits in Underwood’s office.

“Spirits, sir.”

“Demons, boy. Call ‘em what they are. What must one never forget?” 

“Demons are very wicked and will hurt you if they can, sir.” His voice shook as he said this. 

This scene has lots of effects on Nat’s character for the rest of the series, and other people have already talked about how it instills a fear and mistrust of spirits that shapes the way Nat interacts with Bart. But it’s also worth pointing out that Underwood corrects Nat’s more neutral use of the word “spirit” to the slur “demon.”

Underwood is actively using “demon” as a word of hate and fear here to refer to spirits. And by doing so right after instilling the terror of spirits in Nathaniel, it seems to really hammer in the connection between magician’s fear of spirits and their abuse of them. Even though Bartimaeus is the only character in the series (as far as I remember) to explicitly describe the difference between “spirit” and “demon”, it’s clear that magicians have some idea of the effect this terminology has.

But after Bartimaeus points it out, Nathaniel pays more attention to what term he uses. In AoS, he says, 

“I don’t know. You’re a de—a djinni. Vows mean nothing to you.” 

He knows that Bartimaeus doesn’t like the term and corrects himself, which shows that even if he doesn’t fully understand the weight it carries, he was still listening to Bartimaeus and has taken that request into consideration, even when he’s insulting and dehumanizing him.

Even after two years have passed, after joining the government and becoming just generally a worse person, Nathaniel still remembers and corrects himself in GE.

“Believe me, I’d love to have summoned a de—a djinni with better manners than you, but there’s not time for me to research one properly.”

and

“If you find the de—, the afrit, see if you can get any information concerning the Resistance.”

The thing with both these examples is that Nathaniel is trying to convince Bartimaeus to do something. In the first, he’s trying to explain why he’s summoning Bart again after promising never to do so again, and the second time, he’s trying to send Bart out to catch Honorius and get information on the Resistance. His intentions aren’t necessarily to respect Bart. To some extent, he’s probably trying to warm himself up to Bart in order to get him to do what he wants with less argument.

The fact that he starts to say “demon” and corrects himself draws attention to the fact he is consciously making an effort to do Bartimaeus a kindness by using better terminology. But it also implies that his default state is using “demon” which, especially given the context, makes his word choice seem a lot less like a decision made out of respect or consideration for Bartimaeus’s feelings, but instead a manipulative tactic.

Kitty also uses the word “demon” and corrects herself in front of Bart when she’s trying to get him to do something.

“It needs a bit of thought, and a lot more de—spirits to get involved.”

and

“Now I need your help to stop what the de— what Faquarl and Nouda are doing.”

The first instance is when she wants him to join her revolution, and the second when she travels to the Other Place. Don’t get me wrong, Kitty is a lot better morally than Nathaniel, and by PG she respects spirits a lot more, but she is still under the influence of a society that hates spirits, and she isn’t perfect. I don’t know how much she uses “spirits” and “demons” in other instances, but this also seems rather manipulative of her. 

The second of Kitty’s quotes and the second quote of Nathaniel correcting himself are both being used to describe spirits that the speakers are actively going against. This means that both Kitty and Nathaniel recognize that “demon” isn’t just a term that Bartimaeus personally hates, but is a rude one for all spirits. If they are trying to manipulate Bartimaeus, then they aren’t doing it just by showing that Bartimaeus is worth giving this bit of consideration to but that all spirits are.

Sometimes, people from outside a marginalized group will be bigoted to the group as a whole but not to specific individuals they deem as somehow “above” that. I’ve seen posts on tumblr talk about people misgendering trans people they hate, and the whole “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing stems from a similar place. Nathaniel and Kitty have every reason to hate and insult Honorius, Faquarl, and Nouda, but they make an effort to not conflate those valid reasons of hatred with bigotry. Even though their intentions behind those words (especially Nathaniel’s) may have been a bit skewed, this makes me trust that they don’t like Bartimaeus despite him being a spirit, but that they like him and also he is a spirit.

[themightylizardking]

hi what did you mean when you said "when will trans people stop parroting terf ideology?" on that post about gay and lesbian not being slurs?? I've re-read the post over and over and i truly can't understand what you mean, would you be able to explain?

