#actually i need to let go of defining labels and just be queer

[transweasel]

struggling w the idea of identity being fluid and changing over time like.. wdym i don't feel exactly the same as before and will never feel exactly the same forever

[chocolatepot]

Saw a post about how you need to read original fiction and not just fic to write books, and I had some thoughts but they're not so much a direct response so I figured I'd make my own post ...

You do need to be conversant with original fiction to write it, but also - that doesn't mean that your fiction diet as you write needs to be primarily original fiction. If you want to write a book, you've probably spent a lot of your life reading original fiction even if you're in fandom now. That all counts. (Assuming what you want to write bears at least some resemblance to what you've read.)

Fanfiction really doesn't teach you to develop characters and settings on your own, it's true. It particularly lets you be lazy about not describing them physically, and not having to do any work for walk-on characters who exist in canon. You also can get used to writing romantic short stories that would be completely unmarketable if they were not fic.

However, fanfiction still can teach you a lot of transferable skills, if you want it to. You can write novels to stretch your ability to plot a longform story and follow through on 60k+ words. You can consciously work to improve your prose, your pacing, and/or your physical/emotional descriptions no matter what your subject matter. You can write a story that focuses on how a character changes and develops, and you can focus on a minor character from canon and do the work to make them three-dimensional. If you're into AUs, you can also work on worldbuilding or writing a believable historical setting. Literally the only thing you don't really have the opportunity to do is create your own main characters from scratch.

And I feel like that's actually the easiest part of writing. Sitting down and writing a story that lasts over 80k words or so, is compelling all the way through, has defined character arcs, etc. is way harder than making up the initial concept. If you're in fandom, you clearly Do Stories whether they're on the paper or onscreen, and so you probably have a lot of character types in your head already to start messing around with.

There was also a point in the post about how if you don't read you're not going to understand where your story fits genre-wise, and you're probably going to think that it's new and genre-breaking when it isn't - and that leads me to two thoughts. One is that not feeling able to place your own story if it crosses genres might be more common to writers than you think: it just came up in a Bestseller Experiment podcast ep I listened to the other day as a normal thing due to the writer being too close to their story. I have good comps for my novel (there's a T. Kingfisher that is incredibly similar in concept and key characters) and I still feel like "oooh ... is it more fantasy or more historical ..."

The other is that fic makes it so you're more likely to actually write something that genuinely doesn't quite fit in the boxes. That's something I've been thinking about since Winter's Orbit. That book, if you don't know, was originally written on fail_fandomanon's spinoff writing meme and posted on AO3. It was always original fiction, but it has a fic-like sensibility: there's a strong political intrigue plot alongside a strong queer romance plot between a playboy who's not really a playboy and a smol bean with trauma. If you read the GoodReads reviews from when it was published, you can find many sf fans complaining that the romance takes up too much space and romance fans complaining that there's too much plot outside the romance. I think now with the rise of "romantasy" there's more tolerance for that, but that label feels like it's getting less useful as it broadens to mean "fiction written by a woman that includes a romance" (and it feels very m/f to me but we don't have time for that now). Because so much of ficwriting fandom focuses on stories that heavily foreground romance but don't hit the traditional romance beats and also writing the characters figuring out who's committing industrial espionage or whatever. In a romance novel, the romance is absolutely the A plot and the whatever is very much B plot (if not somehow C). In sf/f and thrillers, the whatever is the A plot and the romance is around the edges. Fic teaches us to do them both equally, because the point of the story is to see the characters getting together (often not like canon, when it comes to m/m and f/f) while having a plot to deal with (like they have in canon). Also, in a lot of cases of genre-mixing, determining which one it "counts as" is really determining which one it will sell better under, and that's not something a person outside of the industry can generally tell, regardless of what they're reading on their own.

[self-loving-vampire]

Re: the cool girl thing: I think there's a cultural feminist tendency toward pride in conventional femininity being homologous to what "black is beautiful," pride in "natural hair," etc. is to black people and "That's Mr. Faggot to you!" type signalling is to queer people. The idea is, like, "We should stop letting our opponents define this as low-status and start taking pride in it!"

Cont. prev. ask: In that framework, disassociating from the thing is viewed with suspicion; it gets the reaction of "Are you agreeing with our enemies that this is low-status and think you're too good for it? Are you trying to signal to them that you're like them and agree with them?" Cont. prev. ask: I think an important context here is while, no, normie men by-in-large do not prefer GNC women, sexist men do often see make-up as emblematic of negative traits they think women have (frivolity, vapidity, shallowness, vanity, obsession with appearance, vapid selfish desire for luxury and social status), and a lot of conventional feminine feminists suspect the Cool Girl of being Like That because she agrees with sexist men about that. Cont. prev. ask: I disagree with that perspective/mindset, but that's how I think it works.

It does seem to be kind of a defensive/insecure reaction that immediately results in extreme conclusions about the non-conformists.

For example, I never use makeup because I can't be bothered, would rather spend my time and money elsewhere, and already have nice skin anyway.

You would need to make a very uncharitable jump in reasoning to conclude that it's actually because I think it's low-status due to it commonly associated with women. You would then need to make a further jump to conclude that I therefore think other women are lesser for using it.

It is an attitude that can result in labeling people who are just doing their own thing, and even people who have been straight-up excluded for being different (often queer or autistic in this case), as hateful enemies in a way that actually closely aligns with some sexist stereotypes.

For example, some of the people going on these rants seem to be creating their own version of the "Fake Gamer Girl" who only pretends to have her interests to appeal to men. There's this essentialist skepticism that women could actually enjoy "masculine" things naturally and without hidden motives.

And yeah, a lot of sexist men (my father being an easy example) do think that way about makeup. Some of them do see it as something useless and vapid, but what is sometimes missed in that conversation often is that they still expect women to wear it.

"Feminine" women may be kind of a joke to those types of sexists, but they're still something desirable and proper compared to the alternative.

What I wish for here is for people to stop gendering everything under the sun in the first place. A woman "acting like a man" by simply not wearing makeup and having interests outside of a narrow gendered range should not even be remarkable.

[contradictory-label-culture-is]

Not to like dump a first draft in your inbox before I make a proper post on bilesproblems, or to put some like actual Queer Theory in here on the silly blog but like. Contradictory label culture is believing in the principle of self exclusion.

The principle of self exclusion is that any person who does not belong under a label, will simply not identify with it. If someone identifies with a label in good faith, and it is a truly held identity, they must have their reasons and therefore belong. It is only necessary to define who or what a label does describe, not who it does not. The people who it does not describe will not feel represented by it and will not identify with it. It is an inclusionist principle, of course. It's not entirely perfect, it doesn't describe every situation ever, but it's a general rule. The definition of "genderfluid" doesn't need to be changed to specifically state that people with a constant state of gender cannot use it in order to exclude me. It only needs to say that one's gender is fluid, and I will practice self-exclusion by not identifying with the term that I do not feel describes me. Meanwhile a person who is bigender like me, but one gender is fluid while the other is constant, does not end up excluded.

Since it's going on bilesproblems when I make the proper post, let's use lesbians as an example. Most bisexuals will not identify as lesbians. They don't need to be told that under no circumstances can they ever be a lesbian in order to not identify as a lesbian. They just go "yeah no I don't think that describes me." Bisexuals who do identify as lesbians have their own personal reasons for resonating with the lesbian label, and shouldn't be excluded, because if there was nothing about the label that described them, then they wouldn't feel compelled to identify with it. Most men will not identify as lesbians either. The definition doesn't need to make sure to state you're not a man and be strictly enforced. It's only necessary to describe what genders one may be, and if a man is multigendered, otherwise genderqueer, trans, or has some other reason to feel like a lesbian, then just let him be a lesbian. If the word did not describe him, he would practice self exclusion.

Self exclusion is NOT denying oneself an identity because of exclusionists despite resonation. It only refers to going "that doesn't describe me, so it doesn't resonate with me, and I do not identify with it." It's usually not conscious. In my own inclusionist theory, it would be the answer to "well then what's stopping straight cis men from identifying as lesbians?" and other similar questions. We don't need something to stop them. They won't actually, in their hearts, identify as lesbians if the word doesn't describe them or resonate with them in some way. It is not necessary to stop certain people from identifying with something. All you do is ignore nuance.

TL;DR Self exclusion theory is a general rule that says labels only need to be defined by what they are, not what they aren't, and nobody needs to be forcefully excluded. People who the label doesn't describe will naturally choose not to identify with it, and those who do identify with a label will always have their reasons to feel it describes them.

