#also this would not be a problem if my family wasn't homophobic in general

[unma]

Had WhatsApp open on this phone since I was waiting for a reply from my dad, as I mentioned earlier (I literally never open it otherwise) and I saw my pfp and remembered this really funny call I had around my birthday.

I got a lot of birthday wishes on WhatsApp, but a combination of it being my move in week to uni + me never opening WhatsApp and being bad at replying meant I never responded to most of them. I did take one phone call from an aunt tho, which went nice and fine until she asked me who the character in my pfp was.

Folks. I had changed my pfp a couple months beforehand for Pride Month. It was Astolfo.

I spent the next 5 minutes trying to dodge the question, saved by my cousin (wrongly) thinking she knew who it was. She thought my pfp was Anya, and while I assured her she was wrong, I provided no answer myself. I did not want to give her a name to look up, and thankfully I got away without having to do so.

This was extra funny because friends who did know who Astolfo was (and a bit about my whole deal with liking femboys) were like "Don't you think your parents might recognize your pfp and realize a few things?" Obviously I thought not, because my parents know jack shit about anime on account of knowing jack shit about any of my interests, but I did not expect any of my (adult) relatives to have even some passing knowledge of it, given the one uncle who did like anime became a pastor.

[dearweirdme]

I am the Korean anon. I saw a response asking about skinship. This is a tricky one to real answer because like I said, times and perspectives are changing but I'll try my best.

Korean men are definitely more physically comfortable with each other but this is more a result of there being essentially a zero tolerance policy, historically, in even acknowleding existence of homosexuality within Korean history. Obviously, Koreans are/were aware of homosexuality as long as anyone has been but it was considered and portrayed as something so abnormal that it couldn't possibly exist in Korea or Korean culture---so men being 'touchy' with each other wasn't viewed with suspicion of homosexuality the way it was in places like America. You can argue that it was/is really Koreans just living in denial and basically an angle of 'if you don't believe in it then it doesn't exist' and this would be a fair arguement.

You'll see that it's more cultural if you look at the difference between men born and raised in Korea vs Korean American men (for example) None of the Korean American men, espeically those a little older than my generation, that I know would be so comfortable being that physically expressive with each other because a lot of their influence in how they view those interactions is American influence. So to them Skinship = homosexuality but in Korea, skinship = normal affection between close family or friends.

Skinship and fanservice are considered to be different things. There are those outside of idol fandoms who are comfortable with skinship that feel fanservice deliberately pushes boundaries and is used as titilation and rebellion rather than a normal display of affection but again, those who find such things uncomfortable also find comfort in the historical denial and erasure of homosexuality.

The closest comparison I can probably make is locker room culture in America. Where the most homophobic men might find no problem with slapping each others asses or grabbing each others balls as a joke. Because they have been raised and conditioned not to see such actions as a sign of homosexuality but rather just a normal expression of male friendship or platonic closeness.

(And there's nothing wrong with that because men should be comfortable in expressing themselves physically with their male friends either way)

So from my Korean American perspective, Taehyung rubbing Jeongguk's thigh like that has the potential to mean something more because in my American culture, homosexuality hasn't been as erased as it has been in Korean culture.

On its own, that moment isn't really significant to me but when you put it into the context of how they seem physically closer to each other in a less concious way, it kind of goes into the 'possible proof' pile.

However, if I was an older Korean man, for example or someone who was conditioned to view homosexuality as a foreign perversion---I would be more comfortable in viewing that moment as just a bit of skinship between friends and even if doubt did creep in, I wouldn't want to rock the boat by questioning it because to do that would be to really pick apart my culture.

Another comparison I can make would be the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that was in effect in the US military where the military would turn a blind eye to homosexuality as long as it wasn't made obvious to a point where they couldn't ignore or deny the existence of it.

However, the tricky part comes from the fact that times are changing. They are changing slowly in Korea but they are still changing and a lot of the 'traditions that have been considered 'necessary' to maintain the integrity and survival of Korean culture are being tested by minority groups, particularly young people who have more outside resources and influence available to them due to the Internet, social media etc. So that blanket of comfort is already beginning to wear thin.

I personally think this shift is also reflected in idols and fanservice as well. If you look at older generation idols, you'd find stuff like SUJU members making out with each other on stage and because, according to society, homosexuality was not a concern, it was just taken as idols acting for shock value... and (I might be missing it) but I don't really see anything THAT brazen in this generation of idols.

Honestly, and this is just MY opinion and maybe kinda off topic---but declining birth rates are a big concern in Korea right now (moreso officially) and there are people who are getting VERY nervous about the uprise of feminism and what it means for marriage and the traditional family so it would not surprise me at all if we begin to see some sort of crackdown or sanctioned/manipulated backlash against LGBTQ rights and Women's rights---maybe not so overtly but I think there will at least be an attempt to socialize people to see both things as negative and harmful for a surviving and thriving Korea. I think upholding the military sanctions was a start but it could also be another sign of moving at a snail pace towards real change.

As a last comparison, I can kind ofntie this discussion back to that regarding tattoos. To anyone raised in the West or influenced by Western culture, tattoos are no big deal and that is starting to filter in to young Korean society too---but the socially acceptable perspective (or you might say older) is that tattoos are still considered a sign of criminal association, thuggery, rebelliousness and just an outright disregard of social 'rules'. That why there is still such a hardline approach when it comes to stuff like showing them in TV channels/programs or certain employment

To younger generation, tattoos are cool, self expression or at most harmless to but to an older generation, tattoos are viewed as a sign of you not caring about being a 'good' Korean citizen. It's viewed as a sign of deliberate disrespect towards society and social harmony.

(Again, nonsense to a lot of us but this is the mentality that still prevails in some parts of society and government)

We have all seen what happens to idols and famous people who step out of line even in ways we consider no big deal or not worth such a harsh response at least (like weed or dating 'scandals')

Anyway, I know I've rambled off topic but I feel like it's important for people to know stuff like this to understand how ridiculous some the claims shippers make are because Korea is still very much a country that is 'old' in its mentality and while the youth is making an impact, this is the brick wall that they are up against.

Dispatch knows a lot more tha the rest of us, they even make a game out-of exposing m/f relationships with little empathy towards those involved but even they won't touch same sex idol relationships with a 10ft pole because they know the backlash would be devastating and the pressure of it could be harmful.

Idols are supposed to reflect the ideal and homosexuality is still very much viewed as an abnormality in Korea, even amongst those who might claim a tolerance for it.

Hi again anon!

Again, very much thank you for this! Context is everything and through western eyes, for some it is hard to see BTS as modern artists, but also with their roots in a society that, though technologically very modern.. is still years behind in some ways also.