Okay so, it seems that a lot of younger lgbtq+ people are unaware of this so I will explain once again. Sorry for this being so long, but all of what I have to say is worth saying. The problem with those going around touting queer as a slur is that they are buying into an ahistorical lie and doing the work of exclusionists for them. I'll get more into the issue of terfs later, but first want to talk about some history.

For starters, I want to say that, academically speaking, queer is the word we chose for ourselves. If you wish to study gay life and culture in an academic setting, the field you work in is not "gay studies" but is instead "queer studies." Make no mistake about it, the overwhelming majority of people currently in that field, and likely all of its originators, chose the word queer themselves, no one else made that decision for them. Queer has been very effectively reclaimed by the work of dedicated activists, and every time someone claims it is still a slur, it is like spitting in the face of those who risked life and limb to reclaim it. "We're here, we're queer, get over it." Ever heard this slogan? It was popularized by the group, Queer Nation, back in the 1990's right before I was born. These brave AIDS activists took to the streets to fight for every one of us, and whenever you say queer is a slur, you are disrespecting them and their legacy.

Sure, queer has been used against us in violence, but that can be said about all words we have used for ourselves. The thing that you have to realize here is that queer has been around as a descriptor for us for ages, and is actually the preferred community descriptor by well over half of everyday lgbtq+ people. Queer may have been used against us in hate, but all words we use for ourselves have been. Many who dislike the term queer would prefer if we used the word gay, but that word is just as much an insult as queer. Are you aware of what gay originally meant? It was, at first, used to denote sex workers and perverts, quickly expanding its meaning to include men attracted to those of the same gender. So sure, we may be calling ourselves "strange" with the queer descriptor, but I would much rather be described as odd than as a pervert.

Replacing queer with gay has other problems aside from gay's origin. The problem with using gay instead of queer is mainly this, gay leaves out so so many people that queer includes, same with lgbt. Who is included in queer? Potentially, every single person who isn't an allosexual heterosexual cisgender person. Who is included in lgbt? Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and (some) trans people. When you say lgbt instead of queer, you are leaving out, among others: a large number of non-binary people who don't ID as trans, pansexuals, asexuals, intersex people who wish to be included in the community, and a great many others. Gay is even worse as a community descriptor as it leaves out bisexuals and transgender people as a whole, in addition to the other groups mentioned above. Every time someone pushes to replace the word queer with one of the alternatives, they push to exclude large swathes of our community. United together we are stronger, we are more able to protect ourselves and our siblings from outsiders and insiders alike who would do us harm. When we are sent running in circles having these same lexical arguments with each other over and over, we are weakend, and it becomes easier to pick us off one by one, whether that looks like using physical violence against us or like terfs winning over uneducated youth to their side.

And make no mistake, the claim that queer is a slur originated in the terf community on Tumblr, sometime around 2014 or 2015. This phrase, "queer is a slur," is very much a radfem invention. The thing that must be said about this push for "gay" instead of "queer" is that it endangers trans people. The queer community welcomes all with open arms, this not so true of the gay community. Lets say that I'm a cis-passing heterosexual transgender woman. As a straight person I would by no means be gay and calling me such would be improper. As a straight transgender person, I would not belong to the "gay" community. "What? That's not true! You belong here," you may say. Perhaps you would say, "transgender people belong in the gay community just as much as homosexuals." So okay, lets run with that and say that even though I am straight, I try to be included in the gay community. I show up to a gay event in person, perhaps with my cishet boyfriend in tow. People there are outraged that a straight person would try to intrude on their gay space. Now I have two options. I am either left out, excluded, and return home having failed to find community. My other option is to out myself as transgender so I may stay in this gay space. Do you see the problem here? Pushing for a gay community instead of a queer community is harmful to trans people, either because it excludes them or forces them to out themselves and potentially be exposed to violence from terfs.

Make no mistake about it, replacing the queer community with a gay community can, and likely will, expose trans people to violence and absolutely will lead to some of the most vulnerable among us being excluded from the community. In closing, we should ask not for gay assimilation, but for queer liberation. Be safe friend, and watch all of our siblings this Pride month.