Thank you I feel like people also just overlook the fact that if someone didn't identify as something(or being a lesbian ahem) and use it as a joke or something to mock "actual lesbians" it'd be SUPER obvious. Like no the lesboy that is really proud in their identity while talking about it a lot and not even using a mocking tone isn't mocking lesbians. If they were, you would know they were.

[creamco]

—situationships in queer relationships ᝰ.ᐟ

dating is already a mess, but queer dating? a whole new level of confusion. and that’s where situationships come in. basically, it’s like you’re kind of together, but also... not really. no labels, no clear direction, just vibezzzz (and maybe some unresolved emotional tension lol)

queer people deal with situationships a lot. sometimes it’s intentional, sometimes it’s a trauma response, and sometimes it’s just the reality of modern dating. but before we dive into why this happens, let’s break down how situationships show up in different types of queer relationships.

note: i will not be talking about all queer types. just a few chosen ones, so that everybody can understand what i am talking about more or less.

╭┉┈ what are we?

gay situationships (mlm, gay men, bi/pan men, etc.)

commitment issues? check.

emotional vulnerability? no thanks.

hookup culture taking over? absolutely.

the gay dating scene is wild. a lot of it is built around casual connections— grindr, tinder, and the whole "no strings attached" mindset. some people are genuinely chill with that, but for others, it turns into a cycle of emotional detachment. they want something real, but they’re scared to admit it. situationship unlocked.

lesbian situationships (wlw, sapphic, bi/pan women, etc.)

is this a relationship or just extreme emotional closeness?

we’ve been "talking" for six months, should i say something?

overthinking every single text message.

wlw dynamics are weird because they can go from zero to moving in together fast. but when they don’t? it’s just months of deep emotional bonding with zero clarity. both people keep waiting for the other to define the relationship, and before you know it, you’re stuck in a "do we like each other or are we just best friends who hold hands and make out?" loop.

trans women + cishet men situationships

"i really like you, but i’m not ready to go public."

secret relationships & low-effort commitment.

fetishization vs. actual respect.

shemale assumption.

this one is rough. a lot of cishet men who date trans women aren’t actually ready to date trans women. they like the idea, but they’re scared of what people will think, so they keep it lowkey. sometimes it’s just internalized transphobia, sometimes it’s straight-up cowardice. either way, it leaves trans women stuck in situationships where they’re never treated like a real partner.

non-binary + genderqueer situationships

"i don’t believe in labels" (until it’s convenient).

people acting confused about attraction instead of just vibing.

getting misgendered in a relationship that isn’t even a relationship.

non-binary dating is weird because people either hyper-fixate on your gender identity or pretend it doesn’t exist. situationships happen a lot because partners don’t know how to navigate attraction outside the gender binary, so they just... avoid defining anything at all.

╭┉┈ why do situationships even happen in queer relationships?

fear of commitment (but make it ✨queer trauma✨)

rejection? abandonment? never feeling truly wanted? does these sound familiar :)

a lot of queer people grow up without healthy relationship role models.

choosing emotional safety over vulnerability.

bad communication (or just straight-up avoidance)

"we don’t need labels" = "i don’t want to talk about what this actually is."

waiting for the other person to bring it up.

assuming the other person wants the same thing without asking.

exploration & self-discovery

queer people often use situationships to figure out their sexuality/gender.

sometimes you don’t even know what you want yet, so defining it feels impossible.

personally talking, i'm kinda ok with this one if it's said before the situationship starts.

social stigma & external pressure

some people keep things casual because they’re scared of being outed.

others don’t want to deal with society’s expectations of what their relationship should look like.

so, what’s the impact of all this?

anxiety and emotional exhaustion from never knowing where you stand.

reinforcing a culture of non-commitment in queer spaces.

for some, it’s empowering. for others, it’s just sad.

the truth is, situationships aren’t inherently bad. they can be a way to explore relationships without pressure. but when they’re built on avoidance, miscommunication, or fear? that’s when it gets toxic. queer people deserve relationships that feel safe, stable, and fulfilling whether they come with a label or not.

╭┉┈ types of queer situationships & the unique struggles they bring

so let’s break down the different types of queer situationships, because every community has its own unique spin on these emotionally messy scenarios. and trust me, each one has its own flavor of confusion.

gay situationships (mlm, gay men, bi/pan men, etc.)

commitment? nah, let’s keep it casual.

emotions? uh, maybe later.

hookup culture taking over? you know it.

gay dating is tricky. like, on one hand, hookup culture is all about instant gratification, so it’s easy to fall into a situationship where no one is really sure what’s going on. maybe you’ve been texting, maybe you’ve hooked up a few times, but does that mean you’re together? well... not exactly.

fear of emotional vulnerability is huge here. a lot of gay men (and bi/pan men too) are scared to open up because they've been hurt before. maybe they've had bad experiences with rejection or discrimination, so instead of risking heartbreak, they keep things chill and avoid anything that resembles a real relationship.

toxic masculinity plays a role too. like, there's this idea that being too emotional or vulnerable makes you “weak” or less of a man. so, even if there’s a real connection, it stays unsaid or undefined.

grindr and dating apps don’t help. apps make everything seem like it’s either a hookup or nothing at all, which keeps everyone in the non-committal zone.

lesbian situationships (wlw, sapphic, bi/pan women, etc.)

"are we dating or just really close friends?"

"i’m emotionally invested, but do i even want to define this?"

"okay, so when do we become official?"

now, wlw situationships are a whole vibe. lesbians (and bi/pan women) have a unique problem: everything can get really intense emotionally, really fast. you’re spending hours texting, hanging out, sharing intimate details of your life, but then… is it a relationship? and if you don’t call it that, what are you even doing?

the "U-Haul" stereotype is a real thing, but not in the way people think. (U-Haul is a stereotype in lesbians which is about lesbians going from "hi, what's your name?" to "let's move in, get married and adopt a cat!") it’s not always about moving in right away, but it’s about how quickly emotions can get tangled, even if the commitment isn’t there yet. so when emotions are high and clarity is low, that’s prime situationship territory.

miscommunication is often the culprit. someone wants to make it official, but they’re scared to rock the boat, so they don’t say anything. meanwhile, the other person might be waiting for an official "let’s be a thing" moment and is too afraid to ask.

there’s also this fear of labeling—being queer, especially in spaces that aren’t always supportive, means avoiding labels that feel too limiting. but sometimes, that avoidance just creates more tension.

trans women + cishet men situationships

"i’m into you, but i’m not ready for everyone to know."

"i’m attracted to you, but am i allowed to love you publicly?"

"is this just a phase, or is it real?"

this one’s messy for a lot of reasons. cishet men dating trans women can face a ton of internalized issues, ranging from fetishization to shame. trans women often get stuck in situationships where they’re not treated like actual partners— just a "forbidden" attraction.

cis-het men who date trans women may not be ready to go public with it. they might worry about how society or their friends will react, especially if they’re not comfortable with their attraction to trans women.

fetishization is a huge issue here. trans women might get seen as "exotic" or a "novelty" rather than a partner, and that’s damaging. when this is the case, situationships become more about exploring an idea of a trans woman than respecting her as a real person. shemale? get a life.

transphobia also plays a huge role. many cishet men are in situationships because they don’t know how to process the relationship without internalized transphobia, and they might hide their dating life to avoid confrontation.

non-binary + genderqueer situationships

"wait, so what are we?"

"i’m not sure how to label this, so i’m not going to label it at all."

"how do we navigate this attraction without enforcing gender norms?"

non-binary and genderqueer people face a unique set of challenges in dating. dating outside the binary means avoiding labels, which can be freeing, but also confusing when it comes to navigating relationships.

many partners are unsure how to navigate attraction to non-binary folks because they’re not working with a clear gender binary. this can lead to a lot of unclear expectations.

misgendering is common—sometimes, people will call their non-binary partner by the wrong pronouns without thinking or because they don’t know better. and when a non-binary person is in a situationship, it’s harder to set boundaries or communicate feelings without feeling misunderstood.

situationships happen when the other person can’t move beyond their own confusion or limited understanding of gender. it’s easier to not define things than to face the discomfort of breaking out of the traditional relationship structure.

queerplatonic situationships (friends-to-lovers ambiguity, etc.)

"we’re super close, but am i actually in love with you?"

"i love you, but do i love you that way?"