[livia-dovehallow]

Tlh feels so disconnected from the other series. It ignores so many things established already, it's like it's in its own universe. For example:

- We know Cecily's father was an alcoholic and yet none of the adults noticed Matthew's problem.

- Cecily is very active and a fighter but in tlh she's like a stay at home mom and just takes care of Alexander.

- How is it that everyone is so accepting of all the lgbt characters. Like I know shadowhunters don't follow the same social rules as mundanes do but at this point in history being gay is illegal. LIKE YOU COULD GO TO JAIL. And you're telling nobody had a problem. I feel it really undermines Alec's story. He being the first gay consul is a big deal, his fight for himself and his identity is huge and here it's like it's not even a problem for someone being gay. I know history not always improves, so you could say that people got more homophobic with time, but how. How did we go from this generation to the Circle. Like let's pretend Alexander is the Lightwood ancestor, it means Robert is his grandkid, and we know Robert's father was awful. Are you telling me Alexander, Cecily and Gabriel's child, raised a person so badly? Like how? There's no connection.

- Also, how is it so easy for Anna and Ari, and possibly Thomas and Alastair, to adopt a child. Again, it was a huge deal for Alec and Magnus to adopt Max and Rafael, but for the tlh people is this easy?

- Also, we know Alex is the first gay openly gay consul, so should we assume Charles didn't get to be consul? Or he did get to be consul and the historians erased his sexuality?

SECOND TO LAST BULLET IS A MODERATE SPOILER TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT FINISHED CHAIN OF THORNS BUT IT DIDNT MAKE SENSE TO ME TO COPY THIS ALL OVER WHEN IT'S AT THE BOTTOM SO I HOPE YOU SEE THIS WARNING OKAY SORRY

I have seen this sentiment a lot and I do agree with it. Alone (entirely detached from the rest of TSC and ignoring the fact that these characters are the children of my beloved TID characters), it's an all right series. But knowing that it is a TSC book, you're right. Ignores so many established things.

I just try to think of some of the more historically-inaccurate items as intentionally inaccurate so that TLH feels more welcoming and a better version of history than we know truly happened. However, that disconnects from TMI, as we know, because of how much prejudice Alec faced being gay. If TLH truly connected to all established events, I don't think Alec would have been so scared and felt so threatened.

(And, no, I don't think Charles ever became Consul but that's another story entirely).

Given that we know TLH familes are the ancestors of the TMI families (or most of them, at least), it just doesn't connect well. Obviously, big things could have happened between TLH and TMI that made the Lightwoods go back to being assholes for a generation (don't get me started on that either because Gideon and Gabriel would be so disappointed in them).

I get not wanting to feel tied to the family tree to create the TLH story, but CC should have stuck to what she had already established in a main series. Side books I think have more leeway of being retconned or adjusted, but not a main series, especially not the one that started it all.

So yeah, I can overlook historical inaccuracy to a pretty far extent, but stay consistent in your storytelling among the 4/5 published main series, at least. You wrote yourself into that corner; figure it out. Sigh.

TLH would have made a better series if it had been written as an NA series rather than YA and wasn't confined to a trilogy.

Cecily being reduced to a housewife angers me too much to even address it in this already long post but suffice it to say that I ignore that part of canon because Cecily Herondale-Lightwood is not a fucking housewife ksjflkjs

[glngrbred]

Here's a legit hot take I am gay, and trans, And I highly doubt I was "Born this way"

so here's the context I always felt completely separate from the community around me, being school, mainly because i was undiagnosed Autistic (was born like that). Throughout my whole life I was ostracized by my peers, and made to feel different weather teachers or students meant to or not. When I went to middle school, I had already decided in my head that I was attracted to men, Because I found out about porn and was sort of afraid of women's bodies (i'll get to that). At the time, That middle school had developed a problem with children pressuring each other to identify as something, and there was a general fixation on sex (cuz its middle school) So, at the time I identified as Asexual, because my peers accepted that. Also because i didn't know how to feel/how i felt about attraction. On the attraction thing, I started googling stuff about atraction, because I wanted to figure mine out, Im like 90% sure me looking up gay porn and straight porn in my own time shaped my attraction. I disliked straight porn because they were mean to the women in it, and also i didnt understand women's bodies, and I liked gay porn because it seemed like everyone was having fun, also i liked the penises in both. And then i started liking jAking*off. to gay p0rn Part of my discovery of my Identity with being gay was just one day deciding that I would have more fun Identifying as a gay guy than I would a straight guy. And eventually I decided that I would come out the next time my brother was homophobic, to try and get him to stop being so crass. It worked.

On the trans Side of things, I was getting sort of bored of always being called a boy, and I envied the way people respected my trans friend's gender, witch is obviously a trans-coded thought process, and I realized that If someone told me that, I would think they were trans, so I'm trans now., So one day I just decided that having a pussy would be fucking sick, and then i effectively started socially transitioning.

Suddenly, My family Identified with me being Gay, and eventually Nonbinary, and since I use any pronouns they never struggle with my identity, and I'm just in a new box compared to everyone in my family, Hooray! now their perception of me fits my own!

My point is, If i had not been socially ostracized and made to feel different, I would not have Identified with being different. and sure Maybe one day I would've figured out I was queer in some way, If I even cared, Cuz ima be honest, If it wasn't against my identity and awkward in that way I'd be fine *Dating* women. And honestly, My life story In the AU where people were nice to me is significantly nicer and less anxiety inducing, so i wouldn't have felt the need to change my social position in order to fit other people's needs and fulfil my own social needs.

If any of that made you think I'm not really gay or trans, newsflash, I don't give a fuck, cuz i use she/her pronouns and it makes me happy, and I think men are hot, and that makes me happy. I'm happier as the weird social slop I fit myself into, over weird kid everyone bullies, and also people treat me significantly better now that i have an

✨✨Identity✨✨

Wild right? anyways I truly think that part being queer is just a social role/decision, and for me personally, that narrative fits :)

[hjellacott]

"Woke" Culture is the "You can't have a flaw" Culture. That's why Cancel Culture it's intrinsic to Woke.

Look at anything through a magnifying glass, you'll find a flaw. Look at your parents. Your friends. Your grandparents. Your house. Your culture. Your society. Your teachers. Your priest. The more you expose yourself to them, the more they expose themselves to you, the more attention you pay, the more attentively you look, you'll find a flaw. A friend will, probably unintentionally, say something that if you think in-depth about it, sounds "kinda" racist. A parent will comment something that maybe in the beginning you won't think much about it, but later, it "kinda" sounds homophobic. A grandparent might say something rather misogynistic. What they say will depend on their education, their culture, their times. Of course, the majority of the time, they don't intend to cause any hurt or offence to anyone and, if you point out what they've said could be misinterpreted or considered wrong, they'll probably hurry to say that was never their intention. That they're not racist, homophobic, sexist. And they're probably saying the truth.