[thisdiscontentedwinter]

My response got a little long, I hope you don’t mind if I submit it like this.

Thanks for responding to me. I read the article and I notice the angle on support for trans rights in it, and the interpretation that these groups’ pushback at London Pride was about transphobia. From the other side, the angle was these lesbians asserting the definition of ‘lesbian’ as homosexual women, females sexually attracted to other females, distinct from the more vague ‘queer women’ and some of the rhetoric that’s crept into the discourse under that term. For some the distinction is important. A personal anecdote: one of my gay friends resolutely does not call himself ‘queer’. For him, he is ‘gay’, and ‘gay’ is separate from 'queer’. He doesn’t see queer as a bad thing or as a slur, it just doesn’t describe him and his experiences as a gay man. Same for some lesbians. Using that definition for lesbian above is seen as transphobic by trans rights supporters, and their reaction is then seen as homophobic by those lesbians for whom that description fits their experiences. It gets messy. I don’t see that article as supportive of your argument that 'terfs’ see queer as a slur; I see that article saying some lesbians don’t see it as a useful descriptor of their experiences because their experiences don’t include trans women and they’re protesting the implication that their sexuality should, therefore transphobia therefore terfs. I see the logic, but for me it’s a fallacy because there’s more going on there. It’s just not that simple.

I don’t really want to get into The Discussion about lesbians and transphobia and cotton ceilings and trans women; I’d like to keep the focus on the term 'queer’ and how 'terfs’ use it. You conflate this group of lesbians resisting a label with all 'terfs’, and thus proof that all 'terfs’ don’t like this word. I am not convinced because I have seen radical feminist discussion in which 'queer’ is very much an accepted term. I have seen one or two people in these spaces expressing a dislike for the word because of the slur history, but I wouldn’t call it a widespread trait of the group based on one or two people. I also think there are people who express this opinion who aren’t 'terfs’ at all.

I suspect you may disagree with me, and that’s okay. My overall position on this is that 'queer’ WAS once a slur in some parts of the world - I agree with you on cultural differences too, I think that does play a part - and that is why some people say that it is. A lot of ideas are attributed to 'terfs’, and from my experience, this particular thing is a false attribution. 

In all honesty, imo, anyone who keeps yelling 'queer is a slur, stop using it, bigot’ is being ridiculous in this day and age, but it’s more indicative of general idiocy online rather than the 'terf’ standpoint.

DW: I never said it was all TERFs. I said that many TERFs, and used this group as an example. 

I don’t see that article as supportive of your argument that 'terfs’ see queer as a slur; I see that article saying some lesbians don’t see it as a useful descriptor of their experiences because their experiences don’t include trans women and they’re protesting the implication that their sexuality should, therefore transphobia therefore terfs.

Really? Because It think choosing to hold a sign like that up during a Pride parade shows exactly what they’re trying to do, and that action in and of itself–and especially during Pride–shows that they’re very much into excluding transwomen–which is the definition of a TERF–or women who identify as queer or gender fluid, or anything other than an AFAB lesbian.

I think any points either of us put forth are going to be anecdotal, and probably therefore useless. I do a agree that queer was at one time a slur, and that it depends a lot on culture. I never heard queer as anything except an academic term, to be honest, or something shouted at protests (by queer people). 

And I agree that it’s mostly younger people who are having “baby’s first Tumblr social justice moment” or whatever seem to be mainly the ones saying “queer is a slur!” but the fact that it lines up so easily with TERF rhetoric, and the fact that many TERFs are also pushing back against using queer (in order to exclude) makes me side-eye it very hard. Whether or not the idea that queer is a slur came from TERFs, it has certainly been co-opted by many of them, and encouraged by them. 

And as a general guide in life, I’m opposed to anything that TERFs encourage, until they drop the “trans exclusionary” bit from their actions. 