"can we be queerplatonic partners and not define it as romantic?"

this one’s for all the queerplatonic relationships out there. these relationships are often intense, emotional, and deep—but they don’t always follow the usual romantic or friendship lines.

friends-to-lovers situationships are very real, and sometimes it’s hard to tell if you’re just really close friends or actually developing romantic feelings.

aro/ace spectrum dynamics can make things even more complicated because some people don’t experience attraction in the same way. when someone’s relationship doesn’t fit the traditional romantic mold, they’re left to figure out how to label it—or if they even need to.

emotional intimacy can be just as strong, if not stronger, than sexual attraction, leading to long-term situationships where no one feels the need to define the relationship beyond the emotional connection.

this is just a glimpse of how situationships show up across different queer relationships. each one has its own set of struggles, but they all have one thing in common— confusion and lack of clarity.

╭┉┈ why do queer situationships even happen?

let’s get into why situationships happen in the first place. like, why do so many queer people end up in these undefined, emotionally draining, sometimes fun-but-mostly-confusing relationships? well, it’s not just "modern dating culture." it runs way deeper than that.

commitment issues feat. queer trauma

rejection. abandonment. never feeling truly wanted.

growing up without healthy relationship models makes commitment terrifying.

emotional detachment becomes a defense mechanism.

so many queer people grew up in environments where love was conditional—or where they weren’t even allowed to explore love freely. if you’ve spent your whole life being told your identity is wrong or that you’ll never find a "real" partner, of course you’re gonna have issues with commitment.

fear of rejection is a huge factor. after years of being told "this isn’t real love" or "you’re just confused," it’s easy to internalize the idea that any relationship you form is temporary or unstable.

abandonment issues are real. a lot of queer people have been ghosted, cut off by family, or left behind by people who couldn’t "handle" their queerness. so, what do they do? they avoid deep emotional investment to protect themselves.

attachment styles come into play too. many queer people develop avoidant attachment, where they crave connection but push people away before they can be hurt. others fall into anxious attachment, where they latch onto someone who isn’t fully available, hoping they’ll finally be chosen.

bad communication (or straight-up avoidance)

"we don’t need labels" = "i don’t want to talk about what this actually is."

waiting for the other person to bring it up (spoiler: they won’t).

assuming the other person wants the same thing without asking.

queer dating can be messy because no one wants to be the one to define things.

a lot of people think avoiding labels = avoiding problems, but in reality, it just creates more problems.

there’s also this unspoken pressure in queer spaces to be super chill and low-maintenance—so bringing up "what are we?" feels like breaking some kind of sacred rule.

some people assume that because they vibe, they must be on the same page. but just because someone acts like your partner doesn’t mean they see themselves as one.

pro tip: if you don’t communicate, you’re not in a situationship— you’re just in a mess.

exploration & self-discovery (aka "am i actually into this person or am i just figuring myself out?")

sometimes, situationships happen because people are still figuring out their identity.

attraction can be confusing, and experimenting without commitment feels safer.

internalized homophobia or transphobia can make people hesitant to claim a relationship.

for a lot of queer people, dating = self-discovery.

maybe someone just came out and isn’t sure what they really want yet. so they end up in a situationship, using it as a low-pressure way to explore attraction.

some people think they want a situationship, but they’re actually just scared to admit they want something serious.

internalized homophobia or transphobia can also play a role. if someone has spent years suppressing their feelings, they might not know how to embrace a real relationship, so they keep things casual to protect themselves from judgment.

social stigma & being out

some people keep things casual because they’re scared of being outed.

relationships that don’t fit the "heteronormative mold" get questioned more.

certain queer identities aren’t always taken seriously in relationships.

not every queer person wants a situationship— sometimes, society forces them into one.

people who aren’t fully out might avoid defining a relationship to avoid drawing attention.

trans and non-binary people face extra scrutiny, so their partners might hesitate to acknowledge the relationship openly.

bisexual and pansexual people often get hit with "you’re just confused," which makes some partners hesitant to fully commit.

basically, the world still has a long way to go in respecting queer relationships, and that pressure seeps into how people date.

the hookup culture dilemma (i hate this one)

dating apps make it way too easy to keep things surface-level.

the fear of "settling" keeps people from committing.

ghosting and low-effort dating are normalized.

hookup culture isn’t inherently bad, but let’s be real—it feeds into situationships.

there’s always this feeling of "someone better might be out there," so people hesitate to commit.

casual relationships can be great, but when people start catching feelings and pretending they haven’t, things get messy.

ghosting, breadcrumbing (giving just enough attention to keep someone hooked), and non-committal dating have all become the norm. instead of breaking up, people just... disappear.

emotional intimacy ≠ romantic commitment

some people just crave deep connection without the relationship part.

queer friendships can be super intimate, making lines blurry.

some people don’t even want a traditional relationship.

not all situationships are about avoiding love— sometimes, it’s just about redefining what love is.

some people genuinely prefer deep emotional connections without the pressure of a romantic relationship.

queer friendships can be so emotionally intense that it feels like a relationship, even when it’s not.

some people are on the aromantic spectrum and don’t experience romantic attraction the same way, but still want closeness.

so while some situationships are accidental or messy, others are actually just a new way of looking at relationships that don’t follow the traditional dating structure.

so... are situationships good or bad?

tbh, it depends. situationships aren’t inherently bad, but they’re not always healthy either.

if both people are on the same page and genuinely happy? cool.

if one person wants more and the other is just stringing them along? yikes.

if it’s all based on fear, avoidance, or trauma? double yikes.

at the end of the day, queer people deserve relationships that make them feel safe, wanted, and respected— whether that’s a full-on committed relationship or a situationship that actually works for both people.

╭┉┈ how to escape (or survive) a queer situationship:

alright, so now we know why queer situationships happen. but what if you’re in one and you’re tired of the constant confusion? maybe you want more, maybe you want less, or maybe you just want to stop overthinking every interaction. whatever the case, here’s how to either escape the mess or survive it without losing your mind.

figure out what you actually want

do you want a relationship, or are you okay with the undefined chaos?

are you emotionally attached, or are you just vibing?

is this situation actually fulfilling, or are you just scared to let go?

before doing anything, ask yourself: what do i actually want?

if you do want a relationship, are you okay with waiting for the other person to be ready, or is that just gonna hurt you more?

if you don’t want a relationship, is the situationship actually healthy, or are you just avoiding commitment?

are you staying because you genuinely like this dynamic, or because you’re scared of being alone?

self-awareness is key. once you know what you want, you’ll know what your next step should be.

communicate (yes, even if it’s scary)

"so… what are we?" is a terrifying question, but necessary.

avoiding the talk = prolonging the mess.

be direct. like, painfully clear.

if you’re in a situationship, you need to talk about it—even if your brain is screaming "let’s just ignore this forever."

you don’t need a dramatic intervention, just a simple "hey, i just want to understand where we stand."

avoid vague questions like "what are we doing?" because that can be dodged. instead, try "do you see this as something serious or casual?"

if you’re scared they’ll get weird or distant after the convo, well… that’s kinda the point. better to know now than waste more time.

and remember: if someone refuses to have this conversation, that’s your answer.

set boundaries (because your feelings matter)

define what you are okay with.

don’t let the other person’s indecision dictate your self-worth.

if it feels like it’s draining you, it’s not worth it.

if you realize you’re unhappy, set some damn boundaries.

if you’re tired of the mixed signals, tell them you need clarity or you’re walking away.

if they only hit you up when they’re bored, make it clear you’re not just their emotional support system.

if they keep treating you like a partner but won’t say you’re one, stop letting them get away with it.

boundaries aren’t ultimatums—they’re self-respect.

accept their answer (even if it’s not what you wanted)

if they say they don’t want a relationship, believe them.

if they’re avoiding commitment, they’re choosing to.

don’t waste energy trying to "convince" them to want more.

sometimes, the hardest part isn’t the conversation—it’s accepting the outcome.

if they say they "aren’t ready for a relationship" but keep treating you like you’re dating, they’re ready for something, just not with you.

if they say "i don’t like labels," cool, but that doesn’t mean you have to be okay with it.

if they just keep stringing you along, that’s an answer too.

it sucks, but trust me— walking away from someone who won’t choose you is better than waiting for them to change.

if you stay, make sure it’s on your terms

does this situationship actually work for you?

are you getting what you need, or just what they’re willing to give?

if the dynamic changes, will you be okay with that?

not every situationship needs to end— some actually work if both people are okay with the setup.

if you’re genuinely fine with keeping things casual, make sure it’s because you want it, not because you feel stuck.

if your feelings change, be honest about it.

if it ever stops being fun, leave. simple.

the only rule? don’t settle for less than what you deserve.

remember you are not "too much" for wanting clarity

it’s not "dramatic" to want to know where you stand.

you deserve respect, whether it’s a relationship or not.

if they make you feel like you’re asking for too much, that’s a them problem.

queer people are often made to feel like they should be grateful for any form of love or attention, even if it’s half-hearted or inconsistent. but let’s be real:

you deserve someone who actually respects your time and emotions.

you’re allowed to want commitment, or clarity, or literally anything that makes you feel secure.

if someone makes you feel like your needs are a burden, they’re just proving they aren’t the right person for you.

tl;dr: know your worth, communicate, and don’t settle for bs

if you want more, ask for it. if they can’t give it, move on.

if you’re happy with the way things are, just make sure it’s actually what you want.

if you feel like you’re stuck in an emotional limbo, you probably are. get out.

whether you end the situationship, define it, or just learn from it, the goal is the same: you deserve relationships that make you feel secure, not ones that leave you constantly questioning where you stand.