People say the things they say because they've grown up feeling free to speak their mind (one of the Human Rights is freedom of speech, thought and religion, so this is a good thing), and at least in the case of good people, they never say the things they say with an aim to cause offence. That's why forgiveness and understanding are key to relationships. For example, my grandfather was a Catholic conservative. He lived WWI, WWII, and our civil war. He was nearly a hundred years my senior while I was a teenager. Of course he was from another time. I knew his heart, though. I knew that in his heart he was a good, kind, hardworking man. You might've argued that I was biased, but truth is, you should really look at somebody's actions more than at their words. So even though conservative speech, sometimes somewhat homophobic, racist or sexist, would come out of his mouth now and then, the reality was that all he was parroting were the society's beliefs of the world in which he lived the last time he had an active social life, at least fifty years before. So I looked at his actions. Was Grandpa actually racist? Well, the woman we hired to help him around the home when he was 90 was POC, and he was so lovely to her. He also behaved kindly, in general, to everyone in every interaction. He never had a truly demeaning thing to say about a POC person (indeed, all the racism that ever came out of his mouth was rather vague). So I concluded he wasn't. Was he homophobic? Well, he did consider gays to have some problem, as it was the belief when he was young, but he treated my gay cousin with nothing but respect. So I considered he wasn't. Saying what your society said, what you were educated to believe, wasn't homophobic, so long as you didn't act on those thoughts. Was he sexist, then? He did believe men were the natural breadwinners, and women had to look after the home, but he had three granddaughters, myself included, and a daughter, and not a day went by that he didn't encourage us to study, to be independent, to have jobs, to choose and build whatever life we wanted for ourselves. There wasn't an ounce of sexism, indeed, in the way he treated and behaved with women.

I often witnessed my Grandpa having somewhat heated arguments about politics. My dad was a liberal left-winger, and he was the first in the family, so of course fights were due to happen. But I never saw Grandpa insult my dad, criticise him as a person, say a bad word about him, or put a hand on him. They would row about politics, but they loved each other to bits. That told me pretty much everything I had to know about my Grandpa: That conservative words would logically come out of his mouth, but he would always act respectfully, even lovingly, with everyone, no matter their colour, their sexual orientation, their sex, their class... Not only that, but he would show remorse and sorrow if someone got offended about something he said. He might've been too stubborn to apologise each time, but he was a very expressive man, and you could tell.

People from my generation often had this type of grandparent, or of parent. We often got shocked about something that was said from someone we knew to be kind and loving. And so we had no choice but to learn to understand, to see why someone said something, where it came from, and filter it through everything we knew about the person. That's how I for example knew not to take certain words from my Grandpa seriously, because his actions never reflected them. If he was kind to everyone, if I could bring any friend over and he'd be so sweet with them (as my few classmates who came to family lunches at his place would often tell me), that was all that mattered. Back then, that was all that mattered to any of us. Actions, not words.

We were great at knowing somebody's heart and using it to filter whatever they said, what they meant, why they'd said it. And we were great at evaluating whether the benefits outweighed the problems. For example, back when I was a teenager, Friends was VERY popular. It still is, but back then it was legendary, everyone watched Friends. If you look at it with the lens of today, through a magnifying glass, however, it will happen like what happens when looking at my Grandpa through a magnifying glass, and specially when things are taken out of context. You suddenly think, hang on, that is a bit racist!

We noticed those things already back in the 90s and early 2000s, you're not the first. The thing is that we experienced things in the proper context. Friends reflected our society of the time to a T. Nothing about it was extraordinary. You saw the same things out in the street than you did watching Friends or Sex in the City. And an amazing phaenomenon happened. Firstly, if you were a bit young (for example, I lived the end of Friends, but the beginning caught me long after it'd been filmed), for some bits or all of the bits, what you saw helped understand why people older than you in your life said and did certain things. Indeed, when I saw the kind of things my Grandpa must've seen when he was in his 20s, everything he said made total sense.

The more you understand how the world was before you, the better you understand how people that came before you and with whom you disagree are not necessarily evil, or less lefty, or less kind and thoughtful, but from a different culture. That's about the time when you understand conservativism doesn't mean wrong, just different.

Secondly, if you were living the exact times being depicted, or the year difference was small, all you saw were the benefits. I don't watch shows like Friends to become an illustrated. I watch it to laugh. To disconnect from a bad day. To be enamoured by the friendships and relationships depicted. And even if the occasional racist, homophobic or sexist comment comes out, I ignore it in favour of looking at the actions. For example, you have the character of Ross, who perhaps was the most likely to say what today would've been considered wrong. Most likely to be Cancelled, let's say. Well, you might've disliked him for what he said, but if you looked at what he did, he was a man who deeply respected and cared about his ex-wife even though she left him for a woman. He fell in love with a black woman. He treated women so, so lovingly. He treated all of his friends like family. And he was always willing to come around and admit he'd messed up and apologise. That mattered more than the occasional crap that came out of the mouth of a man in his twenties. We've all been in our twenties. A lot of stupid shit is said in your twenties, and it doesn't make you a bad person.

The difference between back then and now is that back then, we all knew nobody was perfect, and nobody pretended to be or demanded others were perfect. We looked at people's actions as a definitive judge of character, not words. We respected and forgave. We educated respectfully and patiently. But now, everything is considered so serious. Now, any joke can be very deeply offensive. Now, everything needs to be perfect from the get go.

These days we only seem to look at words, not at actions. You say the wrong thing once and you're Cancelled, doesn't matter what your actions are, what your kind gestures are, or that is the first time in your life you've made a mistake. You're not forgiven. You can never take it back. You can never fix it. You can never learn.

We live in a flawed world that Cancels mistakes and errors and doesn't give room for forgiveness, for reconciliation, for improvement. We live in a world where words mean more than actions, leading to phaenomenons such as Performative Activism. And words are also regularly decontextualised and twisted to cause offense and outrage. We always need to know what NOT to say. We have to be perfect all the time or Kill Ourselves. To be born knowing all the right things and all the wrong things, to see the world constantly and exhaustingly through a magnifying glass, to have 0 Tolerance for anything out of the "Right", and strict ideas about what's right and what's wrong.

But what if the world is not right and wrong? what if there isn't black and white? What if we remember that we're all flawed, and become more tolerant, more compassionate, more about leading with actions, not words, about educating, not punishing, about gentle teaching, and less hitting with a cane? Then we'd return to what we loved most about back then. In the meantime, we'll continue to live in a world where you can never be sure somebody means what they say, where people's actions are ignored and only their words are believed, because nobody can speak freely, and so they repress, they tell you what you want to hear, and they hide their truth until it explodes.