[talaricula]

ideas that can coexist about queer as an umbrella term:

queer is the broadest descriptor for LGBTQIA+ ppl and is currently the hardest to twist into gatekeeping nonsense

LGBTQIA+ is long and unwieldy and we keep discovering ppl who don’t fit under the acronym - queer is easier and arguably more inclusive

queer is overwhelmingly used by bi, pan, trans and non-binary ppl

queer as a personal label is no more Problematic TM than any other and mocking it (including using terms like “kweer” etc) is always built on a foundation of biphobia and/or transphobia and/or acephobia

many transphobes, biphobes, acephobes, etc, are working to eliminate queer as a label bc they want to deny bi/pan/trans/enby ppl visibility, support, rights, you name it

queer has been used as a slur by many people and against many people, including bi/ace/trans ppl, and it is entirely understandable that ppl (including bi/trans/ace ppl) would not want to be called queer and feel excluded by a community that calls itself a term that was used to hurt them

being called queer, directly or indirectly, can be anything from unpleasant to triggering to some ppl, and insisting that they just “get over it” is very selfish

queer is not as inclusive as some ppl say it is if it excludes the ppl who were hurt by the term 

literally every word used to describe LGBTQIA+ ppl has been used as a slur and to hurt people, including simply “gay,” and singling out queer as the term to rally against smacks of exclusionary, gatekeeping, respectability politics nonsense

there is power in reclaiming a slur, in taking a weapon used against you and using it as a shield, and it’s a long-standing tradition of the LGBTQIA+ community (cf above: we didn’t have much choice) and genuinely the best option for some people, and no one should try to take that away from them

that act becomes completely devoid of power if it is forced upon you, and no one should be forced to reclaim a slur that still has too many negative associations for them

tagging a post “q slur” when queer is already in the written body of a post and ppl who don’t like the term could just blacklist it as such is virtue signalling and posturing and utter bullshit, bc what you’re signalling and posturing is transphobia, biphobia, acephobia, etc, consciously or not

academic language doesn’t always have to coincide with everyday language and “queer studies” doesn’t automatically lead to “queer community”

using academic language can give a certain pragmatic weight to our activism

some historical groups have proudly used queer; some have eschewed it

there is no particular reason why we should follow historical practice, either way, if we disagree with it now, and labels and language have shifted a lot, including for LGBTQIA+ ppl

any term we come up to that tries to encompass the whole community is going to face similar backlash

i don’t have an easy answer for this, except that there is no easy answer. i personally try to work case-by-case, but there might be other and better methods. using queer as an umbrella term is neither wholly good, nor wholly bad, and parroting arguments from either side to defend your own emotional reaction while dismissing others’ is not very productive or compassionate

[hunterinabrowncoat]

Queer has been a part of our community, a word that unites us and has been used both as a descriptor, and a political push against the heteropatriarchy for pretty much as long as the modern LGBTQ+ movement has existed. The only rebranding that has happened around the word ‘queer’ is a very recent rise in this insidious idea that it can’t be used by anybody because we’ve suddenly decided that it’s a Bad Word. That push literally only started happening in the last 10-15 years.

And it’s nothing short of ignorant to claim that the ‘queer is a slur’ rhetoric has not historically, and is not still currently, being used to deliberately exclude minorities within the community, especially trans and bi people. It is. Bi and trans people are telling you this.

And the acronym is not a suitable replacement for queer. I am not Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Intersex and more. What I am is queer. I am decidedly not straight. And ‘queer’ as an umbrella term, and as a descriptor, an identity, has pretty specific political connotations. It’s a deliberate ‘fuck you’ to the heteropatriarchy. It’s deliberately refusing to align yourself with straight society. It’s a celebration of the the fact that we are different from straight people and we want to celebrate that.

Like... there is a whole world of difference between “the word queer has been repeatedly used as a way to abuse/bully me for being gay so I’m just never going to be comfortable with using it to describe myself” and “queer is a slur so nobody’s allowed to use it”. And the vast majority of the ‘queer is a slur’ rhetoric leans towards the latter.

Gay was also used as a slur for many years, but I don’t see anybody complaining when people continue to use the word gay to describe themselves, or this community. Just because people take a term and misappropriate it or use it as a means to bully or abuse, that doesn’t automatically mean that word is no longer ours to use, or has to be given up because sometimes people use it as an insult.