╭┉┈ final thoughts: the real enemy is confusion, uncertainity

so, after all this, what’s the takeaway? are situationships evil? should queer people just delete dating apps, move to the woods, and never interact again? not exactly.

situationships aren’t bad. sometimes, they can be fun, low-pressure, and exactly what both people need. but when they’re built on avoidance, mixed signals, and unspoken expectations, they can become draining as hell.

the key isn’t to avoid situationships entirely— it’s to make sure that whatever dynamic you’re in, it’s one that actually works for you.

the queer dating reality check

queer dating is already complicated because society doesn’t give us the same relationship blueprints.

many of us carry baggage from growing up in environments that made us question our own worth.

because of this, many queer people settle for just enough love instead of what they actually want.

but here’s the truth: you are not "hard to love." you are not asking for too much. and you are not obligated to stay in a dynamic that makes you feel small.

situationship survival 101

whether you’re getting into one, stuck in one, or trying to move on from one, here’s what matters:

- know your own needs and boundaries.

- communicate (seriously, no more avoiding it).

- don’t accept less than what makes you feel valued.

- if you’re happy, cool. if you’re not, change something.

if a situationship works for you? great.

if it’s making you anxious and confused? you don’t have to stay in it.

at the end of the day, queer people deserve relationships that make them feel safe, wanted, and chosen— whether that’s a committed relationship, a casual situationship, or something in between.

you don’t need to settle for "almost love." you deserve the real thing.

[pictures are from pinterest]

[esdruxule]

Silent Hill 2: Not a Remake, a Rewording

A deep and personal transformative review analysis of the game through queer lenses.

Establishing Silent Hill 2 as a remake is a practical selling label: it works for the purpose of categorizing necessities and advertising spotlight, but is a disservice to what Bloober Team actually did with the original masterpiece and their own: It is for lack of a better audiovisual term: a Rewording.

Just as a rewording in a speaker's native language can sometimes convey ideas more effectively than a direct translation, the Silent Hill 2 remake sacrifices some of the game fidelity at a granular level to reconnect with its core themes and emotions through modern contextual frameworks.

Can we go a little faster?

(lyric on John Wayne by Lady Gaga)

I understand now the team's approach to the intro: to ease in action-players newcomers into the brutality of Silent Hill's psychological horror depth. I disagree however, I believe there shouldn't be such thing as easing one into a Horror Genre game, it's very tenet is the horror itself, and as such, one should be injected straight into said world. It's the new age modus operant but I disgress, it worked for most but almost put me off from giving it the chance it deserved. The voice acting and very own quality of animation scenes, the masterful change done in departing from the original game's dark, stoic, and suppressed artistic stylistic choices and James' own unique portrayal however were enough to make me feel conflicted about my very initial impression: How do they excel in some elements to comically fall short in others? They weren't, it was the easy in I mentioned, and mercifully James' fresh and genre & gender-pushing portrayal gripped me from the very first second to not let me commit the mistake of making my first limited impression being the final erroneous one.

Internet Killed the Video Star

(The Limosines Song)

Many pointed out the game departure from it's original signature and car chief marking dark stoic aesthetic. Many were against. Me included. The cutscenes are now infused with a vivacity thats seems on surface level, its own antagonist for the rest of horror it provides. Why would you want a grounded realism for a dark nightmare serie? Well Bloober Team did something else with it's adaptation and its absurd to compartimentalize as "modernization". See the reworded cut scenes aren't just realistic in graphs, organic in reaction and dynamic in interactions. You need to step back a level. A bit more. Careful with your head. Alright here we are: Bloober Team scrapped the dark stoics avatar that one could inject themselves into and raised a special 4th wall behind you while destroying the regular one in the front. The distinction is vital: cut scenes arent realism, they are realistic. You are watching a movie inside of it. James Sunderland was effectively squashed into a sheet of two dimensional story and John Herring read it and brought him to a tantalizing three dimensional level: a real breathing fictional man whose flesh you can see moving like never before. And don't forget that you are there with him. You can't escape his captive perfomance. In fact you will feel it in a whole new way.

See I'm here, I'm Real(istic)

(James is the new Meta-Maria)

James' first close-up shot: His defined jaw, covered in stubble, a pink lush mouth. His entire face: covered in droplets of water.This was an intentional setup as James as an attractive man, not a divergence from most of male protagonists, however soon, interesting further design and presentation choices start to impress themselves over:"Mary... could you really be in this town?"James new voice actor is a talented devil: his whispered purred performance hits all the correct hallmarks: from the start you know that James is a caring, naturally sensitive, inquisitive, and inherently sensual man. It feels intimate. It is the technique of ASMR that will be applied throughout the whole game to ensure the players will engage with James on a whole new level, unprecedented in terms of male protagonists:

He is a sexually guilty-ridden man and also, on this gender/genre bender version a meta/pseudo objectified sexual being, the establishing first shot close up, sets a visual sexual intimacy, a pictograma of how to associate his form with desire, his sultry voice affects directly players responsive autonomous system, his whining and crying as he stomps on monsters break the norm on the tough guy strength sonorous representation and further ties with his constant heavy breathing and groans: He is suppressing his thoughts about sex so much, it leaks into you.

And even if you are not sexually/gender inclined for the masculine presence he still exudes as a base: you are not immune to Mirror Arousal (Behavior) especially if you already come from the background of deeply identifying with the OG James, he was Mary, for this new one Maria:You will get hard, whether you are ready for it or not.

Everything changes, but somethings still the same:

As Silent Hill die hard fan of 19 years of twisted love and counting, I approached the game aesthetic hollistic choices from a puritan mindset: "Why is the city so wet, grubby and wind now? It is supposed to be in this limbo of conciouness, a geographic frozen dead body. It can't sing like an realistic abandoned city."It took a little *click* for me to grasp my own stupidity. It still is. A sacred ground. The energy of it a miasma so heavy that reality tears in its magnetic field, each person has their own vision of it, for Eddie is frozen: a body he has to keep killing again and again but still intact in its hurling inducing guilt. For Angela is always burning: her trauma makes her oscillate between hyper and repulsed sexual. She wants to have sex like most human beings, but that means has to let her body burn under another being rhythmic pressure, just like her father did.And for James is wind, grimmy grunge and wet. This is about sex. For James is always about sex. Love is about sex, death is about sex, guilt is about sex, sex is about sex.Even while kissing softly the insides of Mary thighs he was thinking about it. About how he should be more imposing, more above, more punitive perhaps. Like the figure he saw on the Museum.Now that made his groin burn. He wanted Mary to feel the same.

Fear amplified Arousal:

(fear-induced arousal turned on its head)

I wondered why the modernization was invoking such strong defensive reactions from the people who found it without flaws, their constant praise of graphics, combats, and atmosphere while refusing to elaborate on what other aspects be narrative, engaging, and visceral, only made sense after being mesmerized by the new James myself: It's impossible to process the fact that this game didn't just surpassed your expectations on adrenalin reward combative system and fear catharsis through contained virtual safety: it made you experience the fear induced arousal in an entire new level, you are not a victim of its horror, you are a protagonist of its twisted meta subtextual pornographic content: you made love with James and nobody, not even yourself can understand how special that was. It must have been the fight, the graphics, the scary sounds, because otherwise the admission of truth is too raw and self destroying of what you understand of horror games and your own self, what really made this game a masterpiece?There is one centrical upwarding member you keep ignoring like the sun. The orgasmic meat of it, James.