[servin-up-surveys]

survey #186

What was the longest time you've liked someone? Maybe like, five or six years?

Who was the last girl in your room? Besides me obviously, my mom.

What are you excited for? Girt's birthday is right on the horizon, and I'm of course excited to celebrate that with him.

Who was the last person you took a picture with? My nephew at his birthday party.

Anything happen to you in the past month that made you really mad? Maybe, I can't recall.

Do you have any bruises on you? No.

Are you ticklish? YES

Did you reject or accept your last friend request? Accept, it was actually an old friend I understandably pissed off when I was a homophobic teenager and sent an apology to them years ago, I guess they eventually read it. Even if they didn't though, I think I'm very obvious in being LGBTQ+-friendly on my Facebook, so that also coulda said enough.

Are you a morning person, or a night person? I'm in a better mood generally in the morning, and almost always less anxious.

Where was your last hug? My bed.

Were you smiling in the last picture taken of you? Faintly I guess, Roman was cuddling with me on the couch and Mom took a picture of us.

Did you have a good childhood? In some ways, but in many others, no.

What pets did you have when you were growing up? We had an infestation of outdoor, unfixed cats. It's my childhood with them that makes me feel so strongly about the need for cats to be indoor animals.

Would you ever date someone who had issues with substance abuse? NO. I am not getting involved in that shit. I know realistically if - god fucking forbid - Girt developed a problem, I wouldn't leave him just for that, but that's only because of what we already have built together.

Have you ever been on a vacation that ended up being ruined? What happened? I don't talk much of this because I feel so shitty about it, but yes, by my own fault. I went to the beach with my then-best friend Jenna and her mom, and I feel like I lasted only one night because I had such severe separation anxiety from my mom as a child. We might have even left that night, I can't remember. I just remember being so fucking embarrassed and feeling absolutely terrible because neither wanted to go back home of course (and it was like, a two hour drive), I just wasn't okay.

Do you know anyone who has had a miscarriage? Multiple people. This is more common than I think a lot of people realize.

What's your last ex's opinion of you? She hates me and considers me a weak-willed deadweight. Rather be that than a Nazi, I guess.

Are there any major drama queens in your family? Yes. My mom's sister Kelly immediately comes to mind, we don't even associate with her anymore. Not only is she a drama queen, she's emotionally abusive.

Do you like Stephen King novels? I've never read any.

What is one adventurous thing you’d be willing to do? (ex: skydive) Cave exploration. I REALLY wanna do this one day!!

How many email accounts do you have? Two that I actually use.

Have you ever fallen asleep on public transport? (including planes) Yes, at least as a kid.

Do you pay rent for the place you live? How often? I don't, but my mom does, and I don't know how much.

Where was the last place you went on vacation/holiday to? Who’d you go with? I guess the closest thing that could be considered a vacation/holiday would be the last time I flew to Illinois to see Sara, which was multiple years ago. "Vacations" in the traditional sense don't really exist for me or Mom.

Does the place you work have music playing? What sort? I'm unemployed.

What’s your favourite type of donut? I feel like this varies with my mood. Sometimes it's just glazed, or chocolate frosted, or completely plain/cake donuts.

Would you ever want to go on vacation with just one of your parents? Yeah, my parents are divorced and I'm well aware Mom hates Dad's very guts so you'd never see us vacation together.

Has someone ever tried to start an argument with you over Facebook? What happened? lol this has certainly happened before, more than once.

When you’re at home, do you spend most of your time in your room? No, but in the spare room instead. I literally lived in my bed/room for years and it affected me horrifically, physically and mentally, so now my bed is strictly for bedtime.

Do you have a hard time admitting you’re wrong? I'm certainly not gonna lie and say it's never happened, but generally, I find this pretty easy to do with my shitty self-image anyway.

Are you listening to music right now? No, I'm watching herping videos from a channel I really enjoy.

When were you the saddest in your life? The end of 2015 and all of 2016.

Who in your family has been married the longest? (and how long?) Hell if I know.

Do you take your shoes off when you come inside? Yes.

What was the first social media site you ever used? MySpace.

Do you have any exes you really regret dating? Not like, "really" regret. I regret dating Tyler, but "really regret" makes it sound like a more desperate feeling.

Have you ever been catcalled? Not that I remember.

Have you ever cut your own hair? No.

Are you a fan of video games? Yeah, but I play them way less than I did growing up. Nowadays I tend to enjoy games more when I'm playing with others, or am just an observer.

What's your favorite color combination? Black and gold.

Has anyone besides your family seen you naked? If so, who? My ex. My current boyfriend kinda-sorta has I guess, but I've never been 100% fully undressed in front of him because of my own self-consciousness, but he's basically seen everything at one point or another. Women who have done psych hospital intake stuff with me count too, I guess. That was always the most uncomfortable shit.

Did your parents sign you up for anything you hated as a child? Yes, soccer and cheerleading. Neither lasted very long.

Do you know how to use Photoshop? I'd say I'm pretty okay with it. I prefer Lightroom, though.

Who is the best artist you've seen live? I've only ever seen Alice Cooper, but don't get me wrong, he's great.

Do more people call you by a nickname or your first name? Most people address me as "Britt," which is just a shortening of my first name.

Do you have the right time set on your microwave? Yes.

Do you have a radar detector for your car? No.

Have you ever been arrested? For what? No.

Where did you go today? I went to see my psychiatrist, and Mom and I stopped at a dollar store to get fillers for the pinata I'm doing for Girt's bday, lol.

Do you like to go fishing? I have fun doing it and find it extremely relaxing, but I no longer really do it because I feel mean lol.

Where is your favorite person? He's currently at work.

What mode of transport did you take to high school? My mom drove me.

Name a personality trait of yours that you like. I'm very empathetic.

Name something about your physical attraction that you dislike. I hate how dark my leg hair is, I'm mortified by my legs.

Have you ever made an item of clothing? No.

Who was the last person you had an intelligent debate with? I don't know; I tend to avoid debates because I panic and think the other person hates me lol.

Who was the last person who cooked something for you? My mom. She's the only one that cooks in this house, I really SHOULD change that... She provides so much for me.

Who was the last person who you heard singing? Oh definitely Girt, he's always singing something to himself lol.

Who was the last person you were upset with? Me.

Who was the last person you danced with? Sara.

Who was the last person you had a crush on? Well, Girt.

Who was the last person you got drunk with? I've never been drunk, but I last had alcohol with Mom.

Who was the last person who touched your hair? Besides myself, Girt.

What was the last birthday party you attended? My nephew's 7th in August.

What was the last thing you said to your mother? I thanked her for bringing home dinner.

