#and will go down in queer history

[randomjreader]

Happy 1 year anniversary to HEARTSTOPPER

(Netflix)

Thank you for the impact you had on my, and many others, lives. You will forever be famous.

CAN'T WAIT FOR SEASON 2

[a-mel0n]

honestly i still can't believe they described 8x06 are bucktommy going through "hurdles." hey oliver. oliver stark. hey oli. quick question: have you.... ever done track and field? have you ever leapt over a hurdle? because... that's what you do. you leap over hurdles and you clear them. they're obstacles in the way that you get over. what part of this was a hurdle? this wasn't a hurdle. this was bucktommy leaping over a hurdle, slamming it's leg into the metal frame, and then falling face-first into a pit of knives.

[unnecessaryligatures]

Why 18th-Century Queer History Matters

[homophobia cw]

I learned early on that that sex worker and LGBTQ+ rights are linked, but as usual, I didn't realize how far back that history stretched.

It is poignant to learn we have always seen each other as community. This article is about the queer community building social spaces for themselves in 18th-century England. The queer community and sex workers naturally gravitated to each other. We were all criminalized for a reason.

I think of the fight against FOSTA-SESTA (2018); Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P Johnson founding and maintaining STAR with earnings from sex work (1970); and seeking each other out to form a safe space in the 1700s. That's over 300 years of solidarity.

The reasons we were arm in arm 300 years ago haven't changed much. How similar does this - 17 raids from 1726-27 in England - sound to the raids that were regular occurrences in NYC in the 1960s, 200+ years later? How similar does this sound to where we might be going?

The other thing I take away from this: The more I learn, the more I realize I was denied in history class. Queer-only spaces were common enough to be their own category in 1709. 1709! I never want to hear anyone imply we sprang into existence in 1969 ever again.

Ending this post with this quote on found family. Do you ever cry thinking about our queer ancestors who built community in a society that wanted to legislate them out of existence? I do.

Sources:

Homosexuality in 18th Cent. England (cited in the Wikipedia article on Molly houses)

18th Century Molly Houses – London’s Gay Subculture

Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P Johnson, & STAR

[brick-van-dyke]

If there's one thing I've respectively noticed from Zionists and defenders of Israeli war crimes, it's that every source, argument and potential avenue to explore each explanation is riddled with cherry picking, moving the goalposts and mental gymnastics to explain why their conclusions, which typically are barely even related to the sources they use, somehow overshadow literal reality and what we see with our own eyes.

While scrolling, one example I came across was the repetitive misrepresentation of BLM, antifa and quotes from Martin Luther King Jr, as well as statistics, scholarly journal articles and government website information. These are all good sources, yet every single time they're mangled completely until the only possible "interpretation" of any of them is "well Israel is right to defend itself after shorting rockets beforehand because the retaliation was brutal and all Arabs are bad by default therefore". As if any of these sources are even about individual exceptions of Israel versus hatred towards Arabs.

I think what I find most absurd, as someone in the middle of their own studies, is how every bit of critical thinking and logic goes out the window as they do every single thing possible to do what professors worldwide say NOT to do when evaluating sources. It's like watching a race to see who can tangle and misconstrue scientific information to fit their world view the fastest. Then said people say "um actually I studied at university before so it's actually not wrong that I'm doing this exact this everyone is warned not to do because I have a permit". Ignorance I can forgive, but willful and arrogant manipulation? That's another thing entirely.

[maybe-boys-do-love]

Feel how u want about it, but idk any shows that depicted contemporary gay culture as honestly as Only Friends

[normalpeoplethiings]

I HATE SCHOOL.

[hussyknee]

I finished all the Will Darling books and want to cry. I NEED MORE OF THESE CHARACTERS. I need more Charm Of Magpies. I need more Sins Of Cities and Lillywhite Boys. I need more Society Of Gentlemen. I NEED 75 BOOKS OF EACH OF KJ CHARLES'S SERIES. IT'S LIKE DEVELOPING A DIFFERENT DRUG ADDICTION EACH TIME KNOWING YOU'RE GONNA GET CUT OFF

[telesodalite]

I've got like 5+ other creative projects i want/need to do, but holiday cookies gotta be made, lol. Started with almond cloud cookies <3

Ft. A lump of soon to be choc chip cookies

[allbeendonebefore]

"man ive been doing this research for a year and im making such slow progress what gives" i say as i go back to my research and remember how it deals with extremely heavy topics and involved reading a hell of a lot of obituaries so shortly before and after i lost a family member

[a-timely-problem]

...my very much straight family seriously keeps insisting that Palestine is terrible and may be the wrong party to support BC to quote them: "They're very homophobic and those leftists should try to go there and survive."