Maria

The Pink Herring

Maria has all the hallmarks of beauty: a hot body, an undeniable perfect ozempic face, thight clothing that allows you to stare at her big leather clad ass while escaping pyramid head. So why it didn't worked like before? Because she is no longer a the manifestation of "Born From a Wish" she is the "Dark Wish". This James pyramid head is less imposing, why? Because he is not his main punisher here, Maria is now. James resented the fact that Mary wasn't nor pretty and neither fuckable in the last days of her life, bit still he knew that was wrong. So wrong he would let it kill him. Maria sexiness is a sterile packaging, meant to lure the superficial appreciator, make him really believe that he still wants to fuck a blown up doll version of his wife. But this James doesn't. I believe he has subconsciously moved on from the love he felt for her and wants a new real woman to get involved with. I will let this up to interpretation and possibly another essay since is a complex angle but for me, James is no longer attracted to Maria, because who he wants in this version is Angela, trauma and all.

The Nine Layers of Hell

To wrap up this very long and indulgent essay I believe Bloober presented an even more charismatic layer with the time loops/layers/purgatory to this James. See, if the whole game was just about him realizing that he killed his wife, asking for forgiveness and saying there is nothing he can do to fix this, I would remain where I was with the OG: no there is no saying sorry, saying sorry is easy.But if we are indeed in a loop, if this infact is James second or eight run, this means something so much more alluring and beautiful about his character: He isn't saying he knows what he did is wrong, he crawling nine layers of hell, resetting his counciouness every new one he starts again to suffer through and deal with what he did, because when this James says he did something awful and is sorry for it, he means it.Someone here on ddit pointed out that each save is a layer, and with the fourth wall breaking aspect, this is further confirmed by the last one: Illness, mutilation, uglyness, reality, torment, anguish, suffering, despair and (the final boss itself).

Congratulations for Boobler Team on doing the amazing with so many set backs and missteps. I didn't expected my least favorite game to be this work of art, nor to make me fall in love with the one I most hated: a testament of their absolutely herculean feat.

[lover-of-mine]

While we're on the topic of Eddie’s sexuality I wanted to say something. And before I start I want to say that I mean this with respect and I don't mean for any of this to sound condescending at any point. It's just how I see it (and I could change my mind if the writers do it correctly).

So here we go:

I think for a lot of people (myself included) it's hard to picture Eddie as bisexual because of the way his other relationships with women –not Shannon– were written.

I personally headcanon him as gay AND demi, and I wouldn’t have any issues with unlabeled/queer Eddie. I think him being demisexual could explain a lot about why he felt such a strong connection with Shannon, if done correctly. But when it comes to bisexuality it's tricky because he said in the past that he feels like he has to perform when he's on dates (with women), he had a panic attack over the idea of committing to a woman, he never actively seeked to start a relationship with either Ana or Marisol, they just kinda appeared at the right place and right time and he took it as some sort of ~sign~.

And I know a lot of that could be explained with comphet still. Or the fact that he wasn't over Shannon. But it would take some explaining as well and I don't know if the writers are willing to do it or if we'll have to fill in the blanks.

I'm not saying it can't be done, though. I just don't trust the writers much. Especially when we have Buck, who is (to me, also a bisexual person) really good bisexual representation and he still couldn't say the word bisexual on screen yet!! (which is something that could make me go on another whole rant so I'll leave it there)

PD: by the time I finished writing this, I realized most of the routes they can take with his sexuality would need some explaining and some time on screen that I don't know if they'll ever give. Both because he was always written as a complex character and because they (allegedly) tried to do this in the past and it got shut down, so they had to backtrack.

Hello, your arguments are why I push for the idea that he's demi. All of it makes sense if you add in the fact that he can't fill the space because Buck already has it, which works whatever label you give him. The relationship with Ana specifically was written in a way that allows you to read to Eddie as gay, I agree with that, especially the breakup and the whole thing with liking the idea of her and all that, but also negating the possibility that he had something real with Shannon because of his relationship with other women feels weird. I understand the contrast between Buck as bi representation and the possibility of Eddie being bisexual as well. But my thing was always with the way that his relationship with Shannon was written and how much it defines the way they write Eddie. I see the possibility that he wasn't in love with her. I understand that the way he deals with love after her death makes it very easy to make him gay. But for me, what always made sense is the demi angle with him actually being in love with Shannon and the whole thing he has with other women is because of Buck and the way you can't fill a space that's already filled. And I also understand all my arguments are also points for him being gay. But anything that explicitly erases the possibility of him loving Shannon will have to be handled with care because of the Kim plotline. Because if they handle making Eddie gay wrong, they can get the general audience looking all ?? Because he just blew up his life chasing her. It's why I always come back to don't label him, let him say he loved Shannon, now he loves Buck and he doesn't care. Anything will need a level of explaining, but we just need him to love Buck. And saying he loves Buck is easier than saying her gay. Does this make sense?

[anamericangirl]

LGBTQIA+.

Lesbian: Women sexually attracted to women. (Sex thing) Gay: Men sexually attracted to men. (Sex thing) Bisexual: It has "Sexual" in the fucking name. (Sex thing)

Added note: It is important to note that Lesbian and Gay are both "Homosexual" which has "Sexual" in the name as well. Transsexual: People argue that the T means "Transgender" but it actually started as Transsexual. Which once again, has "Sexual" right there in the name. (Sex thing) Transgender: Okay, even if you change it to "Transgender," "Gender Identity" is defined as identifying as a sex different than what your body biologically is. So… (Sex thing) Queer: A blanket-term for "And the rest" meaning anyone who isn't Heterosexual or Cisgendered. While this doesn't have immediate 1:1 "It's about sex" attached to it, it is primarily "People who are LG or B." I'm going to be unfathomably generous, even though literally all of the above are sex things, and just let "Queer" be (Doesn't have to be a sex thing I guess.) Intersex: (Sex thing) Asexual: Literally the only letter in the entire fucking acronym that is strictly non-sexual, however I would like to posit that 100% of the Asexual people I've met in my entire life are the horniest goddamn people I've ever met in my entire life. Once again, I will be unbelievably generous and say that Asexual IS NOT a sex thing, because it is literally defined as being non-sexual. (Not a sex thing)

So now let's just look at this.

We have an acronym that is literally: Sex, Sex, Sex, Sex, Arguably Potentially Not Sex, Sex, Not Sex

That is 5 out of 7, and I was being extremely generous with Queer, especially considering the only non-sexual "Queer" identity is Asexual, while the rest of them, literally all of them, are sexual in nature.

So 5/7, that's 71% of LGBTQIA+ that is sexual in nature, by definition, LITERALLY BY DEFINITION, AND LITERALLY INCLUDING THE WORD "SEXUAL" IN THOSE SAME 5 OUT OF SEVEN. HOMOSEXUAL (for Lesbian and Gay), BISEXUAL, TRANSSEXUAL, INTERSEXUAL.

And yet if you DARE say that you don't want LGBTQIA+ shit being taught to your children because children shouldn't be learning about sex, these absolute fucking mongrel moronic liberals keep insisting that LGBTQIA+ isn't a sex thing.

HOW THE FUCK IS IT NOT A SEX THING EVERY GODDAMN LETTER IN IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH SEX

Exactly the whole thing is delegating labels people based on who they want to have sex with.

The only stand out is transgender which is why some people think it shouldn't be included under the "queer" umbrella because it doesn't fit the theme there.

And there is no reason this should be addressed in schools or taught to children because children don't need to be learning about all the different people who like to sleep together. That is not the job of the school to teach anyway. School is not supposed to be raising children, it's supposed to teach them how to read and write.

Children don't need to be hearing about the different types of sexual attractions in elementary school. Period.

[redtail-lol]

"Critinclus accepts x and y" no it doesn't ur fundamentally misunderstanding the term critinclus

Critinclus doesn't have a strict set of beliefs. It doesn't have any set of identities that it does and doesn't accept. Critinclus people define their own level of inclusion.