What was the last song you listened to? "World so Cold" by Three Days Grace.

What was the last vegetable you ate? I wanna say green beans.

What was the last thing you had to drink? I have strawberry-flavored water right now.

What was the last fast food place you ate at? Mom happened to get McD's today.

When was the last time you had a sleepover? Girt spent the night around a week ago?

Where did you last go to celebrate your own birthday? The Cheesecake Factory.

Where does the last person you hung out with live? He lives about 30 minutes from where I do in another city, which I won't share.

[variouslengthsofwire]

I never said they were "inherently" antisemitic. The problem is that they are saying and doing antisemitic things, not that they want Gazans to live. I'm with them on wanting Gazans to live, but I want peace, not dead Jews. The number of token Jews doesn't matter, what matters is the content of the protests.

You're right that I haven't seen a single person call out antisemitism from within the Pro-Palestine movement and get a positive response. I've seen a few people try and get, effectively, kicked out, or just have their words fall on deaf ears, though. I have not been able to spend much time in Pro-Palestine circles because I'm half-Israeli and my opinions do not matter. As long as I don't want my Israeli family dead, even though I don't want a single more Gazan dead, I'm considered to be an (((evil zionist))).

Antisemitic things I have seen and heard in articles, videos, and photos of these protests:

Shouting "Yehudim" and telling Jews to "Go back to Poland." This is a dog whistle about the Holocaust, telling these Jews to kill themselves, of that they deserve death for being Jews. Even if it wasn't it would never be okay to tell random Asian or Asian-American people to "Go back to China," as I'm sure you know.

Physically attacking Jewish students and blocking some from getting to class. If you only tolerate Jews who think exactly like Jews or "the good ones" you are antisemitic.

"Globalize the intifada"

Calling Hamas "freedom fighters" and many signs supporting Hamas. Also wide-scale denying of Hamas raping Israeli women.

Pro-Houthi chants and slogans - note this is also extremely homophobic, misogynistic, and just generally anti-human rights. It's the equivalent of right-wing rallies being pro-KKK.

A sign that said "The Final Solution" which was either calling for global Jewish genocide, or Holocaust inversion, either way still antisemitic.

Yes, those things you mentioned are antisemitic. Calling an indigenous population colonizers in their homeland and denying their indigeneity is not okay. "From the river to the sea" is a genocidal, antisemitic slogan, and it should not be used if you are anti-genocide. It's clear that this movement is only against genocide of Palestinians, but pro-genocide of Israelis (and for some people, even Jews, worldwide).

Goyim trying to tell us what is and isn't antisemitic.

Is that enough for you? This is all I have the spoons for right now.

[alottamoney]

(2/2)

As a Jikook supporter, I do believe there is a possibility of something more between JM and Jikook based off their words and actions but I am open to the idea that they are also just close friends and nothing more. When JM says JK is his dongsaeng, I believe him (dongsaeng means a younger person close to someone). I am aware that there are some things/words that Jikook have said to each other that Taekookers believe will never make them a real possibility of being a couple and vice versa. The “brothers” argument is one of the biggest ones I’ve come across from Taekookers and I do take any familial words they use between each other into consideration. Most of the time the word dongsaeng is used when the brother argument is brought up. And in those instances, I believe that the meaning Jikook was going for was not the English meaning of brother but instead the Korean meaning of dongsaeng which is not limited to the English meaning of brother. For example in Festa 2021, JM said JK is his younger dongsaeng which I took to mean that JK is someone close to him who is also younger than him. I have also been exposed to many Korean couples (example: HyunA & Dawn) that refer to the younger one in the relationship as dongsaeng, so because of this I don’t automatically write off the possibility of Jikook on this argument alone. Your example of JM saying he feels like JK’s father is valid but I have also been exposed to many wives saying similar things about feeling like they’re their husband’s mom after picking up/cleaning up after them so I also do not count Jikook out because of this. Sorry that this is very long lol, I tried to explain my points the best I could. I would appreciate hearing more of your thoughts towards this subject.

Jikook anon,

I would just like to preface this by saying that again, I don't speak for all Taekookers, I don't have a problem with Jikook, my reasons for thinking Jikook are not a couple are not based on the things they say in content alone but if they turn out to be a couple, I'll be fine.

I don't think the "Hiding Taekook with Jikook" is an actual thing people believe, even if it is a popular theory. Most Taekook theories I know don't even involve Jikook. Maybe it gets brought up during ship wars but then Jikookers aren't doing any better with the "Taekook is a dead ship because taekookers made them uncomfortable" narratives. Jikookers are not innocent when they pit Jikook against Taekook unnecessarily. Even the whole mistranslation thing that happened recently. Real couples are not the only ones shipped so, why was that necessary? I don't see anyone accuse Vminers of mistranslating or is it because the fandom thinks Vmin could be real too? This is just a general shipping problem and you can't rationalize it away. It would be great if people could stay in their lane but they don't. I keep away from that mess.

Jimin also compared Jungkook to his real brother once. I know what dongsaeng means, I wasn't talking about that. I'm sure all BTS members have referred to Jungkook as dongsaeng and I know what Jikookers have to say about it. I only brought those up as examples of taking their words at face value, which Jikookers are also not doing. I don't know how wise it is to compare a queer couple with a heterosexual one like Hyuna and Dawn but again you’re free to do that, and that brings me to one of the reasons that Jikook gets called fanservice by Taekookers, why would BH capitalize on a queer couple knowing that South Korea is homophobic? Couples in general are not a thing Kpop companies just support, Hyuna and Dawn are not a good example even in that sense. I think they have a point but I also don't claim to understand BH strategies.

I think it once again boils down to Jikookers not having to question the content because the content serves Jikook whereas Taekookers have to rely on non-BH content(or had to). I’d argue that the reason Taekookers find things scripted is not because of Jikook but the discrepancies in Taekook’s own behavior in BH vs non-BH content.

My personal problem with BH isn’t so much the quantity of Taekook content, it’s the constant fan disservice they do with stuff like the ITS conversation or always highlighting how awkward they are. This isn’t coming from other shippers or fans it’s coming straight from BH, that gives it more legitimacy. It doesn’t make sense to me. Taekookers are not just shippers, they are also customers, so isolating them is strange. If I had any stake in BH I’d tell Taekook to suck it up even if it is true that they are awkward. At the end of the day they are running a business. A lot of the imbalance in fan perception and angst is because BH refuses to strike a balance.

Anyways, Taekookers are not gonna change their minds anytime soon and neither will Jikookers. So, just ignore the things that don’t serve you, anon. I also apologize for assuming your experience with Kpop.