[firstfootingscotland]

Bogha-frois Conversations: Will Hammond

Early this year during Glasgow’s Celtic Connections Festival I had the pleasure of joining a host of incredible LGBT+ artists for a performance and a panel around the theme of Bogha-frois: LGBT+ Voices in Folk. A brainchild of Pedro Cameron (Man of the Minch), Bogha-frois began as a workshop at the Scottish Storytelling Centre and takes its name from the Gaelic word for “rainbow.” The energy around Bogha-frois has enacted a metamorphosis - far beyond a standalone workshop, panel, or critically-acclaimed gig, Bogha-frois is a movement celebrating gender and sexual diversity within traditional and folk music, song, and dance in Scotland. Following the events in Glasgow, I wanted to continue these conversations and proposed a series of monthly blog posts. It’s hope this series will be a place for dialogue around the intersections of traditional arts, identity, and each artists’ path as a LGBT+ person. This month’s Bogha-frois conversationalist is percussionist Will Hammond! 

Tell me a story... what was a moment when you felt both your identity as a traditional musician and your identity as a LGBTQIA+ person were in focus? (1)

Obviously the Bogha-frois workshops and concert were a pretty decisive event for this. During those days it felt most apparent and explicitly like "this is what this is about, this is inextricably part of who we are and what we're doing", which did feel like the first time outside of maybe being at pride or a protest that I've felt quite so "out" and among similar people, and the only time where the musician part of my identity has been equally in focus. I'd had a few conversations with other queer musicians about navigating the world the ways we do prior to those workshops, and each time my thoughts of "I'm sure I'm not the only person" became "oh, wow there are other people experiencing these things!" So, to have so many people gathered for the workshops and concert laid out this confirmation on a scale that was very affirming. 

How do you identify? What are the pronouns, descriptors or other words you like to use, if any, to describe yourself in regard to your LGBTQIA+ status. 

 I'm bisexual, in that I am capable of being attracted to people of more than one gender. My own gender is a total mess and I use he/him pronouns but they/them pronouns are fine, kind of whatever, really. Genderfluid and nonbinary are terms that fit; I don't think I really know what I "identify" as on an that instinctive visceral level. If I introspect on it, I always come out thinking "I don't know what feeling like a man or a woman or anything else feels like, I just feel a bit unpleasant." I find personally trans/cis is a pretty quirky binary in itself. "Do you agree with the doctor who said 'it's a boy' when you were born?", I mean, I guess, yeah sometimes but also sometimes not, right? 

(percussionist Will Hammond, photo by Amelia Read)

Talk about your perceptions of LGBTQIA+ identity (both yours and others) within your experience playing traditional music in Scotland. 

When I've played in Scotland my own and others' identities have either gone unmentioned and un-talked about or they've been the focus of the event- referring to the Bogha-frois concert, so my experience has either been extremely welcoming and accepting or I haven't had to think about it. Being English and mostly working in England, I don't expect my experiences of this in Scotland to be comprehensive or universal for Scottish musicians. 

In what ways do you feel your identity as a LGBTQIA+ person and a traditional musician intersect, overlap, engage? 

I am fairly open to talking about my queerness with other people I play music with, and most of these people, if they are not themselves lgbtq in some ways, have usually demonstrated that I can trust them about it. Ever since I first read about it I've enjoyed exploring the idea of music as a verb rather than a noun. I also like the line of thought leading off about how a musician who is just walking down the street, or making a cup of coffee, or trying to get to sleep, is still a musician. Even if what they are doing in those moments is not musicking, their musician-ness has affected how they experience and interact with the world. I think, for myself, I can draw definite parallels to my queerness in here. How applicable that is for other people is totally up to them, of course. At the moment I have "trans rights are human rights" written in block capitals down the side of one of my main instruments, and I don't exactly present as the most obviously straight person in the world, so I suppose I'm not trying particularly hard to keep my queerness and my musician-ness separate. 

Talk about your experience connecting with other LGBTQIA+ folks both inside and outside the traditional arts. 