Critinclus simply means that you accept people, regardless of how they identify, but you wish to understand why they identify that way before fully accepting them. This is different from an exclusionist, because exclusionists are reactionary. If they don't understand from just the name, they would rather go "wow that's fake" than bother asking. Critinclus assumes the people mean to use their labels in good faith and seeks understanding to determine if an identity really is in good faith. Exclusionists also believe all queer identities have strict rules, or queerness itself has strict rules, while a critinclus accepts and acknowledges that the "rules" are very flexible and that definitions are moreso guides, with outliers in every label, and they simply want to understand the outliers they encounter and know what makes them feel compelled to identify with something they don't "technically" fit under. It is also different from radinclus because radinclus often implies "you're valid because everyone has a right to self identify however they wish!" Which is a good sentiment, and I could see myself being fully radinclus, but to a degree I want to understand why you might feel like a lesbian as a binary monogender trans men (note, I already had my own epiphany about this and don't need it explained, I know now, it's just an example) or why someone would identify their gender as being related closer to animals than femininity or masculinity (I also already learned about this it's just an example) but unlike an exclusionist I wouldn't be reactionary and simply call them invalid because it doesn't make sense on the surface. Instead I would ask, "I don't think I understand, could you please explain it to me?" If they didn't want to explain, I would respect that and respect their identity, but I'd still try and ask similar people why they identify that way to try and understand the first person better.

Warning. This next section starts relevant then I go on a tangent and lose my train of thought. You might waste your time.

Also, when it comes to asking questions, exclus can also ask questions but they're done differently than critinclus. When it comes to good vs bad faith, critinclus ask good faith questions, and exclus ask them in bad faith. Since it's something my sister constantly brings up, let's say there's a critinclus who doesn't understand non-binary people vs an exclus who doesn't get it. The critinclus would ask, "I have heard a lot about nonbinary people, but I'm not quite sure I understand it. Do you think you could explain to me what it means to be neither a man nor a woman? How do you know if you're nonbinary?" The exclus would ask, "I have heard a lot about nonbinary people but I don't think it makes any sense. I don't understand any of it. You can't be- how can you not be a man or a woman? That's not real!" Exclus don't really want to understand, they just ask questions for rhetorical reasons and are meant to make you feel interrogated, under pressure, and leave you unable or unwilling to answer their questions. Critinclus make it clear they want to learn and are willing to accept any answers. Exclus also tend to make it clear what their stance is when they ask, and won't actually care what you say. If a critinclus asked me about my enby identity, I'd say "well, ever since I knew about nonbinary people and the possibility to be something other than a man or a woman, I always felt some connection to the concept. It was always something that resonated with me. But I didn't identify with it for a really long time because I was still a girl and didn't want to give up being a girl. I did know about multigender people but because I'm bigendermeld, I didn't think I was multigender. I briefly identified as a demigirl because of the connection but I am actually a hypergirl and stopped identifying with it when I argued with a gender abolitionist and felt such a strong connection to my girlhood. When I realized I could be nonbinary and still be a girl, I finally felt like I had figured everything out. It resonated with me so much and I'm so happy to know. My gender in particular feels like it's not masculine nor is it feminine, it's completely disconnected, but yet it's not nothing. It's a gender of it's own right. That's why I personally identify as aporagender or aporine, with nonbinary as an umbrella term. Thanks for asking." However, I don't really answer my sister because I know she doesn't want to understand. She wants to lecture me, argue, and convince me nonbinary people aren't real.

I feel like I've gone off topic by now ok bye bye

[catgirl-catboy]

Well as a person who is into psychology in a degree, I can see Tenko as a abuse victim.

Her masters teachings is commonly used technic by abusers, isolating and giving false informations to the person who they groom and it is very tragic..

And I love how she actually... caring despite the misguided logic she had, I love her and feel very bad for her you know?

And according to me love hotels are despite being dubious, actually really shows some characters needs or.. some darker aspects in their psychology.

P.s: Ryoma one, Korekiyo one and Tenko one specifically.

And the brother line is really suspicious.. All of the characters have some freudian aspect in their relationships and this is deeply fucked up (My mind went for ishimondo for minute)

And yes, lesbian Tenko is a valid headcanon but I hate how they treat bisexual Tenko headcanon like this is being a lesbophobe, lots of my life experiences were related to me being into girls and I still can say it is not being a lesbophobia it is deciphering or analysing the freudian slip she had.

Anyways for the bi tenko hc sake, do you ship her with any men and one question again do you have any controversial sexuality or gender hc? They are quite fun ngl

I'm studying to be a comp-sci major, but its a lot harder than I thought it would be. ;-;

For the ships, that depends on who you ask. I ship her with Gonta, but I also hc Gonta as NB or Genderqueer like myself. (his relation to gender norms is interesting to me, and I feel like letting go of the ideal of masculinity he holds dear would be healthy for him.)

Of course, people just see the canon Gonta and think me lesbophobic because they don't understand my vision.

Like, if someone headcanons Bi Tenko and is lebophobic, that's on the person and not the headcanon. (though like, wouldn't that hypothetical lesbophobe not want her to be queer at all? Damn strawmen)

The Gay Kokichi headcanon purists are honestly even more annoying though. Yes, he confessed to Shuichi. That makes him into men. But he also did quite a lot of flirting with Himiko and Miu. Honestly, if you want to stick as close to canon as possible (and be boring) Bi Kokichi makes the most sense.

Speaking of Kokichi, how do some people pretend that Saiouma love hotel is canon and the rest are bullshit. I'm sorry, at that point just call it a headcanon.

For controversial headcanons... uh how about the big mommy of headcanons discoursed about through the end of time. I am a fan of the trans Chihiro hc. That being said, I really dislike how most fans that share the hc with me act, and how ignorant they are about Japanese gender norms. It isn't problematic to analyze the text on a surface level.

Also I forgot to mention in my last post, but I also hc almost everyone as autistic, mainly as projection but also because the current system seems geared to people with special interests. Everyone, but Taka and Tenko especially.

Tell me about your problematic hcs! Honestly, this fandom hasn't seen an actually problematic hc in years, it needs it.

(Honestly, I prefer the Sapphic label to the Lesbian label simply because of how my genderqueer ass doesn't neatly fit into the box vaguely defined as female. I am exclusively attracted to ladies, which makes this whole erasure thing an extra layer of stupid.)

As for freud, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything here, but it is very possible Kodaka has an incest kink. You do not include it to such a degree on accident. That isn't a whoopsie! Of course, he could be writing to work out his trauma, so its none of my business.

[astranite]

1, 2 and then 14 for Alan mayhaps? 😁💕

Greetings!!! Sorry this took a while to answer. Me or tumblr *glares suspiciously* accidentally managed to delete everything I’d typed mid-answer, and I have had A Week, so I’ve only just gotten around to re-writing. But hey, I’m here now and still excited about thunderpride!!! (and I think this is longer than the original!)

2- Queer ships for Thunderbirds? I love Kayo and Penelope together!

a) Their relationship is so interesting to me. (I haven’t actually read a huge amount of Kayo/Penny, so this is mostly from my own thoughts.) 

I see them as foils for each other in a way that brings them closer together. Penny and Kayo have very different backgrounds and outside appearances, yet they are similar at the core. Both are determined and devoted to their causes and ruthless when it comes to people they love being hurt. Kayo’s armour is in seeming dangerous, while Penelope’s in appearing harmless. A lot of vulnerability and trust would go into learning how to be together, but their relationship's greatest strength is not having to put up appearances, able to understand and be themselves with each other completely.

b) lesbians. Need I say more? (We always need more WLW in fandom!)

1- Headcanons! I’m going to answer for Alan, because I sure do have a lot of queer headcanons!

I absolutely love Alan being trans. Like so much. He’s a character I’ve become unexpectedly fond of with a side of concerned ‘oh gosh, he’s just a kid, who let the kid go out on space rescues?!’ The contrast between International Rescue operative and literally a teenager.

Alan going through the normal things of being a teen, figuring out gender, still in highschool, all the while flying around a rocket for International Rescue. Just the relatableness, of ‘yeah I’ve been there too,’ and getting to show him having a super supportive family, and the representation of him being a part of International Rescue who people and kids in and out of universe look up to! 

There are a bunch of amazing works from people in this fandom too! 

I reckon Alan really likes the word queer for describing his sexuality. He’s still young and figuring himself out, and doesn't want the pressure to define himself by just one narrow and constricting label. While questioning, he tried on a bunch of more specific ones, maybe bi or pan, but none of them really stuck. He likes people of all different genders and prefers the freedom of being himself as he is in the moment without having it fit into a neat box. 

14- Coming out!

My thinking is Alan only realised he was trans around 13/14. And I’ve accidentally written a fic here for you, whoops!