[orionsangel86]

1/2Prob. biased becuz I'm not a con person & think the amount they do is odd, but don't the actors get paid to do them? His response WAS a little rude. The ?? wasn't disrespectful or offensive. Ur there for the fans, u can respectfully disagree, but

2/2 why do Q&A or Cons at all if you can't handle a harmless question? I'm ok with his opinion, but the delivery, no. I'm sure there are other ??s they've been asked a million times. It's gonna happen. Chill.

Well, I am not a con person either and even though I have spoken to people who are con people and rave about how good they are I am very hesitant to even consider attending one. I do think that they do too many, and that it ruins the experience for the cast themselves. If they are constantly up on that stage having to be performing monkeys to a crowd of people who are all very demanding and set in their own ways (think-bibros) asking the same bloody questions over and over again (think-prank questions) and always having to smile and joke and be engaging, I can kind of understand why Jensen might sometimes loose his cool with questions that he is uncomfortable with. Honestly the whole idea of it seems exhausting to me.

However, the very fact that it is the destiel/bi-Dean/LGBTQ+ questions that make him get snappy and rude says a hell of a lot more about Jensen that it does about shippers and the people asking the questions. It also says a lot about the kind of crowd you get at a J2 panel (another reason I would NEVER attend a J2 panel).

Why do the Q&A and cons if you can’t handle the question? Well I suppose imagine what would happen if he STOPPED doing the Q&As and cons in general? Think of the hate and drama that would come from THAT. Plus yeah he probably gets paid a lot for it.

Is it really bad that I would be more inclined to go to a con if J2 weren’t there and it was just Misha and Rob and Rich and the angel crowd and spn ladies? (basically the entire cast other than J2) because that way no bibros would show up and it would probably be a lovely relaxed con where everyone is relaxed and joking about and having fun. But that’s just me and I have made it no secret that I am really disengaged and unimpressed with J2 in recent months anyway.

I think that Jensen’s tone and whole delivery of answer was out of order. I don’t care about his opinion on destiel at all. As far as I’m concerned he is Charlton Heston during the filming of Ben Hur and I couldn’t give a damn about what he thinks because its simply not true. Jensen has no control over the story and still believed Dean is the dudebro asshole from season 1. Proves how much he knows. 

But yeah, his tone was out of order and someone should really give him a lesson in how to handle questions if they don’t reflect his archaic viewpoints.

I should probably write a disclaimer here that I don’t think Jensen is homophobic and certainly don’t need people jumping down my throat about that. He isn’t homophobic. Outwardly. Internally he is suffering some serious character bleed with Dean with his effemiphobia and gets uncomfortable at the thought of Dean (therefore himself) being with other men. This isn’t homophobia as such as it is the idea of himself with other men that is the problem. Jensen doesn’t like it. Its as simple as that. It is a point of view that I find baffling as a bisexual person who is totally cool with anyone shipping me with anyone else (except family members) so yeah I struggle to understand that but I reckon it is based in a deep rooted internalised homophobia stemming from his upbringing.

[heavensenthearty]

I agree. The problem with Air Nomad culture is that it is said to be based on Tibetan Buddhism, but it is not explored so we're left with only the bits they picked to make Aang's story more tragic or when they needed to add a "shocking" plot twist. (*Cough* The Promise Trilogy *cough, cough*)

Anyways, the issue that I was talking about with the worldbuilding is that ATLA only took the aspects of East Asian culture that made it all look cool and Asian-y without really putting much effort into it. Like what you're describing right now, Air Nomad culture was underdeveloped and therefore, for all that we know, all Air Nomads were monks and nuns — and it's easy to distinguish because, in Tibetan culture, it is mostly the lamas the ones that shave their heads like Air Nomads did, the rest of the population traditionally wears their head braided in intricate patterns, and in the colder regions like where Air Nomads lived, they wear heavy fur coats to shield themselves from the cold, but we didn't see anybody like this in Aang's flashbacks — and hence the whole blasphemy behind putting them to have children at all. It wasn't explained if there was a non-celibacy sub-school in their system — we almost didn't get anything about their system. Aside from the shaved heads, the clothes and the closeness to Spirits, we didn't get any insight on them like what were the precepts in their school, that's why it's so difficult to match them with IRL Buddhism.

In fact, maybe I'm just unnecessarily opening a can of worms in here, but all the Avatarworld suffers from this. It is supposed to be a pan-asian universe with established, innately different countries, but apparently they all believe in Spirits, so all countries share the same polytheistic religion, and there are intermixed pieces of Chinese and Japanese architecture basically everywhere, so there's not much differencing in that aspect either. Sadly, one of the biggest distinctions we can make for the four countries is that apparently only three nations (save Air Nomads) were homophobic and that's inaccurate and unnecessary, to say the least, because there were same-sex unions during the Asian feudal era.

All of this worldbuilding is appropriative.

And I didn't mean for it to come out that adding romance to platonic relationships cheapens them, I meant that in Aang's specific case he was basically raised by the GAang in general. They are too much things for him. (Like I said, brothers, sisters, masters, caretakers, the list goes on.)

Maybe I would explain myself better if I made a comparison.

Have you ever watched Inuyasha? It's one of my favorite animes. The story follows a group of young friends that travel feudal Japan looking for pieces of a magic object. The male protagonist is a lonely boy who for a series of events ended up in a unconscious state for many years; the female protagonist is the girl who finds and awakens him. Throughout the story, she quite literally takes his hand on the path to retrieve the magic object I mentioned and to help him overcome his loneliness and be more open to others.

The difference here is that Inuyasha (the male protagonist) is somewhat self-sufficient, he's focused on his task, can fend for himself, etc. Kagome (the female protagonist) and his other friends don't have to keep him from wandering around or get lost daydreaming like Katara and the GAang have to do with Aang. That's why I ship Kagome and Inuyasha, too.

Aang's bond with the GAang is incredibly meaningful... in a more familial way. (For real, they are the ones that give him permission to go to the school he wants to attend, scold him to articulate properly, and watch over him while he sleeps.) And tbh, I'm quite fond of Taang as a ship, and also of Aang x On Ji because, if canon didn't put him to follow celibacy, then I'm not obliged to do it either.

By the way, don't worry about making a case for two different parties, I can write essays and essays about every ship in MHA 😅

Do you think Aang and Katara would still end up together if Katara killed her mother’s killer? How would that affect their relationship?

Hey anon! Sorry it took me a while to answer your question, but the truth is that there is no clear trajectory regarding Kata/ang in this situation, especially when we take into account that Kata/ang in the show canon was abrupt and significantly underdeveloped. More specifically on Kata/ang, both Katara and Aang’s arcs were twisted to accommodate for their endgame romance, but while Katara’s arc reaches its culmination by the end of the Final Agni Kai, Aang’s character had become inconsistent in its direction throughout all of season 3.