...they don't care about queer people. At all. They're looking for a reason to hate the innocent people that are currently dying, completely ignoring that there are queer Palestinians and that no matter what may or may not be true, you can't ever achieve equality in a country that's being actively eradicated

[officialpenisenvy]

Who is Wilhelm von Gloeden??

19th century german homosexual who moved to taormina sicily for health and gay sex tourism and became a world renowned photographer of ephebes

[wild-at-mind]

Tumblr moves so fast, and rewrites its history so fast, I just can’t keep up. What I mean is, the whole debate about the word queer used to have people who were really, really pro trans and often trans themselves on the side of ‘please don’t call me queer’ and ‘I have concerns that this umbrella term may be used to conceal differences in our marginilisation’. Or even just ‘if you like the term qu**r you must be a white bigot because it’s a slur!’ (With this one I have a specific person in mind, a trans woman who is a youtuber and twitter commentator, who I won’t name but if I say she made a very famous video essay about SU then you will probably know who it is. She used to often say things like this, to the point that the SU video essay even blocks out the word queer in an image of different identifiers that she uses to illustrate an unrelated point. I believe her neuroatypicality makes her fixate very strongly on issues in a black and white way, so that may explain her stance on a number of issues, and if she doesn’t think this way any more she certainly did a few years ago.)

I’ve been there for years of this endless debate happening on tumblr and don’t recognise the version a lot of people are talking about. I feel like my head is on backwards when people essentially use the argument ‘well TERFs hate the term queer so......you’d better start liking it’. I feel like some people who are queer agnostic will say ‘ok say no more!’ to this argument because they don’t want to be like TERFs, but it’s not actually a good pro-queer stance, it’s manipulation, in the same way as that one (pro-trans btw) communist blogger on here used to yell that anyone who liked the term queer must be middle class, educated, and have never faced any real hardship in their lives. Being faced with manipulative language like this, a lot of people will change their views, but it’s not particularly fair, especially when you weaponise the ways people really want to do the right thing by other marginilised groups against them.

It’s very easy to say ‘well don’t listen to their manipulation, listen to MY manipulation because I’m right!’ It would be harder but ultimately more honest to use real arguments. If someone doesn’t like something you do like, or vice versa, they are probably just someone with a different opinion formed by their different set of life experiences (used in a morally neutral way not a ‘maybe you/they are overly privileged!’ way). I don’t read people like the above two examples who use manipulation and social justice language like this any more, because I realised that I didn’t have to in order to be a good social justice person who listens to marginilised people. (FYI that idea also from tumblr, for a long time it was very un-nuanced and also gave the strong impression that the more uncomfortable a marginilised person’s writing makes you, the better, leading those who were more exrtreme in their views to get more airtime.)

Let’s not forget the history of emotive writing on tumblr used to manipulate. Let’s do better.

[littlestickfish]

Pope Francis removed him for being ridiculously and virulently hateful toward the LGBT and other minority communities, going so far as to say they don't belong in the Church--the Church Pope Francis is currently endeavoring to make safer and more welcoming to these folks.

The misleading part has nothing to do with whether or not it's legal by secular standards. The misleading part is the implication that this was some sort of arbitrary and unreasonable move instead of a rogue bishop who preached hate facing consequences for his actions.

The man was a menace, and this level of disciplinary action is the least he deserves.

im fucking sobbing why did they kill him twice in a row in the community notes

[witheredgardenparty]

I will never forgive a single one of you

[haberdashing]

specific parameters:

when exactly your teenage self gets this information is up to you, so long as they're your teenage self at the time.

your teenage self will learn the message and that it comes from you, their future self.

if it's something objectively true/false, they'll know it's true; if it's more subjective, they'll know you believe it's true based on your knowledge of the future; if it's advice, they'll know it's given in good faith based on your future life.

you need to decide NOW. no looking things up beforehand. (no sharing the winning lottery numbers unless you happen to have some memorized!)

you can combine things if they're really just parts of one big statement. so "You're genderfluid and your name is Adrian" is fine, but "move to California and invest in Facebook" isn't.

if your statement fits multiple categories, pick the one you think is the best overall fit.

[allbeendonebefore]

in the past i’d get whiplash over how much things haven’t changed and how frustrating that is and today i’m reading all these articles on cafes and shops in old strathcona in the 90s and this is dating myself certainly but the fact that i read things like “oh yeah this is the first non-smoking tim hortons in alberta and the second in western canada!” makes me double take so much

“oh yeah we have a second and third location of this hip whyte ave cafe but if you want the poetry readings you probably won’t find them at the non-smoking location” EXCUSE ME