It's titled "As Sure As the Stars," about Alan growing up, figuring out he's trans and coming out! Much queer joy there!

AO3 https://archiveofourown.org/works/47963065

Also as a Tumblr post with the same title! It's tagged under ThunderPride. (I have no clue how to link Tumblr posts to each other, someone please tell me, help!)

For coming out as queer, it’s not a big deal but they still celebrate! Alan isn't exactly the first of his siblings to not be straight. Actually thinking about it, none of them are. This is Alan’s turn, for him to celebrate who he is and have pride in it. His whole family is there to show their support, like they are everyday, today just a bit louder. An excuse for a party is an excuse for a party! There is rainbow icecream cake flown in from the mainland on TB-One so it doesn't melt, and who let Gordy get his hands on glitter?! 

Alan grins every time he finds rainbow glitter in a crevice of the house. A reminder of his family’s love and support for him, in the enduring nature of sparkles!

Thank you for the ask!!!

[tears-of-boredom]

you know. ultimately, i dont mind being a girl. not in the like "ive always been a girl" way, but in the "im a girl now" way. sometimes i even like it. i think the hard part for me is that i do not feel like im cisgender, and since being a girl technically makes me that, i dont like it. it feels like im losing my trans-ness. and, out of all the labels, "transgender" really expresses how i feel so well. so, anytime i try to define my gender further, i, conciously or not, limit myself. i cant even consider the possibility of me being "just" a girl, because then im not trans. and this is the annoying thing about gender. because i know that the reason i feel like im trans, is because i know that gender is not like a. it is not a rigid thing. at all. i know that my body does not have anything to do with my gender. i did not really consider my gender at all growing up, and when i did, it was because i hated that other people used it to define things about me. i never felt like a girl, or wanted to be one, but until it started to matter to other people, i did not care about that. basically im saying that i did not have a gender growing up. and now that im starting to feel like theres something there, whatever it is, its different.

like. i feel like instead of "cisgender" meaning that you identify with your agab, its when you identify with the gender you grew up with. not what other people thought you were, but what you felt like.

im not trying to like, invaliate other peoples identities. im just describing how i myself understand gender.

so in my head, i would only be cisgender, if i continued to feel like i do not have a gender.

but, from where once was nothing, has now suddenly sprouted the desire to be a girl.

i used to really want to be a boy at some point, but those feelings were only because i felt like life would be easier that way. i felt like somehow being considered a boy would suddenly give me friends. and i thought that i could have stayed young and free of worry for longer. some of my problems would have been gone if i grew up as a boy, and that was literally the whole reason i wanted to be one. i was becoming more and more aware of how i did not feel like i belonged, and i thought that if i wouldve been a boy, everything would be fixed. and, in a way, i still think that. i think a different life wouldve served me better. but whether that life wouldve been as a boy or not does not matter.

i had a phase where i was really confused about my identity as a whole, and i kept trying to find something to explain everything. trans man, trans masc, nonbinary,asexual, aromantic, lesbian, gay, queer, demigirl, agender. i tried so many labels in an attempt to find myself. but thats all it was. trying to find myself. never did i find a label that satisfied me, because i just did not feel like i belonged. but ive started to suspect that that was because i was constantly dissociating as a coping mechanism. you know how it is.

but this was a long way of saying that ive started to notice how i genuinely want to be a girl. and i also want to keep calling myself trans. and im not going to try and specify it further for myself, because that never works and only makes me feel insecure in my identity. im trans and a girl. sometimes. i actually really hate the sound of the word "girl" if i hear it too much, so im gonna stop calling myself that. though that is what i am. hating how a word sounds does not change that.

and its quite funny how like, i need to justify it and explain it to myself this much to feel comfortable. because if it was literally anyone else id just say "yeah who cares, if you wanna call yourself trans, do it". but because of my fucking messed up psyche, im not able to let myself be so lax about things.. aughh

[omnium-gatherums]

I hold this is an understandable question but when u think of yourself as “parts of a whole single person” how do u go about sexuality and gender bc it makes me so confused. I want to collectively id as one thing (ex bi trans guy ) but is that right to do? or like let’s say someone has a girl alter and a guy alter.. then maybe they could say they’re collectively bigender. or a sapphic and an achillean alter.. then collectively sapphilean? idk heck what would happen if they inter.. why don’t I remember the word rn inter something idk I’m sorry lol INTEGRATE or final fusion. thinking out loud it boggles my mind when I have to think about it

I'm far, far from integrating, like, anything or any alters into my life and I am definitely even further away from final fusion, but from what other people who HAVE achieved fusion or final fusion, people have said that both separate alters' genders are BOTH felt at the same time. Don't quote me on that, that's just me quoting what I've heard lol

Most systems I've seen just collectively call themselves non-binary or queer because those words are perfect for any and all non-binary identities and anything under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. We're the same way; collectively, we use the labels non-binary, queer, genderqueer trans guy.

I think we are people who do not care about queer labels as much as other people do - we don't think to ourselves "but is this label ACTUALLY fitting? Am I just using the wrong label?" I think to myself "do I feel drawn to this label and feel like it describes me? Do I feel comfortable with this label?"

I think there is something that's left out of this conversation a lot, when people ask other systems "how do you make sense of gender & sexuality and choose a collective thing??" - you don't have to. You can simply tell people "I'm LGBTQ+ in SOME way" if you don't personally feel that the label queer is for you. But you don't NEED to choose a collective identity. It definitely sucks, and I'm like. The CEO (/joking) of "I MUST HAVE ONE THING THAT DEFINES ME AND I MUST NOT CHANGE" but sometimes it's better to go "maybe we don't need to have One label or word or term or anything that defines us all as a whole, collectively." And then certain alters could use their own personal labels, if they want.

And, you don't need permission to use a label (obviously some terms are exclusive to some communities, like certain terms are exclusive to certain minority groups, I'm not talking about exclusionists who are against bi lesbians or something), if you feel it fits you, that's valid. You don't have to go through the 5 stages of grief before deciding that a certain labels fits you. These words are not scientific and set in stone and they are so, so fluid, especially when you have DID.

It's also okay to change your opinion every 5 seconds. I went my whole life hating myself for how inconsistent I was and I'm slowly allowing myself to be inconsistent again. Telling my partner "I'm a girlfriend rn" or "I'm a boyfriend rn" is really funny when she calls me her girlfriend and I go "nvm I'm a boyfriend again." FNDSAFNSKD Obviously I'm lucky in that regard, but yeah, allow yourself to be inconsistent - if having one consistent identity, one consistent opinion and feelings and such, was possible with DID, it wouldn't be DID :P

[submalevolentgrace]

if i say "the queer community", i am referring to the community of self identified queers. if you're not a self identified queer, then i wasn't talking about you!

"i don't like to be called queer because it hurt me!" cool, fine, whatever. the word gay hurt me, i get it. but see, i didn't actually call you queer, i was talking about, and this might be difficult to follow; people who like being queer! that's why i said "queer community", to refer to the broad community of queers.

"but i'm gay/lesbian/bi/ace/whatever and i don't like it being used as an umbrella term!" okay, cool. if someone forces you under an umbrella you don't like that sure does suck! i hate being forced under the "LBGT+" umbrella myself. i absolutely loathed "trans*", i get it, trust me. i would like to draw your attention to the fact that i just said "queer community", which explicit in text and implicit in meaning, refers to a community of people... bare with me here.... people who are queer. if you do not consider yourself queer.... then it wasn't about you. it was about me and my community.

"but i know what group you're talking about and it applies to me too!" okay but you see that, you see that you're putting yourself under the umbrella there right? and then complaining about it, right? it's not my fault you decided it was about you? you're always going "it's okay for you to use, but" and then attack us when we do use it for ourselves, by shoving yourself under an imagined umbrella of your construction, hurting us in the shove, and then screaming like you were forced in here.