I have worked a couple of times with other lgbtq artists in the trad scene and beyond, but prior to the Bogha-frois workshops it was never a specific condition or factor of us working together. It would emerge over the course of us practicing usually, or I already knew about the other(s) going in and would tell them about myself. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Cusp (@thecuspmusic) on Apr 8, 2019 at 9:08am PDT

(Will’s band The Cusp with fiddler Imogen Bose-Ward and harpist Ada Francis)

If you’re comfortable sharing, talk about any incidents of homophobia or transphobia that you’ve witnessed both inside and outside the traditional arts. 

In a performance context I haven't experienced any myself, which has been nice, but on at least two occasions during practices with other musicians, after coming out to them as bi they have immediately asked me about how open my partner and I are to threesomes. Outside of music, just in the last couple of years I've been called slurs in shops multiple times, in the loos at Newcastle railway station a man told me that I'm in the wrong queue and should be in the ladies'. I've been given "that look" by several men for being in public with other queer people. Once, someone I used to work for grabbed my wrist and tried to scrub off my nail varnish with her hand as if she thought that would work and was an acceptable way to treat another adult. I've certainly not had as hard a time as some people I know, but I have plenty of my own evidence for how marriage equality certainly didn't end homophobia, let alone transphobia. 

How do you see the traditional arts changing in regard to LGBTQIA+ people? What are the further changes you would like to see? 

I'm stuck with being a convert, a backslider, and a reformist with respect to trad music. I didn't get into folk until I was introduced by a friend. I was maybe 17, by which time I'd already been playing music in some form or other for about 9 years. Then playing, listening to, learning about, trad things became a focus until I was maybe 21, when I learned a bit more about abstract expressionism and free improvisation and started enjoying the weirder sides of trad playing more and the "regular" playing a bit less. It was partly burnout from having finished university but getting outside of the folk bubble having spent a short time intensely involved in it was definitely a breath of fresh air. The final project of my studies was a summary of this process in a way, looking at how genres are constructed in the modern age and how occupying the spaces between them can result in some interesting things. I'm fascinated in the ability to use this music to tell stories and preserve memories. I'm also aware of the parallel consequence that allows this music to distort realities and, through entirely benign inaction, forget. I hesitate to speak for the Scottish traditions as I'm only an occasional visitor, and in the words of Leon Rosselson, I'm not suggesting any sort of plot. However, there have been times I find it difficult to look at the amount of lighthearted crossdressing, not so lighthearted crossdressing, "shapeshifting", "enchantment", utter disinterest in marriage, and portrayals of homosocial relationships in traditional songs and not feel concern when these things are overlooked.  Even more so when they are explained away in a manner that preserves the current cisheteropatriarchy like it's something that's always been there. The places this music comes from are important, and preserving it and celebrating it definitely is a worthy pursuit. It then follows that to gloss over the parts that don't fit our construction of history is partly what leads us to situations where it takes a whole room of queer musicians simply pointing out that we exist, maybe for ourselves as much as for an audience, to get people thinking about it. As such, and though I recognise that it's difficult to apply current terminology around sexuality and gender to historical time periods, "The Folk", whoever they were, ought to be perceived as less monolithically heterosexual and gender conforming. Applying this way of thinking and looking can go forwards as much as backwards, and  achieving a greater diversity of voices in the trad scene is an important goal, I think.

First Footing is a collaboration between dancer and dance researcher Nic Gareiss, the Traditional Dance Forum of Scotland, University of Edinburgh Moray House School of Education, and the School of Scottish Studies with support from Creative Scotland. For engagement opportunities check out the First Footing website.

(1) Following methodology developed by Fiona Buckland in her book Impossible Dance: Club Culture and Queer World-making, I began each conversation asking artists to tell me a story. This, Buckland reminds us, redistributes significance to the voice of the artist, rather than the anthropologist/researcher/interviewer. In Buckland’s words, “the meanings they made from the practices are more crucial than whatever meaning I impose with the theoretical tools in my standard issue doctoral utility belt.” (Buckland 2002, p. 11) This feels incredibly important when collaborating with folks whose voices have so often been underheard or marginalized.