As such, two conflicting outcomes can result from this hypothetical scenario — one outcome which upholds Aang’s flaws and stagnated growth, or another outcome which forces Aang into growing, accepting, and understanding, as was the original intent behind his character.

From a broader context, Aang’s entire journey since he woke up in the iceberg has been about him reconciling his airbender and Avatar identity, and by the end of season 2 when he is with the guru, Aang is on the cusp of fully accepting his Avatar responsibilities, of letting go of his selfish attachments (or in other words, his blinding biases).

Except Aang cannot let go as he hoped he would be able to. Because his attachment to Katara is selfish, but beyond that his attachment to Katara is a replacement for his attachment to the Air Nomads — and it draws him away from his duties as the Avatar, causing him to embrace an ideal he does not comprehend. After all, the Air Nomads were not perfectly pacifistic either.

Still, just as Aang refuses to recognize the complexity in the Air Nomads’ legacies, dismissing what he may deem as an act of violence, Aang refuses to recognize the complexity to Katara’s rage and compassion, to her violent and protective nature. In my meta “On Ideals and Idealization,” I elaborate on Aang’s idealization of Katara:

Aang loves Katara, yes, but he is in love with an idealized version of her. In his mind, he holds close the idea of a gentle Katara, a smiling Katara, a compassionate and all-loving Katara. Even though he has seen her darkest moments when she bloodbends Hama - arms bent in disjointed angles, fingers curled as if manipulating puppet strings -  it does not tarnish his image of her because, at this moment, she is not the persecutor, but the persecuted.

After her experience with Hama, Aang is there to comfort her and help her come to terms with the terrifying power she now possesses. With her face streaked with tears and eyes widened with horror, it is clear that this is a power that Katara does not want, that it has been thrust onto her against her own will.

The conclusion that Aang draws from this is that Katara’s inner darkness is a separate entity from her inner light, and he perceives this acquired part of her as a blemish on her inherent goodness. As such, in “the Southern Raiders,” when he witnesses how Katara’s anger and grief drive her to hunt down her mother’s killer, he equates Katara seeking closure to Katara succumbing to darkness, tainting her purity and compassion in the process.

Thus, given Aang’s reaction to Katara’s bloodbending, he may be inclined to love her in a piteous, nearly-obligatory manner. He’ll love her as the victim who lost sight and control and he’ll love her as a being of compassion and pacificity, but nothing more. Just like in the Southern Raiders, he may magnanimously grant Katara his forgiveness and his continued love even when she never asked for it. And in the end, Aang and Katara will kiss on the balcony of Iroh’s tea shop, only this time it’s not only “the hero winning the girl,” but “the bright and cheerful boy fixing the broken girl” as well.

This is the ending where Aang clings onto idealization even when it renders him a hypocrite, in the same way he is a hypocrite for shouting at his friends for pushing him to kill Ozai when it is implied he killed thousands at sea in the Siege at the North Pole.

This is the ending where he does not grow.

Note: Aang retreating into a ball of earth as a narrative parallel to the beginning of the series when he was encased in a ball of ice would have been much more powerful if only Aang entered the Avatar State through character growth rather than by the power of the Pointy Rock of Destiny (TM).

Now, let’s consider an ending where Aang’s perspective broadens rather than narrows and where Aang unroots himself from the past, pulling free from stagnance. Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario in which Aang finds out Katara killed Yon Rha. How may he react?

He may not be able to at first, too torn between his belief that Katara only uses violence as a last resort and the reality that Katara uses violence as a means of agency as well. Revenge corrupts; it is a stain that cannot be washed away. There is no reconciling Katara’s previous compassionate and loving nature with this dark path she has now chosen.

Except this is Katara he’s talking about, Katara who he loves and gave up the Avatar State for. Surely there’s a way to save her, right? Yes, just as Aang told Katara before she left, forgiveness is the answer. And while Katara may not have chosen forgiveness in the end, Aang can guide her by example.

The next day, he approaches her with the offer to exempt her from her wrongdoings.

Katara, tired and mournful, looks down at Aang.

“What was so wrong about what I did?”

Inside she is hurting. There is truth to what Aang said, that revenge is poisonous both to the victim and the perpetrator, but it is not poisonous for the reasons he thinks it is. As George Orwell writes in his essay, “revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also” (Revenge is Sour). There’s no doubt that Yon Rha was despicable, and there’s only a little doubt in saying that his punishment should fit his crime — the only regret Katara may have here is that killing Yon Rha is a meaningless act, for she has already gained power over him in every meaning of the word. Revenge is only a gateway to senseless violence and hatred; it is not a slope from which there is no recovery, and given Katara’s emotional intelligence, she likely has or will recognize this. Although she may feel regret, she needs no one’s forgiveness.

Aang is shocked. “But violence is never the answer,” he stands by, he pleads by. His voice grows quieter. “You know that… you knew that, didn’t you?”

Katara answers him, but it’s all a blur. She says something about agency, protection, and justice. He remembers something about that too, about the fury that burned in her eyes when she declared, “I will never, ever, turn my back on the people who need me!” Then there was the hostility simmering in her glare towards Zuko, the way she muttered that she didn’t trust him, not when he could still hurt them — hurt Aang — again. 

Because Katara’s anger and compassion do not simply split themselves into two identities. Instead, they coexist and coalesce into one. They drive each other; they feed into each other; they are two sides of the same coin.

Excerpt from my meta Rage, Compassion, and the Bridge in Between

The beloved ideal of Katara — the one that he thought was on the verge of being tainted, the one that never existed — shatters. But just because it’s broken doesn’t mean Aang doesn’t want to fix it. So in the days leading up to Sozin’s Comet, he tries to pick up the fragments to the Katara-he-knew and piece them together again, all the while avoiding Katara’s mournful (yet resolved) stare. He ignores the way Zuko and Katara share glances with a heaviness as if they were the only two people in the world, full of some significance he cannot grasp. Still, it haunts him like the way Zuko’s touch lingers on Katara’s shoulder or Katara’s hand brushes Zuko’s briefly whenever they don’t think anyone’s looking, reflecting a togetherness escaping loneliness.

But there’s no answer that arrives quick enough to save Aang from his doubt and confusion. All too soon, Sozin’s Comet is upon them, and Aang wanders to another world on the lion turtle's back — but this time when he listens to the past Avatars’ advice, his perspective undergoes a paradigm shift.

They are right. The Air Nomads that he prioritized, that blinded him to his duties — they do not exist. Their love is still there, pure and human but not all-encompassing, tucked in the corner of his heart. And Katara was the same. She was and is not all-loving or all-compassionate or all-anything, really, because she is more human than that.