"but it's a--" listen.

listen to me.

you might think i'm being obstinant and maybe i am a little! but i'm trying to illuminate a point here. you've constructed an idea in your head of "us" as a monolith, a singular group that you want covered by a singular umbrella with a singular term; and you've decided that this "us" group - including you - is who i'm talking about right now, and then you've gotten shitty at me for using a word you don't like for an idea you projected over my words.

but here's the secret: there is no singular group like that. there is no monolith. there is no singular cohesive "us". there's just people, individuals with infinite experiences and selves and sexualities and genders and loves and all these beautiful things, and sometimes when we're similar enough we band together into groups and pick labels; gay, trans, queer, rainbow, whatever. these are just names, names for imagined groups, imagined groups with fake made up boundaries! people will argue there are definitions, gay means this, lesbian means that; but people will always disagree, so the names expand and the groups get broader. msm, wlw, bi, pan, genderqueer, rainbow quiltbag alphabet soup!

and you can expand and contact and refine and broaden but you will never cover everyone. at some point, you have to just accept letting people self define, and decide if they want to be in the group. if you have a "gay" group, the socially straight msm will get shitty at being called gay and it's not the fault of either the gays or the word "gay" that they're not included! people will expand and stretch and redefine and shrink, all these groups and labels will ebb and flow as different people have different needs and want to include - and exclude!- different people for their communities.

but some of "us", many generations ago, got sick and tired of constantly redefining labels and groups and decided to pick a nice word for ourselves and welcome anyone who liked it to use it, and that's queer. maybe it was already a slur that we reclaimed, maybe it was already our word before it became a slur, maybe it was just common slang for someone a little unusual and oddball and we liked that! historians both academic and communal disagree! it doesn't even matter, it's our word; "our" being anyone who likes it. if you like "queer" and want to be queer and respect the existing queers, you're welcome. and generation after generation, we pass it on for anyone to use, to say: it's okay not to box yourself in, it's okay not to define yourself down to the molecule, it's okay to be free, to come and go, to love and be whatever. it's our sanctuary. you are queer if you want to be queer. that is the gift that was given to me by the queers that came before me, i will gift it in turn to anyone that wants to carry it forwards. not everyone has to be queer, but we chose to be.

and you motherfuckers.

you motherfuckers keep smashing through the windows of our sanctuary, declaring it to be your umbrella, scream about slurs like we've never been hurt in our lives, and then hurl violence and vitriol at us because you personally hate being inside our sanctuary and want the entire structure destroyed and rebuilt for you.

fuck you.

i suffered through years of torment and abuse being called gay and having it spat at me with hate, being berated in church for questioning love, being screamed at and beaten by family and classmates and having them spit - literally - the word gay at me. i suffered through it, i survived it, i flourished to spite it and was embraced by queers who taught me love for myself and gave me safe sanctuary in this beautiful, ambiguous word, and you don't get to take that away from me.

if i say "us queers" and you come at me about how it hurts you and start yelling about umbrellas and slurs: 1) i wasn't fucking talking about you, 2) you're not part of my community and don't get to tell me what i call it, and 3) you are the fucking problem here, you are the one doing the hurting right now.

when you come into my community of queers and tell me that our sanctuary is "a slur", you are indistinguishable to me from the people spitting "gay" as they beat me.

if you're gay as in happy, you're free to be that and i won't stop you or tell you your whole core is a slur. you pick whatever umbrella you want to imagine for yourself, and i'll probably chose not to stand under it.

because i am queer. as in fuck. you.

and you will have to kill me to stop me being queer

[queermasculine]

how to know if you're a straight trans man or a butch

i've always known very strongly that i wasn't a man, so i have no personal struggle from which to draw insight here, but when it comes down to it i think the best way to get to know yourself is to ask yourself what it is that you actually want. how do you want others to see you? how do you want to live?

do you want to live life as a straight trans man? if so, that's probably the right path for you. do you want to live life as a butch lesbian? then that's probably the right path for you. you've lived both lives and can't bear the thought of abandoning one for the other? sounds like you were meant to be both. you can be a butch trans guy if you want to— you wouldn't be the first. as uncomfortable as some people are with this fact, it nonetheless remains a reality; there have always been people who have made their homes and lives in the crossing where our identities intersect, and you can too, if that feels right to you.

it's been said before but i'll say it again.. when it comes to figuring yourself out, an infinitely more helpful question than "what am i really?" is "what do i want?" i said i've always known very strongly that i wasn't a man. this is how i know: i just don't want to be one. i don't want to be seen that way. there is some comfort in strangers assuming i'm a cis guy, sure (sometimes it feels safer that way, sometimes it's nice to be reminded that the masculinity i present to the world is real) but when i think of my closest loved ones, i don't want them to see me as a man. i want them to see me as a transmasculine butch, a genderqueer dyke, a lesbian. and that desire to be seen a certain way by those i hold dearest, that's what guides me in life and ultimately defines me.

"ok but... how do i know what i want?" that's a tougher one, i'll admit. just by living i guess. by meeting new people, by keeping an open mind, by trying new things and continuing to learn more about what it is you like and don't like. i was 20 when i'd finally lived enough to know what i wanted. it might take longer for you than that.

fortunately, you don't actually need to have any of this shit figured out to move forward. before i found my butch identity i spent years describing myself as "uhhh some sorta non-binary i guess" and none of my queer/trans friends minded the fact that i didn't have all the details down yet. they knew my chosen name and my pronouns and that was enough for them, and i didn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about it either. you don't need to force yourself to choose between labels right now if you're not ready. you can let the answers come to you.

in the meantime, just fill your life with things that make it worth living. you don't have to know for sure that you're a guy to get that binder or that packer or to go on testosterone, and you don't need to know for sure that you're a butch to hang out with dykes and to have lesbian sex and so on and so on...

just live the life you want to live. you can figure out what to call it later.

[psychabolition]

@schizoprophecy

I'm critiquing the biomedical model here (=>which says that mental illness is the same as physical illness - thats why words like symptom and illness are used in clinical psychology) which is a specific framework that is used in psychology to think about mental distress/neurodiversity.

Not only has the biomedical never been proven to be true (=the chemical imbalance theory has been disproven several times for example), the model in itself is not logically coherent.

Your 'mental illness' can never "cause" anything because its solely a descriptive label (every psychologist will admit this !! - all diagnoses are just a list of descriptions of specific behaviors/experiences/ways of thinking), its never the reason for anything. I think we need to avoid the circular logic of "well i do x because i have y condition (which was diagnosed based on clinician observations of x) and my brain is simply broken in a way requiring me to submit to expert clinical management and surveillance". I think its highly misleading to talk about symptoms of an illness since saying 'I am suicidal because Im depressed' is the same as saying 'Im suicidal because Im suicidal'(remember: its only a descriptive label!!) - it doesnt explain anything. I think its really unhelpful and also simply not scientifically backed up to think about any experiences/struggles/distress that we have no matter how unusual/painful/norm deviation as an 'illness' of our minds/brains.

The biomedical model makes sense when you think about what we know happens societally to people who are labelled as mentally ill - it depoliticizes any and all suffering/mental distress caused by societal problems by blaming them on our brains/mind and telling us that we are at fault for responsible for our mental distress/pain and that we need to solve it for ourselves and work on feeling better on our own without any societal/communal change occuring.

It also justifies violence - like lets say we use the framework of the biomedical model to think about mental distress/suffering and say that (for example) a drug addicts brain/mind is at fault for their suffering and that this person needs to be saved from their own brain/mind that is making them think/feel/do things that are wrong and ill -namely taking drugs. This leads to psychologists doing everything to make them stop using drugs no matter how much autonomy they need to take away from the person to get them to stop using (isolating them, punishing them, shaming them, body strips, locking them up,...). If we dont see drug addiction as an illness but as a way of numbing pain/suffering we can actually start asking what is causing the suffering - is it homelessness?/social ostracization?/abuse?/patriarchal violence/... . And then the solution would be to try to built a better world with each other for each other so no one wants/needs to numb themselves every day anymore. Also mental illness labels are isolating and stigmatizing since we are told we and our experiences are inherently different from others and that only a qualified professional can help us - all while telling our friends who are not labelled as mentally ill that it could be dangerous not to call the cops on us since we might kill ourselves if they dont (all while institutionalizion increases the risk of suicide).

Now - since nothing is ever caused by a label that we get because we deviate from the norm (norm deviation includes suffering more extremely in our current society than others do) - our queerness can not be caused by our mental illness either. I'd even go a step further and say that all queerness is a deviation from neuronormativity(=whats societally deemed normal to think/feel/do bases on your assigned gender/age/socioeconomic status/...). And since neurodivergency is defined as "deviation from neuronormativity" I think that theres no clear line between what counts as neurodivergent and what counts as queer. I think its always wrong to call any experience/behavior/thoughts/mental distress 'ill/dysfunctional or crazy'. What is queerness if not a deviation from societal norms on how we're supposed to think/feel/act? What is neurodivergency, if not the same?

What if I told you that theres no progressive way to say that your or anyone elses queerness is a result of a mental disorder