#and i guess for clarification if the fact that i id as aroace doesnt make it obvious i DO mean platonically. i just. yeahggh

[seafoam-taide]

when i cant say "i love you" so i just say i love the things you do

[wormcourt]

They blocked me. They tagged me in a call out post about me and others and blocked me so I cant defend myself. What petty bullshit. Anyways. I copied my responce before trying to reblog just in case since I had a feeling they had blocked me. I did not call op straight. And i took back that bad wording after i said it but they conveniently left that out. They purposefully worded the original post in a way that implied something else, and sounded like the argument people use to say cis het ace and cis het aros are not straight. Which tricked me into argueing against that and created reciepts of me argueing against a completely different scenario then what they say the original post was about. It said something along the lines of exclusionists using "repackeged" biphobia and transphobia to say they were straight for not experiencing sga. Repackeged implied it was transphobia and biphobia that looked like something else. Or that it was something else that looked like transphobic biphobic rhetoric but using different words (which by the way isnt since changing words changes the meaning). But no, what they meant was that saying they were straight for not experiencing sga was directly transphobia toward them because they were nonbinary and did not have a same or similar gender. (At least thats what im assuming since they were super vague and didnt actually explain anything. All they did was say it was about them and that it was transphobic against them and other stuff that only implied it, while continuesly accusing me of calling them straight). And I assume they identified as aroace with no attraction at all. Which i guess isnt straight but what evs. Also no explanation for the biphobia part of it but maybe they id as bi who knows. The entire thing was a confusing mess. I dont really know what was going on. And im sure they intended it to be like that. So what I thought it was saying was that they werent directly experiencing transphobia and biphobia but that they were aro/ace and people calling them straight sounded like the trabsphobia and biphobia aimed at trans and bi people. I also thought they were implying that calling a trans person straight was transphobic. And since there was no clarification on what scenario it was refering to or that it was about their experience being nb, and since the post sounded like they were saying it "sounded" like transphobia instead of it "being" transphobic against them, of fucking course I thought it meant something else. I thought it was implying calling any trans person straight was transphobic and that it was transphobic rhetoric against all trans people which would be transphobic. I was wrong but it doesnt change the fact op post was read that way by not just me. And then when i tried explaining that the original post wasnt saying what they meant and that I dont think they are straight they would just accuse me of calling them straight again, and hold that one line over my head completely ignoring that i took that back. They just ignored everything that didnt allow them to paint me as the one being in the wrong and pretended I wasnt making sense. Then continued responding to me to make me feel stupid and off topic when I wasn't off topic at all. The entire interaction with them was full of them trying to set me up and manipulate the conversation and confuse me but I wouldn't let them. So they blocked me and I guess they got what they needed for a vague call out post that had a screen shot of that one line and accuse me of calling them straight again. Your not fooling any of us.