This time Katara’s image shatters again. But Aang does not follow the falling pieces to the ground, desperate to find them and force them together again. No, he sees past the remains and sees Katara for who she is. For who she wants to be. For who she can be (around someone else), when she’s not compelled to take on the caretaker role just for him.

(And he thought he was so generous, offering to forgive him. But it was never his forgiveness to give in the first place.)

Aang lets go of his last attachment.

The last airbender lives on, but so does the Avatar.

[ace-oppression]

That's an ironic conclusion, given that POC are almost exclusively the "lgbt" (but mostly transfem) people who get killed.

As a white trans person, my chances of being killed for being LGBT are virtually nonexistent.

If these are your benchmarks for inclusion, let's see how well they actually work.

If we're going by being killed for being gay or trans, we're basically only including POC. Even the Pulse killer specifically targeted Latinx night.

(Beyond Pulse, I can only find 6 people killed for being gay, worldwide, in the past 5 years. All in the US and Mexico.

If I'm counting right, 393 trans people were murdered in the same period, all over the world. As far as I can tell, the vast majority were POC in their countries.)

Even being generous, I think we can only really include trans people overall so far. And mostly transfem POC.

What else we got? Able to marry without any discrimination?

Be mocked or attacked on the street while with your partner:

Ok, so now the community consists of trans people, polyamorous people, and gay/bi/pan people in Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and parts of South America.

Be mocked or attacked on the street while with your partner:

This, I actually have a pretty big problem with. Because you're NOT including being mocked or attacked for your orientation at school, at work, at any religious or community organization, or at home.

Exclusionists never seem to include those, except sometimes the home/family part.

And those are some of the most serious things any of us face.

Do you know how many people have had to change schools or drop out of school completely, because of the mockery and/or assault they faced there?

Do you know how much of this community, overall, lives in poverty because of the way we've been treated at school or at work?

Do you know how high the rates of relationship violence are, and how badly that damages people?

If I wasn't pretty sure that exclusionists had no idea how high the rates of all of those are, for bi, pan, and ace people, I'd suspect people were leaving it out on purpose.

Either way, narrowing it down to "people who are perceived as trans, or who hold hands or kiss in public," drastically minimizes the violence we all face, and I'm skipping it.

Except to say that if you HAD included work/school/relationships, you'd have pretty much the entire community included. Trans, gay/lesbian, bi, pan, ace, aro, intersex, plus those polyamorous people who don't have marriage rights and are almost exclusively also "LGBT" anyway.

But since that's not the case, I'll keep going and see if we can get there.

- Lose your family or get kicked out:

Well, this might actually get us to everyone, actually.

I believe that gets us everyone except possibly aros. (And the only reason we don't have aros covered, tbh, is that nobody studies aros yet. Nobody even studied aces until about 5 years ago, and the data we've gotten since then is grimmer than any inclusionist would have ever predicted.)

Oh wait - I also don't have data on intersex people there. Let's see, there's a big UK study of the entire community that included intersex people....

Looks like 1.8% overall were intersex, but 9.1% of people who hadn't graduated high school were intersex. So were 2.3% from vocational school, and 2.7% of people who had only finished high school, which are also disproportionately high. And 4% of people who were unemployed, and not in school, were intersex. They don't have other data (e.g. on family or violence) available.

Oh, right... we don't need any of that data anyway, because the intersex community is characterized by family rejection. That's what intersex genital mutilation is. That's what being coerced or forced into taking hormones to "normalize" your body is. That's what all of it is.

"Our bodies are subjected to normalization surgeries because of parents’ homophobic fears. It is thought that if our bodies cannot easily be placed into the male or female category with certainty then our relationships, when we grow up, will somehow be “queer”....

"Our peers and siblings will ridicule our differences and parents will seek help from doctors to make us “normal”. At puberty, intersex teenagers often find themselves so loathed in their own home that they walk out. Those who stay can suffer major depressive illnesses....

"We just can’t win. In heterosexual relationships we are feared because we might somehow be “same sex” and in same-sex relationships we are feared because we might somehow be “opposite sex”. In a sex-obsessed society where the sex and gender binaries are paramount, intersex people lose every time.

"The reaction [to intersex people] in domestic relationships includes:

"Fear of being outed by our partner.

"Pressure to behave in a more male-like or female-like manner.

"Pressure to take medications or subject ourselves to surgery to remove all traces of our intersex.

"Punishments and physical violence when we fail.

"We are more willing to accept second-rate relationships because we are raised to think of ourselves as second rate. We are more likely to be co-dependent and silent victims because we think we are lucky to have the relationship however violently exploitive and dysfunctional it is."

What else we got? Trans people fearing for our lives - that one's covered above.

Okay, so by the standards that you established, above, the community should include... gay/lesbian, bi, pan, trans, intersex, ace, and polyamorous people.

I'll be back when I have numbers for the aros.

alright sisters allow me to clarify my stances on lgbt discourse!!!

Asexuals and Aromantics are valid, but they should NOT be lumped in with the LGBT community. The reason for this is because we do not face the same struggles as one another.

I think having an Asexual/Aromantic community that is seperate from the LGBT community is a great idea! That way, Asexuals get the inclusion and the ressources they deserve while not “invading” LGBT spaces.

Asexuals who are Homo/Bi/Panromantic ARE LGBT, but not for their asexuality (and vice-versa with Aromantics).

The LGBT community is for people who experience same gender attraction and/or are transgender.

The full acronym is LGBT, or LGBT+. The “+” stands for Pansexual, Questioning, and Non-Binary individuals.

The word “queer” was initially used as a slur towards gay people, and while some LGBT folks have reclaimed it, a lot of us (including me) are not comfortable with it. It’s better to say “The LGBT community” than “the Queer community”.

Pansexuals are LGBT+, since they experience same gender attraction, but it is undeniable that the roots of Pansexuality (people who say that being attracted to transgender people is being pansexual) are somewhat transphobic. (EDIT: No, Pansexuality is not transphobic in and of itself. The ROOTS of pansexuality are transphobic. Pan people aren’t inherently transphobic. You guys need to stop putting words in my mouth and saying that im saying that being pansexual equates to being a transphobe.)

The split-attraction model (ex. Aromantic Homosexual or Panromantic Bisexual) works for some people and doesn’t for others, but it ultimately isn’t harmful so let people use it if they want to.

There are more than two genders. Non-Binary is an umbrella term to describe Bigender and Agender people. Although i support non-binary people, i do NOT support MOGAI.

I try to get involved as little as possible in the dysphoria discourse, as i am cisgender and my opinion is irrelevant on the topic. However, i believe that you must experience some degree of dysphoria in order to be trans.

MAPs are pedophiles and are most certainly NOT LGBT+.

I will punch a TERF if i ever see one.

And that’s the tea for today, happy LGBT history month y’all!!